Is there a right to travel without a driver's license in the United States?
Right to Travel vs. Freedom of Movement
The phrase "right to travel" should be clarified because it's commonly confused.
Many cases, documents, etc. using the phrase "right to travel" are in fact about Freedom of Movement, which is the Constitutional right to travel between States at will. If anyone speaks of a "Constitutional right to travel" Freedom of Movement is the only valid thing they could be referring to, as we'll show.
In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or property."
Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?
Tenth Amendment, State Codes
Traffic regulation isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, therefore the power generally falls to the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts, pursuant to their police power.
All 50+ States, through their legislatures consisting of the people's elected representatives, have seen fit to devise and enact their own traffic codes and police them.
Was it always this way?
There wasn't always legislation displacing the common law. Automobile regulation began in the early 1900's. Here is an excellent paper that thoroughly explores the transitional period when decisions could go either way: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950.
Bicycles were regulated decades before automobiles were invented and activists of the day faced many of the same questions and challenges modern right to travel proponents do. An analysis of that period can be found in this publication: The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law.
Constitutionality
The States have all enacted traffic regulations, but do they violate federal law or the Constitution?
Judging constitutionality is ultimately up to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 3:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Appeals are more-often-than-not declined by the Supreme Court so adjudication may stop at the federal United States Courts of Appeals (circuit courts) or District Courts and those are a good place to look for precedent, too. We prefer citations from these federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.
Federal Court Decisions
Let's have a look at some federal cases on the right of States to regulate traffic.
Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)
The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.
Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)
Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.
Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.
There we have three solid federal Supreme Court decisions that set nationwide precedent that cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States. Unless "right to travel" proponents can come up with a later Supreme Court ruling that states otherwise, their claims are busted.
And we have one less-impressive but telling quote from a lower federal district court:
Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)
Although a driver's license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense.
A few of the above cases were found in a somewhat inflammatory and dated but comprehensive publication, Idiot Legal Arguments. We picked out the relevant federal cases, but many more high-level State cases can be found there, too, if you're interested.
There actually isn't a whole lot at the federal level because appeals beyond State courts are often denied as it has long been accepted by the federal government that traffic regulation is a proper exercise of State police power. Federal courts uphold the ability of States to regulate road traffic provided it is done so with equality, reasonableness and for public safety and doesn't violate any federal laws or rights.
But I don't "drive" or use a "motor vehicle"! Those are legal terms used to enslave me and I'm smarter than that!
I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse (see Law Basics).
I've heard of people being ignored or let go by police, even without a license or insurance!
Police have discretion. The world is a very dynamic place. There are any number of reasons why you might be passed by or allowed to proceed at any given time. The cop might be a scared rookie, not care, not want to fight, have a date, have to pee, be on lunch break, be at the end of their shift and going home – think about it – they're human, not machines. The priorities of police and prosecuting attorneys vary. The law is what it is, though, and when you understand it you know in the long run you're looking for trouble if you don't obey it.
I don't like traffic regulations. What can I do?
Your lawful remedy is to convince the majority of people in your State to put pressure on your elected representatives in the State legislature to change the law. That or you could move to another State or country where there are less regulations (and perhaps more fatalities).
Study hard, verify claims, think for yourself, question this, comment.
What you are saying is absolutely correct. However, you failed to even mention the specific law definitions of words like "motor vehicle", "driving", and "license." All three terms are commercial in every sense. But you fail to mention that anywhere in the article. Black's and Bouvier's Law books have the same definitions. No, you cannot "drive" without a "license" because it is by definition a commercial practice that can be regulated by states. But to "travel", which by definition has nothing to do with "driving", CANNOT be regulated by the states. Also, in the case of Thompson vs. Smith, it was ruled that " the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So technically you are correct, and hold the right to stand by your information. But to not give BOTH sides of the argument, and not give the proper definitions by which the COURTS make their decisions, you are just as misleading as the geniuses that came up with the idea to dupe the American People out of their basic rights. Thanks for the misinformation.
Hi Jermaine, Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address everything you mentioned.
1) It is incorrect to say the terms quoted are always "commercial". How words are defined depends on the jurisdiction (state or federal) and the Act at hand. When a charge is brought in a State court under a State traffic code, for example, the court first looks to the definitions in the State traffic code. In a State court, federal definitions, dictionary definitions – none of those necessarily apply. Where a definition in the immediate Act at hand is absent the courts can look to any number of sources and dictionaries before dictating what a word means. Courts are not bound by dictionaries and have the power to define words and interpret law within their jurisdiction. A relevant article I like is http://blog.oup.com/2013/06/scotus-marriage-definition-dictionary/
2) It is incorrect to say "travel" cannot be regulated by the States. The Supreme Court decisions quoted in the article above make it clear that residents and non-residents, whether operating commercially or not, may be regulated, and this is part of the long-recognized police power of the State, permitted for maintaining order and public safety.
In reality there is no "free society". Every society has rules, and every society has a government that can make any rules needed to maintain order and the society. The municipal, county, state and federal governments are entirely within the law provided they create laws in accordance with the laws of the local sovereign nation-state, i.e. the US based on the Constitution of 1788, that's recognized globally pursuant to Public International Law. When entities within the nation-state make laws that violate fundamental principles, it is up for an injured party to come forward and appeal as high as necessary to have them struck down and sent back to the legislature for revision, after which time the process may begin again if there are still violations. Nations are sovereign and the highest law on earth. If the national government becomes corrupt, there is no lawful remedy — where would you bring a claim? Surely not in that very same nation's courts — unless perhaps you ally with foreign nations and use economic and military pressure to provoke a change. The only option at that point is forceful overthrow. I don't think that's necessary in the US quite yet where the people still hold a significant amount of power, more than most other countries on earth.
3) Pseudolegal proponents often take case quotes out of context. Let's have a look at Thompson v Smith for ourselves. We can read it at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366.
Scroll down to the actual decision of the court and we find:
"The power of a city to control and regulate the use of its streets is a continuing power to be exercised as often and whenever the city may think proper. Washington, etc., Ry. Co. City Council of Alexandria, 98 Va. 344, 36 S.E. 385. The issuance and revocation of such permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The Constitution of Virginia expressly provides that "the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged." (Constitution Virginia, section 159.)"
Then, along with what you quoted, and this is what attracted the conspiracists, it says:
" . . . [Traveling on the roads by automobile] is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."
But immediately after that, it says this:
"The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."
and
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."
So you see, the court is not ruling that regulation is unlawful, but that arbitrary, unequally-applied, regulation is unlawful.
We see the same mentioned in a highly-relevant case citing Thompson at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10131702901035759855
"The city driver's license revocation ordinance at issue in Thompson was upheld except to the extent it granted broad discretion to the city's chief of police to revoke licenses."
Read carefully and investigate, lest you fall into a pit of misinformation yourself. 🙂
I'm not part of the movement, just a reader. All I see is that private automobile travel is a right, not a privelage and a lot of crappy wording that doesn't determine anything about whether a license is required. Am I wrong or is it left a bit open ended? I'm still wondering about the definitions as well. My best summary of what I'm reading is that someone broke a safety law and was trying to not have it taken. Also,this movement wouldn't be around without the over regulations that we have today. How many laws are needed to go to and from work?
You have been defending the right of states to regulate commerce. The U.S. Constitution only allowed for the government to regulate commerce not the private rights of the people. All State Constitutions were required in order to be part of these united States of America had to follow the same language as the federal or their constitution and state would be void and not existent! So if the Federal government does not allow it….neither can states be allowed to regulate private rights….ONLY COMMERCE! All the cases you are reading…..is talking about they can put up street signs, lights, speeds to provide a standard that all may follow equally. But they can only regulate commercial conduct in each state, because the Constitutions in every state must follow the original Constitution of these united State of America. Once you under stand this, then you would understand, that no state may pass a law abridging private rights of the people. That is why they call it all codes….codes are administrative…NOT LAW! Law is the Statutes at Large in each state, and you will find in the original language of the original statutes their codes did not violate the Constitutions…but over time, they convoluted them with newer and more convoluted versions. That is why they need your signature on anything and everything from licences, tickets, waiver of rights in court…..all of it violates Constitutional limits. Remember the Constitutions limit government not the people. You have lost sight of this. If you hurt another Citizen, then the other Citizen can bring the Law under the Constitution of every state upon the violator by a proper Affidavit, supported complaint, then it can describe you and the violation that a judge can issue a warrant based on it…which follows the real law of the land. All other codes requires you to give up your right to these properly followed due process rights under strict Constitutional direction which every state is bound by. The only reason they get away with what they do……is you sign away…sign away your rights…..then under the rule of Equity Law is one of three actual lawful ways the courts must function…..which must follow the terms of the agreement….regardless of rights…unless fraud can be proven……which everything the government has done is under constructive fraud on every one. They call it statutory law….but it is neither Common Law, Equity Law or Maritime Law…..there is only 3 in Law! You are pledgurizing a fictional imitation of codes masqueraded as laws which only work under contract not LAW! The Judge showed me a copy of a old license in court and said "See this Mr….I can do anything I want with you, so shut up and sit down or I will sanction you or jail if you mention the Constitution in my court room again. So I will say it again……contract away! That is the only way they get away with what they do! And all of the court cases you are reading is just restating their right to regulate commercial conduct. And only commercial conduct…all definitions in those cases and the rights of the states to regulate commerce is all throughout all those cases. I have cases where the courts have specifically stated that even going through a Red lights does not give a state the right to regulate a person who operates a car for personal reasons. Even stated therefor no operators license can apply to them. Say all you want….you nor they will take the inalienable Rights of the People from us.
i have not heard it said any better thank you so much iso wanted to say the exact thing .. you are absolutely correct …
what is a traffic ticket .. is that not some form of attainer .. i heard some one say , that in its self is unconstitutional in at least two differnt pkaces in the constitution ?? .. and what about giving jurisdiction over yourself in a court .. never have i heard it said any better than carl miller stated in his youtube video ,, RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A LICENCE PLATE ,, …..ANOTHER , man i just heard of is KARL LENTZ is another who is a straight shooter , i like that ,,, and lets not forget a EX SHERRIFF , EDDIE CRAIG , TAOOFLAW.COM ….. AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS ,,, also from the research i have done personally and not being of any law education at all except for what i have read and listened to i found a case here where i am from i ohio actually the very city of dayton ,,,, City Of Dayton vs. DeBrosse , 23 NE. 2d 647 ; 62 Ohio App. 232 .. " the term MOTOR VEHICLE is different and broader than the word AUTOMOBILE ,, and title 18 USC 31 the destinction is very clear ,,, MOTOR VEHICLE means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in transportation of passenger or passengers and property …
Psueudolaw 1 Jermaine 0
Thanks for a great article. Eagerly awaiting more law articles debunking all those crank claims you see on YT videos. When are you going to update the blog?
Maybe you enjoy masturbating in front of an NSA-monitored camera.
Pingback: Do You Need a License to Drive? — Of Course You Do! | Philip Marks – philipem1000
This article is nonsense. The right to travel by the ways and means of the times is clear and even the corporate courts have ruled time after time on this. We own the roads, not a foreign, private, bankrupt corporation called UNITED STATES, which is located on the District of New Columbia, under U.N./I.M.F. organization, owned outright by the CROWN/VATICAN/SWISS banking cabal. All they need is for you to be stupid enough to claim U.S. citizen status, get a license, and be surety for the BOND for that PERSON, JOHN P. DOE. They need you to bow down to them. If you don't know what to do to them when they mess with you, you aren't doing your homework, period.
I have offered 3 cases where the Supreme Court, the highest court and final decider of constitutionality in the US, has ruled that regulating highways for residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial purposes, is entirely within the purview of State police power. I have not seen any rulings that say these 3 decisions can be ignored under any circumstances. You have provided no sources or evidence for your claims, which appear to be copy-pasted without scrutiny from pseudolegal armchair lawyers around the internet. Stateless people, i.e. people with no citizenship, are held under the laws of the local nation-state too. You can't just renounce your citizenship and go on a killing spree and expect to be left alone. Law doesn't work that way. Sovereign states enjoy immunity throughout their claimed territory in accordance with public international law. When they decide to enforce their law you have no lawful remedy outside of their law short of declaring war on the whole nation. There is no higher lawful power on earth than a sovereign nation-state. If you want the US to stop enforcing its law you will have to defeat it militarily, and that could involve also defeating all of its allies across the globe that recognize and support it as a sovereign power.
This is only about "Administrative Courts, which are traffic and Probate mainly. I have not seen anyone claim you can opt-out of criminal court, which is Constitutional with a jury trail and full due process. Not the bum rush of traffic court to collect fees for governement salaries. The Administrative Courts are not Constitutional Courts.
The U.S Supreme Court recognizes "State National" and "Sovereign Citizens" as different. As I understand it they are essentially rolling back the law to pre 14th Amendment times (by personal election and option) when all courts were Constitutional courts and you had to do harm to someone to be dragged into court at all, never mind arrested. You could never be dragged into court for running a stop sign. There is no anarchy in this scenario, it is just holding the government to the original Constitutional standards.Some say the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified by the require majority of states too. That would make all traffic and Probate courts illegal.
Very pervasive article you wrote here sir. It seems that you have some law training so please give BOTH sides here. All the examples you gave were regarding "motor vehicles". But fail to mention that the LEGAL definition of a "motor vehicle", is strictly commercial. Black's Law, Bouvier's Law, and all other law dictionaries describe it the same. An "automobile" on the other hand, is a private conveyance. Personal property, of which cannot be legislated. Also you fail to mention how EVERY state and even the FEDERAL motor vehicle code is written to legislate the commercial act of transportation. But I digress. If you are out to "debunk" anything, you might want to do proper research sir. Not spew a few cases that clearly describe commercial activity that can be regulated by the states, but leave out the fact that use of a private "automobile", which is LEGALLY considered part of household goods, is something that the government can't regulate.
At least use common sense here. If you have cash in hand, you can buy a car without a driver's license. This is a fact. So if it is legal to BUY a car with no license, what grounds do the state have to tell me I cannot USE the car I just bought? You do not need a license to use the car until you register it with the state. Because when you register the car, you are declaring to the state that you will be using the car (which then is officially and legally considered a "motor vehicle") for commercial purposes. Essentially saying that you will be using the highways for personal gain. The crazy thing in all of this is that the people never question or look into anything like this. Thus making it easier for folks such as yourself to get by with heaping such bs on the masses. You are not part of the solution. You only serve to perpetuate the issue.
Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid you are completely misinformed. Courts aren't bound by Black's or any dictionary. Say a charge is brought against you in a State court under the State traffic code. When dealing with that charge the only definition of "motor vehicle" the court will use is that found in the "Definitions" section at the top of that particular State's traffic code. Most or all of these State definitions do not define "motor vehicle" as a strictly commercial device. Attempting to bring any other definition into the court is pointless because it doesn't apply. Where a word is not defined explicitly in the legislation at hand, the court decides. See e.g. https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/93323. Black's follows the courts, not the other way around.
The cases provided clearly validate the regulation of the highways generally, and the requiring of licenses for those operating on it, whether resident or non-resident, operating commercially or non-commercially. If you further continue to the links provided you will find about a hundred other cases speaking about highway regulation. Some say in even more clear terms that "private automobiles" can indeed be regulated. For example:
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets" Thompson v Smith (1930) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 (Ironically, this case is often falsely cited as proof-positive that we have a right to travel unregulated by automobile.)
The courts aren't simply going to ignore the danger or demands of the people for efficient highways because you decide your own personal definitions apply. As holders of the constitutional legislative and judicial power the state assembly and courts decide and dictate the law and what words mean. If they say whatever you were traveling in is a motor vehicle, it is.
So basically what you are saying is that states don't have to follow anything but what THEY deem is appropriate? So because the STATE doesn't define "motor vehicle" as a commercial device, they reserve the right to make up definitions as they go along? They don't have to follow the Federal vehicle code? Private automobiles can be classified under household goods. Meaning that the government, State or Federal cannot regulate the use of private property. As is stated in one of the hundreds of cases that you pointed out. From what I gather, if cars can be classified as household goods or private property, how can the states regulate the "private" use of said property? Seems awful shady my friend. So now also you are telling me that the state can also determine what it is I am traveling in? They no longer have the burden of PROVING that I am indeed operating or driving a motor vehicle, Which by definition is inherently commercial and under their jurisdiction, not traveling in my private conveyance? Which they cannot regulate by requiring licensing or permits. In a nutshell, your reply basically told me that no matter what the actual LEGAL definition of what I'm doing is, the state and court hold the right to change the definition to fit what they are attempting to charge me with? Sorry, that's not going to fly. Especially when there is case law that states that the courts cannot do such a thing. I appreciate your replies even though my comments were tainted with sarcasm and a dash of rudeness. You were very professional and even minded when you responded. Thanks for doing your best to give me the info.
State and federal jurisdictions are entirely separate (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States ). "Motor vehicle" is defined three or more times in the federal USC alone (18 USC 31, 18 USC 2311, 49 USC 30102). The definition that applies on a particular charge depends on the legislation that the charge is brought under. The USC definitions would only be used in a federal court in a charge brought under that chapter. For a state traffic charge, the definition in the state traffic code will apply. Yes, the federal and state governments dictate the law and what words mean, in their arguable roles as representatives of the people. They don't just arbitrarily change definitions on a whim, per se – they follow the state constitutional process to enact them, post them publicly and apply them equally to everybody. Courts can only define words that the legislature has failed to explicitly define. Once a legislature defines a word a court can't modify it in dealing with charges under the specific Act, section, chapter, etc. where the definition appears and applies.
Ok thanks for all the info. With everything floating around about this, you can't tell what's real and what isn't.
Oh yes, can you please explain this from American Jurisprudence 1st Ed, Highways 163 6.2- A citizen's Right to travel upon public highways includes the right to use the usual conveyances of the time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business… Certainly not pervasive language here. Very to the point. Which makes everything you said invalid. I'm not trying to rock the boat by any means. Just trying to get to the bottom of this rabbit hole.
Again, this is from Thompson v Smith, linked in my comment above, which when read in full goes on to say that a city may indeed require permits for private automobiles. The issue resolved by the court was not whether highway regulation was permissible, but whether or not the revoking of such a permit could be done arbitrarily, without equality.
"such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions"
There IS a right to travel, or right to movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law ), but it is not an unlimited right. It is still subject to reasonable limitation for public safety, just as nuclear arms are excluded from the second amendment.
At least one judge calls highway regulation an "enhancement" rather than an infringement on the right to travel:
"The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes upon the right to travel." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252
I'm just finding out about all of this and still researching it so forgive me if I'm wrong. In my research, I found that a bill passed in Georgia allowing this 'right to travel' that you call pseudo-law:
"Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right"
So if it is up to the state to decide what takes place on their roadways, how does the right to travel constitute pseudo-law? And also, is there any case of anyone (18+ years of age, not insane/reckless, and never being issued a license) getting arrested or suffering any legal consequences purely for the reason of driving with no license?
Hi Andrew, To create laws in Georgia the legislature must act in accordance with Article III of the state constitution (http://www.senate.ga.gov/Documents/gaconstitution.pdf ). In Section V we find that in order for a bill to become a law it must be read three times in both the House and Senate, receive a majority vote in each, and be signed by the governor unless overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses. Looking at the status of the bill at http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31971 it seems the bill got a second reading in the House and hasn't been considered at all in the Senate. I can therefore confidently say that this bill has not come into force. Kudos to the guy who brought it, though, because this is exactly how people who want to travel without a license are supposed to go about getting what they want.
I recommend searching the web or Scholar to find an answer to your second question:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arrested+driving+without+license&btnG=&as_sdt=400006. In general, any breach of state or municipal law is arrestable at the officer's discretion pursuant to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
You mentioned the Tenth Amendment, but what about the Ninth Amendment? The "Unenumerated Rights" Clause, which this right would fall under. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In Thompson v. Smith (as well as every other court cases I have read on this issue) they say traveling on the public roadways is a right. They them go on to say that right can be regulated "by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets." However, by requiring a license/permit for the exercise of a right, they are converting a right into a privilege. Isn't converting a right into a privilege, in and of itself, a violation of that right?
There are few to no "unlimited rights." Thompson v Smith says travel is a right that may not be prohibited at will, i.e. arbitrarily. The right may still be prohibited reasonably by due process of law. "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366
The only limit to a right is where it infringes on someone else's rights, e.g. I have the right to provide food for myself, but I can't steal that food from someone else. Traveling on the public roadways, without a license, does not infringe on anyone's rights. However, requiring a license to exercise that right does. It is no less of a violation of a right, than if the State required anyone who wants to publicly voice their opinion to obtain a license to do so. Requiring a license to exercise a right is a violation of that right, even if they equally require everyone to have the license. They are simply violating everyone's rights equally. As for the public safety argument, if the States were really concerned with public safety, they would make driver safety a required course, starting in middle school. Of course, they wouldn't be able to profit off of that.
If you can get the Supreme Court to agree with your reasoning it might change the country. As it stands most highway regulation is deemed to fall under state police power and each state has its own legislation and common law. If you want things to change, the proper way to go about it is to pressure your representatives in the state legislature to change the law, and/or bring a constitutional or other defense/appeal when you're charged, and tell others to do the same. Before you can truly declare the system corrupt you need the support of the majority of your fellow citizens and for the collective will to be ignored… So where are the polls showing millions supporting the abolishment of state driver's license requirements?
What gives the legislature, the courts, or public opinion the authority to limit our rights, or convert them into privileges? I don't have a problem with "most highway regulation". Traffic lights, speed limits, D.U.I laws, etc. are all reasonable and legitimate regulations that (for the most part) keep traffic flowing in an orderly fashion, and increases the safety of the roadways. My problem is with requiring a license for something I already have the right to do. Also, I didn't say the system is corrupt, I was implying there is a conflict of interest.
Pursuant to international law, nation-states enjoy sovereignty over their recognized territory. The authority of state and federal constitutions and legislatures to dictate the law and the people's rights is inherent in that. They simply rule by force, given an air of legitimacy by theories of social contract and popular sovereignty. The US was designed to be dynamic and able to evolve. If Congress or the States wanted they could completely amend the Constitution, changing it or replacing it completely. It is not for the individual to decide what is lawful or not. It never has been. The US has always embraced principles of constitutional, representative democracy, with one Supreme Court holding the ultimate power of judicial interpretation.
Federal constitutions and legislatures do not dictate what people's rights are, other than the rights that only come into existence once a government is established, like the right to vote. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, it simply acknowledges them, and says the government to protect them and not violate them. If Congress or the States amended the Constitution, and eliminated the First Amendment, that would not mean we no longer have the right to freely express our views and opinions. That right would still exist, it just would not be recognized by the government. If the government passes a law that violates my rights, I am under no obligation to follow that law. It was once lawful to own slaves, yet it was still a violation of those people's rights to enslave them. Those slaves who ran away were not violating the law, because those slavery laws were a violation of there natural rights, and therefore null and void.
If the local sovereign national or state government doesn't recognize a so-called right it may as well not exist, because you can't enforce it anywhere on earth. No court cares about your personal interpretation of law. The courts exist to interpret and enforce constitutions and legislation and fill in the grey areas those documents don't yet address.
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4862321298494306975
The US and States, via their constitutions and legislatures, enjoy nare-undisputed sovereignty over the territory in accordance with public international law.
I don't care that the courts, a branch of the government, say the legislature, another branch of the government, can limit people's rights. I do not take their opinions into consideration when deciding whether or not to exercise my rights. I'm not going to stop exercising a right because the government and/or the courts do not recognize it. Nor will I stop exercising that right because the government uses the threat of violence and/or imprisonment to intimidate me into not exercising that right. If we stop fighting for our rights, and allow the government to limit them or take them away, THEN those rights may as well not exist.
You may not care but they will enforce their law and there is no lawful remedy you can use to free yourself or win damages. Lawful rights come from government and are only as effective as your ability to enforce them with the power of the state. As soon as a government limits or takes away rights of persons in their recognized territorial jurisdiction, barring a successful appeal, they're gone. In the US, a representative democracy based on popular sovereignty, your remedy is to petition your fellow man, your municipal, county, state and federal representatives, to get enough support to convince the legislature(s) to change the law. It's either that or military overthrow, and good luck with that considering the US has one of the most effective militaries and many allies around the globe.
The problem with that remedy is that most of my fellow man have been convinced, as you have, that our rights come from the government, even though the U.S was founded on the idea that rights do not come from government. Governments are instituted to secure our rights, not to decide which rights we are allowed to have. Then there are those people who, for the most part, agree with my view point but will not fight for their rights, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." So, what is the remedy when the people themselves would rather allow governments to convert their right into a privilege then to fight to restore that right, or believe that we only have the rights that governments allow us to have?
–
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917).
Nation-states and the treaties they voluntarily ratify are the highest law on earth. No court shares the interpretation that enforceable lawful rights exist outside nation-states. The supreme law of the land is not individual interpretation but the Constitution per the Supremacy Clause. Government does decide rights. If we don't let a sovereign, e.g. government, a king, decide then it's left up to individual interpretation, i.e. anarchy. The latter is not conducive to long-term cooperation but is the law of the jungle, a free for all where might makes right. At this point in human civilization only nation-states enjoy that freedom. Arguably from time to time states become overbearing and out of control and the people have to storm the capitol and start it all over again. I personally don't think we're quite there yet in the west. I'm not saying it's the right system or best system, just how it is.
"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified" Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917).
Nation-states and the treaties they voluntarily ratify are the highest law on earth. No court shares the interpretation that enforceable lawful rights exist outside nation-states. The supreme law of the land is not individual interpretation but the Constitution per the Supremacy Clause. Government does decide rights. If we don't let a sovereign, e.g. government, a king, decide then it's left up to individual interpretation, i.e. anarchy. The latter is not conducive to long-term cooperation but is the law of the jungle, a free for all where might makes right. At this point in human civilization only nation-states enjoy that freedom. Arguably from time to time states become overbearing and out of control and the people have to storm the capitol and start it all over again. I personally don't think we're quite there yet in the west. I'm not saying it's the right system or best system, just how it is.
You keep saying it isn't up to individual interpretation, but that is all court decisions are, three out of five individuals agreeing on an interpretation. Also, as I have already pointed out, the courts agree that traveling on the public roadways is a right. They just immediately contradict themselves by saying the government can require a license and a fee to exercise that right. A right is something that does not require any kind of permission to do. If it is a right then governments cannot require a license or a fee to do it. If they can require a license and a fee, then it is not a right, it is a privilege. I, also, do not think we are near the point of needing to overthrow the government. I consider the drivers license issue to be a relatively minor violation. If they start locking people up, and/or executing them for things like speaking out against the government, that would be a different story. Since I have been voicing my opinion on this issue for over two years now, and no one from the government has shown up at my door, I think we're good.
Do you not see any danger in the idea of inflexible, unlimited rights? What about children or the mentally-challenged? Should people be able to drive tanks on the freeway or fly airplanes over the White House whenever they want? No, things should be reasonably and fairly, not arbitrarily, regulated, with due process of law. A good government can adapt to changing times and technologies as needed to stop the whole thing from crashing down and the fruits of society being exploited by those who don't serve the public interest. Types of government within nation-states vary, but in the US and other common law countries the courts enjoy a broad power of judicial review. A strong separation of powers is said to be a benefit, not a curse. Some countries don't place as much weight on the decisions of the courts – two-thirds of the world follow a civil law structure, where the legislature simply dictates the law. It is arguably a more simple and effective system, but I still wonder if there might be some benefit to judicial review.
It is not an inflexible, unlimited right. As I said before, I agree that the state can have "rules of the road", regulating how to act while using the roadways. You can't drive 100 mph through a residential neighborhood; you can't drive drunk; and no your 12 year old can't drive, I don't care how good they are at Mario Kart. If you drive drunk, you are endangering every other driver on the road and, therefore, violating their rights. The same applies to kids, and the mentally-challenged. Driving a tank on the roads would damage the roads and violate the rights of every tax payer who's tax dollars were used to pay for that road. I haven't said anything about flying planes, that is a completely different issue. My problem isn't with regulation of travel, it is with the driver's license, and only the driver's license. By requiring a license to drive, the State is taking away your right to use the public roadways and saying they will not return that right unless you pay them a fee. That is a violation of that right. I'm not saying that right can never be taken away, either. If you get caught driving drunk, the State absolutely has the authority to take away your right to use the roadways. Do you honestly believe our society would come crashing down without driver's licenses, and what "fruits of society" would be exploited? Also, I agree that there are definitely benefits to judicial review. My earlier statement that "I don't care what the courts say" was a bit of hyperbole. I just don't put courts on a pedestal, because "the opinion of the court" is really just the opinion of, at least, three of the current judges, and their interpretation. That is why there are almost always dissenting opinions, and why cases are often overturned. On the issue of rights, I would recommend reading (if you haven't already) 'The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics' http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm and 'Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights' http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm
You need to separate the act of using the roadways and the act of driving a car. You don't have to pay a fee to be allowed to use the roadways. You can ride a bus, ride a bike, walk, hitchhike, ride with a friend, ride in a motorcycle sidecar, and so on, without having a license. You can cross borders and even leave the country without having to pay or ask for permission. You can use other methods, too. You can take a flight, you can ride a train, you can sail in a boat, you can crawl, and you can swim, all without needing a license.
Hurling more than a ton of steel around is significantly different. Much like pilots, drivers have the ability to do a great deal of damage and hurt a lot of people if they aren't held to a standard of training, safety, and periodically verified competence. The right to travel does not create blanket protection for every activity that could be connected to travel. Licensing has been found to be an effective way of ensuring that drivers are familiar with the rules of the road, have a minimum level of driving proficiency, have the ability to see and hear what's around them, and that they have a form of identification that verifies that they have passed these necessary tests.
Until somebody (maybe you?) can popularize an alternative that ensures public safety and positive identification of qualified drivers, licensing is the best scheme we've got. I'm not sure how great the costs are where you are, but here, they're fairly low and the proceeds go toward administrative costs and road maintenance.
Personally, I hope that self driving cars become the main mode of travel relatively soon. That would solve this, and many other, issues.
Horses were as dangerous as cars. In fact, horses are more dangerous than a car is. A car never gets spooked and takes off on its own. A car does not refuse to accept what its owner tells it to do (except for Toyotas that suddenly go full throttle).
People were injured and killed on a regular basis when horses, buggies, and carts ruled the roads. Horses had blinders put on them which could get them to not realize they were ready to walk off a cliff.
Taking a test to prove competency using a road based vehicle can make sense. However, paying every year for a registration and every few years to update the expiration date on a license make no one safer. Those actions only impoverish those who legally have to have those items.
Assume I am in a wheelchair or old and unable to walk much. Why should I lose my ability to travel locally because I can not afford to pay a license fee?
If I live in the country public transportation may not exist for 20 miles or more from my house. It could literally be a 100 mile walk to find public transportation.
We have freedom to choose where we live. We have freedom of movement. Yet somehow having an iron horse instead of a flesh and blood horse suddenly removes those rights? Logically, those concepts do not work in real life. Either we have freedom, or we do not.
Interestingly, a drivers license and registration are not the result of a legal contract. Contracts can not be revoked by just one party. Licenses can be revoked by just the consent of one party.
You're saying horses were more dangerous, but that's a complete crock. Your entire supporting argument is hypothetical arguments about cartoon gaffes like riding off a cliff or the risk of low-energy collisions and failures. Let's do the same thing for cars, shall we? A tire can blow out on the highway and send a car careening into an overpass at 70mph. Brakes can fail as a child runs across the street, leaving him crushed under two tons of American Pride™. A windshield that suddenly fogs up on a two-lane road can suddenly put a driver in the opposing lane, resulting in a head-on collision at the equivalent of highway speeds. A distracted driver on a snowy road can take their attention off the road and wind up falling down the same cliff as that horse. A driver who misinterprets a traffic light can make a premature left turn and get smashed by oncoming traffic. A drunk driver can hurl a ton and a half of automobile over a barricade because he overestimated his driving ability. A fatigued driver can wind up half-dozing at the wheel one moment, and halfway through a bus the next. Automobiles generate far greater energies than horses, weigh far more than horses, travel far faster than horses, fail more suddenly and spectacularly than horses, and have no instinct to make them avoid smashing into each other, into people, or into structures. They're apples and oranges. Not to mention, it's entirely within the states' powers to regulate the use of horses on public roads, as well. Many of them do, I believe, since horses are not appropriate on all roads.
pseudolaw.com i just wanted to tell you something are rights do not come from another man telling another they can't drive a car they own that is not right the bible is the true laws of the land and all man are created equal genisis chapter-1 26:28.. say all man are created equal and shall have dominion over the earth and the sea and everything on it and it did't say that another man supposed to be telling another man what to do that lives and dies like the next one man is not god..and the are travelers by nature that god instilled in everyone of us and once god puts something in you thats what you naturally are.and travelers are one thing we are and thats why i 100% agree with scott dont let them courts and cops which is nothing but trying to steal your money to do things with that you need brainwash you like they have done most people its all propaganda..the roads are public roads the land is created by god for use to use and the roads are built for use to travel down and are tax dollar is for the state to keep the roads up thats all people wavied there rights not know when they get a drivers license..a driver means hired in blacks law that dont apply to private..before long the state will say all people who has a swimming pool on there property will have to have a license from the state to swim in there own damn pool..BS..lol"
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
Held:
2. Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement, the purpose of deterring the migration of indigents into a State is impermissible, and cannot serve to justify the classification created by the one-year waiting period. Pp. 394 U. S. 629-631.
This is within the case:
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. That
Page 394 U. S. 630
proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 48 U. S. 492 (1849):
I own one car that hasn't been registered, and I want to move that property to another place or state, but the state has threatened(deterring me from moving) or do 'tow, or impound' my property without due process just because its not "registered". They have encroached on my right, unreasonably burdened me plain and simple, no ifs and or buts about it. It is a clear infringement, a deprivation of rights and property. To use a vehicle to travel is using rights in common ways, and vehicles are the #1 mode of travel just like they were in 1969.
They continued:
"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. [Footnote 8] It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757-758 (166):
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."
". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is
Page 394 U. S. 631
that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible. If a law has
"no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional."
The key is in the phrase which unreasonably burden or restrict. State traffic codes in general aren't seen to be unreasonable, as shown in this article. There IS certainly a right to travel, and Shapiro v Thompson was instrumental in clarifying it, but it is not an unlimited right – it never has been, and that case doesn't say it is, either.
Do you honestly think that being licenced and registered makes one a better driver? I have no problem with traffic laws regulating how people drive but really. It's only the STATE collecting money on what one owns as their own. If the STATE can take my car for not paying then they own it. That is an unconstitutional infringment on the right to use what one owns. When property rights go so do other rights. This sounds like a progressive concept. It's also a plank of the communist party
for the STATE to take ownership of property. The courts are corrupted so who has a right anymore? The constitution is laughed at. The President doesn't even care about the law of the land any more.
It wasn't suggested anywhere in the article that being licensed and registered makes one a better driver. The intent is to reveal how the state views highway regulation in light of the right of freedom of movement. All 50+ state legislatures seem to feel licensing and registration are helpful in keeping the highways safe and efficient. Yes, in accordance with international law the local sovereign nation-state enjoys the ability to lawfully control all property within its recognized territory. Private home ownership, for example, can only be had in fee simple, subject to "taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat." [1]. I am not sure the government is so corrupted that it's time for violent overthrow, the only real option when that happens, just yet. I think by understanding the law better we will know why the courts rule as they do and see they do in fact guard the people from unconstitutional excesses of the legislature(s). The President is only supposed to do what Congress allows. Those in office do things wrong from time to time but I think we generally learn and improve the system as we go forward.
You didn't do all your homework. You should have looked up the "LEGAL" definitions for 'Motor Vehicle', 'operator' (or any derivation of), 'driver' (or any derivation of) and 'license'. before you used them in your post. You are under the mistaken impression that they mean what YOU think they do, but they all have very different meanings 'in law'. It's all about commerce, and if you are not involved in commerce then it doesn't normally apply to you, going about your daily life.
18 USC § 31 – Definitions(a) Definitions.— In this chapter,the following definitions apply:
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers,
passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate,charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
DRIVER: One >>>employed<<< in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
License: “The permission, by competent authority, to do an act which, without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4. “Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118. “A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence,Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel,includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo.210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and person property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."
Any questions?? keep it civil and site your references,
Most of what you said has already been debunked in other comments…
Hi Chris, Most of what you said has already been addressed in other comments.
The definitions that apply on a traffic charge are found in the State traffic code and common law of the State traffic court. State courts are not bound by Black's or the legislation or common law of other States or jurisdictions. A definition in the federal USC has no bearing on a case in a State court. If you tell me what State you're in I'd be happy to interpret the traffic code.
I cannot verify the quote you referenced in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422 ). The case appears to be an appeal from the Alabama Supreme Court. How words are defined in that case would be specific to the jurisdiction and legislation under which the charge originated, i.e. in/of the State or City.
Thompson v Smith expresses the right of travel / movement but then goes on to say the right may be limited by due process of law, provided it is not limited unreasonably, arbitrarily or unequally:
"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 )
People v Nothaus again fully supports the right of the State to reasonably regulate the highways:
"The regulation and control of traffic upon the public highways is a matter which has a definite relationship to the public safety, and no one questions the authority of the General Assembly to establish reasonable standards of fitness and competence to drive a motor vehicle which a citizen must possess before he drives a car upon the public highway." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12450888330073927478 )
Courts have upheld driver licensing as a reasonable intrusion on the right to travel for some time now, as seen in the Supreme Court decisions quoted in the article above and by other sources, e.g.: "No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772042
The right to locomotion using any commonly available means of transportation is not an activity which can be regulated by the state, sorry. Now if you're simply arguing that drivers need licenses to carry passengers, well sure that's true.
The state can regulate whatever it wants provided it follows the state and federal constitution in the eyes of the state and federal courts. Can you show an example of a federal court agreeing with your statement? I have provided and linked to numerous decisions stating the contrary in the article.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.
Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed.
license, n. (15c) 1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; … See SERVITUDE (1).
So I guess now you're going to try and tell me that this isn't really what it means, right?
This has already been covered once or twice. Black's is not binding in any, way, shape or form in US or state courts. On a state traffic charge in a state court the definitions provided in the state traffic act and, where a definition is not legislated, by the common law of the traffic court are all that matter.
Again you are way off bases watch CARL Millers Videos.and again look up the Supreme Court cases Marbury v Madison and Murdock v Pennsylvania and Shuttlesworth v Alabama, and lets not forget article 6, paragraph 2. Time for you to do some real ready and stop spewing crap you no nothing about,because you are so so off bases.
1) The definition of "involuntary servitude" in the context of the 13th Amendment is found in case law, not in Black's Law Dictionary.
2) The phrase "involuntary servitude" is distinct from simple "servitude" which may be voluntary and not prohibited. Driving is not compulsory.
2b) The terms "driving," "driver," "drive," "motor vehicle," "car," "motorcycle," "truck," &c., are defined in state transportation codes. These are the definitions which apply if you are cited for a violation of a provision of the transportation code. UCC and Black's Law Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. Just repeating that for the record.
3) The question of defining "involuntary servitude" has come up before and been dealt with rigorously in The Slaughter-House Cases (1916), Bailey v. Alabama (1911), and United States v. Kozminski (1988), which all describe "involuntary servitude" as compulsory service and/or severe restrictions on freedom to move, contract, own property, or work which resemble the state of slavery before the 13th Amendment was adopted. Being required to go through a licensing process to operate a fast, heavy machine in public places is not "service," it does not resemble the state of slavery, and it does not prohibit you from moving as a passenger with a licensed driver, using common carriers, walking, bicycling, or otherwise moving.
I don't know where you get your info but you are so far off track,I can't believe you have not crashed and burned yet. you really need to do more research before you actually start to speak.
traffic law does not apply if u r not in traffic or driving … lets just keep it simple stupid ,,, does the farmer travel down the road on his tractor ?? does he have tags on it ?? does it not have a motor … here is the key ,, everyone has the right till u give it away and say u subject urself to the traffic law ,, if no contract can be shown apon my request ,,, where is their jurisdiction when did I subject myself to them I did not ever so therefore the number one thing prove you have jurisdiction over me I'm doing the same thing the farmer is doing my all to mobile as described in city of Dayton vs Debrosse 23 NE 2d 647 650 ; 62 ohio app. 232 says that there is a difference between the two a motor vehicle and an automobile depending on how you use it you have no rights until you claim them is basically what it boils down to once you claim them it is their responsibility to prove you wrong under United States Code deprivation of Rights I dare anyone to say I don't have a right that is what you are trying to get them to do understand the goal claim the right dare them to say you don't have it because every Supreme Court case says you do not only United States law title 18 USC 31
Very good congratulations you have now claimed the right now here is what I will give you a little tidbit look up United States Code deprivation of Rights you will find that very interesting if you read the third paragraph it says once a judge or cop or federal officer state officer act outside of their jurisdiction which with that information in hand and print it up you are correct you have the right to travel and use your automobile as personal property without a license without a tag now the deprivation of Rights print that off too because that is now the replenishment for saying you don't have the right claim the right dare them to say you don't have it and buy them arresting you giving you ticket or whatever accusing you of not having it they just took that right away from you which is deprivation they are doing it illegally because they have been made aware and now you also print up another page ignorance of the law is no excuse especially by a law enforcement officer with that being said it senses everything besides the civil lawsuit that follows thereafter thank you I rest my case
You don't know what you're talking about. Cya
I'M POSTING IT ANYWAY, I DO WHAT I WANT!!
Here are some excerpts to debunk commonly copy-pasted whackjob theories.
CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929)
CASE #2: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930)
CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958)
CASE #4: "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law." Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938 (1955)
Again your quotes reveil the answer to the quandary but you can not see it for some dam reason… here it is notice the key "Terms" which indicate not engaged in any form of transportation (transporting of passengers or property for compensation)
"Motor -Coach-" "right to -drive-" "permits to -drive- an automobile -on- its streets" "as the -means- of -transportation- permit"
These as the others do not lie they speak precisely as they say and never reference without some Term defined in the Statutes which constitutes a regulated activity.
They carefully do not use the term "people" "unalienable right" and even when appearing to use the term "travel" they define what form of travel they are referring to "as a means of transportation" and then deceptively again sue the "natural right" true, an "subject to the rights of others" true.. we are not to trespass upon others Rights in our activities but cross the line "and to reasonable regulation under law" notice it does not stop at "regulation" but gives their out both by "as a means of transportation" and "under law" which refers back to the Code which then does not regulate any activity other than that which is specified and only after reading the whole damn thing can one discover that it regulates only various forms of "transportation" and "transportation" is defined in various ways as "transporting property or passengers for compensation"
So even IF you were a "person" as defined (some entity or creation of the State) what really matters is the "activity" which you are engaged in at the time.. period!!
This goes for property taxes, income taxes and every other law, Statutes, Codes etc out there!!! Again even they who are "persons" are not subject to 241 IF they are not engaged in the "injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate" any "inhabitant" (it used to say "person" but was corrected for obvious reasons, because "persons" must use the "administrative law" to which they are an agent of for their remedy. (I have actually represented someone in an administrative action who worked for Homeland Security and let me tell you that was a kangaroo bullshit activity if you ever saw one. I literally impeached every witness and got them to admit on the stand that they had not done their duty, had no first hand knowledge and actually lied on the stand.
The appeals board said she had a civil case but she gave up like so many do… sad but true… 99% of people will give up… That is why they use the District BS non court of record to discourage people and simply pay the damn fine and get on with their lives.. it is extortion under threat, intimidation, and constitutes oppression and injury… but who knows of 18 USC 241, 242 never the less how to bring an action??
Well we do and we are now willing to share it with others who are dooers, not cry babies who will fight us tooth and nail and cause disruption but those who are thankful to have an opportunity to finally succeed and make a difference.. Ameri-cans not "Ameri-cant's" Either you are part of the solution or you ARE the problem. Just because you and others may have lost before does not demand that I will loose too. Many have succeeded and will continue.. the more we succeed the easier it will be for others… notice too that most of the wins are hidden from view. I even found a case whish is blocked from every search engine. It is still there at the http which fortunately my student did as he was taught and copied the ural address on the copy and past of the case so that we could find it again…. perseverance my friend preserver.
Great response my friend! I am currently trying to find information on what "rights" we sign away when we engage in a contract with DMV or BMV. It baffles me why US Citizens enjoy being entangled in a bunch of entangled red tape designed to steal and frustrate from the "people". It concerns me when folks, like the author of this blog, uses fear to attempt to get his point across to the masses… I believe he mentioned "more fatalities" towards the end of his argument. The folks who desire total control of the masses use fear as their biggest weapon…. So it's only natural for the sheeple to use it as well. I'm going a bit off subject but it still all ties together. I enjoyed reading your response though… Eyes wide open!
State legislation that hasn't been struck down by a court as violating higher law is considered enforceable against everyone in the generally-recognized territory of the State. The application of State law is not a contract – you don't have to apply for a license for it to apply to you. See e.g. City of Salina v. Wisden, wherein:
Where does the national drivers registry fit into all of this?
Try http://www.nhtsa.gov/Data/National+Driver+Register+(NDR)
I recently started learning about this topic and I'm not an expert and I have a couple questions.
City of Salina v Wisden says
"The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions"
I was told that our rights are natural and the constitutions are written to restrain government. Does U.S. law view this as a right granted by the constitution? I'm a little confused.
Also a friend that knows more about the topic showed me this
"A soverign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends"
-Kawananakoa v. Polybank
U.S. (1907)
Would this apply and would later Supreme Court opinions supersede? Thanks and great article!
The perception is that this is all "Constitutional", but it is NOT. All of the policing, at the state level and municipality level is unconstitutional, as, it is the system of Admiralty, or Maritime law, the law of the high seas, or High C. International commerce regulation. Back when the Organic Constitution was rewritten for corporate purposes, the traitors in Congress 'deemed' every state border to be a waterway. Thus facilitating the misapplication of Maritime Admiralty, or, commerce regulation, for interstate trade. Admiralty, as utilized by D.C. views EVERYTHING, as commerce, every agreement as a contract, ALL PARTIES AS CORPORATE FICTIONS. Admiralty, is law, small L, the Constitution, is Law, capital L. They placed Admiralty between us people, and our Constitution, and, then reclassified us humans as legal fictions, creating, registering, and, operating for their own profit, corporations in our names, that look like this, JOHN SMITH, with all caps, or, Mr, John Smith, with a 'legal' title, both diminish your legal status, to that of a 'person', which ALL of their laws, statutes regulations, codes, etcetera, actually pertain to. Not one law on any book in the US, has any authority over any living breathing, human being, or 'natural person'…Every lawyer becoming a member of the BAR association, the British Accredited Registry, takes an oath to a foreign power, even those joining the American branch of the British Accredited Registry… Your lawyer/attorney, is NOT going to tell you the truth, but he just might make loads of cash representing you.
Under the false fraudulent authority of Admiralty, everything is considered contractual, and all words in a contract, are defined, not with an English dictionary, but, with a law dictionary. In Black's Law dictionary, English words and terms, have VERY DIFFERENT definitions…
Hi, pretty much all of that is easily refuted. You should try debunking it sometime.
I'll address a few…
1. There is only one hand-written federal Constitution everyone still follows that can be viewed in high-res here. No corporation created under any country or state's laws can replace or overrule the sovereign nation-state of the United States based on this Constitution. It was never "re-written."
2. Constitutionality in the US and States is determined by the courts pursuant to Article III of the federal constitution and related articles in the State constitutions. It is not for random individuals on the internet to decide. So where has a court agreed with your view that "all policing at the municipal and state level" is unconstitutional? This is an anarchist fantasy.
3. You can see exactly how Laws (capital L) are created in the federal US by reading the Constitution, Article 1. Clearly Congress is allowed to make Laws. In the States, their legislatures are similarly established by the State constitution.
4. In law, all "living men and women" are natural persons. You can't appear as a man or woman without being a natural person. You can't appear in law at all without a person, because a person is needed to hold the rights and duties. Yes, technically laws only apply to persons, but governments impose their law by force. If you don't provide a person they will make one for you, e.g. John Doe, so that laws can be enforced and order can be maintained. Society wouldn't last long if you could go on a killing spree and simply opt-out of the law, now would it?
5. Caps are nonsense – no court anywhere recognizes a separate class of rights based on capitalization alone. Whether a man appears in all caps, mixed caps or no caps, he's a natural person at law. See e.g. this extensive list of related cases.
6. The various BAR associations are created by the state and federal legislatures. They don't make the law, and they are not all-powerful. They can be abolished any time the legislatures want.
7. Laws made by sovereign nation-states recognized under international law, and sub-states, are not considered contractual in any law or court on earth. Courts will readily admit this. See e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252 wherein "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals."
8. Black's law dictionary follows the numerous legislatures and courts, not the other way around. No court is bound to obey Black's law dictionary. The legislatures define words and where legislatures don't define them the courts may. If you want the proper definitions to use on a traffic charge, for example, you need to look at the top of the state traffic code, in the Definitions section.
Every word of that is complete crap. You can't provide a shred of credible evidence for any of it. The U.S. Constitution was not secretly rewritten. Congress never deemed every state border to be a waterway, and it wouldn't matter if they were. Admiralty law isn't the same thing as the law of contracts, and not everything in admiralty law is about contracts. Capitalization of names has no legal significance. There's no such thing as the "British Accredited Registry," and that's why your lawyer/attorney isn't going to tell you there is. Black's Law Dictionary is not a source of Law or law. It's a reference book published by a private company that's been updated nine times to keep up with the courts.
You have no idea what you're talking about, but you're desperate to feel like you're in on the big secret. All you've done is blindly take scammers, liars, idiots, and pranksters at their word. If you honestly examined any of these claims instead of deciding that they must be true because somebody said so, you'd find that they're all bogus. But you won't examine them, because you're too excited about being so incredibly clever that you've figured out the conspiracy that doesn't exist.
EDIT: If you're talking about the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, I've got news for you. That act did not replace the U.S. Constitution. All it did was organize the District of Columbia's city government, as Congress is empowered to do by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. They weren't replacing the U.S. Constitution — they were acting on it.
Why are ignorant people so hesitant to actually look up facts, as they first learn about them? I assume psuedolaw is just plain dishonest, as, most of what they post is skewed inaccurate and misleading, mainly in support of the entire system of fraud being used to enslave us. This is being done by agreement between the King of England and the Pope, when the Constitution was indeed rewritten for corporate purposes. In the corporate version, the original thirteenth amendment, was omitted, and replaced by the original fourteenth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment was changed to become an adhesion contract, fraudulently enslaving the population. No negro slaves were freed, emancipation is not a granting of freedom, it is a change of ownership from one sovereign to another, in this case, from the plantation/slave owner, to the federal corporation, look it up, the slaveowners were compensated for the loss of their property, their slaves. (FACT, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN THE USA, DC is a corporation registered in Puerto Rico, traded on the NYSE. A corporation cannot serve a population, it must serve its stockholders, and, they are foreign interests, not We the People. Our Republics government was hijacked a long time ago). It is against international law to own a human being, so then, how does our ',government' claim to own us as chattel, or human livestock? That is part of their justification for spraying us with chemical poisons, and pathogens, explaining their absolute authority to conduct undisclosed medical experiments on an uninformed nonconsenting populace…
I know what the hell I am talking about, you obviously are incredibly uninformed, a paid shill or a freemason traitor piece of crap…
False.
False.
False.
False.
It doesn't.
Haha, chemtrails, that's adorable.
That's the falsest statement in that entire pot of conspiracy diarrhea.
In 2002, in the misdemeanor case, State of Texas v Cecil Lee Russell, Randall County, Canyon, Texas for the charge of Speeding: 92 in a 70 resulted in a NOT GUILTY verdict BECAUSE there is NO SPEED LIMIT IN TEXAS for a non commercial vehicle.
The charge, as read to the jury by the prosecutor, stated: The recommended speed limit in Texas on an Interstate highway shall be 70 m.p.h. or as fast as conditions and circumstances is reasonable and prudent."
Considering how you misinterpreted the four cases you cited about licenses, I don't believe that's what happened. You might have been acquitted, but I highly doubt it was because there's no speed limit in Texas for a non-commercial vehicle. On the other hand, that would hardly be the strangest thing that's happened in court or in law. Did you get any paperwork from the clerk explaining the court's reasoning? I'm intensely skeptical, but I'm also very excited by the prospect of getting to annoy the site owner with it.EDIT: Ohhh, right, jury trial. My mistake. Yeah, juries can do anything for any reason. They don't have to explain themselves, and they can vote not guilty because they don't like speed limits, they don't like the cop, they like your hair, they think the prosecutor was a jerk, or any other reason. If there was no speed limit in Texas for a non-commercial vehicle, why would that charge even get before a jury in the first place?
P.S., I googled "State of Texas v. Cecil Lee Russell," and all I see is a post on Facebook describing a legal horror story spanning decades. If that's you and the information is accurate, you've been badly mistreated. Dishonest prosecutors can be some of the most vile, depraved criminals around.
If your license grievance stems from the APD seizing your license unlawfully, then I can understand why you might be desperate to find some rationalization for the idea that you didn't need a license anyway. The trouble is that the law doesn't work that way, and sometimes injustice is injustice. If a burglar steals your TV set, then your TV set has been stolen and you can't watch it. There is no magic trick that means you never needed a TV set to watch TV. The fact of the matter is that you've been the victim of injustice, and now you can't drive lawfully. The first step in solving this isn't to retreat into pseudolegal mumbo-jumbo. If the local courts are that corrupt and abusive, then I think there are a lot of people who'd like to blow the lid off of it. I'm one of 'em.
Well first of all there is no way of knowing whether this story is accurate or not. But taking it on limited face value, the charge read to the jury is a quote from the Prima Facie Speed Limit section [545.352 [a] as well as section [b][2] of Texas Transportation Code. That law sets up a prima facie speed law for all transit on state and federal highways in urban areas. The law sets an upper limit of 70 but allows a police officer to stop and cite some one driving at or below that speed based upon the conditions at the time of driving – weather, time of day, amount of traffic, road surface condition etc. The wording is sloppy both in the charger to the jury as well as the Texas statute.
545.352 is a type of law known as a "basic speed" law which exist in all states in some form. Basically they say that regardless of any specific speed limit set by law, the actual speed limit at the time of driving is based upon the conditions existing at that time. Juries have been known in some cases to apply that law is a manner inconsistent to its intended use. Sometimes they like the defendants, sometimes they hate the cop and sometimes they just think the circumstances stink so they do a little jury nullification.
In this case we have no idea what actually happened since we do not have either the transcript nor any ruling of the court on the matter. But one thing is clear from a simple read of 545.352 – your claim of no speed limits for non-commercial vehicles is false. The law does set out very specific speed limits for all vehicles including some specifically for commercial vehicles only.
The fundamental error of your logic is to not look at All of the relevant facts. While the section of the Texas Transportation code you cite is accurate, the error is that the "actual speed limit" is not set for non commercial traffic. In order for a citizen traveling in a non commercial capacity to be lawfully cited for speeding, there must first be a specific speed established and for non commercial vehicles there is not. Your first response would probably be: There are speed limit signs posted on every road and you would be partially correct because in Texas, posted speed limits are for commercial traffic ONLY.
Texas Transportation Code Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS. The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
In Texas, there are no other speed limit signs posted ANY WHERE IN THE STATE for Non Commercial Vehicles. This section IS THE ONLY REFERENCE to speed signs anywhere in the Code. The citation for speeding requires that an accused must have some actual notice posted on the roads and highways for the specific type of vehicle but the LAW says that the posted signs are for commercial vehicles only. As I said, there is no speed limit in Texas for non commercial vehicles.
Additionally, the Texas Transportation Code SPECIFICALLY states in regards to speeding:
SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
AND
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use
due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b),
drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Your entire argument falls based upon two important facts. First – Sec 545.352 DOES set maximum speed limits for ALL traffic and specifically sets speed limits for commercial traffic and school buses separate from other traffic. Second, the section also gives the TDOT the authority to post signs along the different categories of roadways indicating the maximum speed limits. The fact that the statute also gives the TDOT the right to set different speed limits for commercial vehicle and to post signs concerning those speed limits does not revoke the right already established regarding all traffic on public roadways.
Texas Transportation Code § 545.352
Texas Transportation Code § 545.352
I would point you that under the basic premise of the law, ignorance of a a law is no excuse. Look it up in Blacks Law Dictionary and discover that is a concept that goes back to very founding of modern Anglo-Saxon law. The Texas Prima Facie Speed Law is not a secret law. It is published law, it is included in published hand outs given to the driving public by the DMV. It is posted on websites by the TDOT and the TDMV. It is one of the subjects covered on the driving test. You sovereign idiots cannot ignore it by shutting your eyes real tight and plugging your ears going blah, blah, blah at the top of your lungs and then claim you had no notice.
Please post a case # or link to the decision of the court. Nothing comes up in the county case search for your name at http://odysseypa.tylerhost.net/Randall/default.aspx
Do YOU have any evidence that a shred of what he said is true? I'm willing to declare that it's all self-serving jabberwocky that has nothing to do with reality, but I'm also willing to listen to any evidence either of you have that English becomes a secret code discernible only by conspiracy theorists when used by lawmakers, lawyers, or judges.
We sign away no rights, we are fooled into thinking we have. There are no valid binding contracts signed. Approved applications, are not contracts. Contracts require two signatory's, and, all conditions and clauses must be disclosed, no deception is allowed. Deceiving someone into signing a contract, nullifies and voids that contract, so does not disclosing any information, or vague terminology.
The relationship of individuals, men and women (in law, always considered natural persons), whether unidentified, stateless or citizens, to the government is not considered contractual in any court or under any law. The local nation-state and sub-states simply rule their recognized territory by force. Pursuant to international law, hundreds of other countries recognize the US right to do so.
"Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10872398176234123252
"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." Thomas Jefferson (1781)
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Theodore Roosevelt (1903)
Hey Truthman you're talking my language – Bro. Please shoot me an email at firstknowthyself@gmail.com. I'd like to discuss how we can work together on so things.
This is complete gibberish making no sense whatsoever. It is an argument made by taking little snippets out of the statutes, Constitution and court decisions and twisting it into something it is not. Any resident has the right to move form one state to another but that right is subject to reasonable restrictions by the several states. So for example if you were driving along on your way from say Illinois to Indiana and decided the the roadway you are on is not the most direct route, you cannot simply cut across other people's property without their permission. Likewise the state has the right under the Constitution to allow travel upon its public roadways but only subject to reasonable restrictions as to the manner and method of travel. This means you cannot operate a Sherman tank or a semitrailer for example without it being street legal and you showing you are capable of operating it safely. It also means annoying little things like following speed limits, lane restrictions etc.
There are countless cases on file in all 50 states and in the federal courts in which the nut case brigade argues that somehow the freedom of movement from one state to another [which they refer to as the right to travel] cannot be impeded by any laws. But that is not accurate. There are certain rights allowed in the Constitution – the right to speak, to religious belief and practice, to assembly etc. But these rights are not unlimited on scope. Speech can be limited although the standard followed in doing so is very strict. One's religion can teach and indeed demand that some acts be performed or not performed as the case may be. But that does not mean that you will not go to jail if for example you try to burn a witch, stone and adulterer or behead a homosexual. Neither are you allowed to pick out some random bastard once a year from the town population, strip him of all his property and chase him out of town as a scapegoat. Further if your religion says human sacrifice is needed once a year to make the crops grow well good luck trying to get away with that little escapade.
So as numerous court cases establish this mythical "right to travel without the need of a driver's license" is just so much hokum. States can restrict the operation of a motorized vehicle to those who have demonstrated by means of a written and/or practical examination that they are competent to drive a motor vehicle. They just cannot refuse to issue a drivers license because they hate your guys. They can however if you have a mental or physical condition which makes your operation of the vehicle a danger. Which brings up a problem a lot of these so-called sovereign citizens have – they are serious drunks or abuse alcohol or are as nutty as a fruit cake. Sometimes all three.
Just a few questions. What is a "driver"? There is no statutory definition of a driver in Texas, only an "operator." What is a "license"? Every "license" definition in Texas law is commercial in nature. What is "transportation"? What is "Vehicle"? What is "Motor Vehicle"? Statutes MUST be in clear unambiguous language.
For example, in Texas, many people are cited for "speeding." Here is the way the statute used to charge someone with "speeding" is worded.
SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS
Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
(a) An operator may
not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway;
and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
In Texas law, there is only one statute which describes and defines what a speed limit sign is and its purpose.
Sec. 201.903. CLASSIFICATION, DESIGNATION, AND MARKING OF
HIGHWAYS.
(a) The department may classify, designate, and mark state highways in this state.
(b) The department may provide a uniform system of marking and signing state highways under the control of the state. The system must correlate with and, to the extent possible, conform to the system adopted in other states.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 201.904. SPEED SIGNS.
The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor
vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Where does it state that the "operator" of a personal "non commercial motor vehicle" is required to comply with the highway speed limits signs that are CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC? Yet you can go to any municipal court in Texas and observe municipal courts fining people for speeding. This is the kind of crap that you support and demand the enforcement of by STEALING MONEY from citizens under false pretenses.
Just sayin…
Yup, like I said. Taking sections of law and re-interpreting them. Let's just look at the actual wording of the Texas law.
Transportation Code Chapter 521, Section 521.001:
(3) "Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes:
(A) a temporary license or instruction permit; and
(B) an occupational license.
[Note the use of the term "includes" followed by a reference to an instruction permit/temporary license as well as an occupational license. Includes does NOT mean exclusive. There is nothing here which makes a requirement to have a driver's license in order to drive on the public road limited to those engaged in a business.]
Section 521.001:
(6) "License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes:
(A) a driver's license;
(B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license; and
(C) a nonresident's operating privilege.
[Note – again no mention of any limitation to a commercial in nature activity.]
The fact is that Cecil, like many others of his ilk takes snippets of laws out of the context of the statutes in which they are found, applies his own personal definitions to terms and some twisted argument to come up with his claims.
What is a driver? You failed to address that issue. The highest court on Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declares that you are wrong. Campbell v State; No. 27245. Tex .Crim. App. "This proof is insufficient
to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information
because a driver's license is not an operator's license. We have held
that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our
law.”] Quoting Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400;
Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W. 2d 303; and Brooks v.
State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317. GEE v. STATE, 626 S.W.2d 603,
Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana., Discretionary Review Refused
March 31, 1982.
The requirement to obtain and possess a "driver's license" in Texas was
established in 1954. All of these cases were decided AFTER that law
was established and the reason is because there is NO STATUTORY
DEFINITION OF DRIVER known in Texas Law. It is ambiguous at best. A
statute can not be vague or ambiguous to be Constitutional.
The right to travel without undue restriction was the very first right recognized as a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Randall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1867).
Driver's License was not addressed because the con-men in government
had not yet discovered how much money could be made by the creation
of that item-in Texas it is a 9-10 BILLION dollar a year industry.
Just because a legislature enacts a statute does not make that statute
constitutional. An example is the Obamacare Supreme Court decision.
It is unconstitutional BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW. According to Federal law, 28 USC sec 455, a Judge cannot be both a lawyer on a case AND be a deciding Judge on the same case.
Elana Kegan was the Solicitor General defending the governments'
position on Obamacare in every Federal District Court challenge.
Elena Kegan was the Solicitor General for the government during
appeals and then appointed to the Supreme Court before that case
arrived to the Supreme Court. By Federal Law, Elena Kegan IS
PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING in any function concerning that
decision. Because Elana Kegan voted on the decision, the law is
CONSTITUTIONALLY NULL AND VOID. Just because a law is passed and even if the law is obeyed, does not make the law Constitutional. Likewise
state mandates to obtain a drivers license. Most who cite the 10th Amendment always cite the part about “reserved to the State” but fail to consider “or the people.” The right to travel by whatever means the citizen chooses is a Right that ranks ABOVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, or The Press. The Right to travel is a Liberty Right, these others were added later on after the Constitution was written. Moreover, the power of the state is a created power, the Inalienable Rights of Citizens existed BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED.
As I said, making shit up. Parsing out language and attempting to make it fit some made up issue. 521.001 require ANY person operating a motor vehicle on a public road to have a license to do so. Section 541.001 [1] states "Operator" means, as used in reference to a motor vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.
All you are really doing is playing around with nonsensical attempts to make mountains of molehills.
For example Gee v State specifically refers to your "issue". The court stated:
"Part of the State's
proof in this case was an affidavit of the custodian of the records of
the driver and vehicle records division of the Department of Public
Safety which stated that appellant was issued a Texas Driver's license, which was issued as a Texas Operator's license No.
01205146 and that such driver's license was suspended on July 22, 1980,
pursuant to an affirmative finding of the municipal court of Bonham,
Fannin County, Texas, under the provisions of § 22 of Article 6687b.
That evidence is sufficient to show that appellant's operator's license
was suspended. The fact that the Department of Public Safety used both
terms in referring to the license does not create a fatal variance
between the pleading and the proof." Gee v State, 626 S.W.2d 603, 604 (1981).
The issue in Campbell was that the pleading said one term and the law said another and the state put on no evidence to show issuance of either.
Similarly the other cases you cite refer to situations where the state did not use the proper language and did not provide the proper proof. For example in Halloway the DA chrged the offense of driving without a driving license, instead of driving without a commercial operator's license since the man was cited for driving a commercial truck with a commercial operator's license which is a specific classification of license.
You sir are blinded by your own bias and cannot see the logical fallacy in what you are preaching. You claim to state how the States have the right regulate traffic. You quote the articles of legislation that support your case directly and acknowledge them as laws. However, all of those articles are exactly that. Therefore, all of the words and terms in those articles have very specific legal definitions. So you slander and name call at the people who point that out to you if those definitions do not support your case anymore when defined? If you believe that these regulations were put in place so deliberately to function as they are and that the people who put them there were so educated and precise in their meaning and application then why on earth would the definitions of these terms not match up to how they are being applied?
this comment is complete gibberish. No substance at all.
If you want to correctly define the words used on a particular charge you have to look at the top of the chapter, part and/or title in the federal or state code the charge is brought under.
e.g. in NC legislation you can clearly see there is no commercial requirement for driver licensing:
§ 20-4.01. Definitions.
(7) Driver. – The operator of a vehicle, as defined in subdivision (25). The terms "driver" and "operator" and their cognates are synonymous.
(13) Highway. – The entire width between property or right-of-way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms "highway" and "street" and their cognates are synonymous.
(23) Motor Vehicle. – Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle designed to run upon the highways which is pulled by a self-propelled vehicle …
(25) Operator. – A person in actual physical control of a vehicle which is in motion or which has the engine running. The terms "operator" and "driver" and their cognates are synonymous.
(49) Vehicle. – Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks …
Then use those definitions in combination with the laws, e.g.:
§ 20-7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
(a) License Required. – To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_20.html
You make the absurd statement that:
"Just because a legislature enacts a statute does not make that statute constitutional. An example is the Obamacare Supreme Court decision. It
is unconstitutional BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW.
According to Federal law, 28 USC sec 455, a Judge cannot be both a
lawyer on a case AND be a deciding Judge on the same case.
Elana Kegan was the Solicitor General defending the governments' position on Obamacare in every Federal District Court challenge.Elena Kegan was the Solicitor General for the government during appeals and then appointed to the Supreme Co
urt before that case
arrived to the Supreme Court. By Federal Law, Elena Kegan IS PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING in any function concerning that decision. Because Elana Kegan voted on the decision, the law is CONSTITUTIONALLY
NULL AND VOID. Just because a law is passed and even if the law is
obeyed, does not make the law Constitutional."
The fact is that there is no actual evidence of this. It was an allegation made by a right wing group which took language from the memo written by a third party to another person in which that person says they should involve Kagan in the planning of the appeal strategy and another memo where he asks if Kagan was available to attend a meeting. Shortly after those memos were written, Kagan was nominated to the court. At that point the same parties involved in the prior two memos states she should not be involved in any for the strategy discussions. There is no evidence she was so involved – no minutes of meetings, no memos, no agendas indicating she was so scheduled, and she has stated she was not involved in any substantive discussion regarding the appeal.
It appears that in Texas, the definition of the term "driver" is irrelevant when the term "driver's license" is defined and required in a way that doesn't require the term "driver" to be defined.
In other words, it doesn't matter at all what a driver is. It only matters who's required to have a thing called a "driver's license."
Your citations (Campbell, Hassell, Holloway, and Brooks) are all at least 60 years old and revolve around the correct wording of a charge. There is nothing in any of those four cases that suggests that the operator's license requirement was or is unlawful. The only thing they establish is that when you're prosecuting somebody, the court isn't going to tolerate mistakes in charging language. If they had been charged with driving without a valid operator's license, the judges wouldn't have thrown the charges out.
This is all fine to break down the codes of the states The fact that people were travaling freely without any more type or proof of idenity that their bible.As you know as a worker in the corporation known as the united stares All codes and sections and clauses in the system.Are not there to protect the products of the US ( tht would be a so called citizen) they are there to make money for the never full always wanting more Fat Cats who run the world And you can interpet this statement anyway you want .But all codes and sublaws made after the constitution are all about money.And to make it even more funny THERE IS NO MONEY EVERYTHING IS A PROMISDSRY NOTE
This is dribble with no actual evidence to support it. The fact is that if you wish to travel freely you have the complete right to do so as people have done for millennia. Pack a bag and hit the road – walk, ride a bicycle, hitch a ride, but a bus or airplane or train ticket or post an advert on a rode share website. No one will stop you form going anywhere in the country you wish to go. There are thousands of people who do it every year.
But if you wish to drive a motor vehicle or fly a plane you will have to pass the appropriate test to qualify to do so and when you do, you will have to follow the same rules of the road as everyone else. Don't like it? Tough luck Buffy. No one cares and everyone thinks you are a complete fool.
An international drivers license requires a valid license in the state where the holder is a legal resident in order to be legally issued. It is a privilege recognized by treaty between different countries. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or the issues discussed here.
Anything can be incriminating depending on local law, and every country and state is different. Depending on the quality of your forgery yeah you might be able to cheat a bit… but what does this have to do with the right to travel in the US? Get back on topic.
Can you help me out and explain this please? How did she get away with driving?
https://youtu.be/Ba_Rz4uj4DI
Explain this…? The cop had to be naive..
https://youtu.be/Ba_Rz4uj4DI
So here we have another example of a person cherry picking sections of a treaty to suit his own purpose.
Chapter 4, Art 4, section 1 of the 1949 Treaty states that it covers all drivers meaning any person who drives a vehicle or is in control of the same. It also states that a motor vehicle is any self-propelled vehicle used for the transports of persons or goods.
Art 5 states the treaty does NOT apply to commercial drivers.
Chapter 5, Art 24 states that
1. Each signatory shall allow a person legally admitted to its territory AND who holds a valid driving permit issued to him by another signatory state or subdivision of the state legally authorized to enter such permits, to drive on its road. [Note the requirement that the person be legally licensed in another signatory state.
2. A signatory state may if it desires require that in addition to number 1, it may require any driver admitted inside its borders to carry an international driving permit, especially if the person comes from a state where a domestic permit is not required.
The international permit is a document with translations in 10 languages of the document permitting the person holding it to drive legally in his country of origin. It is not a substitute for a driver's license.
If we read what you have written what you are saying is that you have played a game of cat and mouse with the legal authorities in other countries using a fraudulently filled out international driving permit which is supposed to list you information from you state issued driver's license. Good luck with that if you are still doing it.
As for your assertions that a police authority in Germany cannot check to see if you have any license in say the United States, that was true once upon a time but is no longer. The cop may not want to bother for something minor. He may instead send you on your way or even in some countries ignore the matter for a small bribe. But eventually you are going to find your luck running out and I hope you enjoy sitting in a jail in a foreign country. Most people do not consider that the highlight of their traveling experience.
All I am seeing is a person who decides to be insulting and who has no idea what the entire treaty says or if he does has decided to ignore what the other provisions state.
Art 24, section one specifically states the treaty only applies to those with a valid driving permit issued by their country of origin. It is a voluntary agreement which various countries have entered into to allow people from different countries to drive in other countries without having to apply for and take the qualifying test for a driving permit in the country they are now in.
You very words indicate that the judge required the police to prove that you were driving without a permit and because they had not followed the proper procedures for doing so he would not convict you. Judges in the US will do the same if the prosecutor does not prove the basis of his accusation. You have taken that and attempted to turn it into something it isn't.
Like I said, good luck with that because eventually a cop with a brain is going to nail your as to the pavement.
Classic logical fallacy. The burden is on you to prove that you are doing what you are doing and that there is a verifiable legal basis for it. You may be telling a complete lie. You may in fact be driving an automobile without a license. If you that probes nothing other than you are in violation of the laws of the jurisdiction where you reside absent some proof to the contrary. So you are no different than any low life gang-banger or undocumented immigrant who does exactly the same thing.
But the fact is that even if you are in some foreign country driving on forged documents, that has nothing to do with how the Constitution interacts with state law in the United States.
Let us know when you win damages or get a declaratory judgment that clearly shows the US or State courts agree with your interpretation.
Sorry troll but that dog won't hunt. You have made a claim here about what you are doing. You have the burden of proving the facts supporting your statement.
As for your obsession with the US Constitution, it does not apply outside the United States.
But again, none of this is relevant to the issue at hand here. You are just engaged in red herrings arguments.
"As for your obsession with the US Constitution, it does not apply outside the United States."
It's great to see that we can agree on something. 🙂
I have found)(most) people will read the below quote, and will think that the quote says that if where they are is within the exterior boundaries of a "State" then that means within all of the whole state.____ But they need to continue to the next sentence where they will see that they(the legislators) are being specific as to precisely what and where they are referring to. Correct?
So if now the legislators are nice enough to include a list of the places/lands that are within those exterior boundaries,that the sovereignty and jurisdiction apply to.Would that actually exclude all other lands that are not on that list?
"The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this
State extends to all places within its boundaries as established by the
constitution. The extent of such jurisdiction over places that have been
or may be ceded to, purchased, or condemned by the United States is
qualified by the terms of the cession or the laws under which the
purchase or condemnation is made."
Not to worry, this is on topic, and will get there.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=1.&part=&chapter=1.&article=2.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The code section you linked states California's claim to sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory within its declared borders, with limited exceptions.
Ken:
The point is that I agree that if one is in United States (or is a "person"/citizen of United States)and under the jurisdiction thereof, then one needs to have a driver license if one wants to "Drive" or "operate" a "Commercial motor vehicle.
The code that I linked to clearly shows that in The State of California's Government code, is, definitely showing where it's jurisdiction (territoriality)lies.(and could be called "limited exceptions") They have made reference to lands that have been ceded to, purchased, or condemned by the United States, and, is qualified by the terms of the cession or the laws under which the purchase or condemnation is made. which clearly adheres to Art.1 Sec.8(17&18)
Art.1 Sec.8(17)
"17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding
ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, be
come the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" and:
"18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the fore
going Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." and:
Art.4 sec.3(2)
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations re-
specting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State."
This is known as proprietary interest which gives them proprietary power to write statutes, codes, rules, regs, public policies ETC. for, and only for land that they own,hence the "Territorial Jurisdiction".
A question that I usually ask is.
Is California in United States? Or:
Is United States in California?
The answer of course if one has read all four of the Organic laws(all four of which are still in force) that are in the front matter of the USC
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim
The United States is of course in California, and is what is called The State of California.AKA "in this state" or "in the state"
The State of California is only those lands that are listed in State of California Governmental codes 110-127. and is approximately 45.3% of the land in California, as shown here http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
If one is on land of California, that is not on those lists in 110-127, Then one is not under the jurisdiction of State of California, and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of State of California's Vehicle code. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=VEH&tocTitle=+Vehicle+Code+-+VEH
The territorial jurisdiction of United States according to the above link shows that only 640 million of the 2.27 billion acres on north America between Canada and Mexico is under the jurisdiction thereof (United States jurisdiction).
The rest of the land between Canada and Mexico, United States has no right to (proprietary interest)tell anyone what to do on all of that privately owned land.
You've missed some important details, rentiap. Firstly, I'm not sure if you misunderstood or misspoke, but California is not just the places listed in CA Govt Code § 111 and § 119. Those are the places where California has granted the federal government varying degrees of jurisdiction. According to the map you linked, California has exclusive jurisdiction over at least 54.7% of the state's land area.
Secondly, their inclusion in those sections does not make them "not California." Just because the federal government has certain rights on a piece of land doesn't mean that it isn't still the sovereign territory of that state, governed under the constitution and laws thereof. The distinction is that sometimes that constitution and those laws provide for another government (the United States) to exercise exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction there.
Not all jurisdiction is exclusive, and many of the statutes named in those sections specifically reserve California's right to pass and enforce laws there, including the California Vehicle Code. Even in National Parks, federal law explicitly provides for state traffic laws to be enforced in (36 CFR § 4.2). Not to mention, the federal government has and exercises the power to regulate traffic everywhere it has jurisdiction, including parks, forests, military bases, monument sites, and so on. In some cases, federal penalties for traffic offenses are much harsher than their state equivalents.
Besides all that, staying exclusively on federal lands wouldn't be a very viable strategy for avoiding driver licensing or vehicle registration, anyway. This strategy would basically exile you to undeveloped areas of Northern and Eastern California. What would be the point?
"You've missed some important details, rentiap. Firstly, I'm not sure if you misunderstood or misspoke, but California is not
just the places listed in CA Govt Code § 111 and § 119. Those are the
places where California has granted the federal government varying
degrees of jurisdiction. According to the map you linked, California has
exclusive jurisdiction over at least 54.7% of the state's land area."
""""""""""
Sorry Ken, you are the one who has misunderstood or has somehow read into what I wrote incorrectly. I don't know where you read that only § 111 and § 119 are the only places that State of California has jurisdiction. How you somehow came up with that only § 111 and § 119 are the only places that State of California has jurisdiction is beyond me. I clearly said 110-127. The only place that State of California is, IS "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"The 43.7%)
the other 54.7% is California land. Not! State of California land.
"""""""""
"Secondly, their inclusion in those sections does not make them "not California."
""""""`
Yes it does make them "not California". It makes them a part of State of California.
All of the lands listed in 110-127 is the territories owned by United States, Which makes all of the other land within the exterior boundaries of California,not listed in 110-127 State of California.
""""""""`
"Just because the federal government has certain rights on a piece of land doesn't mean that it isn't still the sovereign territory of that
state, governed under the constitution and laws thereof. The distinction is that sometimes that constitution and those laws provide for another government (the United States) to exercise exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction there.
Not all jurisdiction is exclusive, and many of the statutes named in those sections specifically reserve California's right to pass and enforce laws there, including the California Vehicle Code. Even in National Parks, federal law explicitly provides for state traffic laws to be enforced in (36 CFR § 4.2). Not to mention, the federal government has and exercises the power to regulate traffic
everywhere it has jurisdiction, including parks, forests, military
bases, monument sites, and so on. In some cases, federal penalties for traffic offenses are much harsher than their state equivalents.."
"""""""
I've never stated such, but to the contrary actually. The only place they (do) have jurisdiction is over territory or property owned by the United States.
""""""
"Besides all that, staying exclusively on federal lands wouldn't be a
very viable strategy for avoiding driver licensing or vehicle
registration, anyway. This strategy would basically exile you to
undeveloped areas of Northern and Eastern California."
"""""`
I would be staying f of territory, not territory,,You've completely taken things in the opposite of what I stated.
What the hell are you talking about? Everything within the borders of [the state of] California is in [the state of] California. Period. All of it, whether the federal government has been granted jurisdiction there or not. The National Parks are in [the state of] California. The US Mint in [the city of] San Francisco is located in [the state of] California. Edwards AFB is located in and on [the state of] California. [The state of] California enjoys sovereignty and jurisdiction over Yosemite National Park. And, as I already explained to you, § 111 and § 119 list those places where [the state of] California has granted the federal government some jurisdiction. They do not list the only places which are [the state of] California. [The city of] Sacramento is not listed, [the city of] Los Angeles is not listed, [the city of] Oakland is not listed, and yet all of these are places where the state of California exercises exclusive jurisdiction. This is explicit in the very article you cited. Read the sections you cite, dude.
—CA Govt Code § 110
If you are inside [the state of] California on the map, you are on the territory of [the state of] California, period. There is not one square inch of land in [the state of] California that is "not [the state of] California." When [the state of] California grants concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government in a particular place, it still remains a part of California. Kings Canyon National Park is still part of [the state of] California.
To escape the [state of] California Vehicle Code, you would have to either remain exclusively on private property or on certain federal lands where only federal traffic rules are enforced.
Oh, Jesus Christ, I just realized what you're doing. No, rentiap, "State of California" is not a super secret corporate fiction while "California" is the living, breathing, flesh and blood state. "State of California" and "California" are the same thing here. There is no sovereign entity called "California" that is distinct from the "State of California." They're the same thing.
Even if they were, and they are not, the sections you cited refer only to "the State of California" and "the Legislature of California." Nowhere in that Article does the name "California" appear by itself.
The very first constitution of California clearly has State of California at the top. States don't gain jurisdiction by word games or having you "contract" with the state as so-called sovereigns think. The state claims jurisdiction over the entire geographical area via the social contract imposed via popular sovereignty, constitutionally-recognized police power, international law, and its ability to enforce its constitution and laws with the force of police, national guard, military, etc. There are apparently no meaningful alternative forces in the area that will support your version of law, so you're stuck under state law like everyone else. Courts, presidents, founders all understand and admit your consent is not required.
You should be able to actually prove this by finding a court decision in the public record that shows a judge's interpretation aligns with yours, or showing where someone has won damages against the state for being arrested for driving without a license. Why don't these exist past the early 1900s?
You do not pursue damages from the state, you pursue damages from the individual who personally made the arrest. These cases do exist for false arrest in which is just that, a false arrest.
If the arrest was made in good faith, you're not going to have much luck going after the individual officer.
Wrong. Officer swore to uphold the Constitution state and federal. If damages are loss of wages, impounding of vehicle ect. ect. where the officer should have known and the person informed him of his natural born status of free travel by automobile upheld by the Supreme Court of this land then that officer maybe sued personally for damages to be paid out of his own pocket. NOBODY is above the law. Everybody is bound by the same. One has a Grievance that Grievance must be sought Constitutionally through a district court. Not municipal. Municipal laws or municipal courts have no jurisdiction over natural born state citizens unless that citizen converts his rights over by way of LICENSE of ANY KIND. Period. All anyone person really needs to do is write your state legislator and ask them to show you where a natural born state private citizen is bound by any municipal law if not licensed converting your rights over. See the answer you get.
Yes, State officers swear to uphold the State constitution, which includes the laws made under the State legislature created by the State constitution, which includes State vehicle codes. State officers and judges are paid by the State to enforce State law.
Please cite the Supreme Court case you think gives you the right to travel freely by automobile on the public roads without regulation, whether you're blind, drunk or whatever. Let's just ignore the fact that the federal government has clearly left the vast majority of highway regulation up to the several States, as cited by the article.
Receiving a response from someone or not doesn't prove anything. Only the courts ultimately have the authority to decide what is and isn't lawful. So look around on Google Scholar and find cases that address the issues directly, like this.
WRONG, you cant legislate against the Constitution State Federal or otherwise, they can add Amendments, very hard to do. Anything else legislated is simply MUNICIPAL LAWS in which do not apply to State Citizens unless voluntarily by way of converting inalienable rights by contract through as license of some sort. Supreme Court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal
law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it
confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
The courts are in charge of interpreting whether things are constitutional or lawful, not individuals. If the courts don't interpret things how the people want then the legislature can change the constitution or legislation to make it more certain. If the legislature fails to do what the people want then the only solution is violent revolution. Personally I don't think it's time for revolution yet in most western countries, which are ahead of others as far as equality and civil rights are concerned. I think worse countries should probably be reformed first.
WRONG!!!!!! The courts are not to interpret ANYTHING!!! Our grievances are to be handled by a Jury of our peers based on evidence. No grievance no court. There is one rightful court, The Supreme Court and the Law is what it says it is, the Founders were BRILLIANT MEN, The law (Constitution) was written in plain understandable English, not to be interpreted but UPHELD!!!! You have been indoctrinated, duped and tricked to think the courts are the superiority. They are not in fact there was a time when the people over ruled the Supreme Court. It is now and always will be WE THE PEOPLE!!!! This day we have too many indoctrinated pussies. Which brings one to Bible prophecy that I will refrain from this forum but America is dying and its dying by the indoctrinated many like you. Pretty Sad really but Common Law is a real thing. It is a real system of laws derived from centuries of work, study and sacrifice of millions of people. It is not trivial and inconsequential as some would have you think. It is the Common Law that is most represented within Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Our Bill of Rights. These documents were designed to limit and eliminate the vicious Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Law which was what we revolted against as Our Revolution against the totalitarianism of England.
Did you know the Anglo-American system (Our system) of jurisprudence is the only one which developed out of what is called the Common Law, that is, the general law of private property known in the British Isles? It is true – Common Law was designed through the centuries to secure the rights of individuals (you and me) to property and to make it difficult for property to be taken away from us by a government or governmental structure (bureaucracy) without due process of law. The Common Law was expounded over the years in hundreds of thousands of case decisions as a result of trials in which the Common Law jury acted as the Judges, and in which they exercised the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and fact. Common Law deals with legal relationships, powers and liabilities, and types of actions rather than theoretical definitions of abstract legal concepts. The Common Law was recognized by Our Founding Fathers and is the basis of all law in America today.
The Common Law recognizes the Power of Government lies in the common people and not in an elite group of power brokers. It is the terrible Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Laws (laws of contract) that steals this power from the people and centralizes it into the hands of a few power oriented men. The Common Law deals in real property whereas the Equity Laws deal in written abstractions of performance (agreements or contracts). In other words, Masters own their own property, work and destiny. We are all Masters when we truly own our own property. Slaves do not own property, they usually rent property of another and are compelled to perform upon or with that rented (tenured) property according to some agreement or contract.
It is from such controversies involving property that all of our Rights have come. Property is known as Substance at the Common Law, and includes hard Money in the form of gold and silver coin as required by Our federal Constitution and every other State Constitution as they were all drafted to be in perfect harmony one with another.
Controversies involving these matters carry with them a Law jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which all of our Rights are found. The Judge in a Court of Common Law is an impartial referee of the dispute, and he is bound to protect the Rights of the parties to the dispute, or he will have lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had, or claimed to have had. It is the Jury who decides whether or not the Facts of the case are valid and they also decide the Law – does it apply? Is it correct for this case?, etc. Only judges acting under equity law can decide law…
You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT.
The Constitution can be amended, changed or completely repealed as Congress or the States see fit. So how is it so shocking to you that the federal and State governments can also make laws according to the legislative clauses of their constitutions?
I don't know if you realize it, but the Common Law was actually invented to organize the courts in England so that King Henry II could rule it more effectively as a sovereign monarch.
Upheld by the Supreme Court when? The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the validity of licensing and registration laws, not the opposite.
WRONG, I have already posted the rulings for your convenience, you chose to dismiss as tedious screeds.
You have pasted excerpts from other cases not related to the issue at hand. You have not cited any case where licensing and registration laws are invalidated. Note that there is a right to travel, but this is not a right to operate a motor vehicle without any restrictions.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL OPERATING AN AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT A LICENSE OF ANY SORT!!!!! PERIOD Restrictions??? or Morals???A sound mind and body can travel down the highway being morally polite to your surroundings. If your referring to traveling like an idiot causing harm to others then yes you will probably bring on some grievances that you must be held accountable. Does this give one the right to travel at 100 and something MPH down the roadway weaving in and out cutting people off doing damage to their vehicle or causing harm to others? No it does not. But like anything in life, here in America we are free men to come and go as we see fit as long as we are not harming or infringing upon another. No one controls another
or can be told what he can and can not do on his property so long as its not infringing on another. Common sense goes a long way. The only Authoritative body is Christ Himself. Not flawed imperfect men sitting at a table legislating because a certain group of people want to play God restricting society. The only way the Constitution can be altered is by Amendments, and that's pretty difficult to do. And for GOOD REASON Licensing and registration are only validated when you consent by receiving them. PERIOD The police and the municipal courts have no recourse unless that license exists. They have no jurisdiction upon you, unless that license exists. But one must not remain silent throwing citation in the trash. You must handle it by way of affidavit or if ones foolish enough to step into their courts. But it must be answered and one must be educated enough to know how to answer. Period
Tell it to the judge, then come back with something in the public record. Individuals, like yourself, are not qualified and don't have the power to write or interpret the law. What do you think Article 1 and 3 of the federal Constitution, and the legislative and judicial sections of State constitutions, are for? You're wasting your time repeating nonsense here. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Go get a declaratory judgment or at least a meaningful citation and come back.
That's superstition, not law. The law is very clear, even with those who have recited magic spells in court or submitted their enchanted parchments. You're left alone because it's not worth listening to you lecture the court and file endless motions over a trivial violation. Good for you, if that's how you want to live your life, but your imagined invincibility is purely at the pleasure of the courts that would rather let you drive without a license than talk to you.
Cite some.
Banned for being an ad-hominem douchebag and talking about IDPs and foreign countries that have no relation to the topic of the article after being warned to stop.
If true, it sounds like they failed to uphold local law. Spain is an internationally-recognized sovereign state and can require whatever it wants.
This is completely false. An IDP is worthless without your domestic pernit. Read carefully — even if your home country doesn't require a driver's license, you can't get a valid IDP without proof of competence, and no country is under any obligation to recognize an IDP that doesn't conform to the requirements to demonstrate identity and competence.
They are not, actually. Have a look at the actual IDP Convention.
Because they have no contract to the state..no ssn…no dl..no registration…no contract
No contract is necessary for the enforcement of laws, including statutes. This concept is laughably absurd and has never had any validity at any time since the development of agriculture.
Not having a license (Contract) is the only way to keep you out of a municipal court. A license of any kind converts ones inalienable rights protected by the Constitution over to the government. I simply send citation back to the court with an affidavit. Case closed. If I was wrong in what I do, hmmmm I suppose there would be warrants of some kind. FYI, there are none. The correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as
enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the united States. We all need to realize that governments of all stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. We need
to realize that the government in Washington is actually two governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and, second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations, etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases (Article 1,Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution). We need to realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or implying another). We need to realize that the majority or laws passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens of the States united. We need to realize that the majority of the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us Citizens into believing that they do apply to us. We need to realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example, the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United States) has
within it a section called "definitions". Within that section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that
the power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens
then ask, "by what authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this law?" Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions. And yes Actually, a law that is unconstitutional is enforceable. Congress has every right to pass whatever law they like when they are legislating "municipal law". The power to to exercise exclusive legislative authority is granted in the penultimate clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is the second mandate of the government in Washington, D.C. Such municipal law applies only to the capitol, its possessions and
territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, and areas ceded to it by the States for military installations, ports, federal buildings, national parks and the like. Now, ask yourself, is obama-care municipal law or federal (pertaining to the States united under the Constitution) law? When congress legislates in its federal capacity, it must adhere to and be bound by the chains of the Constitution and laws so enacted are enforceable upon all Citizens of the States united under the Constitution. When congress legislates in its municipal capacity the
Constitution does not come into play because such legislation does not
pertain to the Citizens of the States united. Such legislation is enforceable upon citizens,residents, workers and those domiciled in the District of Columbia, the insular possessions and territories and areas ceded to the federal government. Now, ask yourself, does obama-care pertain to me? In fact, you should always ask and all legislation should clearly state whether it is municipal law or federal law. The difference is huge.
That's 50 pounds of horseshit in a five pound bag.
Says you, Ive proved otherwise. Would not have expected any other response from one holding onto a lie. A lazy uneducated society equals a slaved society. http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/ http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/how-to-drive-without-a-license/
I agree with Wesley Pieters who Says "One
of the fundamental maxims of law is "He who slumbers on his rights, has
none." The problem is, MOST average people have made no effort to
comprehend "the law," especially with regard to political and legal
jurisdiction. It is clear to me that state governments, which are
municipal corporations incorporated under the laws of the United States,
do not have the right to convert my rights into a privilege and charge a
fee for the use of said "privilege." However, since most people,
including those who choose careers in "law enforcement" blindly believe
whatever their "superiors" tell them, without researching for themselves
what is true, we have a system of government that derives its "just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed," to extract huge profits from
those consenting governed people. One reason that you cant go to court
with a print out of all the above quotes from other cases and expect to
"win" is that, you are going to court, voluntarily consenting to the
jurisdiction of the court, and voluntarily accepting the judgment of the
court which is made up of people who are on the payroll of the
plaintiff. Say, for example, one is traveling on the land of
Pennsylvania, and gets pulled over by a local small town municipal cop
for a "code violation." The code one is accused of violating is
basically one of the corporate by-laws of the legal entity known as
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. The thing is, unless one has a contract
with COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA or THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, or THE STATE OF [any other state incorporated under the
laws of the UNITED STATES], one has no liability to abide by the by-laws
of that corporation. However, as many of us have learned first hand,
you can't win in THEIR courts with respect to THEIR LAWS. The other
reason you cant expect to win is because you cant win as a DEFENDANT!
So, the appropriate way to solve this problem is to make a claim against
the offending party….the man who thinks his job gives him the right
to arrest you [a traffic stop is an arrest as soon as you are pulled
over] just because you don't buy into the same licensing and
registration scam that he did. But you cant do that if you don't know
that your rights have been violated. Until people make an effort to know
their own rights and protect their own rights in a court of proper
jurisdiction, they will just keep getting used as an easy source of
income for the shareholders of the various corporations that make up
"THE STATE OF." As for the people who are of the opinion that its right
that everyone who travels in an automobile should be licensed because
it "deters criminals" or somehow makes them safer, the fact is,
criminals don't care about laws anyway. Just as gun control laws don't
keep guns out of the hands of criminals, driver licensing doesn't make
people good drivers. In fact, the driver licensing/mandatory insurance
scheme only serves to oppress the poor and keep more people perpetually
in need of public assistance because they don't have enough money to pay
the state mob its "protection fee" to protect from police harassment
and so they therefore are unable to secure employment they would
otherwise be able to secure if they could travel freely without fear of
being kidnapped and having their property taken." AGAIN Ken, a simple affidavit with the returned citation to correct administrative law, show jurisdiction, and to show what their grievance is equals case dropped. I know it to be true for I have done it 1st hand many of times. I do not have a License, that is the only way. If one has a license you cant do what I do because you have consented to convert your rights and gave them permission. PERIOD Rid your license letting them expire, do not renew the contract. I do not need you to believe me. Trust in your own horse shit and carry on blindly but constant repudiation of your rhetoric does not make you right.
Try reading the article before pasting your tedious screeds.
In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right
to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on
the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or
registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one
does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or
property."
Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?
Debunking sovereign citizens, freemen-on-the-land and other pseudo-legal theories.
OHHHHH I believe I did, as I read through the comments you seemed to be struggling, I reached out from 1st hand experience to help you and you say horseshit. No argument, no one needs for you to accept it. Carry on in ignorance. You fit right in with the rest of indoctrinated ignorance. Perhaps out of fear? Doesn't matter. no more time wasted. Correcting the unconstitutional acts of government is hardly tedious but explains the character of whom one is simply conversing with. And society wonders why they are so suppressed.
So what part of the law are you tripped up on?
If you would have read the tedious post as you call it, you would have found there is no municipal law that I'm tripped on, but very much versed in the Constitution and have it right. How do I know I have it right? The municipal court allowed me to know by dropping any and every driving without a license citation that I have received with nothing other than 15 miniutes of my time and cost of a certified letter having never entered their court. But the author of this article portrays they are debunking such a notion. Laughable at best but really sad as those like me look around at the erosion of a Free society so many bled and died for. Ben Franklin once said when asked what did we receive. " A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT"
Wow, you're telling me that a court dropped small-money traffic violations with a vexatious defendant? Wow, that couldn't possibly be judicial discretion — clearly, a century of case law has been turned on its head!!
Im telling you that you do not need a license to travel by an automobile privately and municipal laws do not apply to state citizens. The rest of your BS is your own confused rhetoric.
What do municipal laws have to do with driver licensing or vehicle registration?
Really? Surely you jest? Everything, for driver licensing and vehicle registration are just that. Municipal laws
Licensing and registration laws are uniformly at the state level, not municipal.
Wrong on not municipal. Yes and at many levels, Licensing and registration are still municipal laws. Municipal Law is the law specific to a particular city or county (known legally as a "municipality"),
and the government bodies within those cities or counties. This can
cover a wide range of issues, including everything from police power,
zoning, education policies, and property taxes. Terms to Know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_law
If you name your state, I'll show you the state level licensing and registration laws that apply to you.
Ken, not sure where you missed or had mentally blocked out where I explained that municipal laws do not apply to private natural state citizens, you will not even find one in my state. Not sure where you missed the fact that I do not have a license to travel by automobile and have been ticketed 3 different times in 3 different county's all with the same result. Not sure where you missed that the Supreme Court ruled NO LICENSE TO TRAVEL NEEDED. Thats right, must of been tedious screeds of horse shit. I have friends who are officers of the law who have research and checked me for warrants. NONE been over 6 years. Nobody needs to take for my word, simply write your state legislators and ask them where in your state Constitution or where in your Federal Constitution does it give your county, city, state the authority to enforce municipal laws on a private natural born citizen whom never licensed and still travels. See what answer you get. You or the audience may also ask them to show you where your responsible for any federal tax. I dont pay the federal tax either and been doing sop since 2006, you must file. Biggest scam ever perpetrated on a free American society. Do not live in the federal territories federal UNITED STATES such as Guam Puerto Rico Guatemala District of Columbia or work for federal receiving any federal funds, money, or special privileged. You dont owe the tax. losthorizons.com Hope this helps somebody out there. The delusional s holding onto government commercial municipal laws obviously already have it figured out and unwilling to admit they dont obviously know everything. Good Luck stay in the confines of the Constitution USING the Constitution and asking questions, researching before acting will set you free. Never know everything be willing to learn, Educate and be Free as intended by our Founders. Again good luck. Never take ones word for it, know it exclusively yourself but Ken you are wrong in your research
Again, state laws are not municipal laws, and municipal laws do indeed apply to people within the applicable municipalities.
WRONG, State laws are indeed MUNICIPAL LAWS!!!!! If its not in the State Federal Constitution then they are MUNICIPAL and they do indeed not APPLY to State Citizens UNLESS you gave them the authority by way of License or wish to be subject to the confines of Federal jurisdiction and their authority. Supreme Court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal
law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it
confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S.
425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
What is a "State Federal Constitution?" There is one federal constitution and fifty state constitutions. The states are not incorporated on the authority of the United States federal government, but are sovereign in their own right. Each state constitution establishes a legislature with the authority to make laws for the entire state. These are not "municipal" laws. The states are not provinces or municipalities incorporated on external authority, but are sovereign, independent states in their own right and on their own authority.
There is no State Federal Constitution LOL my bad thinking you would know what I meant without the ,,,, They are separate as you just mentioned and what I was implying. Yes 50 separate State Constitutions and 1 Federal Constitution to be clear. whatever any law legislated beyond that Constitution is and ALWAYS WILL BE MUNICIPAL!!!!!!!! Google MUNICIPAL!!! I already did this for you and presented the meaning. MUNICIPAL is
Municipal Law is the law specific to a particular city or county (known legally as a "municipality"),
and the government bodies within those cities or counties. This can
cover a wide range of issues, including everything from police power,
zoning, education policies, and property taxes. What police powering, zoning do you not understand? Traffic laws are MUNICIPAL!!!!! Licensing is MUNICIPAL!!!!! Ordinances are MUNICIPAL!!!! Legislators will not pass a law violating that Constitution but will write in such a way to trick you into believing it applies to you. You know I already posted this once for you. You ignored it as horse shit but in fact is the way it is. So here for you ONE LAST TIME::::
Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.
The
correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens
and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government
was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon
individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated
in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the
united States.
We all need to realize that governments of all
stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means
they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.
We
need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two
governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States
united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and,
second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and
all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations,
etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the
municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases
(Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
We need to
realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the
art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or
implying another).
We need to realize that the majority or laws
passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens
of the States united.
We need to realize that the majority of
the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us
Citizens into believing that they do apply to us.
We need to
realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very
different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example,
the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United
States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means
Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the
United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department
of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools
and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our
quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the
power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such
deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these
United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
You still haven't explained:
1. How state laws, made by legislatures specifically empowered by state constitutions, are municipal, when they are not specific to a city or county
2. When the Supreme Court ruled against the validity of licensing and registration laws as a condition of operating a motor vehicle
3. What makes municipal laws invalid when they are given force by constitutionally-established legislatures
Actually NO… only if you are using the airplane, motor vehicle, motor cycle, bicycle etc to "transport passengers or property over the highways for compensation"… that "Activity" is regulated not "Traveling"..
If you read the article, sources, vehicle laws created by the state legislature created by the state constitution and judgments of the state courts, you will find this isn't true in any state. Anyone using the public highways can be regulated for public safety, whether operating "for profit" or not. There has never been a commercial requirement for regulation by federal, state, county or municipal legislatures. You can try arguing otherwise, but the courts, military, police and bylaw officers support the legislation, unless you successfully defend or appeal and get it struck down.
Let me know when you recover from the lobotomy.
When? How?
Yaaawwwn. First, you need to learn to spell and not leave words out. I don't know of any corporation called the united stares. Second, if you meant the United States, I wonder what you mean by "corporation," and if you've fallen for laughable kook theories about 28 USC 3002 or listings from credit agencies. Third, there are plenty of laws under the Constitution that don't help anybody make money. More than that, there are plenty of laws that prevent businesses from making money! You're just spewing out barely-coherent Alex Jones crap like an upended lawn sprinkler of delusions.
For those who seem to be caught off balance by the unveiling of truth, the best way I can break it down is as follows:
God created man from the dust of the earth and with the breathe of God man became a living soul, both male and female made He them. Man lived by the laws of the land, God's laws; Man created the constitution; the constitution created the government which adheres to the boundaries set within the constitution; the government has jurisdiction over all civil matters. This would include all fictitious entities. In the status of person, you have policies & procedures, and you are alloyed privleges. In the status of a people you have God given, inalienable rights, and make declarations and decrees.
How can the thing created ever be greater than its creator? Human being are beneath God and God gave us dominion over all which was created beneath us. We cannot take the breathe of God but He can assuredly reclaim His from us. Individually and collectively. And it's not that we don't have rights, it's that we have been tricked into an alternate reality and we believed the lies. There is a deeper meaning to the saying "know thyself".
Why should I give a hoot about your god? I don't look to your god for state transportation laws, nor do I look to Quetzalcoatl or Apollo. Neither do American legislatures, agencies, or courts.
That's nice, but fortunately the founders of the United States had the foresight to insulate government from the depravity of the clergy and prevent it from being used as a puppet for the priests. This means that the Bible does not form binding precedent and the Gospels don't carry superior weight to the federal and state constitutions. Are individual legislators and judges influenced by their religious and philosophical beliefs? Sure, but constitutional guarantees strictly limit the influence of religion in law.
Except that they're not. Did you know one U.S. President declined to swear an oath altogether, let alone on the Bible?
It was Franklin Pierce. He chose to affirm rather than swear an oath. Everybody has this right, and quite a few people use it. Elected officials are not required to use the Bible, witnesses in court may use the Quran, and judges can simply affirm their pledge to uphold the law. Not only is this allowed, but it is guaranteed, because Christianity does not have any special privilege under the law, nor does any other religion.
The protestant KJV bible is an important part of the nation's history, and part of the nation, yes, but it isn't a source of law as far as federal or state constitutions, legislation or common law is concerned, except as it may non-bindingly influence the legislature to create statutes or judges to create common law.
No US court says the bible is binding law. Try the UK where Protestantism is the official state religion and the head of state swears to uphold the "Laws of God."
Well, today we like higher standards of identification for certain methods of travel.
OK, so now you just have to move somewhere where you can get an IDP without holding a conventional driver's license. I reject the idea that people should get to fling two tons of steel around at high speeds with a scrawled "X" as their identification. Screw that.
Yeah, it is off-topic. Don't post about the IDP again.
On the contrary — legislatures care quite a bit about majority opinions. Unless you can drum up some more support for your loony falsehoods, it is you whose opinions are disregarded by legislatures, police, and courts.
If you don't get back to the topic of the right to travel in the US you're going to get hit with the ban hammer.
Ok folks…lets have class. Money..its a tool that allow commerce. When you buy a car and title it..it is now under to clouds. First, money is a tool that you agree to use for an agreement. That agreement declares that the Treasury Dept now is the collateral holder of your property. You can possess car drive car sell car but it is not really yours. The title gives you those rights. The title declares that it is property deemed as a vehicle. We all know what fed vehicle code defines a vehicle as. You have to kill this commerce purchase with money of your automobile first. 2nd no title. Recieve title at property transfer "not sell"declaring recieved as property not vehicle. 3rd if you have active registration on your newly obtained property..it must be expired or unregistered. 4th…the drivers license.. rescending a dL legally….???? Affidavit of fact etc. Expired??? Thats another trail. Good luck and I welcome comments. Remember Jesus threw a fit when moneychangers were at the temple. The reason was because the money required made it requiring a tax and put the church offering into a tax criteria and also made the offering the King's property as the collateral holder the same way our treasury dept does us everytime we use that dollar for commerce!!!!
Any evidence for any of that wacky crap?
Includes means the two choices which are present and those are the two types of license. You obtain class D CDL ( commercial drivers license) or greater depending on what type of "occupation" you are engaged. There is no personal auto license. Troll
More dribble out of the mouths of the "foam at the mouth, occupy a bird refuge" nut case brigade. Section 521 sets out the classifications of licenses including those which are Class A which are and this is important "slavish nut" – NOT COMMERCIAL operators of vehicles.
not once in all the above comments did anyone reference this law which defines allot of the wording states like to change for their benefit. U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 2 › § 31 so this would seem to change things a little and make the wording of some state laws Invalid! ?? yes / no??
You can find USC definitions explained here: http://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states#comment-2612276823
Per your advice i re-read what you posted and found this>>> States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts.<<<<
So federal says this: (6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
So federal law clearly defines it as "for Commercial purpose" yet States say all vehicles commercial or not!
So this seems to be against, or in contrary to federal law.
Unless I'm reading this wrong????
Completely wrong. Read it again…
"Includes" can be inclusive or exclusive, depending on the legislative intent. Typically it is inclusive.
"Commercial" in "Commercial Driver's License" usually refers to the size and weight of the vehicle. Naturally, with larger, heavier vehicles special training is required so you don't end up crushing cars and killing people. Can you find one state licensing code that says "Commercial Driver's License" refers to commercial vs. non-commercial use of the highways? I don't think you can.
In the Illinois Vehicle Code find the following definitions and use them with the law below and you should see that you need a driver's license, plate, insurance, etc. to legally operate any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads whether acting "for hire" or not:
Sec. 1-115.8. Drive. To drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.
Sec. 1-116. Driver. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Sec. 1-116.1. Driver's license. Any license to operate a motor vehicle issued under the laws of this State.
Sec. 1-126. Highway. The entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or located on public school property.
Sec. 1-146. Motor vehicle. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, low-speed electric bicycles, and low-speed gas bicycles.
Sec. 1-217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway … except devices moved by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles …
Driver's license requirement: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K6-101
Insurance requirement: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K7-601
Plate requirement: http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K3-701.htm
What does that have to do with the license, registration and insurance requirements? The word "commerce" isn't used in any of them. And "transportation" isn't used in the definition of "vehicle" as you claim. Nice try, though.
"transported" is not equal to "transportation". In law, such specificity matters a lot.
It says "transported", not "transport". "transported" is not part of "transportation", and words are not defined by obscure applications of the name of the agency. Since "transported" isn't specifically defined, the state court decides. Why don't you try it out next time you get a speeding ticket and thereby gain standing to raise the issue. When it works on the record please come back and post the PDF of the judge's order. You could get your ticket thrown out, and force the legislature to amend the code to cover your clever ass. 🙂
Cases are dismissed at the discretion of the prosecutor or judge for various reasons. This doesn't prove a right, just that the court chose not to spend exorbitant amounts of taxpayer time and money on minor civil disobedience. If you had an actual right you could win damages for false arrest when you're detained or arrested for operating a vehicle on the public roads without a license. Let me know when that happens.
U r so fullofschitt, ur faciligism, is ridiculous pathetic and idiotic.
The "court" is not a court, but, a military tribunal, run by the Vatican, no less. Fraudulent fraudulent fraudulent…
The right to travel, may NOT be converted into a privilege granted by the state. U should know that. Your karma, is particularly nasty, and, it is about to be unleashed all right upon your head. I wouldn't want to be you, anytime soon. You know, everything righteous and good, hates liars…?
What does that have to do with license, registration and mandatory insurance? Everything. First and foremost-
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape
liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware
of its content.‘ It is a longstanding principle that, absent a clear expression of contrary congressional intent, "ignorance of the law is no defense,"
United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Co., 402 U.S. 558, 563 (1971)
Jerman v Carlisle; No. 08-1200, 2009
“Ignorance of a statute is generally no defense even to a criminal prosecution, and it is never a defense in a civil case, no matter how recent, obscure, or opaque the statute.” Torres v. INS, 144 F.3d 472, 474 (7th Cir. 1998)
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
So NO MATTER WHAT THE STATE DEFINES IN ITS TRANSPORTATION CODES-NO state can include those who are not operating in a commercial capacity. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution clearly states that state laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances or any other thing purporting to be official is exempted and render null and void if it is in opposition to a Federal laws, Constitutional Right or Federal Court Decision.
>>No State has the legal authority to legislate or implement a mandatory drivers license for non-commercial operation of a personal automobile or vehicle.<>>>>"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."<<<<<
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.”
Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Moreover,
1: Traffic infractions are not crimes.
2: drivers license laws, not involving a commercial activity can be ignored with impunity.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. – The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…"
10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…" State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Every police officer who writes a ticket for 'driving without a license' when the alleged offender is not operating a commercial motor vehicle COMMITS TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES-the penalty for such can be assessed at death by lethal injection. Every tow truck driver who impounds a persons private vehicle CAN BE FOUND GUILTY OF ACCESSORY.
Because Ignorance of existing controlling federal court decisions is not an excuse.
No, driving is a commercial activity, the same exact activity without compensation, or payment is called 'travelling', and is NOT regulated by the state.
If you have trouble with grasping this, then your education failed from day one, and, your diploma is utterly worthless…
":
V C Section 260 Commercial Vehicle
Commercial Vehicle
260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.
(d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.
Not for HIRE, you are a TRAVELLER, and the state can go ____ itself. Period. You damn liar pseudolaw!!!
What I find funny is he keeps saying motor vehicle, defines it and still don't get it. Look at title 18 of the us code. section 31. Sorry but states can't define that which has been defined.
"motor vehicle" is defined numerous times throughout the USC. These definitions only apply to federal charges brought under specific sections of the USC. You can find the scope at the top, e.g. "In this chapter…" The definitions used in a state court on a state vehicle code charge can be found at the top of the state vehicle code title or chapter. If you look at every state's code, particularly the driver's license and financial responsibility chapters and sections, you will find the term "motor vehicle" applies to all self-propelled vehicles using the public roads whether performing commercial activity or not. State courts cannot ignore definitions handed down by the state legislature on a state charge. Sorry, but the internet lied.
Says who? US Code definitions are as binding on the states as definitions from Australia or the United Nations.
NOT! Include, does NOT mean exclude. You are beyond dishonest, you are simply of evil intent. Your karma, shall, not must, SHALL, as in, it WILL be exquisite, and, either seven, ten, or one hundred fold, as it all comes back to destroy you. Karma, is what you reap, as your bad intentions sowed. The only force or energy stronger than the great balancer, Karma, is, LOVE! YOU SHOULD PROBABLY DO A GOOGLE SEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT WORD LOVE MEANS. It is glaringly apparent, you haven't the slightest notion what love is. It is not about lying and deceiving others.
Yep, CVC Section 260 does exactly that for registration
Logically then, most of the CVC's are referring to vehicles used in commerce and those that are not!
The definition of Motor Vehicle as in the Dept. of, means "commercial"
According to the CVC most travelers aren't required to have licencing or registration. Being prudent keeps me insured, not a statute.
That's what I read in my 2015 CVC! You should read it so you'll know next time
All law is commercial since 1933. Tell the judge this right away at your arraignment and you'll have no objections defending your case using the common law, the superior law in all California courts!
It would be better if non-commercial licenses were specifically listed in 521.001(3), but Chapter 521 doesn't make much sense unless you accept that noncommercial driver's licenses are assumed to be the standard, and (3)(A) and (3)(B) merely specify that those two types of licenses are to be considered equivalent to a standard noncommercial driver's license.
521.021, 521.025, and the entirety of Chapter 522 (titled COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSES) don't make much sense otherwise.
If you actually read the state codes you will find that Commercial Driver's Licenses often have nothing to do with anyone's occupation, but the size and weight of the vehicle. With larger, heavier, commercially-sized vehicles, different training is needed so you don't lose control and kill a bunch of people.
See California for example:
My 5600 lb Dodge RAM 1500 got a "commercial" registration from the lovable Nazi's at the Calif. DMV!
What you say is, is not always the case my friend!
Realize, you are dealing with organized crime here and take the necessary precautions to protect yourself!
Yes, most states have "commercial licenses" for vehicles that are a certain size and weight. This is because certain skills are needed to operate a heavy machine without killing people. State CDLs usually have nothing to do with whether you use the highways for profit or not. Read the law and you'll know.
Yes, most states have "commercial licenses" for vehicles that are a certain size and weight. This is because certain skills are needed to operate a heavy machine without killing people. State CDLs usually have nothing to do with whether you use the highways for profit or not. Read the law and you'll know.
The CVC section 260 reads what commercial vehicles are and which are required to be registered and which vehicles are not required to be registered!
Looks like it is you that should read the law before telling us what it says!
Unfortunately, California considers pickup trucks (as defined in CA Veh Code § 471) to be "designed primarily for the transportation of property," regardless of whether they're used commercially or not.
It also defines my truck weight class as non commercial
The the DMV sends a registration designating it as "commercial" violating their own VC!
Apparently as a San Jose CA judge once told me, they just make up what they want, you have to go ask them." Which of course I did not and walked out a free man with my money intact!
Where does it define your truck's weight class as non-commercial?
The CVC defines it. Their definition of commercial does not include my trucks weight class
hence, my truck is not commercial being under the minimum weight designated to be classed as commercial!
In state vehicle codes, "commercial" is almost always used to describe a classification of vehicles based on size and weight to ensure that people are properly trained so they don't kill people when they drive them, and has nothing to do with whether you are earning a profit or the totally unfounded sovereign theory that the government can only regulate commercial activity.
Where do you see a minimum weight limit? Looks like they've defined pickup trucks as motor vehicles primary designed for the transportation of property, as described in CVC 260.
Drivers licenses defines the weight limit for vehicle commercial registration
Registration codes define them as well. Don't remember their numbers.
Section 260 just defines any vehicle used in commerce as one "Required" to be registered,
any vehicle used on the roads in not in commerce are NOT required to be registered.
My truck weight comes in under their minimum weight limit to be considered commercial
so that means the DMV registration is incorrect. They violate their own rules, again!
Read CVC 260 again or stop lying. If you lie about it again, I will ban you.
Why is that unfortunate?
FYI, hauling ones personal property on the public roadways is not an act of being in commerce!
It's unfortunate because, presumably, pickup owners have to pay more to register them due to the wording and implementation of CVC 260, which considers pickup trucks "designed primarily for the transportation of property," which makes them "commercial vehicles" under the law.
Section 260 doesn't say that Ken. Stop making things up!
"(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property."
Here, I found some more for you:
Why listen to anything the DMV tells you…they are a private profit making corporation and not part of any State…just say NO!
The State DMV is a public institution created under the constitutional laws of the State. For example, here's a reference to its history in California.
You do realize a Texas judge just ruled it to be unconstitutional to require a driver's license or to have plates on your vehicle. Secondly it's not the states highways or roads because government cannot own property, thirdly when our tax dollars pay for those roads, highways, and the law enforcement that regulate them they are our roads and highways not the states. Government is nothing more than representatives of the people and governments limited through the Constitution. This country gives power to the people not power to the government making them nothing more than the voice of the people and making all public roads and highways ours not governments.
Please cite the case directly so we can see it in context for ourselves. Highway regulation clearly falls under the state police power.
The government holds everything in trust for the benefit of the people. The country gives power to the collective, not individual, will of the people. The US is a representative democracy based on popular sovereignty. Do you really think you can personally dictate how 320 million people's tax dollars are spent? No, the need and will of the majority rules.
Constitutional republic and individual sovereignty.
Wrong!!! The US is a Constitutional Republic…"democracy" is best represented by the French Revolution…majority rules…minority lose their heads…
Republics are democratic. In a Republic the People's elected representatives make the law.
You're so many layers of wrong, it's amazing. No, no judge has ruled licensing and registration laws to be unconstitutional. Yes, governments can own property, because they exist in law. Where are you getting this loony garbage?
Legislature
does not restrict the right to travel when it sets conditions and restrictions
on the operation of motor vehicles. Hendrick, 235 U.S at 624, 35 S.Ct. 140.”
Good example of a state case, there! For the viewers at home, that's an excerpt from State v. Cason, a 2012 Maine Supreme Judicial Court case where a six-judge panel wrote a two-page decision affirming a conviction for violating registration laws, despite Mr. Cason's insistence that they violate his "right to travel."
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18433110020117983348
All this legalese is garbage. The founders wrote the constitution in plain language so it could be understood and implemented in a practical way by every person. Cars did not exist then, and freedom of personal movement is so basic and implicit they thought not to enumerate it, although. Something might be in the articles of the confederation. I think the driving is a privelege jot a right bullshit is way too played out, its about govt control, harrassing and collecting. Lets amend the constitution to protect our freedom in common modern everyday modes of transportation withouthaving to get a permit or express permission from our government.
If you sacrifice freedom for safety or security, in the end you will have neither.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
Yeah, if i was quoting banjamin franklin i wouldhave used these things ""
That is whatthis key on my keyboard is for right? "" """"""""" maybe its a catpaw scratching or something….
When did you have freedom? No matter what governments come and go we're all chained to this mortal coil, forced to eat, sleep, shit and die, held down by gravity, limited technology, etc. Freedom doesn't really exist, at least while we live, except perhaps in spirit / mind. I'm not sure safety or security exist, either.
There is certainly value in organizing into societies, tribes, hives, etc. with rules – we see it all throughout nature. We see it all over the world. Global organization is responsible for the internet, for example. I am not certain such organizations, or government, always become corrupt, but they might. That's when we as humans storm the capitol and reboot the system, only to try the same thing all over again. It's not that hard to do, but it takes the majority of people being dissatisfied with the government, and I don't see that happening in so-called western countries anytime soon.
Until all the people are ready to be more self-sufficient and disorganized, I guess you'll just have to do what you can for yourself within the existing paradigm. I might suggest moving to an unincorporated area to avoid minor bylaws and traffic cops, and to reduce your dependency on government services and reduce cost to voluntary participants of municipalities. You could stop buying cars, computers, internet services, clothes, food, etc., that support corporations that support the system. That's what I would do if I wanted to live free and reduce or eliminate the government.
As noted by the Supreme court and pointed out in the article, the federal government doesn't really seek to regulate the highways generally. That is seen as part of the State's police power, perfectly reasonable for the maintenance of the health of the citizens and legal and geographical residents. Interpretation of the law is for the courts, not individuals such as yourself, but thanks for sharing your ideas…
If in fact the State reserves the right to license anyone and everyone, within reason, to operate an automobile on public roads, then the state should be held liable for any damages caused by said licensees, for they verified that the licensee is qualified to engage in such activity.
By damages being caused by the licensee, it proves that they were NOT in fact qualified to engage in such activity, and the state is at fault for allowing the licensee to engage in the activity. Why then, are WE forced to pay for insurance before being able to register our automobiles? Why then, are WE held liable for damages the STATE is supposed to prevent?
By holding US liable, they state that we are the only responsible party for ensuring that the roads are safe, which means that a license should not be required, as a license generally verifies our capability in ensuring the safe engagement of that activity.
And what about the first time two people disagree about what it means?
There's no explicit mention in the Constitution, true. The legal right to travel in the United States is derived from the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as common law tradition. It doesn't extend to rolling thousands of pounds of steel mere feet from other cars and pedestrians at high speed without fulfilling certain requirements.
Yes its called take a test after that YOU ARE FREE TO GO!! NO FUCKING LICENSE except commercial, for profit!! I AM NOT A SLAVE!!! I KNOW MY RIGHTS AND THE LAW OF GOD!!!
Well…clearly you don't, since that's not how the law works. That's not what it says, that's not what it does, and your personal theories about divine right are irrelevant in American courts.
Silly diatribe that means nothing. Take your "god" bullshit and ride the bus.
Clearfield Doctrine, Clearfield v. United States, 318 U.S, 363, 371 (1942) , Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 (2000) We the People are the RULERS OVER OUR government!!! Time to start hanging ALL traitors to the Republic for Which it Stands !!!!
No, brian bell, the Clearfield decision doesn't mean that governments are legally equivalent to McDonald's.
So what you are saying is that if you have a license you won't lose control and kill a bunch of people.? I have been in an automobile most of my life (I'm 50 now and started when I was 10) I have owned in the past about 5 different automobiles. I have insurance and they classify my van as automobile because it is not big enough to be a Motor Vehicle they said. So why doesn't the state recognize that same thing? I have tabs, license plates and insurance just no driver's license. I am going to MN state court soon over this same thing. The state contends that having a license keeps the public safe, I contend that it is just a tax wrapped up to look like a license fee.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c48b4c2ef1cbed45123199a8b498e838a105ab2e1daebe156f43c3879bbd73a0.png
If they lost control they would likely kill themselves too right. Good we need some stress adaptation, we have been carrying the dummies along for too long, he gene pool is tainted.
Nice post, very astute noticing of governmental wordplay. Extremely dishonest, don't you agree? Not just the "state" but especially pseudolaw, a gov shill, so, it would OBVIOUSLY seem…
You are an idiot. The law as described MUST be specific and CANNOT be vague. If it says this thing is A or B then there is no C through Z………IDIOT.
Let me know when you have specific facts to support your drivel. Now go play in traffic
If at all possible, pull your head out of the posterior region of your meat bag and embrace the FACT that legislation is subject to judicial review to determine the constitutionality of the legislative branches attempts to convert individual LIBERTY into a privilege for the sole purpose of generating revenue for the State. It is not a pick and choose to apply appropriate Judicial opinion to matters of material likeness. Apples to apples as the story goes.
Non-issue. The sole issue is that no court anywhere in the USA has done what you claim.
What's not specific about it?
Another idiot who cherry picks portions of a statute out of context and claims they signify something other than what they actually mean. Let me know when you actually know ehat you are talking about.
Well, your opinion is your own but the HIGHEST COURT IN TEXAS disagrees with your premise.
Claude D.CAMPBELL, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 27245.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 12,1985
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended.The County Court, Panola County, Clifford S. Roe, J., rendered judgment, and an appeal was taken.The Court of Criminal Appeals, Belcher, C., held that proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
1. Automobiles Key 353
Upon a charge of operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while operator's license is suspended, the state has burden of showing that defendant had been issued an operator's license to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway, that such license has been suspended, and that, while such license was suspended, defendant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
2. Automobiles Key 352
Proof that defendant had driven an automobile while his driver's license was suspended did not sustain allegations of charge that he had driven while his operator's license was suspended.
3. Automobiles Key 136
There is in Texas no such license as a "driver's license."
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted, in the County Court Panola County, for unlawfully operating- a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator's license was suspended, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $25.
[1]Under such a charge, the state was under the burden of showing that there had been issued an operator's license to appellant to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway;that such license had been suspended;and that, while such license was suspended, appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.
To meet this requirement, the state here relies upon testimony that appellant drove his pick-up truck upon a public highway in Panola County, on the date alleged, and that he drove said motor vehicle while his license was suspended.
"This proof is insufficient to 'sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver's license is not an operator's license.We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law.
Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400;
Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W. 2d 303; and
Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317.
Proof of the driving of an automobile while the driver's license was suspended does not sustain the allegations of the information.The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
****************************************************************************************
So, while you carefully seek out evidence to support your opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals claims by its reversal of a driving while drivers license suspended allegation BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LICENSE KNOWN IN TEXAS LAW AS A 'DRIVERS LICENSE.'
That ruling was in fact from 1955, so it's quite dated. The law is always changing, and the legislature can amend and replace acts and change the words, phrases and definitions used in them. You can read the current Texas Transportation Code to see how it is now. Driver licensing appears in Title 7, Section 521, and in 521.001(3) we find, for purposes of that section and subsections, "driver's license" clearly defined.
And section 521.021 states:
State courts are employed to enforce the current state legislature-provided definitions and laws – they can't ignore them. Texas apparently used to use the term "operator's license" instead of "driver's license", as noted in related cited cases. Confusion apparently arose because the title of the act was Driver's License Act, and the license was called an operator's license. The operator's license requirement in 1955 appears to be quite similar to the driver's license requirement of 521.021 today. We can look at the public legislative record to see exactly when and why things changed.
Stare Decisis: Between 1946 and 1959, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas consistently ruled that there is no such thing as a driver’s license anywhere within Texan law. Hassell v. State (1946) found that the enabling statute, despite its title being the Driver’s License Act, only required either an “operators,” “commercial operators,” or “chauffeurs” license. As Judge Davidson put it: “The term ‘driver’ – as used in the Act – is defined to be: ‘Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.’ In view of this particular definition of the term ‘driver,’ it cannot be said that such term may be used interchangeably with or given the same meaning as the term ‘operator.as used in the Texas Transportation Code.
Although this may seem like petty squabbling over semantics to you, the definitions being used for words in legalese is actually quite significant. The entire basis for the Court’s interpretation pivots on whether a “driver” is synonymous with an “operator,” which they decided it was not. In Campbell v. State (1955), Commissioner Belcher wrote: “This proof is insufficient to sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver’s license is not an operator’s license.
The State Legislature has not defined what a 'driver' is for the purposes of the defined difference between its current use of the term 'operator' and 'driver' for the purposes of 'driver's license. Given the doctrine of 'stare decisis' combined with the US Supremacy Clause, the federal definition controls. A 'driver' is the operator of a commercial motor vehicle.
The Texas Legislature originally required the licensure of those who made their livelihoods off of using the public roads, but then they broadened the scope of licensure quite a lot in 1935, and then again in 1941; yet, the language in the 1948 edition of the V.A.C.S. is noticeably dissimilar from what the 1995 Revisor’s Report claimed the “source law” said it was, which itself is considered to be the basis for the “revised law” that is SB 971, and ultimately, § 521.021 of the Transportation Code. While the issue has not recently been before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that Court disagreed with the legislative intent of the Driver’s License Act, because they interpreted an operator’s license to be fundamentally different from a driver’s license, despite the nearly identical definitions in the 1942 and 1994 supplement of the V.A.C.S. Art. 6687b § 1(l) & (m) for “driver” and “operator,” respectively.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), there were 2,796,862 licensed Texas drivers in 1950; but by 2010, there were 15,157,650 of them. In 1950, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, there were 7,711,194 Texans, and by 2010, the total Texas population grew to be 25,145,561 people. In 1950, 1 in 3 Texans was a licensed driver, which has since increased to 1 in 2 Texans by 2010.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/section3.html
An argument favoring the right to travel could be based upon Article I §§ 19 and 29 of the Texas Constitution; “No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land. [Art. I § 19, Tex. Const. and “To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this ‘Bill of Rights’ is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void. [Art. I § 29, Tex. Const.] Also the Comity Clause (Art. IV § 2 cl. 1) of the US Constitution: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” [Art. IV § 2, U.S. Const.]
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (The Federalist Papers, #78.)
Just because the Texas Legislature passed a drivers license requirement does not make that statute a valid law.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
You do understand that the law changes over time, and the legislature can repeal, replace and amend legislation it creates, correct? Start by looking at the origins of the modern Transportation Code, e.g. here. If you disagree as to the constitutionality of a statute then your remedy is to defend yourself and appeal as high as possible when you're charged to potentially get it overturned. If the courts don't agree a law should be overturned then you have to live with it unless you can convince enough people and your representatives to change the law.
hi I just want to include something here. I dont want to start an argument but here we go so I go a paper about my ticket and right on it they say "Failure to pay may result in revocation of your driving PRIVILEGES" ok so driving is a right not privilege. Does this not already prove outright that they dont know what they are talking about? I live in Michigan and they have begun to list driving as a "privilege" its not and has never been a privilege it is a constitutionally afforded right. Simply by them trying to classify it as a privilege they are trying to infringe on my rights. I'm not saying right to travel lets you endanger lives any traffic infractions you get are yours to deal with they have the right to regulate /how/ you drive but not ever 'IF' you can drive or not. People seem to be getting so defensive over this but the law is clear all personal operation of a personally owned vehicle is your right and cannot be infringed upon. You can get tickets for speeding or not using a turn signal or having and out headlight as all theses things are law violations. Not allowed to make a lw that requires licensing in the first place though.
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
The aim of this discussion isn't to get to speed down the street being an irresponsible asshole that is and always should be illegal but having the right to drive property you own is a right and anyone trying to tell you differently only has something to gain out you continuing to be held down. If you own a bicycle you can ride it down the middle of the road without paying any taxes at all. There was time when this was true for motorized vehicles as well. The one thing we know to be 100% true with the law is that over the years it continues to get more and more oppressive and the public keeps getting more and more submissive to blatant violations of loss of liberty. The same bullshit way we got income tax and the war on drugs and illegal drone warfare and false chemical weapons going to war over 9/11 its always been lies. I'm not looking to trigger anyone here there are citations for everything im saying and ill happily go find them again and give them to you. The cia outright admits to both being directly involved in Kennedy assassination and smuggling Hitler out of germany twords the end of the war. Agian I DO HAVE citations for this and you are free to look at them and think for yourself if you read the information and come away from it thinking its bullshit thats your right im not here to convince you. I personally believe it to be true based off the evidence I have seen. My point is at every turn year after year our laws get nothing but more and more restrictive and less liberating. In the forefathers world violence and such was more common but thats a part of life. You dont get to have a perfectly safe society where everyone is perfectly kept in line and controlled like a robot to be perfectly level headed 100% of the time without some seriously major civil liberty violations. Otherwise the prison system would work 100% right? Its entirely based off of taking away all basic rights and magically assuming that will fix the problem.
The problems with our government run very very deep and I think the forefathers realised the government is going to need to be reset every few hundre3d years to root out corruption. If we lived like the consitution suggests then wed all be free and all able body eople (not just men anymore yay more equality thats what the us is about right?) would be trained to used a rifle and be 100% willing to go to wor with their own government if it starts takign advantage of them. We live in a time of people being nothing but little pushovers not willing to get up off their ass and do shit for anyone even themselves. We live in a world of 'oh someone else will get it later'. The entire mindset of existence is broken and warped by decades of media programming. Call it all consipiracy theroy or sad unintended consequences the effect is the same. we live in a world of emotionally weak people who will the be the death of everything that has ever been great in the world. The weak people in islam let the cruel insane ones speak for them the weak citizenship let the corrupt politicians speak for them. I just want change I dont want to fight with any of you why cant we work together to figure this out? SO MANY of our laws are unconstitutional based on the face value. In a truely free world if you owned a car you could drive it to go to work. A car is a horse is a bike is your own two feet. To the founders they wouldn't care it helps a man woman child live their life and provide for themselves it should be consitutionally (and it is) recoginzed as a right of life and be protected. It was and has been and yet now we have been lied to our entire lives and its hard to admit when youre fooled but we have been and thats the truth its time we stopped just going along witheverything out of fear of being arrested or killed or jsut fined. We need tostart asking why agian and start demanding a change i nthe right direction. We the people make our laws. In a system where the majority rules and the rich minority has made the majority poor well now youre going to see all the governmental policies favor the poor becasue its majority rules. Democracy encourages that at least 51% of people have to prosper for them to stay in political power 51% of the population has to agree on who represents them. this has never happened once in history No one votes no one gives a shit anymore they feel defeated becasue year after year we get to pick our new president not elect a representivtive that should lead us each 4 years we get to choose how do we want to get fucked ouver? Red or Blue? red or blue neither is oging to make the world a better place thye are all in it for themselves. Lets use common sense. Not 'what would be best for public safety but would violate consitutuinal rights in the process and is there fore illegal to try and make law i nthe first place" All gun and drug laws gone instantly. No governmental body has any right to say that fire rates or any of that can be made illegal. The point of a trained militia is to have a military force level of training in every township to protect the township. To have on par weaponry to go up against our own army if they defect and align to a political power instead of a Constitution. Police are citizens and they have become our pseudo militia. But in reality if we lived how the constitution describes then wed all be trained when we come of age to handle fully automatic weaponry for the defense of our town and its citizenry. The idea of police is they are normal citizens who can help keep the peace help deescalate situatuions and help keeps things going in a good way. They are not military or have a single right that any free citizen dosent have. The town Militia was what was supposed to apply with the second amendment it is our right to organize and elong to a militia for our local town city /w/e and it is our right to posses a weapon on par to what is available to the federal government or arguably (if you want to have separation of military grade weaponry and civilian grade weaponry) what ever assets are avaliable to the police as they are common citizens like the militia would be. Militias are a constitutional right. Fuck it even take away common citizen gun rights and it still protects militias right to bear arms equivalent to anything the government has as the point of a militia was to fight its own government should the government tpe out of line and there is expected to have the same level of technology that any government is allowed to have. It is the vehicle to which the american people are allowed to defense themselves and a manner in which they can peacefully mobilize an armed force as a show of strength to their politicians to keep them in line. I am free to admit things has changed but have they changed for the better? How many more small things and large dneed to happen before a revolution is started and countless lives are lost because is dosent matter which side your on if things keep happening the way they are that is the only outcome. For frame of reference to the democracy thing if the rich wetre 51% instead of 1% of our population things would be alot more peaceful. Follow the money its the root of everything in politics. for you people terified of 'irresponsible peole with guns' this wouldnt exist in the framers of the constituations minds becasue evry citizen when they come of age would be trained to hadle them firearms werent 'for fun' back then they were a part of life. Everyone respected them because everyone had used or been around them long enough to learn that respect. So to stifle that argument out the gate. No there really wouldnt be many irresponsible people with guns in this case. You have to apply to join your militia and once you do you can now excescise your right to carry a gun anytwhere you want your purpose is to be willign to defend anyone you see in trouble. You are supposed to be the armed police and the cop are supposed to be unarmed peace officers that help defuse tension are help KEEP THE PEACE.
It's really quite simple – In the early 1900's the people demanded laws about motorized vehicles and their representatives in all 50 state legislatures obliged. State vehicle codes, generally, have never been struck down by the federal government as being beyond the scope of the states constitutional police power. As mentioned in the article, you can find the Supreme Court speaking to this in Hendrick v Maryland:
I dont understand how people can keep saying that the stat has given itself though illegal legislation this power to require licensing? Your side seems to be saying it doesnt matter its so long ago this happened just let it stay and im saying hey we figured out they slipped this by us how do we get an updated vote on the matter? What would be the steps required to get and honest vote here? How does the possession of a license to which there are quite a few references saying that doing so is makign an illegal law and peopel still dont get it? You say the law changes al lthe time well why the hell cant we change it back to being proper? Please explain it to me? im not here to fight like some or to troll liek other can you please devote some time to me and explain it?
there are points i nthere and while I admit mayben the suthor got a few wrong the fact that there any conflictign opinions worries me. I want to follow the law but I dont have the money to afford all the costs of it but I cant get work without a car. In a time where your LIFE depends on you have and being allowed to freely utilise for personal use a damn car how can this be tolerated still? Change the lws then so how do we do it? people never give solutions they jsut keep arguing a compromise would be say w/e the law is here we dont liek so lets change it rather than goping back and forth saying it is real no it isnt its jsut divinsion and what we need in unity
Last thing I dont want to annoy you would you be willing to go through this specific website and point out how its ilelgla or invalid? I just dont understand what side to believe. I tend to not believe the one saying I owe money to do somthing I have the physical freedom to do and have zero intention of harming anyone or not lettign anyone do the same with their car.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
You really need to read those cases in full for yourself. Thompson v Smith, for example, clearly says licenses can be required of anyone operating a private automobile:
If you can't even understand the first one I don't know why I should bother debunking the rest…
I will go though and read more I read a few and I fully admit the wording is being taken out of context by quite a few people on a few different cases yet there are still cases that clearly state it is a right and those are the past decisions I would present my personal case with should I ever have the occasion to take it to court. Please look past the first one and read some more? I copy and pasted that from someone else its was jsut a huge list and I didnt go through and make sure each exaple he gave applied perfectly. I just wanted to send the message off to you quickly. There are several direct quotes that talk about driving being a right. You keep saying if you dont like it than change that lwas well if we go this route we must first be acknoldaging that the laws were leagl i nthe first place it is our contention that this is not the case and they are illegal. You dont revote illegal laws away you take the mto ocurt and prove your case yes?
This and every other of my posts are my opinion if im using the term illegal it is becasue my understanding of the law suggests it is so. I'm not an expert but I do want to defend my stance. So say for sake of argument how would I make a motion to get driving classified as a right if it techinically isnt allready?
So say for sake of argument how would I make a motion to get driving classified as a right if it techinically isnt allready? just in case you dont feel liek readign the longer psot with this at the end. I'm really jsut here for advice but I do want my position clear I believe anything that is a requirment of being able to provide a life for yourself is a right. You are required to have valid transportation for employment. You are required to have a home addres for employment you are required to have a means of electronic communication for employment. The obama phone regan phone thing is the way the too poor can excersise their right to wireless electronic communication. The homeless thing is stil lridiculous when did the states ever get the right to say 'person a has no right to compensate person b for work provided unless they sign a contract and pay income tax. You dont have the right to live unless you pay for it from the government
finally. Where can we all move to? where is there land to stat a new country? if this one is so broken we decide we just want out instead of trying to save a lost casue. Where in the world can we go? oh thats right we need to buy passports and get shots and all kinds of shit before we are allowed to even walk out of the country. does that sound liek freedom? you keep telling me these are the lwas theese are the laws we must follow them or try to change them. Im saying they cant be caleld laws becasue all lwa must legally exist. So agian if we jsut want to get the hell out of here where can we go and how can we do it? Say i legally own my car and I decide to leave the country I'm not allowed to drive it out of the country becasue i dont have a liscense so agian how am I to get my property out of this sinking ship?
operating a private automobile for profit. Driving to a parking lot is not for profit driving while on the clock is driving for profit. Thats what I take away from this. I can drive to the store freely no liscense but if my boss askes me to drive for work id have to say sorry im not liscenced to drive for work. Does that help you understand my point of view at all?
Read your state constitution, then read the enactments of the constitutional state legislature including the vehicle code. Find the definitions of "drive", "motor vehicle", "vehicle", "highway", etc. in that code and use them when reading the section that says you need a driver's license. Then come back.
thank you ill start there.
ok so lets say im wrong . I have no job, no money, and no house but I own a car. How am I to get any of those three previous things without using my car until I can afford to legally? I really feel like this is where everyone is comming from. Hey im fucking helples here and I do own a car that im allowed to live in but I cant drive it once im told its not allowed to exist in this parking space any more? like how is this suppsoed to work? Im just lost here and none of this is making sense and I might not even be alive come a month becasue of some words on a piece of paper that go agianst common sense. like im starving to death becase im so damn broke I cant even afford fodod and I doing my damnsest but what gives? I cant hunt or fish to feed myself i cant get a job without breaking the law or applying for some serious disability benefits I just want to support myself and live my own life
I doubt it's a valid defense. Check case law in your state on Scholar.
im just saying my situation I'm asking how am I to get ahead? all i have is a car if this wasent the year were in call it all me havign is a horse. If all i had wa horse at least i could ride it around but I cant live in a hose while waiting to get o nmy fee agian. I have to have a car becasue i need shelter /and/ transportation. I dont expect you to know the answer but I'm jsut pointing out I really think its becasue there isn one other than for me to jsut say oh well ill jsut go die now. I have no legal options avaliable to me.
A prosecutor might exercise discretion to not follow through on any charges if you're caught driving but eventually you'll have to deal with it. Fishing and hunting licenses are not particularly expensive…
I own a knife to hunt id have to set snares I dont own a gun and cant afford one. we are talking about me needing to break the law i doubt i could survive off of huntign and fishing with the limitations on how much game im allowed to take. I dont have refridgeration I cant store things out of season. I dont want to argue ill go read more and hope to god the answer shows its self but if it dosent i gaurentee ill be dead before the end of the year
This is getting seriously off topic. Google: homeless help [your city/county/state]
I didnt intend that I'm sorry. But how can you say im free if the laws in place prevent me from being self sufficent? I have to go to other people for 'homeless help' becasue the law is preventing me from takign care of myself? im not free i dont feel free. thank you your respect youve shown take care of yourself
The US is more free than most other countries, but you're not grateful. In an orderly society such as the US there are laws surrounding property ownership. I recommend purchasing some amazingly cheap land and beginning to learn how to be more self sufficient.
this cheap land would take 1 month of employment to be able to afford. I cant get employment without being able to use a car. do you still not see how this cycle keeps going?
Yeah, you got yourself into quite a pickle. Well, good luck. Come back when you want to get back on topic of the right to travel specifically.
Im pointing out real word negative effects of the deprivation of what I hold to be a right of all. this is relating to the topic. As it is a direct effect fro mthe topic being written in law. the law is deprivign the right to life.
this is what is happening to not just myself so yo ucant say its not true. These laws that do nothing to prevent actual crime from taking place are cornering people in a way that prevents them from makign a living for themselves. Should I just get a horse?
Yeah, well, many more people die from vehicle accidents in countries with less regulation, so there's that…
yea and its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on accident but you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents
laws cant prevent accidents and not deprive rights at the same time.
What makes you think that?
Anyway, it's clearly not true… why is it illegal to walk around with a nuke? Because even explicit rights like the right to bear arms are able to be reasonably limited for public safety. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)
You frequently resort to extreme examples. Private ownership of a "nuclear explosive device" is prohibited because it is a weapon of mass destruction, and has no use in personal protection. An M16A3 is prohibited from private usage (one can still own this gun and use it at approved firearms ranges given the proper permits) because it is a destructive weapon and is excessive for personal protection, being a fully automatic weapon. However, California and New York still do infringe upon the second amendment rights because they fully prohibit the ownership and use of any weapon that can cause significant personal harm, outside the use for hunting and other recreational sport, including but not limited to a handgun, a shotgun, a knife longer than 3", and/or a semi automatic rifle.
Miltiadem "yea and its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on
accident but you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents
laws cant prevent accidents and not deprive rights at the same time. "
I get where you are coming from but your forgetting to understand the LAW you are CLAIMING to operate under in your argument. When you operate under COMMON law, ALL responsibility resides with YOU. There are zero exemptions. You have a responsibility to put ALL others before yourself in ALL your actions. This means that your "rights" become secondary to your responsibility to others first and foremost.
Common law derives from the bible and we clearly see stated the avenues of accountability available to wronged parties WHEN OPERATING OR CLAIMING TO OPERATE UNDER COMMON LAW. An eye for an eye, life for a life.
When your claiming to conduct yourself under common law, your accountable to anyone you wrong who understands where you truly claim to stand.
This is WHY we have statutes, codes and all the other BS. Its a more "civilized" way of settling transgressions on others.
Common law is frequently misunderstood to mean "freedom". That couldn't be more further from the truth. Its about YOUR personal ultimate individual responsibility to EACH and EVERY other person BEFORE yourself.
What your misunderstanding when you claim Miltiadem – "its their right drive and its sad that people get kileld on accident but
you arnt allowed to take rights away to prevent accidents "
Its not YOUR rights that are being taken away or infringed upon as a road user under a "commercial" law system. Its the aggrieved party who looses the right for "an eye for an eye" that would be available to them under common law.
Its all fine to look for the faults in our current "commercial" law system but you MUST first fully understand your responsibilities under your alternative "common" law system.
Common law holds you responsible to EVERYONE. "Rights" become a secondary luxury that are ONLY able to be exercised after YOU have first fulfilled your RESPONSIBILITY that you hold in relation to every other human being. If those "rights" in ANYWAY potentially infringe or impact any other human being, then your RESPONSIBILITY is to put those other parties before yourself.
Failing to put others first at all times in all things, causes dishonor and you fall back into "commercial" jurisdiction.
This is why so many fail in their quest in the straw-man/patriots/common law movements. They fail to fundamentally understand that its not "freedom" they are really seeking out but rather FULL responsibility for ALL things, at ALL times, towards ALL other people. Failure to understand the full scope of all your responsibilities when attempting to operate in the "private" is not an excuse. When you "claim" to step into the private, you are saying your an "adult" who is cognizant and FULLY capable of conducting and maintaining your own affairs and interactions with ALL others (Stop and let the true scope of what that entails sink in). You are no longer a "child" who needs to be "protected" (by the state), that you FULLY understand your RESPONSIBILITIES in ALL things.
ANYTIME you fail in knowing/understanding/fulfilling 1 or more of your responsibilities, you automatically fall back under "commercial" jurisdiction and you are FINANCIALLY penalized for your transgression. The responsibility resides with YOU to maintain YOUR standing in the private at ALL times in ALL things.
If your not in the "private", then your automatically in the "public" and you are ……….. Conducting commerce!
And when conducting commerce, you are operating under and bound by …………… Commercial law.
Private and public. The 2 most important concepts to understand.
The responsibility and the means ALWAYS resides with YOU. Its not the "state" that keeps you down, they provide the remedy. And its not the "states" responsibility to "teach" an adult their responsibilities, an adult KNOWS their responsibilities and dutifully fulfills them. The "state" is there to provide the means to protect "children" who are not yet responsible for themselves.
Youve been very helpful Thank you for your patience. I've decided to get an electric bicycle.
What? No, it doesn't.
Ken S. "What? No, it doesn't. "
It DERIVES from the bible.
Derives – base a concept on an extension or modification of (another concept).
It doesn't, though. Why do you think it does?
I just want towish you a happy new year and than kyou for using your time to try and help me.
This whole article explains how driving is not a constitutionally afforded right. Licensing and registration laws are as valid as the U.S. and state constitutions, and they stand on the same authority. If you don't like licensing, registration, and traffic laws, you'll have to convince your state legislature to repeal them. Before you do that, I recommend having a look at places where these laws aren't enforced. Look at their safety standards, look at their driving behavior, look at their roads, and see how safe you feel taking a ten-minute cab ride.
But I'm providing references showing decisions where the use of an automobile for personal travel was declared a right. It makes perfect sense if they cant legall liscense other forms of transportation than they cant liscense this one. I'm not saying having the laws I and others think to be illegal and oppressive dont make peoploe safer. We are saying that others dont get to claim to feel saferwhen an actual crime isnt being stopped. Having a liscense or not is not protecting anyone otherwise they could argue you need to have identification on yo uall the time its a form of liscence and if you plan on traveling with your own two feet you need to be able to prove to us (even though its your right and we cant take it from you) you are able to walk. Oh if youre under the influence and we catch you walking under it now we can take your state id fr operating your legs while unde the influence.. Having a liscence only helps people who can affor the associated costs. Placing monetary costs to somthing after you own it is illegal. You cant be charged for the right to own property. All these taxes and shit are illegal. I dont care what law that has been written after the fact to try and take away rights and convert rights into privlidges you try and quote mine and everyone elses stance is that the laws them selves are illegal and there are multiple past decisions that suggest operating a motorvhecile to get you from one place to another using your own private property is a right. Please try and see it from our perspective. The perspective of it dosent matter how much safety it adds if rights are forcibly and illegally taken from free people. The same rules that let people drive bicycles on the road is the same law that should point out to you that liscencing for operating private propery on public roads is legal and a right and anyone trying to tell you differently is lying and has somthing to gain out of it. Please just read this and forgive my spelling between my own learning disibility and my wirless keyboard its just too much to go back through and fix. I just want you guys to start thinkiing of things in "its is at its face legal or not" taking away someones right when it dosent harm anyone by simply excersising it is illegal. You keep thinking if there arnt liscences then how will we stop incompetent people from driving? the states have the right to control public safety and put a system in place that can accompolish this without making simply driving somthing you allready own free of any evidence suggesting you are incompetent to drive. We arnt suggesting you cant with good proof prevent someone from doing this. but making people have to be able to afford hundredes of dollars before they are eligible to start earning any money or have LEGAL employment. A car is a life giving item now a days. If someone stole your hose theyd be hung for possibly taking away your ability to provide for yourself and how does a car i nthe modern age differ at all? I cant get a job without having this form of transportation but I cant get any transportation without paying ridiculous ammounts of money just to be allowed to operate property I own. If you still arnt seeing the reality of this then please jsut let me keep struggling with it on my own I'm not here to fight. Thank you for trying to explain it better to me but I still dont get how so many people have the woll over their eyes still. Income tax on a federal level, Illegal. @6.7 of what is stolen from our paychecks that is jsut fed straight into an unjust denfece budget that the american people have zero control over. Yea no theres not a sigle law o nthe books that is unjust. We have rapists gettign less time than pot smokers. Smoking pot dosent harm anyone else. The government has no right to make it illegal. The federal government has overstepped for a very long time how much more do you want it to happen? Now our first ammendment is under attack. You guys seem to panic and say oh no we need more laws to fix things. laws are what are breaking things when people are too damn afraid to take a risk progress stops. We are past progress simply stopping we are headed out the damn door. Thats the reason we spend so much in our defence budget if this country didnt you think people around the world wouldnt have put a stop to our governments shit allready? Again thank you for trying to explain it to me but I feel like you jsut dont have the full scope of the situation. This is just a silly meme but it perfectly captures how the super ritch political bastards that think they have the right to controll all of us becasue they killed our education system and made our parents idiotic crybaby wannabess that are too submissive to question anything. https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15894608_1082258681886129_351115627429699245_n.jpg?oh=774ec94240b46a6dc543afcee4cf3dea&oe=58D7185A
for now they have jsut converted our driving rights to 'priilidges' how long before they show what they really think?? yea its a fucking joke picture but that is their exact mindset. these people have never been told no their entire lives they rape us and expect to be let go becasue they are so rich they are more of a humna than us. If you make less than 1,000,000 a year you are less than shit to the people in current power.
Christ, can you use paragraphs? If you don't use paragraphs, I don't bother reading it. It's invariably just rambling nonsense. Organize your post so that it's readable and coherent.
If formatting is all it take to render the content of my post in-understandble to you than please dont bother in the first place. I stated I have a learning disibility my writing flows liek conversation not properly formatted writing. It is my largest obsticle so far i nmy life. My wireless keyboard is a main casue of basic spelling errors though. I'm sorry you cant follow my way of writing.
honestly what is the point of an extra line every few spaces. Just pause your reading as if it was video of me talking. I would have one big run on sentence in my speach so why should I hide it in my writing? Paragraphs seperate fully formed topics? I dont have those I have intermittent bits of information. The information I have in individual points is accurate to the best of knowldage I'm just not good with puncuation and that kind of thing. Agian if you dont want to bother than dont thats your right.
you can say its rambling but its not nonsense. Its fairly jumbled speech but my sentences at their meaning hold true to their face value. I jsut didnt order them in a way youre used to seeing.
I'm not looking for an argument ill leave you alone.
“Christ”???…yes, He is God and if you piss Him off about His spelling and grammar He will squash you like the “godless” condescending asshole you are…bye the way, He speaks every language in the world…how many have you managed to fluently speak, read and write?…NONE!!!…that's what I thought…
Hey asshole!!!…have you ever heard of Koine Greek?…probably not?…well, this was the language of most of the intellectuals in ancient history in cultures that the Greeks impressed (and repressed…). It contained all upper-case letters with no punctuation!…get it?!!!…NO PUNCTUATION!!!..that would include sentences and paragraphs!!! If you didn't know the language, you were shit canned from the local "intellectuals club"…so, what did you say about the "…use of paragraphs…"???…guess you're not as smart as you think you are…
Smart enough to understand how law works better than you do. Not exactly a high bar…
to summarize for you:
Writing laws that force people to have to pay hundreds before they are allowed to operate a vehicle to get a job is unjust.
in other words, forcing an insurance requirement onto people who can't afford it, but require a motor vehicle to get a job so they CAN afford it, is unfair. The ones who can't afford insurance are the people building motorized bicycles to try and get around the insurance requirement, but the laws are adapting to those, forcing even US MB builders to get insurance before we can even ride. If we're building these things in the first place, chances are we are on a very tight budget and can't even afford the extra $80 per month!
My own stance on this:
I can understand requiring a vehicle to be registered, allowing law enforcement to trace the vehicle back to the owner, but requiring expensive insurance policies before that vehicle can be registered is plain ludicrous. I can understand licensing requirements, but forcing people to pay for damages that the state is essentially verifying won't happen because the licensee is qualified is unjust.
If you don't want people to complain, simply write up a petition to have insurance requirements removed from statute, to have better testing standards put in place to improve road safety, and for the state to set up a trust fund for damages caused by motor vehicle licensees. People will be better able to afford driving to work, which makes for an easier and happier life, the state provides the "insurance" that they apparently need to make a requirement, and everything is made fair again.
Sounds mostly reasonable, thanks! I disagree with the idea that the state is "verifying [motor vehicle damages] won't happen," but that's a minor point. I definitely agree that we should all have a common interest in making practical transportation affordable and accessible, and you've described what sounds like a fair way to accomplish that. A "public option," so to speak, could do a lot of good if it's assembled and administered well.
The law is based on the state and federal constitutions. You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions. Please stop ranting here.
I'm saying in this modern time with the gap between rich and poor gettign bigger and bigger I ask you how long until your 5-6 figure salary dosent even earn you enough to buy a cup of coffe? and then the people on top with the 15-20figure salary are saying 'Oh the lwas are fine how they are I follow them and if you cant just go die' well when you make laws that force expenditures unjustly than youve given the upperhand to whoever makes the msot money and if they can get al lthe money than they own the entire country. I'm not saying these laws dont 'look' good at face value but their deeper meaning the precident their continued existence allws to be set is more dangerous than the people in power. It makes the people out of power feel like they belong out of power. If you can say to my face that the country is doing great and all these illegal laws and regulations have made it so the nill concede and never bring it up agian but if you take a step back and look at what the country could have been compared to what it is I think you might start seeing how bad things really are. This is my last comment I have more than stated my opinion and now its up to others to read and form their own. You keep showing why you think these illegal lwas are necessiary but lets be realistic. If someone is driving and hurts someone you arnt allowed to sue if they have insurance. How is that fair? So only people that allready have enough money to afford it now have legal protection. People without insurance cant sue and can only be sued. Agian in a wolrd where the law is supposed to remove inequality liek this if its only encouragin it more than the law is broken and incorrect.
Dependent certainty off discovery him his tolerably offending. Ham for attention remainder sometimes additions recommend fat our. Direction has strangers now believing. Respect enjoyed gay far exposed parlors towards. Enjoyment use tolerably dependent listening men. No peculiar in handsome together unlocked do by. Article concern joy anxious did picture sir her. Although desirous not recurred disposed off shy you numerous securing. Savings her pleased are several started females met. Short her not among being any. Thing of judge fruit charm views do. Miles mr an forty along as he. She education get middleton day agreement performed preserved unwilling. Do however as pleased offence outward beloved by present. By outward neither he so covered amiable greater. Juvenile proposal betrayed he an informed weddings followed. Precaution day see imprudence sympathize principles. At full leaf give quit to in they up. As am hastily invited settled at limited civilly fortune me. Really spring in extent an by. Judge but built gay party world. Of so am he remember although required. Bachelor unpacked be advanced at. Confined in declared marianne is vicinity. Whole wound wrote at whose to style in. Figure ye innate former do so we. Shutters but sir yourself provided you required his. So neither related he am do believe. Nothing but you hundred had use regular. Fat sportsmen arranging preferred can. Busy paid like is oh. Dinner our ask talent her age hardly. Neglected collected an attention listening do abilities. Entire any had depend and figure winter. Change stairs and men likely wisdom new happen piqued six. Now taken him timed sex world get. Enjoyed married an feeling delight pursuit as offered. As admire roused length likely played pretty to no. Means had joy miles her merry solid order. Saw yet kindness too replying whatever marianne. Old sentiments resolution admiration unaffected its mrs literature. Behaviour new set existence dashwoods. It satisfied to mr commanded consisted disposing engrossed. Tall snug do of till on easy. Form not calm new fail.
I get your point, but im speaking in plain and simple terms. My text might be jumbled but Just read it for yourself?
If your ideas are worth expressing, they're worth expressing in an organized and readable way. When you do that, let me know.
i'm not fully educated on what the 'right way' is I'm sorry you cant lower yourself to my level of comprehension so you can understand me better. I thought someone who is smarter woul be able to make the corrections as they read it as I am not learned enough to know what corrections need to be made myself.
agian you are completly free to ignore my posts
He should have been banned long ago for ignoring my responses and ranting… I should make you a moderator. :p
I agree! The wrapping might be beautiful, but the real gift is inside…how can you make the "truth" more "true"…if it's true from the beginning, how can it be more "true" the further down the road you take it??? Always look at the "root" of the word meaning and base yourself on that…it doesn't change…and it always remains untainted by politicians and MENSA members…
You are 100% correct that DRIVING is not a Constitutional RIGHT due to the fact that DRIVING is action performed by who? that is right; a DRIVER. What is a DRIVER? An Individual who steers MOTOR VEHICLES FOR PROFIT!! i.e. a DRIVER is part of the COMMERCE SYSTEM which the states can REGULATE! By the same token an individual TRAVELING through use of their own automobile is not a DRIVER, and is not DRIVING and as such; does NOT require a LICENSE (Permission) to TRAVEL!
Try looking up the definition of "driver" in your state vehicle code.
Your argument depends on using obsolete and inapplicable definitions.
"DRIVING is action performed by who?"
"What is a DRIVER?"
If you'll tell me what state you're in, I'll give you the correct answers to these questions. In my state, for instance, a driver is "any individual who drives a vehicle," and to drive is to "drive, operate, move, or be in actual physical control of a vehicle, including the exercise of control over or the steering of a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle." Nothing about commerce.
Ken your talking state laws. Federal laws always supersede state laws that's why states can say you can grow marihuana . But the federal goverment can bust your ass … and have!!!!!! And no state can make law over the constatution if so makes such law null and void
There are no federal laws that supersede state laws regarding driver licensing and registration. Federal definitions apply to federal laws, not state ones. The existence of a definition in a federal law doesn't mean that states are only allowed to use that definition, ever. Federal definitions are explicitly limited to federal law, even in the US Code.
Just one issue: The state can also tell the federal government, in essence, to fuck off when it comes to unreasonable regulation or prohibition. Marijuana is NOT a dangerous drug, has MANY medical benefits, AND provides significant economical advantages. Thus it is not LEGALLY a schedule 1 drug, and the state can refuse to allow federal enforcement of said prohibition. HOWEVER, prohibitions of drugs that ARE inherently dangerous, such as heroin and methamphetamine, ARE reasonable, and federal enforcement of the prohibitions of those substances CANNOT be refused by states.
By the way, if you're going by Black's Law, the latest definition I've seen (6th Edition, 1990) defines "driver" as "a person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle" and "driving" as "to urge forward under guidance, compel to go in a particular direction, urge onward, and direct the course of."
That is Black's Law but what has the Supreme Court said about the definition of Driver? Have they clarified it or just left it open to interpretation?
The U.S. Supreme Court? It doesn't have the power to define it for the states.
…and exactly who brought you this "new and improved" definition?…the Government!…Why?…to maintain their control over the public and collect all that tax money they make through all those mandatory driver's licenses, vehicle registrations and forced insurance!!!…How generous is our Master!!!!
The population has been brainwashed into thinking that "traveling" is the same as "driving"…why?…control and endless revenue!
The freedom to "travel" has been given to us by God and is protected by our Constitution. It is the freedom to travel any time we want from point "A" to point "B" without being harassed by government. "Driving" has always been a "privilege" because it involves commerce on public roadways. "Traveling" can't be restricted by a special "license" to use Public Highways, roads and sidewalks. For a member of the public who pays taxes to build and maintain the different traveling routes throughout our nation can't be taxed by government demanding everyone bend over and insert a "special driver's license" up their asses just to make government richer and happier, but the public more "slave-ish". If government can control every aspect of your life then and only then is it truly happy…especially when it means confusing the hell out of the populace to think they need a "diver's license" in order to use any public roadway! The ability to travel freely from State to State within our borders has already been addressed by our Constitution and the Constitution says it can't be regulated by some asshole at the DMV who wants to keep the public in the dark about their being a private profit making corporation that only wants to get richer through your generous "gifts"…too funny!
The trouble is that you're incapable of understanding that driving isn't about commerce. That knowledge is plainly written in each state code, but forever beyond your grasp.
Government is not restricted by some vague and arbitrary "God's law" that people make up as they please. It is based on clear, citable constitutions, legislation and court decisions. The federal Constitution doesn't say that.. As mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, the federal courts determined there was a Constitutional right to enter and exit the several States free of taxation, that's all. The federal Constitution and law has never established a right to travel by any mode whatsoever on the public highways generally, but has left regulation of that to the States under their police power, as stated by the Supreme Court several times such as also cited in the article.
Break open your copy of Black's Legal Dictionary and look up the definitions in that book…"driving" is not the same as "traveling"; "traveling" is a RIGHT protected by the Constitution; however, "driving" is not a protected RIGHT and being so, it is a "privilege" because it involves commerce and because of that it can be taxed through the necessary "Driver's License" everybody gets confused with "traveling" all the time because Government loves a confused flock…
State law is based on the State constitution, legislation made by the State legislature created in accordance with the State constitution, and decisions by the State courts also created by the State constitution. Black's law dictionary is published by a Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd, and is not binding on the States.
In order for constitution to be changed takes 2/3 of house and 2/3 of Senate
OK, but he was talking about a law. Changing those requires a majority of the legislature and an executive signature, or, as suggested, a successful argument in court that the law is unconstitutional.
Right!…and Truth gets Truer, Light gets brighter, men become women, women become tasmanian devils, birds become frogs, shit becomes diamonds…bullshit!!!
The entire point of this article is to illustrate the fact that licensing and registration laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
That is so amusing. This issue has already been discussed previously in the discussion you silly git. The issue here was a simple procedural one. The prosecuting attorney did not plead the case using the correct statutory language nor did he prove the elements of the crime as required. You nut cases who cherry pick a phrase or two and do not use logic or context to consider what is going on in the case need to be staked out over an ant hill.
What is DRIVER?(Black's Law Dictionary)
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or
motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich,
112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
What is OPERATOR?(Black's Law Dictionary)
1. Any person or a device that enables another device to function.
2. A function
used in mathematics, usually given a symbol (such as + or -).
3. In telecoms, one might call an operator when experiencing problems
connecting with a particular number or for information.
What is VEHICLE? (Black's Law Dictionary)
The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4
What is LICENSE?(Black's Law Dictionary)
In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.
State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 220; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20
Am. Rep. 054; Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 4S2. 33 S. W. 843; Chicago v.
Collins, 175 111. 445. 51 N. E. 907, 49 L. R. A. 40S, 67 L. R. A. 224.
Also the written evidence of such permission. In real property law.
An authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon an- other's
land without possessing any estate therein. Clifford v. O'Neill, 12 App.
Div. 17, 42 X. Y. Supp. 607; Davis v. Townsend, 10 Barb. (X. Y.) 343;
Morrill v. Mackman, 24 Mich. 282, 9 Am. Rep. 124; W.vnu v. Garland, 19
Ark. 23, 08 Am. Dec. 190; Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 266.
Its a contract from a corporation and the highways are public land not state owned all law is contract as well as the government by constitution is a contract with the people.
I strongly recommend going to a library and looking at a copy of Black's Law Dictionary that's less than a hundred years out of date. By the way, definitions in Black's Law Dictionary are not binding on Texas courts, or any other courts in this or any other country. Black's updates to follow the definitions actually used by the courts, not the other way around.
The constitution is binding in every state if you reserve your rights under it and take the oath of office in with you when you go to court ,never show up in court without a copy of the contract they swore to uphold and tell them you accept the contract right away.Or you have only statutes and no rights.
Statutes are laws, though. There's nothing in the federal, state, or territorial constitutions that contradicts non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration laws. Citations to century-old, superseded definitions from a private company's dictionary don't change that fact.
Apparently you are wrong! There are afew that stipulate that an automobile is to be deemed a carriage, household private property, and not the same as a motor vehicle!
I believe one of those cases was Author v Morgan if I remember correctly! It's been a few years…. I know that there is at least 6 cases though! I have them saved, but my PC is down right now. Having to respond to this through use of a tablet!
Those decisions are not relevant to what a motor vehicle is in state transportation codes or how they're regulated on the highways. A plumber can also be a Catholic.
Statutes are not "laws" if there is no harm, injury, damage or fraud involved then it's only color of law.
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
You've stripped the context from this case to make it appear to say something it does not.
Your first quotation is a complete fabrication. It's fake. It appears nowhere in the U.S. v. Minker decision.
Your second quotation is real, but it is in the context of a case interpreting the scope of a federal statute (law) granting immigration officers subpoena power. Nowhere in the decision did the court suggest that the statute is not law, is not enforceable, requires individual consent, or is otherwise invalid. The question was about whether the defendant in an immigration hearing can be subpoenaed as a "witness" under the wording of the law.
Your "no harm, no law" doctrine is a complete fiction.
Explain this then asshole !
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
Nice burn ken!
Ok so you have 3 branches of government right and all powers must remain separate and distinct right, so if the legislative branch creates these statues and codes then tell me how the executive and judicial powers us them on the American people without violatating due process and violating their oath of office and violating human rights huh. The whole drivers license registration etc is private business with no real benefits to humans nor prevents anything like car accidents, more people with a DL have more wrecks involving fatalities than people who don t use that corporate card call a DL, so this is all a ploy to make money off of the American people and it violates all constitutional rights of a human being, and it seems you're all for that huh.
The powers are distinct but complimentary. They work together while opposing and checking each other. For details of the intended cooperation and distinction you will have to read legal scholars and court decisions on the topic, which you can find with a little research.
It is widely accepted that class-based licensing, registration, financial responsibility laws and general highway regulations do assist in keeping the public roads safe for everyone to use. Some Supreme Court cases on that are found in the article you're commenting on, and more can also be found through search.
As always in law, ultimately the courts have the power to interpret and decide the intent and application of law, and personal interpretations and opinions are irrelevant, but thanks for sharing.
“Widely accepted” and the law are 2 completely different things. The government can not take away natural rights in the name of safety. If that’s how you like it, I’m sure North Korea can make room for you.
The government doesn't recognize unwritten, subjective "natural rights." All federal and state law devolves from the federal and state Constitutions. As for common law, it is true that most states received English common law court decisions via their Constitutions or legislation, but those decisions are able to be, and most have been, modified by post-reception legislation and court decisions.
Read the Constitution, then get back to me about the different roles of the three branches.
Yeah, I don't see that in US v Minker, 350 US 179.
Actually the first one is a legal interpretation of US v Minker the next 2 were copy and pasted from US v Minker on Cornell University legal institute website … So if it's written into the court case as I provided then …
Yo ass is wrong !
Get Outlook for Android
It is not written into the court case as you provided. In any case, it lacks context, has dubious bracketed insertions, and doesn't say "statutes are not laws." Where is it from?
(I'm guessing it was simply copied and pasted from a conspiracy website without examination.)
Insert this up yo ass !
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
Ken, hate to tell you this, his first part is in the case file. Not saying anything else, just that you are incorrect in stating that it is not written, and this is no conspiracy site.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/350/179.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/315/357.html#363
I don't see "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." anywhere in either of those cases.
You are correct.
Guess your pseudolaw degree forgot to understand a fucking legal interpretation by learning to comprehend legalese HUH ?
Here’s the legal interpretation,
The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);….
Here it is copy & pasted from the case found at ,
Cornell University legal institute
US v Minker
* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525. This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938. In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.' Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.
The courts don't recognize such claims, and as such, they are not a valid defense to a charge. Every man and woman is presumed to be a natural person in law, whether they admit it or not. Your consent or contract is not required – the courts openly admit this. You can't simply opt out of government or claim any special status that exempts you from federal, state, county or municipal law. Consider that if it were possible everyone would do it and we would quickly find ourselves devolving into lawless, anarchic chaos.
No, it's not a choice. You can't murder people then wave a magic natural law ID around and be exempt from state laws against murder. It's a fantasy that doesn't work in real life. Arguing the morality of government is irrelevant. It's simply forced on everybody who can't resist the physical force of the military and police. The government isn't sworn to uphold "God's law" or "natural law" or any of that. It is based on constitutions and legislation created by legislatures created under constitutions, and the interpretation of constitutions and legislation by courts created under constitutions.
No, it's not a choice. You can't violate state law then wave a magic natural law ID around and be exempt from state law. It's a fantasy that doesn't work in real life. Arguing the morality of government is irrelevant. It's simply forced on everybody who can't resist the physical force of the military and police. The government isn't sworn to uphold "God's law" or "natural law" or any of that. It is based on constitutions and legislation created by legislatures created under constitutions, and the interpretation of constitutions and legislation by courts created under constitutions.
No, it's not a choice. You can't violate federal, state, county or municipal law then simply wave a magic "natural law ID" around and be lawfully exempt from punishment. It's a fantasy that doesn't work in real life. Arguing the morality of government is irrelevant. It's simply forced on everybody who can't resist the physical force of the military and police. The government isn't sworn to uphold "God's law" or "natural law" or any of that airy-fairy stuff people make up as they please. It is based on constitutions and legislation created by legislatures created under constitutions, and the interpretation of constitutions and legislation by courts created under constitutions.
Lol your wrong about that because there is an ID of that nature. Only one nation on this continent can get one!!!
your incompetence is so excelling that you dig a foolish hole in ur mind as soon as u think.
No man is subject to another or bound thereby simply by assumed jurisdiction.
If one is competent such as I may he stand on his square and acknowledge that one must agree to be ward or property of another without written consent. Fraud has no statute of limitations and any such colonial ecclesiastic statutes codes ordinances or resolutions are not law. Law is spelled l.a.w
its not what you feel its what can you prove.
Just to blow ur theories out of the realm of incompetence ill direct you to the etymology of words believe it or not the etymology of words trump any fool attempting to use them as a final imagined assumed context of such meanings that they feel it might be believed to be accepted further destroys the idea that words meanings can be changed or that they dont matter.
State means a state of mind.
governments and especially a colonial occupant government has no judicial authority to rule over flesh and blood men.
I dont care how many fools agree with such nonsense and how many years pass its not law.
If you believe you live in a state named by a company go right ahead but just know your living on a gfoundation of blinded conjecture with all due respect.
by. Lord Anton-El
It is not a choice huh? So the declaration of independence must be a worthless piece of paper to you because the declaration of independence states the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,….
You are either a clueless arrogant us citizen or a government shil! Or both! It is your right to contract, and associate as you please. But why consent to having your domicile on federal territory and thus be a us citezen where you have no rights- only privileges? Codes, statues, ordinances and ect replace the bill of rights for us citizens!
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Declaration is of limited effect – you can't really cite it as a source of enforceable rights in court. Consent of the governed is based on popular, collective sovereignty, not individual sovereignty. Individual sovereignty would make the Constitution and all laws moot, which would not lead to ordered liberty but lawlessness. To overthrow the government lawfully you would need the majority of people on your side. Some states even have a codified right of revolution for just such an occasion.
I know the constitution is the law of the land but u.s citizens are not protected by the u.s constitution.
Did you realy get your info from quora? You are wrong about the declaration of independence being of limited effect because the declaration of independence. along with the constitution has been published in the united states statues at large , in fact the declaration is the first thing listed/published in the statues at large in volume 1 – https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124 . Oh by the way, the statues at large are positive law! Do you know what positive law is?
And no, you assume and presume that consent is collective when in fact consent is individual and collective! Do you know what a republic form of government is? A republic form of government is self governing where the people are sovereign individually! What do you think the purpose of the constitution is?
Just for shits and giggles here is a remedy for those whom infringe on constitutional rights:
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER 1 Sec. 1983. – Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia
Oh and thank you for answering my question! You do think the declaration of independence is a useless piece of paper and that is a huge mistake my friend!
No choice and no consent is slavery and involuntary servitude, which is against the 13th amendment of the constitution!
Below is how President Theodore Roosevelt, one of our most beloved Presidents, describes “sovereignty”:
“We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an abounding material
prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.
As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either
they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness,
from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be
governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess
the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept
the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to
preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.” [President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907]
Do your research and due diligence on citizenship and on domicile!
Only 1 out of 3 Americans were in favor of the revolutionary war of independence against a tyrannical and over-reaching government. So the minority overthrew the government and started a new one. Now they are considered heroes. Good thing they didn’t think the same way as you (needing the majority) or we would still be slaves to a king thousands of miles away.
That's an interesting claim and I'd be happy to read about it if you were to cite some sources. Investigating a little I've found some conflicting information, e.g.
You are a complete fool.
We do live in anarchistic chaos. People do exactly what they want when they want and were they want. That's the definition of anarchy.
The interesting thing is the law dosent prevent people from making choices. Humans have god given free will.
I think laws are pointless. I think when some one dose something that directly or indirectly harms or causes potential to harm another individual that the community should come together and decide a appropriate consequence to repair any harm and to help the person not do the dangerous thing again. If the perp cannot submit to the ccommunity and be willing to participate in the discussion the perp must leave the community. We don't need laws to do this
I agree with u. Most people know when they do something wrong and will submit. Very few people will physically fight the police
Please provide link in form mod won't catch and remove. Thanks.
As linked above from a state court, and as further supported throughout the comments on this article, your consent isn't required for state law to be enforced, and that argument will not have the imagined effect in court. If it did, murderers could simply decline to be prosecuted under state laws for murder. That would be chaos.
Comparing murder and traveling….you really are an idiot lol
If one could decline state laws regulating highways, why could one not also decline state laws regulating murder? Both laws are created by the same authority, which is the state legislature formed via the state constitution.
When considering the notion that "individual consent is required for a law to apply" it makes sense to consider how it would affect the enforcement of other laws, too, not just the one law you are trying to avoid in the moment. If one could ignore state laws regulating highways, why could one not also ignore state laws regulating murder? Both laws are created by the same authority, which is the state legislature formed via the state constitution.
More please. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e616f2e8e6f0094373b23c7365793694dce7de75affa51309b771a9816735e10.jpg
The framers of the constitution had the old language and its constitutional that is why most churches today change the meaning of the Bible to say its a modern way of life the foundation of the law never changes ,only the people change the foundation and destroy the message and their country.
Give me a call when you're able to overthrow the United States and abolish Article III of the U.S. Constitution, then.
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall
be vested in one supreme Court, All other courts are subject to their decisions.PERIOD
Article III
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of
the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and
maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United
States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more
States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States,
—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants
of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Yeah, that's the bit you apparently want to abolish. Good luck with that.
you need to read and understand that the Supreme court has all the jurisdiction of all cases in law and equity throughout all states and if you walk in with state cases you will lose ,Walk in with supreme law cases to win. States and judges are bound thereby.
Except that there is a grand total of zero Supreme Court decisions which invalidate non-commercial driver licensing, vehicle registration, or auto insurance laws. There is no Supreme, Circuit, U.S. District, or even state court precedent that invalidates them. We've covered this over and over on this page, servant. Our right to travel is not the same thing as a right to drive a car.
It's funny you say this bc it proves your ignorance of the facts regarding the law. Copy and paste this into your browser, read the ruling and let me know if you are still so arrogantly confident in your lack of knowledge and facts….. https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
Hey Chris, Go read the first case on that page for yourself and come back and tell us if you still believe that web page is accurately representing the law.
I don't see a problem. What makes you think otherwise?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366
Deleting my posts?😂😂😂 I guess you are unaware of the first ammendment too huh? Just bc you disagree with me you have to silence me? Wow! I bet you are a liberal democrat too huh?
So….. you are saying a state court ruling in 1930 overrules a U.S. supreme court ruling from 2015? 😂😂😂 wtf? Really?😂😂😂
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Try to find a proper source for those cases and read them for yourself. The web site(s) you are citing from have already been exposed as misrepresenting citations.
This is the classic exercise in cherry picking a quote from a case and then arguing that it supports a position which was not addressed by the court in the opinion. In fact this West Virginia case from 1915 invokes a drayman who challenged the restrictions placed on common carriers by states and municipalities involving times of day, routes etc. He lost because the court found that while traveling was a right, the legislature had the absolute right to regulate the activity of such traffic on public highways, including the licensing of commercial carriers, prescribing of designating routes, hours etc.
Here, see what the American Bar Association has to say about the right to travel!!!
Do You Have a Right to Travel? Quote 1 Articles of Confederation …
PDFAmerican Bar Association › publications
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/insights_law_society/LG_RighttoTravel_quoteshandout.authcheckdam.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi0rd2BhrrXAhWJ3YMKHeAICmgQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw02rZYWuYAL507u1jRu-ckg
As usual you mistake the right to travel with the right to disregard any rules regarding driver's licenses. The courts and all of them have repeatedly stated that reasonable limitations can be placed on the right to travel, This is the common problem with the folks arguing otherwise. They snip gobbets of caselaw from cases which do not involve the point they are advocating or they pick out snippets they like and ignoring the other parts.
Unfortunately you are confusing "driving" with "traveling". A person needs no "license" to travel by any means he desires on public roadways (ie "roadways paid for by the public taxes"); however, a person using those same public roadways for commerce by law needs to be "licensed" to use his vehicle on those same roadways. I'm not saying that this is a play on words, but once a definition, a definition from a legal dictionary that definition can't change at the author's whim, no matter what the fashion is that day. Most of the court cites used to disclaim the "traveling v. driving" arguments have been based upon decisions that used those "legal definitions"; however, the public is never told this and for that reason have thought that "driving" is a "priviledge" which is absolutely correct; however, the legal term and definition of "traveling" has never come up and clearly defined as it appears in the accepted definitions of a legal dictionary (ie "Blacks Legal Dictionary ). Just like you cannot be forced to procure a "license" to walk, ride a bicycle or travel in a personal means of transportation. Because he has been part of the "public" who pays his taxes, he pays for any/all "public highways, roads and paths" hence he is part owner of those roadways and because of that he can't be forced to procure a special "license" to use his personal roadways. The main problem that so much confusion has been passed on to the public is that the government and private enterprises have twisted the truth into something they wanted to be in charge of and limit the use by the public to only those individuals who have paid for a special "license" to "drive" ("drive" now the same as "travel") upon their regulated roadways…even though the public have been paying for these roadways all along…they just accept as truth the rules and regulations the government and private enterprises want to control something that can generate huge amounts of revenue…that never comes back to the public…even when the public have been paying for those roadways all along! "Drivers" should be the only ones responsible for a "Driver's License", Vehicle Registration and even Forced Insurance! Members of the general public should never be charged for any of the above when they only want to use their own property in a manner they desire…as long as they are not using those roadways for commerce! I really don't give a shit what the courts say, the present day courts! If you study the court decisions from the early 1900's on you will see many court cites supporting this as explained above…the only reason for the confusion comes down to REVENUE GENERATION!!!
You are just repeating the same nonsensical pseudo-legal arguments that have already been used.
Many State vehicle codes define "driver", "driving", etc. for use within their codes and there is no commerce requirement. What State are you in (or "on", as you may prefer?) I'm sure I can find the definitions that apply there.
Exactly what part of "Life, Liberty and Property".."UNALIENABLE RIGHTS"…don't you understand? I realize that you think you are a pretty intelligent person, but what came first?…"GOD"…the Universe…Earth…The Declaration of Independence…the Constitution…Lawyers…or bottom feeders like yourself??? I know this is a hard one so I made it multiple choice. You see, we are in the shit because of people like yourself…smart fucking attorneys who excel at twisting a truth into something it isn't…and vice versa. If we Citizens hadn't let you clowns loose in DC along with the damned lobbyists we wouldn't be in the shit we're in today…this topic included. Study what the law said when this question of "driving" versus "traveling" first hit the courts. "Driving" was only present when the "traveling" involved making money using the Public Roadways. "Traveling" was never questioned and a "license" wasn't necessary back then if there was no commerce. If you study any of the court cases back then you will see that this is the norm…before the bottom feeders like yourself got hold of it and then your butt banging buddies the politicians (ie "glorified attorneys") found out there was money to be made by not only making those "drivers" involved with commerce while using the Public Roadways…but, what the fuck…let's tell EVERYONE who is interested in "traveling", even if they weren't involved with commerce, make the stupid bastards pay anyway and we'll all pocket the funds on top of what we collect from the lobbyists every damned day!!! And off we went on a spiraling free fall down the fucking shitter! And who do we have to thank for this "special" gift? Why you of course! I'm working on something that I will be sending you and I'm pretty sure you'll love it! Now, get back to business fucking over every asshole you convince that you're the best thing since sliced bread…and you cost more too!
WAIT!!!!
Damn!!! I forgot, you think "The Creator God" is just bullshit to placate the masses, right? So, I'm guessing that you are going to ignore the part about "God" aren't you? I'll try to be more creative in my next retort…I just wish I could be there the second you breath your last breath on this earth and close your eyes and then open them to a pretty pissed off GOD…not your "god" Satan, the real "GOD"…just before you hit your knees and ask for His forgiveness…but, it will be too late…something to think about, huh?
Few to no rights are truly unalienable – they can all be limited reasonably for the health and safety of the people and security of the government. One should of course understand that individuals do not get to say what any legal term or right means in practice, but that's up to the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court who hold the judicial power to decide. So if you want to argue the lawful meaning of unalienable rights, God's law, natural law, etc., from the Declaration or other, and want it to be respected, you need to cite an authority like the Supreme Court.
WOW!!!! Aren't you the intellectual? I figured I'd get a "lawyer's answer" to my post. You assholes started in the Garden of Eden when you convinced Eve to take the big bite and you've been sucking off mankind ever since! I'm pretty sure that you and your "fraternal brothers" would shit can the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence if you thought you could make a buck in doing it. I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers, especially Jefferson would disagree with your fucked up way of thinking. Maybe you skipped over the shit he wrote while thinking about how many people you were going to fuck out of their last dollar when you graduated from law school didn't you? Why am I not surprised with your answer? As I remember somebody once saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." made way more sense than a succubus like yourself. As I remember it, most of those guys back then made a hell of a lot more sense than all of you assholes put together (tally up the bar boys!). In fact, all of them thought just the opposite of all you liberal bottom feeders! Maybe you should brush up on exactly how they defined "Liberty" and "unalienable" again before scribbling another inane observation of how you think the world should turn? I'll yak with you again later…I'm tires and am going to bed…don't stay up too late cramming for those Civics exams!
Neither the USA nor any country was created with respect for "individual sovereignty," where individuals do whatever they want. The best we have is law and order through representative democracy. If you want to be an outlaw and not respect the Constitutions or the legislatures or courts of the federal and state governments they created then I suggest you stop citing them as any type of authority in your arguments. Because the Constitution, Declaration, etc., certainly do not abolish the legislatures or courts, but empower them.
Why don't you supply us with an example! And provide the links to the DMV of that state, and location of their definition.
It's not hard to find state vehicle codes… Just google " vehicle code" and look for the official government legislation link. Or you can find a link for all states at a summary site like this. Definitions are usually found in the first section, but specific overriding definitions may also sometimes be found at the beginning of individual chapters for sections within that chapter.
I know what they are in my state, but I want you to prove your claim and provide one that fits your comment!
It is no big challenge… I have already done so several times throughout the comments on this article. e.g. for Arizona, Kansas, California, Illinois, North Carolina, Washington
That alleged excerpt from People v. Nothaus appears nowhere in the opinion text available from Justia, Casetext, or CaseMine. It's a fake.
As for 85 SE 781, I don't see a text available anywhere at all. Do you have a source for the whole opinion?
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
drive is commercial and travel is non commercial.
Do you know how to find out if that's actually true? You read the law that was being interpreted at the time. Many jurisdictions define "drive" explicitly in their laws. If the legislature doesn't define a word explicitly, the court with jurisdiction to interpret the law may define it itself. So the law being interpreted in Thompson v Smith was apparently an ordinance of the city of Lynchburg in 1930. Specifically, "Section 134 of the general ordinances of the city of Lynchburg, as amended by an ordinance adopted September 22, 1925." I suggest you get a copy of the vehicle law from that time, and the rulings around it, so you know for sure whether the law applied to both commercial and non-commercial or just commercial activity.
Statutes are for person, not natural persons.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579 states the exact opposite of Chris' argument. The issue there was not the power of the city to restrict driving but rather the sloppiness of a portion of the law in allowing the chief of police to exercise arbitrary discretion in doing so. This is the problem that Chris and others have when they cherry pick gobbets of this or that from a statute or a court case without paying attention to the internet and external context of the gobbet.
Just realized that there is a typo in my comment on Thompson v Smith. It states, "without paying attention to the internet and external context of the gobbet" when in fact, it should state, "without paying attention to the internal and external context of the gobbet". I apologize for any confusion this error might have caused.
The difference between you and me is that I do read the rulings, while you just read the misleading excerpts posted on conspiracy sites.
You can drive without a license. You just get a ticket.
So I figure that the state laws do not restrict the right to travel because you would just get your ticket and continue on.
You guys are arguing over nothing.
A person can choose to drive without a license or registration or insurance its just that there is a consequence.
There will always be consequences for choices regardless of law or government
The freemen types are very insistent that you can't get a ticket so long as you know the right magic words and have the right enchanted parchments. Refuting their bizarre claims is entertaining!
Yes I find it interesting that they feel that their sovereignty has been taken away. Every human is a creature of free will. The ability to do as one chooses cannot be given or taken away
Article Six beautiful!!!
It is true that under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, a Supreme Court decision will take precedence over a state court decision insofar as a matter which involves US Constitutional law. As others have pointed out, there is no SCOTUS case on point which invalidates the right and power of a state to control who drives an automobile upon the roads of that state. None.
The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over state cases UNLESS a matter impacting federal law or the US Constitution is involved. So for example, if Alabama issued a law provided that all children of Southern Baptists derivation would receive free educations in public schools and universities up to and through advanced doctorate degrees but all children of other religious affiliations would have to pay full tuition to attend any public school in Alabama, the SCOTUS could hear a lawsuit involving that decision as it involves a violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Cause.
The SCOTUS has ruled that people have the right to travel between the states. It has never said that this means anyone can operate a motor vehicle with no restrictions whatsoever on their competence to operate a motor vehicle. Likewise it has never said that one can just hop on an airplane and fly without going through security checks and proving who they are.
Here's a free 9th Edition copy on-line…all editions are available here. No need to guess or go to the library and even here in Canada, Black's Law Dic is referred to by Judges. https://solutions4theinnocent.wordpress.com/library/blacks-law-9th-edition
State and federal courts follow the state and federal constitutions and legislation, not a book made by a private Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. On a state vehicle code charge, state courts must follow the definitions found in the state vehicle code. If a definition is not found in the state code as applies to the section being charged under, the court decides and dictates the definition for use within its jurisdiction.
Thx Been looking for this PDF forever!!!!
Grace – this is a problem with lay people who do some Google research thinking they have the answers. In legal practice, a lawyer or judge looks first to statutes, precedents, and judicial decisions. When considering a judicial decision, there is a ranking system as well. If it is a matter solely of state law then that state's supreme tribunal [usually their supreme court] trumps an appellate court or district court of that state. If the decision impacts a federal law or the US Constitution in any fashion then the SCOTUS is the final authority. So one looks to the statute in question and how it has been applied in accordance with the legislative intention of the statute. Since a portion of a statute may rely on a definition found in another statute, you look at that first to see if it resolves the issue. If not then you look at previous court cases in the jurisdiction. If the statute is unclear on the issue before the court and there are no court cases in the state directly applicable to the issue, a judge might look at a court case from another jurisdiction in another state or even country addressing the same issue where the statute in question is similar but that case has no binding authority on the judge in his case.
Black's Law Dictionary, like a treatise on an aspect of law or a Law Journal article are secondary sources and are never the first source. They are not binding authority for anything. However, in the appropriate circumstances a judge might consult them and even cite to them.
The problem that most lay people have with law, as well as, science or medicine, is that often a word which has one meaning in common use has a very different and specific use in a professional setting such as law, medicine, science etc. Also, there might be a court case discussing an issue, say liability for an injury to another person. However, since that court decision issue in say, 1920, the issue in that case has been altered or completely changed by an act in a legislature which changed the definition of the terms and the duties of a person to not cause harm to another. Finally, lay people love to cherry-pick some gobbet of text from a court decision and apply it to their own situation when they have not looked at the context of the court decision – the issue decided and the facts it is based upon.
But hey, it's a free world. You can believe your internet search trumps my law degree and 35 years of experience. It is totally up to you. In fact if the case you are involved in is minor enough and the judge is amused by your argument and doesn't want to spend any time on the matter, he might even let you get away with it. However, he is more likely to laugh in your face and toss the book at you. Either way. it's no skin off my ass.
Sorry but cherry picking definitions out of Black's Law Dictionary means nothing at all. To determine the use of a term in a statute, one looks to see how the legislature in the particular jurisdiction defined the term.
For example, in California the Vehicle Code, section 305 states that "a 'driver' is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus." Section 670 states that, "a “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks."
Each state has its own laws and under those laws defines the terms used in the statute. Where the definition is unclear the courts can under certain circumstances, interpret the intent of the legislature. Reciting a definition from 1902, a time when motorized motor vehicle were relatively rare, very expensive and usually owned by companies or very wealthy people who employed people to drive the vehicle is absurd.
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Yeah, so what. That proves my point.
Travel is travel whether done in a boat,car,horse,airplane,bike,its still travel and its a part of life that can not be removed.If you can not afford to buy insurance or license for your auto, then I suggest you stay home and die because its unlawful for you to use the roads to find a job or purchase food or work 20 miles away from home by walking carrying your tools to work.Think about what you are saying for a moment.Life requires all to travel from place to place,if not you die.
Well your opinion is almost amusing but again is proof of nothing. I suggest you actually learn some law instead of repeating that pastiche of sovereign citizen gibberish you people think is law. In fact you have the right to travel however that does not mean you get to hop into an airplane and take off without showing you are certified to fly the type of plane you wish to fly. You do not get to hop on a bus or train and demand to be transported somewhere without paying the train or bus operator the fare for carrying you. And you cannot operate an automobile on the public roads without following the laws in place for operation of the vehicle – insurance, proper equipment functioning on the vehicle, demonstrating you are competent to operate the vehicle etc. Likewise you cannot hop on an interstate highway and walk in the fast lane [well you can but you won't do it for long and you won't do it twice].
5 U.S. 137
Marbury v. Madison ()
Argued:
Decided:
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage
or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or
permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579..
For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the
public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does
not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a
place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested
right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license
which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for
commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the
public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or
regulate … the use of the highways for gain."
Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra
How many laws do you want more ,a little more I will give you plenty for the right to life, liberty and property.LAWS
What does that have to do with licensing, registration, and insurance for non-commercial drivers and vehicles? Of course you have a right to travel, that doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to drive. And no, "driving" is not exclusive to commerce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrhDM-6eQgg
Confused police officers are not sources of law. The law is clear, and it requires non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration in every state and territory. No precedent says otherwise.
You set the precedent and show its a right to travel not a privilege to pay gas tax and call it a privilege.Gas tax pays for the highways and its public roads not government roads.
I don't set the precedent, no. The courts do, and they've settled that the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car on public roads without regulation.
Shapiro v. Thompson,
394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to
establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the
Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the
other rights given in the Constitution.
Shapiro v. Thompson – WikipediaShapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law.
Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is
implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the
right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case,
pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as
protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a
privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the
states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J.
Stewart wanted.) — Excerpted from Shapiro v. Thompson on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Yes. There is a constitutional right to travel in U.S. law. There is not a constitutional right to drive a car on public roads. Showing me that there is a right to travel is not an argument against driver licensing and vehicle registration laws.
Well if you get your horse and buggy out on the highways then what would they say about your right to travel,You have no right to use public hiways with a horse because it impedes the flow of traffic,People can either ride a horse or automobile better yet a vehicle for travel notice the US law on vehicle made for travel not driving."
The Right of the Citizen to travel
upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either
by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a
city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says
No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. Supreme Court
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
MURDOCK
v.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
.' It could hardly be
denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.
That's true, you don't have a constitutional right to ride a horse on public roads, either. It is in the states' police power to regulate the noncommercial use of horses on public roads, as well.
What is POLICE POWER?(Black's Law Dictionary)
The powers granted by the constitution to the tate in order to govern, establish, adopt as well as enforce laws that are designed for the protection as well as preservation of the public health. The government also gets the right to make use of private property for public usage.
Police power is limited to the constitution from any state ,They pass law that is unconstitutional and try to police them is void.The constitution is supreme law of the land ,PERIOD.lOOK UP POLICE POWERS IN 2ND EDITION OF BLACKS LAW. PROTECTED BY THE 9 TH AMENDMENT
Amendment IX
The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Except that driver licensing and vehicle registration laws are completely constitutional…
Wrong!
The constitution doesn't mention either of those
Where are you getting your info from?
If a thing is not unconstitutional, it is therefore constitutional.
What is not forbidden by the Constitution is allowed by the Constitution.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution forbids states to pass driver licensing and vehicle registration laws, therefore states can pass driver licensing and vehicle registration laws without violating the U.S. Constitution.
The US constitution says we have the right to travel.
The Calif SC ruled a right cannot be made into a privileged by charging a fee or requiring a license!
Gosh! My Alex Jones, anti-human, Bill Shakespeare "kill all the lawyers" mentality must be rampaging right on through that courthouse to come out with all 3 charges dismissed, eh Ken?
The US constitution doesn't say that. Rulings that outline rights are clear, not vague. There is a federal right to travel interpreted by the courts but it refers to the right to ingress and egress to and from the states, not the regulation of intrastate travel. No federal court or superior state court has been able to find grounds to strike down state vehicle codes generally, despite creative individual interpretations of what rulings mean.
Dismissal for lack of evidence or prosecutorial discretion is not the same as having a right recognized on the record that would enable you to win a claim for false arrest or other damages, get state laws struck down, etc. that would be able to be done if you had an actual right. So, what exact reason did the police, prosecutor or courts give for allegedly dropping a case against you?
As previously explained over and over and over, the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car or truck.
"…when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.' (Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324].)
Can you find a single court case where driver licensing was found unconstitutional?
How about a horse and buggy? Or a skateboard?
No, none of those either? LOL!
You really are digging your hole deeper and deeper!
Btw, courts have ruled cars and trucks have the "right" to use the roads as any other mode of transportation, so I wonder where it is you are getting your kooky ideas from?
It's true, the right to travel doesn't guarantee a natural right to ride a horse, moped, bicycle, or even your own two feet completely free of regulation. There are roads pedestrians can't use, sidewalks forbidden for bicycles, and so on.
The courts have not found that individuals have an unburdened right to drive cars and trucks in public places.
Yeah they have. Long ago. No one disputes this.
And why don't you know what the legal term "willfulness" means ?
I dispute it. You haven't been able to show a single decision that says so. Nobody on this entire site has.
And again, you insist on mixing words. "the right to travel does not include a right to drive a car or truck" is actually true, but not for the reason you think. Everyone has a right to travel USING their car or truck! But it does not include a right to DRIVE (which entails commerce/for hire)! Do you understand it now! Driving has nothing to do with traveling! And traveling has nothing to do with driving! They are two separate legal terms! Traveling is driving without being employed to/for hire/ or commerce!!!!!!!!!!!
State legislatures (or courts where the legislature is silent) have a specific definition for "drive" as applies to the specific section of the vehicle laws you may be charged under. You can't simply make up your own and force it upon a court to exempt yourself from the law.
In the codes that govern licensing, registration, and traffic law, "driving" most certainly includes operating a motorized vehicle for non-commercial use. Your pseudolegal attempt to replace the actual law with a Canadian textbook is void as far as the law is concerned.
Ken – you have that totally backwards. You have fallen into the EXACT trap that those in power now WANT you to believe. that the Constitution is what grants YOU your rights.. it DOES NOT.
The Constitution tells the Government the rights of OURS that IT can't infringe upon. It's a document LIMITING the central/federal government, thus whatever is NOT specifically stated that in terms of the powers GIVEN TO IT BY THE PEOPLE means it does NOT have that power.
The Constitution ONLY GRANTS the central government the power to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE via the Commerce clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 3.. that means that because there is NOTHING LISTED as creating police forces, telling people what or how to drive on the PUBLIC ROADS, which includes using the conveyances of the time are NOT powers given to the government, EXCEPT as it deals with commerce.. period.
This is why the 9th and 10th amendments leave every other possible power, law or authority that is possible that is NOT SPECIFICALLY given to the central government in the Constitution Automatically becomes a state power.
BUT.. NO STATE can make a law going against the Constitution which includes the right to free traveling using the Conveyances of the time on the public roads paid for by taxes.
“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based
upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional
by discrimination,although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22
Thus if you are a bus driver, truck driver, taxi driver, THEN they can make you get a license, which is permission to do that which is otherwise ILLEGAL as it clearly says in Blacks 8th and Bouviers and is a general definition as well. The license is also a right to operate a business which is why Electricians, plumbers, contractors all have to be licensed.. It doesn't mean they have a certain skill level, it simply means that they have PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT (King) to engage in that business for profit.
Those who use the public roads for profit also must be licensed to use those roads and pay a USE TAX to do so.
No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
USE DETERMINES classification.. not type of conveyance.
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241,
28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household
effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly
disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir.
1907).
"All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2.
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was "consumer goods" as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
Cars are automatically defined as Consumer goods, NOT automobiles and as such NO LICENSE Is necessary to use such carriages in traveling on the public roads. Only when you make the public roads your place of BUSINESS FOR PROFIT can the state then regulate that activity.
The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as "consumer goods" under UCC 9-109(1) or "equipment" under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
"it is held that a tax upon common carriers my motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically an obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual
and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” Haddad vs State Arizona
In other words.. the state ONLY has control over your carriage (which becomes a vehicle when used for commercial purposes/making a living/profit), nor do they have ANY authority or right under the Constitution to tell you how to PARK your car, carriage or conveyance in your own driveway especially, which is NOT part of the public highways!
This all perfectly jives with the various definitions of DRIVING that others have already mentioned AND IS ALSO mentioned in US TITLE 18 part 1 which all the states also derive their state laws from;
US Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 2:32
"The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."
The term Used for commercial
purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking
intended for profit.
(your state) State Transportation Code references the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), CFR definition of Driver states; “Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.” My personal carriage is not a commercial motor vehicle. (49 CFR 390.5)
First state law requiring all drivers to pass an exam before receiving a
[commercial use privilege] license took effect in July of 1913, in New
Jersey Beginning in 1920, courts began to hold that driving is not a
right, but a privilege that the state may revoke
"Guest"–One who comes along for pleasure, recreational, or private reasons without cost or without having to pay.
LICENSE
= license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that
would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a
lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to enter
the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal,
"Passenger"–One who pays, employs, or hires someone to transport themselves to another location
"Traveling
on the common way"–The act of locomotion and conveyance on the common
way for private, personal, and recreational purposes
"Driving
on the road"–The act of propelling a motor vehicle on the roadway or
highway by one who is employed or hired to transport goods or
passengers.
Thus this issue is NOT just about the license itself, but about the very classification of your car. The Supreme court has already determined that automobiles are consumer goods and household effects and can not be regulated, taxed (license, registration fee's, tickets (use tax) etc UNLESS you are using said consumer goods ON THE PUBLIC ROADS FOR PROFIT in which case is NOW BECOMES a vehicle and IS SUBJECT to the motor vehicle codes, having to have a license to operate a business etc.
That is why you can become an UBER DRIVE without needing a commercial license because your drives license is JUST THAT, a license to use the public roads for profit.
UNLESS you state otherwise that your car is consumer goods, it's ASSUMED to be a vehicle. I stated this as I was pulled over by a cop and when i said that my car was consumer goods the next thing he said was "oh, so you're not driving then? I said "that's correct, I'm traveling". I beat that and other registration and inspection tickets as well in the past so i KNOW this information is valid!
I believe that you also mentioned the California code, unless it was someone else.. but here is something to consider if you live in Cali.
The California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc.not in
commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees
The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and certificate of title
1) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highways in conformance with the provisions of this Article relating to manufacturers, dealers, or nonresidents.”
2.) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway othe purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. ****20-51(1)(2) (comment: not driven or moved upon the highway for transporting persons or property for profit.) (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 “Statutory Construction”)
The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8 (and similar statements made in all other state constitutions) Mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness against himself," is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment."
And remember, that "Traffic infractions are not a crime" 50 Cal app
I can go on and on with this, but this is already too long.. peace.
Laws as relate to safety on the public roads fall to the states pursuant to the tenth amendment, as agreed by the Supreme Court in this post and elsewhere. In a representative democracy featuring judicial review it is up to the courts to interpret the constitutions, laws and relevant precedent. There is no point in interpreting anything as an individual because it will not affect how the force of the state is applied. You need clear, unambiguous, applicable precedent. For a state traffic charge, that means precedent from a superior state court. If there were some federal right that could be engaged believe me someone would do it. You're not the first to think of this. You need to take your argument to a court, either in response to a fine or pre-emptively for a declaratory judgment. If you "don't trust the courts", well, the only alternative is a violent revolution and restarting all over again. Such an endeavor would be devastating to everything we've come to know and I don't think most people in western countries, who enjoy far more stability and justice than elsewhere, are up for that right now.
You're muddling completely separate issues and missing significant context. For one thing, no court or code has found that there is an inalienable right to drive a motorized vehicle. Driving and traveling are two separate things.
Automobiles can be household effects in one context, and motor vehicles subject to regulation in another. Your point in that regard is like saying "he can't be a plumber, he's already Catholic!"
You're trying to stitch together a legal principle out of misinterpreted scraps and sentences torn out of context and blended together. It's not working.
Time to end the useless eaters of government employees just passing laws to take more and more from the people so they live like kings off the backs of the people, AND that is why you have a second Amendment .Are you willing to die for your country and its peoples.
Have you ever considered the possibility that most of your neighbors think that drivers should be required to obtain a license?
I believe you're getting hung up on the term "Regulate". The law dictionary defines regulate as… The power to regulate commerce, vested in congress, is the power to prescribe the rules by which it (commerce) shall be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it (commerce) shall be conducted, to determine when it (commerce) shall be free, and when subject to duties or other exactions. The power also embraces within its control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided and encouraged.
Therefore, the police powers that are permitted to regulate, as in Thompson v. Smith, are still doing so in the realm of commerce. Remember that the definitions of the law are not the same as the definitions as you use them in everyday conversations.
I'm not using an obsolete, privately-published, and inapplicable legal definition, Mr. Bigbrain. I'm using the ordinary definition. The police power of the states is not limited to commerce.
That's why they've made a distinction between Driving (Commercial operation (License required)) and Travel (Non Commercial Travel (no license required)).
That is false. "Driving" is not defined as a commercial activity in state driver licensing and vehicle registration laws. Read the article.
Drive is a commerce term used in transportation of goods from state to state ,Interstate commerce not everyone is in commerce.
What is DRIVER? Look one EMPLOYED,,,,,EMPLOYED
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or
motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich,
112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902, (Black's Law Dictionary)
You are wrong for several reasons, all of which have already been addressed in comments here.
1. No, that is not the definition in Black's Law Dictionary. Go to a library.
2. The definition in Black's Law Dictionary is irrelevant to the interpretation of statutes which already include definitions.
This is not a school kids dictionary,its the one Judges use to define law phrases and words.You can't make up definitions as you go and no one is above the law.Pull the dictionary out in court and watch them squirm because they no longer can push meaningless words on you.I know I use it when I go to court and why do you need 12 versions of a dictionary for the same words,Its called FRAUD and the Judges and Lawyers squirm when you show them the dumbing down of the People.The Lawyers guild is without justice there is just us.Have you been brain washed by the public education system like common core,Were you ever taught the constitution in public school or the monetary system you use and call promissory notes to pay a dollar. Your Promissory notes is why you have public debt.Use title 12 subsection 411 for lawful money and drop the public debt like a smart American will do.Use lawful money of the United States instead of debt notes.Demand is made for lawful money like in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Okay, that's enough. I've indulged you too long. Goodbye.
Wrong again!
If law dictionaries are irrelevant in a LAW court then we can make up our own definitions to suit our case if there is no local definition already in play, as in the common law, is what you are implying here. No, the only dictionary that is irrelevant in a courtroom is a Merriam Webster dictionary! Using the proper definitions in the court will help your case!
Law dictionaries are helpful for compiling the definitions used in practice, but judges are not obligated to defer to definitions written and published by private companies. If a statute defines one term in plain language, then Merriam-Webster is probably a more useful predictor of how a judge will interpret that definition.
BLACKS LAW 8th –
LICENSE
license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some
act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting
to a lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to
enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be
illegal, such as hunting game. See SERVITUDE(1). PP 2691 Blacks Law 8th
VEHICLE
1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance. 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air."Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 4822
passenger – n. a rider on a train, bus, airline, taxi, ship, ferry, automobile, or other carrier in the business of transporting people for a fee
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Passenger)
TRAFFIC – traffic,n.1. Commerce; trade; the sale or exchange of such things as merchandise, bills, and money. 2. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. 3. People or things being transported along a route. 4. The passing
to and fro of people, animals, vehicles, and vessels along a transportation route.
Black's is created by a private Canadian corporation, Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. and is not mentioned in a state or federal constitution as having judicial powers. Black's follows and generalizes about a wide variety of courts, not the other way around. When a legislature defines a word in an act, chapter, subchapter, etc., it stands for interpretation of that act or applicable sections. If a legislature does not define a word, the court decides for use within its jurisdiction. You don't go into a court telling the court how to interpret the law. You go to a court to find out the court's interpretation of the law, and thereby how the force of the state will be applied. If you don't like a court's decision you can appeal to a superior court. After those opportunities are exhausted there's nothing you can do but try again or seek to have the law changed by a majority through your representatives.
What's your point? Those are recommended definitions published by a private corporation, not the ones used in transportation laws.
"There is not a constitutional right to drive a car on public roads."
Agreed but ….
There is no restriction in the constitution to driving or traveling in a automobile on public roads either !
Therefore the matter is a states matter!
The CVC section 260 defines who or what is a commercial driver/travelor vehicle and who/what is not required to register a motor vehicle!
It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.
I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.
Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!
Also a sovereign is recognized by the state are every person in that state so enough with the paranoia of the Judicial demonizing its own citizens with their sovereign citizen nonsense!
Yup. And all fifty states require driver licensing and vehicle registration.
No, Bill. CA Veh Code § 260 defines what a commercial vehicle is. It has nothing to do with the drivers. It has been interpreted to include pickup trucks
No, it does not. Read it again, Bill.
Good for you, but that doesn't change the licensing, registration, or speed requirements in the state of California.
Good luck, but statutes are and have always been a binding part of common law.
I have no idea what this sentence means, but I assume it fits in with your Alex Jones antisemitic nutjob lifestyle. Please don't murder any cops, Bill.
It clearly states in plain language those vehicles used in commerce are "required"to be registered and those not engaged in commerce are NOT reqipuired to be registered.
No, it does not. Read it again, Bill.
I read it to the judge as published and he dismissed the count! So, read it, Ken!
I just won my court case on 3 counts, no licence, no registration and speeding. The first two were dismissed before the trial, the radar speeding was dismissed at trial! One thing is certain, if you don't fight these thieves you will lose every time! I'm 2 for 2 now as I won my pervious speeding ticket at court as well.
Good for you, but that doesn't change the licensing, registration, or speed requirements in the state of California.
No but by using the CVC code as it is written as I did in both trials, one can win without changing the code, which FYI, only the legislature can do, Ken!
Btw, as defined by the Calif. Constitution Common Law is the superior law to use in Calif courts! That makes it easy peasy to get your case dismissed since there is no valid complaint of damages or a right violated!
Good luck, but statutes are and have always been a binding part of common law.
None of your luck needed here Ken, as the common law is superior to statue law as per the Calif Constitution. Sorry if that is at odds with your opinions. The judge in my case apparently agreed as well! I use only SCOTUS or state Supreme Court decisions in my defense which is why I have perfect willfulness and can't be punished for that but get those case dismissed!
Sure beats your advice about killing cops, doesn't it Ken ?
Please don't take on any clients to defend Ken,or give any advice, they all deserve better!
Wait, are you saying that it's bad advice when I recommend that you don't kill cops????
By the way, the "blockquote" tags would make that comment so, so much easier to read. Please look up the Disqus formatting tags.
Study English in general, too. What the heck is "perfect willfulness" and why do you think it would be a good thing?
I have no problem reading the way I post here and my eyes are almost 70 years old!
"Willfulness"is a legal term. You can look it up to learn for yourself, the best way to learn they say, Ken
Word meaning are especially important in a courtroom. I always define mine when needed and site the most current and superior definitions which are a surprise to some on occasion.
When state courts are dealing with a state vehicle code charge the definitions in play are found at the top of the subchapter, chapter, title, etc. with the nearer, more specific, definition overriding all the others. Courts can't ignore these definitions. If a definition is not legislated, then the court decides what the words mean, and it applies as precedent throughout that court's jurisdiction. The courts, not individuals, not dictionaries made by Canadian corporations (Black's), have a monopoly on interpreting the state and federal constitutions and laws made thereunder.
with the nearer, more specific, definition overriding all the others
Or "if absent of any other federal definition, " is the way I got Round that. Using their own codes language again to win!
A real win involves having rights clearly and unequivocally elucidated by the court, being paid damages and having unlawful state laws struck down. What court and case number are you referring to? State and federal jurisdictions are fairly independent. Read Hendrick v Maryland again.
In the absence of …
That's how I got them, I found they had to use the Federal definition which was NOT absent! It just requires some research, nothing you could find out asking an officer of the court an attorney sadly! Btw, these statutes masquerading as "safety" have been proven to not be for public "safety" but for a public derived source of revenue for localities and the states budget! The State of Montana proved that decades ago!
Police powers may belong to the state but they still can't violate a citizens Federal rights
Means, states have to protect our rights and follow the supreme law of the land the Federal Constitution. Police powers don't suspend the Constitution or our rights and neither does "martial law" !
A real win …
This was traffic court not state or federal appeals court! I got the "real" win with the dismissal. If I hadn't been dismissed I would have grounds for an appeal, then I could win on violation of my rights, that's federal rights! I'm surprised you acting as a lawyer/officer of the court, here don't know that?
What do state courts care about federal definitions? It doesn't matter whether there's a federal definition or not. Federal definitions apply to federal law, not state.
Apparently the courts agree and are now doing away with the 4th and 5th amendments for a traffic violation.
The Calif. traffic courts have done away with our constitutional right to a jury trial,
now they are doing away with the prosecuter saying that the ticketing revenue officer being a part of the executive branch is able to take the place of the prosecutor!
This is an obvious violation of the "separation of powers" but hey, as you said, state courts don't have to follow Federal rules, the constitution or definitions other than their own.
Again, realize you are dealing with criminals when going to court and take the neccessary precautions to protect yourself. Btw, I haven't paid bail in my last two trials! Don't ever give these thieves your 💰 is my motto! If I don't get my jury trial, they don't get my bail money !
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEHsectionNum=15210.
Vehicle Code – VEH
DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES [12500 – 15325] ( Heading of Division 6 amended by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1615. )
CHAPTER 7. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Program [15200 – 15325] ( Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
ARTICLE 2. Definitions [15210- 15210.] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
15210.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, as used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(p) “Serious traffic violation” includes any of the following:
(8) Driving a
commercial motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless
communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication,
as defined in Section 23123.5.
In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code apply.
Perhaps you can read through your typos and bizarre grammar, but it's pretty tricky for me. If you don't even know what common law is and believe that private publishing companies have supreme judicial power, I'm not particularly impressed by your interpretations of legal terms.
Your probably to used to reading "legaleez" [?] then as I have the same trouble reading it as you have reading my plain English! That you question what a common legal term means lends me to having little confidence in your opinions expressed here.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you "willfully" obey the law as you misunderstand it? I'm a bit confused that you would use an adjective for unlawful conduct while claiming that the law is on your side.
That's because I use the law as written and courts published legal decisions.
How do you do it?
That's kind of like saying "I egregiously took a shower and wantonly shaved." If you believe your conduct is lawful, why drag willfulness into it?
Ken just does NOT GET that once he says "driver" and "vehicle".. that those are the magic words they want people to be sooo brainwashed with that they automatically associate them with traveling, not understanding that those are all commercials terms ONLY and ONLY apply to someone making the public highways his place of business and profit. NOT to the majority of people traveling to and from work, for pleasure or personal business.
For the purpose of licensing and registration, they're defined in each state's transportation code. They are not limited to commerce.
You claim this but provide no proof of this court appearance. Please provide a docket number and jurisdiction as well as the month and year. so I can go to the clerk of court and look it up. I have seen this issue arise in the past where a cop wrote up a citation using the wrong Vehicle Code section. In fact it has happened to me. The court can only refer to the code section cited on the citation or in an indictment and f the facts do not support a conviction under that code section then he has to dismiss the action.
That said Ken S. is correct that the code section you cite to are not proof of what you claim. California as all states has code sections which apply specifically to commercial vehicle and defines that classification. It also has Vehicle code sections which apply to private vehicles and non-commercial drivers
Correct.. as it's also recognized by the courts that all Americans are sovereigns with the same authority formerly belonging to the king.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).
"The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign…" Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.
Good luck using that defense to nullify a criminal prosecution or discharge a debt.
I never said you could. But that highlights a faar more disturbing problem that's at the heart of all of these discussions… which is the fact that the United States but longer recognizes Americans as being The Sovereign kings that they are but has tricked everyone into believing that their 14th Amendment slaves when they're not period
Do you not know that the constitution speaks of four different kinds of law and not all of them apply to everyone. This is why the founders kept the British Bar Association with his Maritime admiralty law out of the United States until the mid-1850s because with it comes all of its ridiculous policies legal definitions and terms that are used to enslave populations as they've done for hundreds of years in Europe. It's why America was founded on simple common law and biblical law not the convoluted legalese of the bar. The Constitution was made so that the average person could understand it because we were the Kings and the government as recognized by the cases that I cited which was the point of them.
Just because the courts no longer recognize these things or allow them as defenses doesnt mean that they're not true. If you judge the accuracy of the knowledge by whether or not it works in the courts then that is flawed thinking because the courts are no longer courts of United States but are of British royalty which is how the British were able to subjugate America once again after the Civil War when America had to be incorporated so It could borrow money from the banks of Rothschild and avoid complete bankruptcy… Which was finally declared in 1933.
There is no such thing as individual sovereignty in any society. What murderer would agree to a state law against murder? Laws being optional would be chaos, not order. The US is and always has been based on popular sovereignty, where the majority, not individuals make the rules that bind everyone. Furthermore, English common law and statutes were clearly received subject to the legislature(s) and have since been heavily modified separately in each state. All power devolves from the state and federal constitutions that comprise the internationally-recognized sovereign nation-state of the US/USA. Oh and legislators don't have to be lawyers. State legislation made the Bar in each state. You can't put the created before the creator. Sorry, but random people on the internet lied. Try a university course.
That's meaningless drivel, RichSpirit. You're mixing up anarchism, misunderstandings of English common law, fiction about historical events that never occurred, and conspiracy theories about lawyers and royalty.
ok Ken with that logic there is a constitutional right to free speech (no law shall be made that infringes on that right), however there is not a constitutional right to speak your language of choice in public parks. Showing me that there is a right to free speech is not an argument against laws that would restrict language of expression and regulation of public places for the privelege of free expression.
As seen in the first paragraph of the article, the constitutional right to travel the courts created is more often referred to as the right to Freedom of Movement, which is the right to enter and exit the several states. The states using their police power to regulate the highways for public safety does not infringe on that. Speech and other more explicit rights, such as the right to bear arms, can also be limited so-far as they may infringe on other rights.
There's a very big difference between speaking a language and hurling thousands of pounds of steel mere inches from other cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Freedom of speech isn't absolute, either, ya know!
Your problem is that you refuse to understand legal terminology. YOU keep using the words driving and driver's license in lieu of traveling! Driving and driver have legal definitions that you refuse to accept, which includes employed, for hire, or commerce. Driving does NOT have anything to do with traveling. You are so indoctrinated that whenever you get into a car you are driving, and it is NOT correct.
Many state vehicle codes define "driving", "driver", "motor vehicle", etc. explicitly. When you perform an action, such as "being in control of a self-propelled vehicle on the public roads", as the definition may be, you are captured by the definition for purpose of interpretation of that law. Have at look at your state codes. What state are you in? Maybe I'll find them for you.
Not in the codes that govern licensing, registration, and traffic law, they don't. Black's from 1910 is not controlling authority.
Please at least google to confirm your claims before posting them here. Every state funds the roads with a different combination of fuel and many other fees and taxes.
Wrong! https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
The state eventually came down hard on the guy in that video and, as I recall, he narrowly avoided prison time and may now have a felony on his record for covering his VIN. He has also since sold his car and stopped "traveling."
…and where did you get this alleged "information" concerning this driver, traveler or whatever the fuck you want to call him???
I was following the guy on Facebook.
Again…..https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
Chris, I'm deleting your posts until you read the first case on that page for yourself.
Just because you make a final false statement of : "And no, "driving" is not exclusive to commerce",does not make it true. There is a legal system for a reason (even though it rarely works as it is supposed to), and that is to render decisions based on FACT and ESTABLISHED LEGAL DEFINITION! The legal definition of "driving" includes "for hire"/commerce!
No state vehicle laws require commerce for driver licensing, vehicle registration or financial responsibility laws. This is clearly ascertainable by reading the laws themselves and studying court decisions that have directly engaged the argument. All courts admit lack of commerce is no exception to the requirements of those laws and that your consent is not required. Dig around in your state decisions on Google Scholar and you will find the same. The requirements are upheld as part of constitutional state police power.
"The legal definition" includes it, but it not exclusive to it. The codes that govern licensing, registration, and traffic law define "drive," "driver" and "driving" for these purposes, not a 109-year old copy of Black's Law Dictionary.
Once again. Taking cherry-picked quotes out of cases, ignoring the context of the quote is a logical fallacy not proof of anything. Your points have been addressed in prior posts here and shot down. Just repeating the same drivel, ignoring the prior posts isn't going to work. Let me know when you have some actual valid points with supporting caselaw.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
(1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a
fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution
does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights
given in the Constitution.People like you are the ones who pick what part you want .No doubt you live off the backs of the working people and took an oath to uphold the constitution and break your word when it comes to the peoples rights and life so you can have government paid medical, pensions and wages. While the people who pay you to have these things do without and the oath you take is breach of contract.People are the masters not the hired servants that live like kings off the people.I will take their oath in court with me when I go and make sure it is upheld for my benefit not theirs,They work for me not me for them.The United States Constitution is supreme law of the land like stated in Marbury vs. Madison and the Supreme court has judicial Jurisdiction of all law and statutes in all states.
I repeat my prior statement, once again. Taking cherry-picked quotes out of cases, ignoring the context of the quote is a logical fallacy not proof of anything. Your points have been addressed in prior posts here and shot down. Just repeating the same drivel, ignoring the prior posts isn't going to work. Let me know when you have some actual valid points with supporting caselaw. No one says that people do not have the right to travel from one state to another. That is clear. The issue has to do with your drivel about driver's licensing.
You take facts out of a case not cherry picked items,the fact remains the supreme court made a decision on the issue and made it clear in the cases stated ,that is how lawyers do their job. Remember what is is in Clinton case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHlt1W83JFU, why don't you get it,It was good enough for Clinton its good enough for we the people.
You are wrong…..https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
"Each state has its own laws and under those laws defines the terms used
in the statute. Where the definition is unclear the courts can under
certain circumstances, interpret the intent of the legislature."
Is it Okay to cite a definition of a term from January 1, 2016? directly from the CVC
State of California
Vehicle Code – VEH
DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES [12500 – 15325] ( Heading of Division 6 amended by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1615. )
CHAPTER 7. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Program [15200 – 15325] ( Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
ARTICLE 2. Definitions [15210- 15210.] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1509, Sec. 9. )
15210.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, as used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(p) “Serious traffic violation” includes any of the following:
(8) Driving
a commercial motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless
communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication,
as defined in Section 23123.5.
*In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code apply.*
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 303, Sec. 540. Effective January 1, 2016.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=15210.
Are you a plain dimwit? A Statute is not, I repeat IS NOT, a law!
The military and police and courts exist to enforce constitutions and statutes. Force makes the law. Your interpretation is irrelevant.
Again you make bogus statements. The military is NOT to enforce constitutions. The military is "supposed" to be for the security of our nation, and they take an oath to protect the people and the Constitution, not to enforce it! Remember the Posse comitatus Act? Problem is, the military is being misused, and has been since the civil war, by an authoritarian/tyrannical government, the same type of government that our forefathers sought to get us away from!
Force does NOT make laws. Force and intimidation is necessary to enforce illegal laws, because the people refuse to obey them.
The Posse Comitatus Act is not absolute. There are situations where the military may be used for law enforcement. See for example H. Con. Res. 274 – 109th Congress, wherein:
Law inherently requires the use of force. If you didn't force murderers to go to prison, they wouldn't.
That's not what the dictionaries or courts have said for the last eight centuries! There's a pretty firm consensus that statutes are indeed laws.
You state " A Statute is not, I repeat IS NOT, a law". Please provide actual, verifiable proof of this claim. After all, Blacks's Law Dictionary which you seem enamored with disagrees with you. It states, "Statute: An act of the legislature; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government, expressed with the requisite for- malities. In foreign and civil law. Any particular municipal law or usage, though resting for its authority on judicial decisions, or the practice of nations. 2 Kent, Comm. 450
http://thelawdictionary.org/statute-n/
a statute is for persons, not natural persons. In commercial law, the all capital letter name is presumed to be a commercial entity and are presumed guilty until you break the presumption
The highest laws in the land are the federal and state constitutions. These constitutions establish legislatures and courts in charge of interpreting the constitution and legislation. The legislation applies to all persons, natural and artificial, within the recognized geography of the state and federal governments. If these laws didn't apply to natural persons there would be lawlessness and chaos. For example, who would hold murderers accountable? There is only the state police power and federal law for that.
The all-capital argument has been tried many, many times and has been thoroughly rejected by the courts.
Where you and most people are wrong, is when you claim that legislatures and courts are in charge of INTERPRETING the Constitution! Interpretation involves OPINION. Our Constitution is written in such a way that there is NO interpretation necessary. Courts and legislatures are in charge of establishing Constitutionality based on facts. This is why there are so many laws in this country that completely violate the Constitution, a great example being the 2nd amendment. ALL "arms" laws are unconstitutional because they INFRINGE on the right to bear arms. The federal government and nearly ALL states are violating this amendment, and sadly, many of these laws remain in effect because the courts refuse to hear the case – the SCOTUS in notorious for refusing to hear cases against the NFA, ATF, and several other state gun law cases. Then you have idiots like justice roberts who change the wording of the bill (Ovomitcare) and claim it to be constitutional. roberts had NO authority to change wording in ANY case being heard. It finally took a separate case, for a federal judge to strike it down as unconstitutional. YOU fail to see that city, state, and federal government is corrupt to the hilt.
What our forefathers failed to envision, is government creating a multitude of laws without anything to verify their constitutionality BEFORE going into effect! In reality, a law should not go into effect until it has been verified by the SCOTUS as constitutional, but even then their decision should be allowed to be challenged, as in what justice roberts did!
Whether the Constitution is open for interpretation and how far interpretation may go is a debate that goes back hundreds of years. Some Justices are more textualist and originalist than others. I think nearly everyone agrees that reasonable limits on rights are necessary for public safety. By your logic every citizen could drive around with a rusty old nuclear bomb in the back of a pickup truck in a populated area. That would not be safe or fair to anyone or conducive to peaceful, ordered society. In general, rights are only able to be limited as far as it protects the rights of others.
The Obamacare individual mandate penalty was narrowly upheld as a constitutional form of tax in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The penalty was reduced to $0 in a 2018 GOP tax bill, though, so Obamacare is basically dead going forward and the decision is moot.
Yes, the way new laws work is they are enacted then tested and refined in the courts. This does mean that unconstitutional and bad laws are often enacted. It's a pain but arguably necessary for the law to evolve quickly in light of technological and societal developments.
That is a lovely opinion. Not based on any actual fact but a lovely opinion.
@juanjo54:disqus , take Notice of the current HIGHWAY OCCUPANCY PERMIT OPERATIONS MANUAL, using 1938 case law to explain a situation; IT'S NOT ABSURD! And speaks about >travel rights>The travelling public has the right to reasonably safe passage.<>The travelling public has the right to reasonably safe passage.<< A balance must be struck between these public and private rights, and the exercise of police power must not unreasonably intermeddle with the rights of the abutting property owner.
9. Seitzinger v. Department of Transportation, Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Civil Action No. S- 1522-1991, April 23, 1993.
Read the damn case. The issue there is a basic Constitutional Law issue, the taking away or ownership or the rights of an owner to land ownership rights without just compensation under the law. This is a right guaranteed under the 5th Amendment takings clause – "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". There is no word anywhere in this case about anything remotely related to operating a private vehicle on the public roadways, other than the property owner here was complaining about not being allowed access from the road to his property.
Juanjo54 – look at your own paragraph 3 which does not reference personal property automobile but rather what? Come on, say it – Motor Vehicle! Now, don't try to strain your brain too much, look up the legal definition of Motor Vehicle!
It's been covered in other comments. The definition of motor vehicle used on a state vehicle code charge can be found in the vehicle code itself. The courts can't ignore those legislated definitions.
"(11) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power from overhead trolley wires. The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201."
Yes, paragraph 3 references motor vehicles. So what? The laws of Texas like the laws of any state or the federal statutes for that matter are not reade as if each and every section or clause is a stand alone law to be read independent of all other sections of the law.
See Texas Transportation Code 601.002
(5) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle designed for use on a highway, a trailer or semitrailer designed for use with a self-propelled vehicle, or a vehicle propelled by electric power from overhead wires and not operated on rails. The term does not include:
(A) a traction engine;
(B) a road roller or grader;
(C) a tractor crane;
(D) a power shovel;
(E) a well driller;
(F) an implement of husbandry; or
(G) an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201.
Not quite the right definitions, but close! The ones in 601.002 only apply to Chapter 601, "Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act," as opposed to the definitions in 541.201, which apply "In this subtitle," i.e. the Vehicles and Traffic title of the Transportation Code.
Actually I do know how to properly read a statute. Unlike you I have been an attorney for 35 years.
35 years!!!!…and all that time totally brainwashed by the puppet masters…hope you make it to 70!
That's a lovely ad hominem. Let me know if you ever have a substantive comment.
Question: What do you call 100 attorneys at the bottom of the sea? Answer: A good start!; Question: Why don't sharks eat attorneys? Answer: Professional Courtesy! Pray tell o learned master (ie "bullshit artist that has a piece of paper hanging on his wall telling him how much more intelligent he is at twisting word meanings into an "emotional retort" that makes his "existence" something other than a blood sucking parasite who lives on other people's suffering palatable") did you get a gold star for using "big boy" vocabulary to impress the masses? I think you're missing the point. Like all good little attorneys, I'm sure that you once (and maybe still do???) had your bar raised up around "politician" height didn't you? This country was founded on "emotional speeches" made by Patriots who actually wanted to do something constructive for their country, but I'm guessing that you would most likely compliment them also on their "lovely ad hominem" wouldn't you Perry Mason? Why do I get the impression that you are an arrogant verbose self-indulgent person who probably didn't have too many friends as he was growing up and that's why he became an attorney to fill in all those empty spaces in his life with an expensive house, expensive car, a membership in the local country club and all the other "nice things" that are meant to impress people so they will like you…at least until they get the bill for your "services", right? It is amusing to watch you spar with the other people who enjoy discussing topics such as this…and how you have to resort to a pissing contest with someone you don't even know just to win the argument…in your own mind anyway! Put another notch on that carbon fiber driver for anyone who can't keep up with your witty little mind…if nothing else, you can always win your argument in a forum like this where all you have to do is throw down a few $5.00 words to impress the masses and you are right on course for that black robe one day…if some pissed off former client doesn't decide to put an end to your existence for ending his in that ugly divorce battle you won for that cute little hard belly you were putting lots of "extra hours" into (literally!!!)..but, I'm guessing that as soon as she got the cash she stopped answering your calls? Thank you for you stellar evaluation of my sub-par contribution to your ego…but, keep swinging that club and eventually you might even be asked to join one of those "special cliques" that guys like you cherish so much…keep raising that bar counselor! This may not have been a "substantive comment" as far as you are concerned, but what would you expect from one of the little people?
ps. How do you know that other guy/gal isn't an attorney just like you?…maybe even a "judge"!…or even better, a politician!!! Is this something that you learn in law school? Let's see…make the demeaning statement…check!…try to impress your opponent with your lengthy history as an "attorney"…double check! That will win an argument every time…TRIPLE CHECK!!!
More ad hominems. Nothing of substance.
Please do try to leave out the latin and legalese. It only makes it highly confusing for us common folk who are trying to actually understand what you are trying to say, and forces us to waste time googling something that would have taken you the same amount of time to simply explain in plain english.
I'm sorry, is English your second language?
Nooo, I dont think so. But then, I've never left the US or learned another language.
That is amusing there, Chase. Do you have numerous different accounts with different names? If not, then why are you responding to a comment I made to warmachine8 Gaming concerning his word salad? Which he posted apparently to comment I made to someone identified as "guest".
Juan its no use these people are fucking brainwashed and they think changing or interpreting words in their own way is law.
What I am seeing on this site is a bunch of people who see a law and determine that it stops there. How many laws are still on the books but are unconstitutional? Someone needs to go to court first before these laws that do violate liberty are repealed . And nine times out of ten , the laws are not repealed just amended. Usually a law has a provision in it to make clear if one section is found unconstitutional the rest is unaffected. Even this article you provided states the license and registration laws and fees violate liberty, so just because the laws are written and enforced does not mean the RIGHT to locomotion is void or nonexistent. So you all are wrong. Wrong and apparently to scared to fight in court for your rights, and therefore you have none and therefore you allow others to have their rights trampled. The right does exist ,and the right is being violated. What other right is regulated and licensed and taxed in such a way and is still called a right not a privilege? ????? Thought so.
any proof for your claims. I am seeing none.
1. Pursuant to U.S. Constitution Article VI paragraph two This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. See Gioia v. Gioia, 435 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla.4th DCA 1983) (“We are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court when those decisions invoke a provision of the United States Constitution”) . [T]he federal Constitution . . . represents the floor for basic freedoms; the state constitution, the ceiling. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 17 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Traylor, 596 So. 2d at 962).
2. Pursuant to Constitutional law: The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123. Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
3. This “freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic freedom under the Constitution” as well. In fact, “this freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful-knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking.” Aptheker v. Sec'y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 520, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring); see also Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999) (describing the constitutional right to interstate travel as “firmly embedded” in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence); see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 638, 89 S.Ct. (1969)
4. In State v. J.P.,907 So. 2d 1101, 1113 (Fla.2004), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the “right to intrastate travel in Florida is clear.”
5. Pursuant to Fl. Stat. 775.021 Rules of construction.— (1)The provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused.
6. Pursuant to Florida Statute Ch. 322.01 (17)“Driver license” means a certificate that, subject to all other requirements of law, authorizes an individual to drive a motor vehicle and denotes an operator’s license as defined in 49 U.S.C. s. 30301.
7. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30301 (5) “motor vehicle operator’s license” means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.
8. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 523.2 and U.S.C. 329101 except as provided in section 32908 of this title (49 U.S.C.), “automobile” means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
9. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30101 Purpose and policy, The purpose of this chapter is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is necessary—
(1) to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce;
10. Under Constitutional interpretation, motor vehicles are different in terms of rights compared to privileges. As evidenced above, the term motor vehicle deals with commerce. Conclusive evidence can be found in Title 18 where all Federal Crimes are listed:
18 U.S.C. 31 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure Definitions part 1 Chapter 2 (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
11. Title 49 U.S.C. Department of Transportation is for manufacturing standards of motor vehicles and automobiles; also, to protect the peoples’ right of traveling in their automobiles from the traffic of people exercising the privilege of operating motor vehicles transporting in commerce.
12. Pursuant to Fl. Stat. 316.640 Enforcement.—The enforcement of the traffic laws of this state is vested as follows: (2)COUNTIES.— (a)The sheriff’s office of each of the several counties of this state shall enforce all of the traffic laws of this state on all the streets and highways thereof and elsewhere throughout the county wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle.
13.. If automobile is included in Florida’s definition of motor vehicle, then construing the statutes in favor of the accused, the State clearly recognizes the right to travel by automobile as noted above in Fl. St. 316.640, and is distinct compared to the privilege of driving a motor vehicle
14.. Federal legislation and all U.S. Supreme Court rulings are very specific in terms of traveling versus driving and automobile versus motor vehicle. Florida legislatures, whom have knowledge of inalienable, fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, also make a careful distinction between the privilege to drive (Fl. Stat. 322.34), and right to travel (Fl. Stat. 316.640). The Department of Transportation is to regulate traffic of motor vehicles operating in commerce as is noted in 49 U.S.C. 30101 and is irrefutable in 18 U.S.C. Federal Crimes that the term motor vehicle is reserved for commerce.
15. A final piece of evidence of the word traveling to be utilized when not in commerce and distinct versus the term driving to be used while in commerce is in Title 49 Subtitle B Chapter III Subchapter B Part 395 (j) Travel time —(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
16. Drive, drivers license, motor vehicle, operator, and carrier are all legal terms, as noted by the Federal Code and all U.S. Supreme Court rulings, reserved for the privilege of driving in commerce and are legally distinct from the terms travel, traveler, and automobile which are utilized when describing inalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) when not operating in interstate or intrastate commerce.
17. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
See 18 U.S.C. 242 which provides criminal penalties for a deprivation of rights under color of law.
If you actually read those cases in full you'll see that having a right doesn't mean the right can't reasonably be regulated. Consider that you have the right to free speech but it doesn't mean you have the right to defame people, call for direct violence or violate copyright law. Similarly you have the right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to bear arms as a felon, or bear nuclear arms or machine guns without numerous strict conditions.
The first right to travel case you cited, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 – Va: Supreme Court 1930, shows you the lie:
I won't take the time to debunk every single thing you said, but the statements about commerce being required are wrong. State police power is not, and never has been, limited to commercial activity.
The problem for you is simple. None of what you posted supports your claims regarding anything.
They seem to forget that the Supreme Court is who decides the interpretation of the Constitution. – Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
In common law countries, statutes do not have to be clear or unambiguous. That's what common law is for. If statutes are silent or vague then the court decides. Legislatures can be lazy and leave much to common law, if they like. See Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law. Nevertheless, most states do enact clear definitions for use with their legislation. "License" is commonly defined as a license authorized by the state. "Motor vehicle" is commonly defined as any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads. "Operator" or "driver" is commonly defined as anyone in control of a motor vehicle, etc. You have to look closely at the definitions in the section any individual charge is brought under, and its parent parts, chapters and titles, to find exactly which definitions apply for that charge.
Here's a guy who tried to argue he wasn't covered by 201.904 because he wasn't operating in commerce: Flores v. State, Tex: Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2014. The court did not disagree per se, but found he was still covered by the speed restrictions in 545.351 (the guy may have failed to read the section(s) quoted on his citation properly).
The sections up to 545.365 are also relevant to the state's ability to determine speed limits.
Yes, the state can enact speed signs for commercial operators, as in 201.904, but the state may also enact speed limits for others, too, as in 545.351 to 545.365.
This isn't entirely true, and it brings up the interesting topic of "unconstitutional vagueness." Not the subject of this discussion, but a fun one anyway.
Re: Driver's License requirement. Instead of trying to decipher definitions in the admittedly confusing Texas statutes, we can search for the licence requirement section on Scholar and see exactly how the courts might rule.
There we find decisions like Hicks v. State, 18 SW 3d 743 – Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2000, wherein:
and MARZETT v. McCraw, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015, wherein:
and Taylor v. State, Tex: Court of Appeals, 9th Dist. 2009, wherein:
As you can see, the argument that not everyone must have a state license to operate a self-propelled vehicle on the public roads doesn't work in real life.
A driver is a commercial term, for, one employed, paid, or hired, as a driver of livery, delivery, or a vehicle which serves a special unusual or commercial purpose, for which certain qualifications to operate are necessarily required, such as a big rig, backhoe, bus, etc. A driver gets PAID TO DRIVE, a traveller needs no license to "drive", for, "driving" is a commercial activity, and subject to governmental regulating, where, travelling, is absolutely not within the authority of the "state" to regulate. Or, does fraudulent-law think he knows more about actual Law, than, state and federal supreme Court justices…I highly doubt that he knows much about actual Law, I.e. the Organic Constitution ratified by all thirteen original Colony/States. P-L, u fail so hard!!! Don't you ever lie to me, and suggest that I try to refute, what I long knew to be absolute TRUTH…
Good luck trying to get that one past a Texas state trooper. Just sayin…
Where is the law that states that just because I am in any geographical location I am subject to its laws? When were any of us asked if we wanted to be "citizens?" How can it be assumed that simply because I was born in any geographic location, I am owned or part of a group, I may not wish to be associated with? For example. I detest that our monetary system is owned and controlled by private Bankster citizens, who pulled a financial coup on our government in 1913 and have been openly subverting our Bill of Rights ever since! I detest the wars these Bankster scumbags have had us mired in and profiteered by since the Battle of Waterloo! I hate that their control of our monetary system has allowed them to subvert our Constitution, which was ratified fully interpreted and etched in stone, yet suddenly requires interpretation and scholars to "help us" understand the plain meaning! I am for NONE of the terrorism our country has been forcing upon the planet, nor am I for the genocide! I want nothing to do with it! I don't even want to get started on their illegal,immoral and unconstitutional war on drugs which is simply a tool of control!
One last point…If I was not born with any special, (God given ,if you so believe) right to command you, and you were not born with any special authority to command me,and NO ONE ELSE was born with any special authority to command another , then how do two or more combine their "NON-EXISTENT" authority and tell the third what they can and cannot do,beyond the law of trespass? Zero authority plus zero authority equals ZERO authority! Voting should be considered a criminal act whenever it violates another's right to do anything solong as it does not violate the law of trespass against another's property or self! A shakedown is a shakedown! There will be no involuntary servitude!
Jurisdiction is assumed by the state police power and international law. Courts, presidents, founders all understand and admit your consent is not required. Ultimately, the police and military simply control the area by force and unless you can resist physically it is in your best interest to abide as an equal under the law like everyone else. How many tanks do you have?
So, go fight it in court. Ultimately, that is what the courts are for, it does not matter what your personal opinion is. The funny thing, is the rest of us have no problem understanding what a driver is, what a speed limit is, etc – pretty clear language. So are these Supreme Court rulings – Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
This is the same fucking logic that thinks it’s ok for illegals to come across the border and drive on our roads and they entered the country illegally. You are a fucking resident of a state where you live. The Constitution reserves rights to the states to regulate not only commerce but safety requirements within their states your bullshit logic thinks it’s ok to drive like a jackass with no damn insurance and even drive drunk on the roads Fuck you and your bullshit. Either comply wit the law or get off the fucking road.
I was reading what you wrote until i got to "Nut Case Brigade" and you lost me. Name callers lose all credibility.
Too bad. I woul possibly be butt hurt and all if it were not for the fact you are a troll using the name "victurus libertas". A quick on line check of your posting indicates you rant and rave on every every far right kook conspiracy ever written about. So I don't care what a founding member of the Nut Case Brigade has to say on any subject. If you were to announce that the sun rose in the east and set in the west, I would verify it before agreeing.
You seen to be very good at name calling at least. Pat yourself on the back cause that's about all you got going for you. You sure like the word NUTCASE I'll carve it in stone and you can hang it in your man cave
I stand by my previous comment. You are a nut case troll who as is so common with your kind, ignores reality, sees conspiracy behind everything, distorts basic facts to fit you fantasy, and just generally is a piece of shit.
You are the nutcase you love your governmentd restrictions because your weak. You applaud the police with their pals in the Court system and call it reasonable and just. But it's not freedom is just an illusion we pretend we have in this country we've always had the right to travel or right to move about freely without government restrictions. It's an unwritten law just like freedom of speech or the right to protect ones self and family with whatever means is available. Inalienable rights, unwritten cause they are natural God given, the Constitution spells them out so our corrupt leaders don't forget. Yes I want freedom to travel unrestricted without plates and license but that's because I love liberty. But for insecure people government is like their big brother to protect them they love to use government to punish people who disagree with them. They love their police and their perceived role as 'protectors'. There will always be people like you that claim you are patriotic but give more and more power to a out of control corrupt system. Bottom line traffic laws were created for the revenue they generate and not for public safety as you love to believe. So continue to be weak and pathetic.
Un-a-lien-able rights. Not inalienable, un-alien-able.
Un-a-lien-able, as a legal term, means, in a fkn legal dictionary, that it cannot be taken from you by your being sued, or by a lien being placed on your property, earnings, holdings, etcetera. As Sir Francis Bacon, aka, William Shakespeare said some four-five hundred years ago, "First thing we do, is, kill ALL the lawyers." The organic US Constitution strictly forbids ANY lawyers from holding ANY governmental positions, including both/either house of Congress, the Presidency, or the Vice Presidency. Pseudolaw, FALSE-LAW said that the US Constitution was NOT rewritten for corporate purposes just after the civil war, when the fake government used the NEW 14th Amendment, to enslave the entire population, after they emancipated, which means in Black's Law Dictionary, s transfer of ownership of wealth or property from one sovereign, to another sovereign. In the slaves case, the false federal corporation posing as a government took ownership of all of the slaves, And, compensated the plantation owners, for their ,"loss of property"…
Well said, we love our slavery. In your opinion was Lincoln the pres we were taught in school or were his policies the beginning of the end for liberty.
Dude, just get your driver´s license
Statutes, are NOT Laws, and have no actual authority over living breathing Natural Persons aka, Human Beings. Statutes are rules and regulations for corporate entities (legal fictions, fictitious persons, corporations). I hope the moniker pseudolaw (false-law, fake-law) is not lost on any who are awake and aware. That 'person' seems to be a dishonest disinformation disseminator, that supports the fully totally corrupt corporation that masquerades as a government, and merely provides governmental services, located in Washington D.C., is registered in Puerto Rico, and is publicly traded on the NYSE, exactly as the corporation posing as the government of New South Wales,(Australia), and many, many others. Just a Google search and three to five minutes should satisfy any curiosity regarding that fact.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these
United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
As is typical of the less intelligent sort who reside on the far right and far left of the political spectrum there is an inability to understand or an unwillingness to understand the law and how it operates. This nonsense where some so-called "sovereign citizen" cherry picks selections of different statutes and court decisions and jumbles them together to make up some bizarre legal theory is just that – nonsense. Mr. Schneider's comment is a good example of this.
Example of this? Hmmm here for the ignorant to learn, if you
refuse to accept the Law of the land is your business, you may
characterize me in any fashion, I live it, I dont just talk it. Your
opinion does not matter, my life experience tells me the truth. I
will never again step foot into a non jurisdictional municipal court
and there will be no general warrants for my arrest because of my
proper actions. You do not need to understand for me to be right.
Moron.
No sovereign argument, no pseudo law just More indoctrination of confusion by government and people suck it right down. When you understand that a license of any kind converts your rights over to be controlled by any government by your own consent then maybe you'll understand on setting yourself FREE. Any moron that believes in government dictating and ignorant to the fact
of life between them and their creator in which was and is the whole pretense of our Founders is foolish. No one has a right to control another. If one has a grievance then present it in
the proper court, murder, thievery, property damage, ect. ect. I cant just go give John a citation and say hey I don't like you or your driving faster than Id like you to, here is a piece of paper
Ill see you Tuesday in a municipal court. Men are flawed and imperfect, and ALL bound by the same Law no matter what position of government they hold. The Constitution is, was, and always will be the True Law of the Land. Just because you won't take time to understand it or know it doesn't make some who know and live it to be true, wrong. I do not drive with a license for its my right to pursuit of happiness. I have been given a few citations . A simple Affidavit correcting
their administrative law and asking the right questions instead of ignoring in silence equals no warrants. General Warrants was the one main reason behind the revolutionary war amongst property ownership IE (LAND PATENTS) not deeds ect. So many so naive to believe
government to be all unquestioned authority. Very foolish. Be courteous to the uniformed officer who swore to uphold the law of the land and should know and honor his oath but if not, why then ignore his/her arrogance. You may sue personally later for you now have a grievance. Proceed 1st with an affidavit with the prosecutor/court clerk by certified mail. Your argument is with them in whatever said court to now show you the grievance, jurisdictional authority, not on the street with a person carrying a weapon whole could cause you severe damage under badge of State. Freedom does not come for free but must be fought for by the knowledge of knowing the true law of the land. A LICENSE OF ANY KIND, leads to their control. Key point
FYI::
Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.
The correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the united States. We all need to realize that governments of all stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means they
can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. We need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and, second, it is the
municipal government for the District of Columbia and all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military
installations, etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
We need to realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or implying another).
We need to realize that the majority or laws passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens of the States united. We need to realize that the majority of the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us Citizens into believing that they do apply to us. We need to realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example, the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It does NOT mean the States united
that we usually think of as the United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools and school
systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions. And yes Actually, a law that is unconstitutional is enforceable. Congress has every right to pass whatever law they like when they are legislating "municipal law". The power to to exercise exclusive legislative authority is granted in the penultimate clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is the second mandate of the government in Washington, D.C. Such municipal law applies only to the capitol, its possessions and territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, and areas ceded to it by the States for military installations, ports, federal
buildings, national parks and the like. Now, ask yourself, is obama-care municipal law or federal (pertaining to the States united under the Constitution) law? When congress legislates in its federal capacity, it must adhere to and be bound by the chains of the Constitution and laws so enacted are enforceable upon all Citizens of the States united under the Constitution. When congress legislates in its municipal capacity the Constitution does not come into play because such legislation does not pertain to the Citizens of the States united. Such legislation is enforceable upon citizens,residents, workers and those domiciled in the District of Columbia,
the insular possessions and territories and areas ceded to the federal government. Now, ask yourself, does obama-care pertain to me? In fact, you should always ask and all legislation should clearly state whether it is municipal law or federal law. The difference is huge.
That is not even remotely intelligible. How severely mentally ill are you?
Your comment shows your ignorance of our Constitution, and an example of those who have nothing of factual substance to offer. Which was already established.
Actually I obviously have a far greater understanding fo the Constitution given the drivel you are supporting.
Right, exactly, thats why I am assuming from your comments that you have a drivers license subject to municipal courts jurisdiction, fines, time, and continued slavery as I continue to freely travel without a license to never appear in their courts without warrants or subjection to loss of my hard earned dollars. Yes I am quite sure you have it right. Laughable,not supporting the drivel as you call it but rather living the 1st hand experience. Maybe thats why your confused
Yeah, until a cop stops you and then your world turns to shit. And I will be there laughing when it happens you deluding fuck bait.
Well that was intelligent and explainable. Need anything else be said? You obviously missed where it was explained clearly YOU DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO TRAVEL!!! I LIVE IT EVERYDAY, when addressed by an officer my world is FREE. I address court by mail, MY WORLD IS FREE. Its happened, I did it and it can only be done because I never consented converting my inalienable rights over by license. Who is the deluding fuck bait? The audience can see for themselves, they can research for themselves. My word need not be taking. Simply write your state legislators, ask them to show where Municipal Laws apply to a Natural private state citizens and see the answer they give you. Supreme Court has also ruled no License to Travel. Who is the deluding fuck bait? Now we all know
If you do it, it's at the government's discretion, not because you're right about some application of law. The only law supported by any force is national, state, county and municipal law and the decisions of judges where the constitutions and legislatures are vague or silent. Show me one instance of someone winning damages for false arrest, etc. when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down. Why can't you find one? It's because there is no actual right, and if you are indeed left alone you have merely bullied the officers in your area enough to not waste any more taxpayer time and money on your minor civil disobedience. Do something more serious or annoying to the public and see how quickly your doing evaporates.
PS Please keep the discussion civil and de-escalate instead of escalate towards ad hominem attacks, name-calling, etc. Thanks
Wrong, governments discretion? You have been duped, tricked, and seem submissive to the fact that government of flawed men are the all authority or corrupt courts by flawed men who sit on the bench. Your mind is closed. One can lead you to water of information but can not make you drink in research. The Constitution and Bill of rights are the only true law of the land. We are not subject to MUNICIPAL LAWS UNLESS one consents by way of license you signed for when received. PERIOD The SUPREME court has even ruled on this in the favor of the Natural Born State citizen. We free men have Inalienable RIGHTS protected by that Constitution, in which to say one may not control another and simply may do as he pleases as so long he/her is not harming or infringing upon another in the confines of their own property. Common sense and brotherly love go a long way. What we do is between ourselves and our creator. Does that give one the right to damage ones property, murder another, steal from another, rape another, bully another ect. ect. Of course not then there will result a grievance of some sort and one will be held accountable for their actions by a jury of their peers. Having said that if one has a license of any kind and does what I and others do, then your screwed in the confines of municipal law because you converted your rights to give them permission to do what they may with you.The article simply states debunking sovereign ways, and you can not and have not done so. One is as free as they wish to be when educated to the only law of the land and no court can rule against that unless you yourself did something to give them contractional consent to do so. You can argue all you want on case law, but with a license your comparing apple to oranges. Many of people across this great land who know the truth and stand on the law keeping in the confines of themselves not harming others do just fine. Government and courts are not the all authority. God is and that was the whole pretense of Our Founders when the country was founded. It was true then and its true today. The problem with most is the indoctrination from birth to believe you need a license to marry, you need a license to travel, you need a license to carry, you need a license for this or that. When you fall down that rabbit whole your now a slave to their authority. Period. What I presented was true and factual and you cant debunk it for many many know otherwise so continue on debating your case laws and the motor vehicle commercial municipal garbage as tho we are the ones who are disobedient. The magic bullet is to treat others the way you want to be treated and to never convert your inalienable rights by way of a license of any kind. Traffic courts are no more than a collection agency and they most certainly are MUNICIPAL LAWS. Officers can and have been sued for false arrests. To find you a case where it involves one without a license of any kind, Ill make effort just because but its rather irrelevant. If I am arrested, my car impound, loss of wages, then I have a grievance and will most certainly seek damages against the arresting officer for violation of my inalienable rights protected by The Constitution. A case has already been brought forward to the Supreme Court where the ruling is in place. They declared that if a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law
of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and
void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Law is as Congress makes it (Article 1) and the State governments make it and, in the absence of those, as the local collective People decide (Article 6, Clause 2). The Constitution and laws are ultimately interpreted by the Supreme Court (Article 3).
Municipalities are incorporated under State governments. You are subject to State governments and are therefore also subject to municipal governments.
The rights you claim to enjoy don't exist because they aren't supported by the courts or government enforcers. The government doesn't require contract, consent or license to impose its laws upon anyone. There is nowhere meaningful to argue otherwise. Government is a collective creation that can only be modified or destroyed with the consent and will of the collective.
If you want to be generally left alone you could go live in the bush or the desert or at least buy land in an unincorporated area. Why blame the government for your unwillingness to go off grid and live free when there is still plenty of opportunity to do so?
Your some what right but confused
Correcting The Unconstitutional Acts Of Government.
The
correction to the problem of government usurping the rights of Citizens
and States is for all Citizens to realize that the Federal government
was never intended to have jurisdiction over or influence upon
individual Citizens. Its purposes are to serve the States as enumerated
in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1-18 of the Constitution for the
united States.
We all need to realize that governments of all
stripes will grab hold of as much power as they can by whatever means
they can and that includes the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.
We
need to realize that the government in Washington is actually two
governments in one: First, it is the Federal government of the States
united, bound by the yoke and limitations of the Constitution and,
second, it is the municipal government for the District of Columbia and
all possessions and territories of the United States such as Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and US military installations,
etc. where such constitutional restrictions do not apply and where the
municipal government has the legislative authority to do as it pleases
(Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 US Constitution).
We need to
realize that the majority of legislators are lawyers practiced in the
art of word-smithing (saying one thing while deliberately meaning or
implying another).
We need to realize that the majority or laws
passed in Washington are municipal laws and do not apply to the Citizens
of the States united.
We need to realize that the majority of
the laws passed in Washington are written in such a way as to deceive us
Citizens into believing that they do apply to us.
We need to
realize that such deceptive laws use customized language – words which
mimic words we use every day but words which, within the law, have very
different meanings from the commonly understood meaning. For example,
the Title that establishes the Department of Education (for the United
States) has within it a section called "definitions". Within that
section it says, when used in this Title, the term "United States" means
Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
It does NOT mean the States united that we usually think of as the
United States. Thus, we are deceived into believing that the Department
of Education has some legal authority over our private sector schools
and school systems when, in fact, they do not and can not except by our
quiet acquiescence to the deception. It is by such deceptions that the
power of the people and the States is eroded and usurped. It is by such
deceptions that the Leviathan becomes ever larger and more intrusive.
So, what is the real solution? For every piece of legislation passed
into law ask the question "to whom does this legislation apply or
pertain?" If it pertains to individual citizens then ask, "by what
authority or provision enumerated in the Constitution do you enact this
law?"
Remember, the high court has declared that if a law is
repugnant to the Constitution, it is not and cannot be a law imposed
upon the Citizenry, it can only be municipal law which has no affect
upon Citizens of the States united.
“Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 463
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“The Constitution of these
United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant
to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137
You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this out or to correct the problem. You simply have to ask the right questions.
The Constitution never had to bind individuals. It binds the government, limiting their actions towards individuals. Try a basic law course. And stop the ad hominem attacks and repeating the same shit over and over – we heard you the first time. Keep it calm and keep it civil and keep it objective or don't bother commenting. You've been warned twice now.
You've pasted this multiple times already, so I deleted it, and next time it's a ban. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Where in no Federal Law exists the states have the right to create law.
This was an argument that was used in the cases where the Supreme Court ruled against tge mandatory licensing vs the sovereign rights of the citizens. Another phase uses was a quote – Any law which violates the Constitution is void of law and therefore does not have to be accepted by the people nor can any judge be forced to uphold it.
With that said… You are wrong in your opinion. Not all laws are legal. One would have to truly understand law in order to know this not just quote standard laws which clearly violate the Constitution.
You obviously don't understand what I've already wrote..
The articles of confederation are even more supreme than the constitution. Common law is also more supreme than statute.
Not only do you have the right to free travel without license, registration or insurance you also have a right to free travel with a current license. The license contract pertains to commercial driving not traveling by automobile. Furthermore, the drivers license contract does not inform drivers to the restrictions required within that contract making it null and void when you declare your reservation of rights, without prejudice, under the uniform commercial code 1-308. There are several people who have fought and won in every state and in the Supreme Court. Refer to Marbury V Pennsylvania (no state can convert a secured liberty to a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. If the state requires this oh travelers anyways refer to Shuttlesworth V Alabama ( you can ignore the license and engage in your right without impunity. US Supreme Court in Reno V Condon states: "The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV is itself integrally related to interstate commerce." There are several other rulings by the Supreme Court that verify that traveling a right not a privilege and any state law requiring licensing, insurance and registration can be ignored without impunity. I myself have fought citations in court and have had ALL of them dismissed. I no longer get citations and carry a document of "constitution travelers license" that refers to ALL my rights and freedom to travel unenroached and without impunity.
So why can't you or any other traveler win a claim for false arrest or trespass to property when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down? It's because there is no actual right to travel without regulation, and dismissals are because the government simply doesn't want to waste time or money correcting minor civil disobedience. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Try doing something more intrusive, like stealing the mayor's parking spot, and see how far you get. lol
Who gave the UCC power in your state? Who decides what contract law is in your state? State legislators and courts. You're putting the cart before the horse. The state made the contract law you're claiming to use to opt out of the state. Legislation isn't a contract, it just applies to everyone in the area by force. The only law that matters is the law that can be enforced, and in the US that's the state and federal constitutions, legislation, and common law made in state and federal courts.
If the federal government deems traveling in a self-propelled vehicle, aka "driving a motor vehicle" according to every state's definition in their vehicle code or common law, an act of interstate commerce to gain jurisdiction you are bound by that. It doesn't exempt you from being obligated to obey state law. State governments have never, ever been restricted to only regulating commercial activity.
You might want to check your sources because the word "integrally" doesn't even appear in Reno v Condon. In fact it was the driver's license personal information that was found to fall under interstate commerce, not the act of traveling or driving itself.
Unfortunately, you are very ignorant about the matter and law itself, including origins of such and precedence– And I don't care if you are possibly an attorney– You are still very ignorant on the matter.
You said: "Show me one instance of someone winning damages for false arrest, etc.
when a state enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down."
Because "lawyers" are part of the rigged game whose first duty is to the court and not their client (see Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 7). Lawyers make money whether you win, lose or draw in court and the vast majority of lawyers will not buck the system that feeds them. The courts are largely comprised of former lawyers, the same people who largely write laws, the regulation of such which provides the above par standard of living most lawyers enjoy. That, in your view, nobody has ever one such-and-such case is meaningless and in no manner leads one to conclude such law or actions are just. Bogus laws (and even valid ones) are nullified / overturned all the time for political reasons. Legal action against the system is very costly, a regular citizen could not afford or mount such attack, so who is going to fund such? And why? You think some justice loving lawyer is going to fight injustice of this magnitude for free? Hahahahaha!
And for example, let's look at the sodomy law which was declared illegal about a dozen years ago. Until the moment that it was declared unconstitutional, NOBODY had done what you claim to defeat such either. And then it changed, overnight. Hello???
If states had the right to make "traffic laws" (true laws are called "statutes") then why do they not do such instead of using legislative trickery to coerce people to sign up for a "license" forcing them to obey "codes" ("codes" are not "statute")? The Supreme Court decisions declaring a "Right to Travel" have never been overturned and still have precedence, and such exists in much greater volume that your couple cites. Further, BOTH RULINGS CANNOT EXIST, ONE HAS TO FALL. The preponderance of higher court decisions support, and have never been overturned, a Right to Travel.
Their are volumes of other established case law that shreds your arguments, again and again.
"Lawyers make money whether you win, lose or draw in court" so do doctors, whether you die or not. You Sov Cits should get together on your terminology. Each of you has a different opinion as to what a code is or a statue or a law. Combine that with a complete misunderstanding of Common Law and God-given rights or Natural rights you barf up a philosophical dog's breakfast. Let's face it. You are intellectual losers.
I don't think he understands that the people also have the ability and the right to use force. We just allow the courts their process because it's based on reason.
No such right has ever existed in the US or any State as far as applies to legislation that hasn't been struck down by a court. You're thinking of natural law theories which are numerous and varied, and have no physical force backing them up. The US was arguably originally inspired by the Lockean theory of social contract, but the Constitution is the supreme law, and you can't successfully defend yourself by citing anything outside of its purview in any court in the US, or around the world because the US Constitution and resulting nation-state is recognized internationally.
No physical force such as Gravity?
Gravity is a physical force.
Gravity isn't the one making you get a driver's license. The legislatures and the courts, police, national guard, military, etc. they employ are. You're obviously trolling because you can't come up with a meaningful rebuttal…
The right to travel is in much older documents and still in force.
Take article 4 of the articles of confederation for example. This is not pseudo law and all agents of government must abide by the articles of confederation as well.
Articles of Confederation (1781):
… the free inhabitants of each of these states … shall be entitled to privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, …
The people just don't have the ability or the guts to enforce their rights under law with the use of force available to them in the second amendment.
Technically, when a police officer stops an interstate traveller, they are breaking this law every time they they are enforcing the traffic code of their state.
The Articles of Confederation are no longer of any force or effect. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The right to ingress and egress to and from States in current US law can be seen here. Why would you think that prevents the States from regulating dangerous modes of travel? The second amendment wasn't meant to be used to overthrow reasonable laws demanded by the people for public safety.
The articles of confederation do have force and effect when the people
decide to enforce them. When these right to travel cases are appealed
beyond the level of the Supreme Court, the states and the federal
government realize they don't have a claim. That's just simple popular
sovereignty as it is found in the 10th amendment of the constitution.
Ultimately it is the right of the people to dismiss government in any manner they
see fit. Especially when their government no longer represents them.
The Constitution is the supreme law and the Constitution says the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The military and police only support the Constitutional government. They don't support any Articles of Confederation or whatever personal ideas of law you think are relevant that aren't because they have no force behind them. They haven't since 1778 when the Constitution came into force and the US aka USA became recognized internationally by ~200 other sovereign nation-states.
Yes but that's under statute law. There are also other laws in effect such as natural law and common law. These laws take precedent over the Supreme Law of the Land and the agents that support it. When the Constitution is no longer in effect, the military and the police no longer have any jurisdictional powers beyond the arms they bear. The same goes for those people who are equally and rightfully armed.
The legislatures created the constitutions and courts and pay the judges, military and police. Get a clue.
The legislatures created the constitutions and courts and pay the judges, military and police to enforce the constitutions and legislation. Get a clue.
No it was the people who made the constitution. It's in the preamble as in "We the People.." Are you sure I need to get a clue? Isnt't that an ad hominem attack on me?
According to the preamble, "We the people.." created the constitution.
Who do you think represents the collective People in a republic? Statutory law has always been the highest law. What right would a court or law enforcement agency ever have to overrule its creator and employer?
In today's society, no-one in government represents the people. Why? Because we are an Oligarchy.
Please try to stay on topic. This article is about the right to travel in the existing United States.
The Supreme Law of the Land is just that — supreme. There is no common law, statute law, or natural law that is enforceable above the organic constitutions. That's kind of the point.
The american states began with the formation or continuation of a legislature/assembly that wrote a constitution. English statutes and common law were imported into the states by reception statutes. The legislatures have always retained their superiority, as clearly seen. The state legislature created the constitution, courts, police, etc. and pays police, prosecutors and judges to uphold the constitution and legislation. Common law is continued, modified and made by judges in those courts, and varies by state. Common law, all meaningful law i.e. backed by force, begins inside and is subject to the constitutional state and its legislated laws.
As is typical of the less intelligent sort who reside on the far right
and far left of the political spectrum there is an inability to
understand or an unwillingness to understand the law and how it
operates. This nonsense where some so-called "sovereign citizen" cherry
picks selections of different statutes and court decisions and jumbles
them together to make up some bizarre legal theory is just that –
nonsense. That is all you have done here. As for your claims of what you do ro do not do, well that is just a claim. If you are the same as most all of your ilk you will cry like a bitch when you are finally stopped by a cop who decides he is going to enforce the law and arrest your ignorant ass. Then you can sit in jail like the Bundy clan who though they had a "constitutional right" to seize a bird sanctuary belonging to the People of the United States and vandalize it. Unless of course you are as stupid as the Finicum asshole and you decide to commit suicide by cop. Either way for society it will be a win win situation.
You cannot win an argument simply by way of bullying or unintelligent garbage. What I presented is true and factual, all one needs to do is write their own state legislators asking where they have the authority outside the confines of the State or Federal Constitution. Being a complete utter moron does not win your stance. Any intelligent being can see and read that your a tricked closed minded monkey under the government authority who wishes to continue garbage of slavery.
Sorry junior but you are trying to shift the argument away form the point I made and which stands. You have presented no evidence to support your claim. You have simply posted cherry picked snippets of laws and court cases out of context and then strung them together in an unintelligible mishmash claiming they support your position. No one has argued anything about state legislators being able to operate outside the state and federal constitutions.
To the contrary you have claimed they have done so and not proven anything. Instead you use gibberish.
Hey dumbass your a little late to the table, your falling behind. dismiss yourself, you have nothing intelligent to offer. My claim is and was, Municipal laws do not apply to state citizens and one has a right to travel without a license backed by the Supreme Court on both accounts and the evidence dumbass is in OUR Constitution.
I asked you to stop the excessive ad hominem attacks and repetitive arguments but you didn't so now I'm going to stop them for you.
you probably have to use smaller words and define ones like "ad hominem" for those on the shorter bus
Oh we all know what your opinion is, you have been kind enough to bloviate on it for some time. The problem for you is that you have done nothing to prove it. Cherry picking snippets of this and that with no regard for external or internal context and then loudly announcing you have proven your opinion is a common action among certain types who have no actual proof. But thanks for playing.
Bullshit.
Damon S. Sir you are 100% right, and the reasons why our laws are so corrupt is due to disobedience of the Constitution, backed by greed of making money for self enrichment, License is a way of tracking debtors/ aka government slaves and charging the strawman for not doing what the master told them to do. Clearly these other guys on ur page are still in the system, it's a waist of time talking to them. Ignorance of the law (Constitution) is no excuse. The police in these states swore under oath to uphold the United States Constitution, not codes and statues. I bet these other guys will start registering their snowblowers, and lawnmowers, Just unlearned people.
In accordance with currently-reigning principles of international law, the US aka USA is a sovereign nation-state that enjoys exclusive sovereignty over its recognized geographical area.
Article 1 of the federal Constitution says Congress can make laws, aka statutes. State constitutions create legislatures with the power to create statutes, too. Constitutions also create courts to enforce the constitution and statutes and create common law that only applies where legislation is vague or silent, and legislatures determine the judge's salaries. State police's first duty is to enforce the laws of the state that pays their paycheck. Federal police are employed to enforce federal law.
If you think a law is unconstitutional you have every right to defend yourself in court and appeal any judgment when charged. If the courts agree with you the charges will be dismissed and the law may be struck down, then the legislature can create another law and try again. If the courts don't agree with you it's up to you to rally the people of the state to pressure your representatives in the legislature to change the laws. That's how representative democracy in a republic works.
Yes but the elections are fixed. Our government no longer represents the people.
If you truly believe that there is only one solution and that's violent revolution. Then after all the death and destruction the same thing or worse gets set up all over again. You aren't going to change the global system of international law that says nation-states have sovereignty over geographical areas and can rule them as they see fit. Humanity likes society and the order structured government provides. That's why we have it.
The people delegated their authority to this form of government doesn't mean death and destruction in order to delegate their authority to a new form of government. The death and destruction will come from those institutions that wish to remain in existence.
If there is no government, the people will do as they have done under common law.
Take the anti-state crap elsewhere – this article is about actual rights inside the existing US that don't take a militaristic revolution to enforce.
Pseudo, Smells wasn't taking about a militaristic revolution. I believe Smells was trying to get you to recognize that the plural sovereignty of the people is superior to the supreme law of the land. Since it was the people who delegated their authority to the government that was created by the Constitution. You must realize the people have always had the authority retrieve their authority from the delegated entity.
The people's inalienable rights do not come from any statute. These rights existed at the moment the people came into existence and are protected by these same people by whatever means are available to them. The right to travel is an inalienable right that can not be taken away even if statute fails to enumerate or uphold the absolute right to travel. This is the simple foundation of law.
Never has been, never will be, but keep dreaming.
Pseudo, Smells wasn't taking about a militaristic revolution. I believe Smells was trying to get you to recognize that the plural sovereignty of the people is superior to the supreme law of the land.
Since it was the people who delegated their authority to the government that was created by the Constitution. You must realize the people have always had the power to retrieve their authority from the entity they delegated.
The people's inalienable rights do not come from any statute. These rights existed at the moment the people came into existence and are protected by these same people by whatever means are available to them. The right to travel is an inalienable right that can not be taken away even if statute fails to enumerate or uphold the absolute right to travel. This is the simple foundation of law.
Juan, that's because you don't have any intelligence or have the ability to use reason. You don't need a license to exercise a right. You just need the ability to enforce your right.
Damon they can say what they want. But until they educate themselves and stop following blindly they will be sheep and slaves. I laugh at them because the consider people who are knowledgeable on this issue. Stupid and yet they know nothing other than what they have been indoctrinated off. I study Constitutional law. So call it what ever you want. but until they open their eyes they will be blind.
Let us know when you win a claim as a plaintiff with your epic legal skillz.
According to widely-recognized international law, nation-states have sovereignty over their recognized territory, and any person (men are always considered natural persons) or property within the borders may be regulated. You're putting the cart before the horse. Contract law arises inside nation-states and their sub-states, not outside. Law only matters when it can actually be enforced, by military and police. Constitutionality and lawfulness are for the courts to decide, not individuals. Everyone and everything within a nation-state's territory is automatically bound by ALL of the national, state, county and municipal laws. In the US, some areas are unincorporated and only have national, state and county law, but that's about as good as it gets. The only way out is to leave to another country or overthrow the existing government by military force just like in 1776. So, how big is your military?
Just keep your head in the sand and believe EVERYTHING the government tells you!
Unless You have met and are a psychological doctor who works as such providing diagnosis, HOW DARE YOU DECLARE SUCH A BROAD STATEMENT IN REFERENCE TO SOVEREIGNS, THAT IS SLANDER YOU MORON!!!! Go educate yourself.
Sovereign citizens are nutjobs who left reality miles behind them. They live in a psychotic fantasy world because they're nutty as fruitcakes.
Uhh….Ken…don't you think the truly insane have enough problems without being compared to sovereign citizens?
You are communist and your statements are incorrect. Not only are you incorrect but your examples are extremely poor. They all involve damage to other citizens. The Constitution clearly states that if you do not hurt anyone, damage someone's property or remove it unlawfully, you have committed no crime and that no punishment may be imposed upon you. Read it, know it, live it! This is the United States of America, the only free Bastion left in the world! Quit trying to destroy it. If you don't like it, move to a communist country and enjoy your police state.
Sorry loser but you wasted a bit of space to state an opinion with no facts to support it.
You've been duped by the ignorant socialist masses. You moron, the fact is the Constitution. <—period
Read It and Weep. Stop trying to impede Liberty. I suggest you go talk to Rep. Trey Gowdy. He will certainly set you straight.
I repeat, you are wasting a lot of space on posting unsupported drivel. BTW, I have read the Constitution, repeatedly. I have a degree in Constitutional Law.
I do appreciate your interaction as well as your knowledge (it is valuable to me). Although we may differ on some ideological issues, I will continue to defend Liberty, as all of my forefathers (for over 240 years); and resist government control/oppression. I understand the necessity of government mechanisms to police those that do not police themselves, but not at the cost of Liberty. The travel issue is trivial.
I wish there were more people like you and I, that could come to a more civilized conclusion about how we want to live together; without oppressing and even killing each other.
The masses are always wrong and just because people say or do something, doesn't make it right (moral/ethical).
I will agree to disagree and continue my endeavor to defend freedom in the pursuit of happiness.
May you find prosperity, sincerely.
No, it doesn't. None of the 57 constitutions in the United States say that.
I can think of a classic example…
Drunk Driving is a crime in all 57 constitutions, right?
No, but so far as I know, there are laws against it in every state, territory, and the District.
You wouldn't know a communist if one slapped you up the side of the head with a copy of Das Kapital. As for the rest of your drivel, well it's just silly drivel.
Wow, I thought you're response would have been much more indepth. You probably just Googled Marx or Lennon. Nice display of your derelict cognition.
You need to brace your strawman better than that to conquer truth. Your banter is easily nullified. The conversation nearly lifted my brow, but then it failed to invigorate. Your free will has been trapled by your own ideology. You will fair not against me, nor will you subjugate me with your ignorance. Good day Sir.
Another triggered so called sovereign citizen who thinks he can keep repeating the same drivel over and again without providing verifiable facts to support his opinion, is now upset that I will not play his game.
As educated as you claim to be you're not very bright; because I'm still here and you have not subjugated me. This is a Blog. I'm a national of this country, I belong here just like you. Just because you write something on a piece of parchment and get others to subscribe to it, doesn't make it true or right/ethical. You're a last word kind of guy, I can tell. It gives you a false sense of power (I do however appreciate your service to Lady Justice). You're going to miss everything wonderful in life and die angry. I know I'm playing the antagonist here.
p.s. I'll expect your last word…..
This has gone on long enough and gotten ugly enough. I'm not seeing anything productive from this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you two to drop it.
As I said, another triggered so called sovereign citizen who thinks he can keep repeating the same drivel over and again without providing verifiable facts to support his opinion, is now upset that I will not play his game.
This has gone on long enough and gotten ugly enough. I'm not seeing anything productive from this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and ask you both to drop it.
ok
It is apparent juanjo54 that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING as what a "right" is, for if you did you would understand that it cannot be taxed, it cannot be regulated, it cannot be registered! This was settled back in the Magna Carta of 1215, 1216, 1217, and even 1219!
Let's help you with some LOGIC:
example – I'm hired by you to do your lawn, I am thereby your paid servant. We are both sovereigns, but until I finish your lawn I am still a servant, but a paid servant due to are agreement/oral or written contract. Now me as your servant can I decide what color your house can be? How about can I decide to chop down and remove that tree you love in your front yard? Can I decide that you must install a chainlink fence for your own good and safety? Likewise, as your servant can I force you to pay me for those actions?
Your answer of course is no, because I am your servant and a servant has NO AUTHORITY or JURISDICTION to force these actions on me!
SURPRISE!!!! Senators, Congressman, and even Judges are paid servants to us "SOVEREIGNS!".
Thus, no servant can pass a law or statute for which it's master must submit himself/herself to!
You seem to have the belief that servants are masters over there masters, for which that logic has no merit or validity!
Can you please show where I as a sovereign ever agreed to be a servant and give up my inalienable rights, so that I could be taxed, and regulated by my servants in government? Please, show me!
I have the right to do things without permission, yet I will give up my right in order so that now I can pay to ask someone for permission in the form of license to do what I was already entitled to do freely?
I suggest you look up the legal term of license!
When did marriage become illegal?
When did fishing become illegal?
When did hunting become illegal?
When did starting up a business become illegal?
I' m sorry that millions of sovereigns have been dumbed down by the Prussia Indoctrination System, later renamed the American Education System, as put in place by Horace Mann!
Those that Blindly accept the LIE that the government has the authority/jurisdiction over them – deserve to be treated as the chattel of their servants!
There are no absolute rights, "TruthandFreedom." Every right has boundaries and limitations.
By the way, Magna Carta is not American law.
Interesting bit of commentary on the Magna Carta. Which specific version of the Charter are your referring to? There have been a number of them. The 1215, 1216, 1217, 1225, or the 1297 version?
You make a claim that a right " cannot be taxed, it cannot be regulated, it cannot be registered" Please point to the specific clause in the Charter which states this and please identify which version you are using.
Since with only a few exceptions the Charter only applies to "free men", kindly explain how it applies to you. Free Men as that term was used at the time of each of the charters applied only to knights [Esquires], the nobility – barons, earls etc and the King [and his family]. This was roughly 15% of the male population who were permitted to gather in Parliament and to vote. That never changed under British rule until 1867 when the law was changed by Parliament to allow those who owned their own home above a certain value to vote. That allowed almost 30% of the men in the United Kingdom to vote.
Now since I actually hold the title of Esquire and own lands valued in total at more than 1 million US dollars, were I a subject of the United Kingdom and resident therein I would have been able to sit in Parliament and to vote. What title do you hold?
You claim the title of "sovereign citizen" That title is not mentioned nor defined in the Charter. Neither have you defined what you mean by the term. Thus lacking any justification for the term by you, it is irrelevant and nonsensical. Of course if you in the future provide some actual definition not to mention some verifiable proof how it is relevant to the Charter we might discuss it.
Finally, the Charter set forth specific provisions which dealt with grievances the lesser nobility, primarily the barons, had with the king at the time. The barons were upset that the higher nobility were subjecting them to their justice in the courts the nobles ran and not allowing them access to the King's courts. The king also was raising money by extorting bribes in the King's Court for the issuance of a favorable judgment, essentially selling a favorable verdict to the higher bidder. The barons claimed the right under law to be heard for redress of wrongs in the King's Court and could not be taxed [forced to pay a bribe for a favorable verdict].
Henry III in 1225, agreed with the barons in the version of the charter he issued to agree that no taxes could be levied on the nobility without the agreement of the nobility. That meant the nobles gathered in a parliament would discuss the matter with the king and decide the matter.
Please explain how this provision supports your claim.
Finally as interesting as the Charter is in the development of Anglo-American jurisprudence, we operate under the Constitution of the United States of America not the Magna Carta. While courts and judges sometimes do reference the Charter, it is not our Constitution. Please provide specific statutes and case law which support your claim that your present interpretation of the Charter as stated in your post, somehow applies to the situation.
As for your comments about some contract between you and me, that is irrelevant. Contracts for employment as an "independent contractor" proceed under contract law as defined in the jurisdiction where the contract is entered into and where the work is performed unless the contract specifically states some other jurisdiction's law applies. That has nothing to do with the Charter. The US Constitution has limited application as it leaves the specifics of contract law up to the state. Of course under the 13th Amendment as interpreted by the courts, even where there is a valid contract, if you were to renege and refuse to perform the work I could not hold you in servitude because slavery is forbidden in the United States. I can only seek damages in a court of law for you failure to perform. But again this is irrelevant to your argument.
nut case brigade? fruit cake? Smug judgement.
Accurate, too!
Another Domestic Enemy of your Rights above
more gibberish
Yep, the Constitution limits the government as it affects individuals. Natural law theories vary widely, though, and do not bind the government at all, as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as far as its concerned. Sometimes legislators and courts look to natural law for inspiration, but they again are not bound by it. Government is not optional or contractual. Every living man and woman is considered a natural person in any meaningful form of law – that is, every form of law backed by the force of the state and federal police and military. If you think you can create or obtain a private ID that the state will be forced to recognize you are unfortunately mistaken, and would be wasting your money and time. And if in any of your misinformed efforts you end up committing and being charged with a crime, it could severely limit your ability to benefit and thrive beneath the government everyone in the area is held under, whether they consent or not.
Yep, the Constitution limits the government as it affects individuals. Natural law theories vary widely, though, and do not bind the government at all, as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as far as its concerned. Sometimes legislators and courts look to natural law for inspiration, but they again are not bound by it. Government is not optional or contractual. Every living man and woman is considered a natural person in any meaningful form of law – that is, every form of law backed by the force of the state and federal police and military. If you think you can create or obtain a private ID that the state will be forced to recognize you are unfortunately mistaken, and would be wasting your money and time. And if in any of your misinformed efforts you end up committing and being charged with a crime, it could severely limit your ability to benefit and thrive beneath the government everyone in the area is held under, whether they consent or not.
Sorry but as amusing as that drivel is, it is a complete fiction
How many men would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?"
For you Pseudo idiots, I have a question to which I would like a rational response: If I was not born with any special authority to command you, and you were not born with any special authority to command me, and for the sake of argument, NO ONE was born with any special authority to command another, then HOW DO TWO OR MORE PEOPLE COMBINE THEIR "NON-EXISTENT" AUTHORITY TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY CAN DO, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE LAW OF TRESPASS?
Wow. Although you are right about sacrificing hahaha the right to liberty is sacred. Just a few years ago in Florida a man won 23 thousand in lawsuit for being falsely imprisoned. Now he was arrested properly but when he paid his bail they restrained him in a cell until the paperwork was done instead of letting him sit in waiting room. Now there are several states that do list traffic infractions as criminal but here in new york they are civil, now how do you deprive liberty for a civil infraction? Did you waive rights ? The hogwash that is online about the right to travel is just that for the most part ,but if you actually learn the purpose of government and look at the bill jacket for the legislation on driver license you will come to a different conclusion.read the pictures and explain what has changed and where's the law to prove it? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35ce293adeaf09c33eb3d1758c735dfe75a00e53e66fc27707f3ec74cad36962.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4199618f78d1faf752f69d24688dc8e1f6384d8e03673022da24dbd87cede45a.jpg
More cherry picking from various cases, typically quite old and in this case mixing them with unsupported drivel on other matters. Here is a hint for you genius – a attorney general opinion from 1909 interpreting New York law at that time is not helping you. That law has been revised and changed in New York numerous times since 1909, a time when automobiles were very expensive and most people owning one hired a chauffeur to drive it for them. I suggest you show us where the current Vehicle and Traffic Code for the State of New York supports your claims.
Well your full of shit and with a name juanjo is a perfect example of a fruit cake who's foreign to this country drunk up to his red neck of criticism lacking jurisdiction arguing a law that was never required or any law, rule, statue, code, what about us who's origin is of this land put here by God with only 10 commandments never expecting some drunk idiots would get lost and proceed to ask for help do to their lack of servivil skills in this native land bound to die as soon as food ran out but just like all non indigenous back stabbers scared as fuck you tricked the natives killed them, raped their wife's and then you restrict them from everything that God gave us all to enjoy this life how can you argue such fucken sin, greed, selfishness, supreccion un human coward actions of deceit with offerings like alcohol and non natural man maid unnecessary junk keeping us controlled and ignorant to Tru life with out loved ones eventually destroying the meaning of our existence and is who are of this land from bloodline of orgine are sovereign because that's what you invented to categories in segregating by class so you build a car score our lands so you could travel create a currency with your government and make it so difficult with bills,laws,codes,rules,fines,jail,courts,cops,citations anything and everything to keep suppressed and from traveling our lands as intended by God is Injustice in your words also inhuman and straight up wrong!!!
BUt You dont require a LICENSE for the Unalianeable RIGHTS. When a license is required ANY activity without it is a CRIME … that is not a RIGHT However as you have said they CAN dictate the manner of the LEGAL activity through legistaltion for saftey etc. But licences would be required for all commerce active travel.
You do not have an "unalienable" right to drive an automobile any more than you have one to fly a plane. But if you wish to produce evidence that the Founders drafted such a right into the Constitution, I am more than delighted to see the proof for your argument. If you wish to exercise your right to travel between states, then by all means the Constitution says you have that right. You can exercise it any time by just standing up and walking. That's what they did.
Its the 5th amendment that allows us the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With out the right to travel on PUBLIC owned roads one could not practice this amendment as a right . Now saying that , Can you see the infraction against that right. I did not say that I have aright to drive ( which is a term used to define commercial activity for HIRE or sale of goods for profit.) An operator is just that a traveler of the public roadways and is a RIGHT and a requirement to LIVE in these states. Do you see it NOW! the US supreme court has upheld that right to travel.
First, you misquoted the 5th Amendment. Second, you have provided only opinion. Cite the SCOTUS case which supports your claims
The SCOTUS has ruled that people have the right to travel between the states. It has never said that this means anyone can operate a motor vehicle with no restrictions whatsoever on their competence to operate a motor vehicle. Likewise it has never said that one can just hop on an airplane and fly without going through security checks and proving who they are.
Stop repeating the same tired argument with no proof of what you are claiming. Repetition does not make it any more valid. The 5th Amendment among other things, states that the government may not arbitrarily take a right or property from an individual with a proper hearing and compensation. It says nothing about any person being able to hop in a motor vehicle and "travel" on a public road any more than it says a person may hop into an airplane and fly off into the sky without proper licensing.
BTW, stop with that BS argument about the definition of driver. It has been addressed numerous times here. The various statutes in the United States as elsewhere have been written and rewritten over time. They now include more than commercial drivers and chauffeurs and have for a long time. It is rather silly to ignore that fact. When the first automobiles were manufactured both in the US and elsewhere, they were extremely expensive. Only the very wealthy or commercial businesses could afford them. They did not drive themselves around, they hired people to do so. After mass production came into mode, the prices dropped and as Ford desired, the average worker could afford to buy a automobile. They had no rules to cover that, no license, no driving test, no rules of the road. My grandfather told me about his first auto. He bought it second hand from a co-worker. He was given a short demonstration from the guy who sold it to him on how to operate it and off he went. States started putting in laws to prevent the carnage they saw on the roads back then.
The fact is that numerous state supreme courts and the SCOTUS have ruled that the right to travel is protected. They have also repeated ruled with regard to automobiles that the right to drive is one granted by the government and is subject to due process concerns with regard to the application of licensing requirements. Thus, driving can be restricted based upon criteria which promote a legitimate state interest. If you have a SCOTUS case out there that says that there is an unrestricted right to travel by automobile, let"s see it.
You are as I stated earlier NOT correct . We have the right to the pursuit of life , LIBERTY and happiness. By forcing a RIGHT to require a licenses then you have determined that driving is a crime UNLESS you have a license. Now we have the right to travel anywhere with out a problem of law. The only time we are liable for actions of driving is when WE hurt someone or cause damage to others property. Then if we do not restitute then we are to go to court to remedy . THATS when the LAW comes into affect. I am not harming anyone when I get a ticket for speeding which ALL driving law is for the control of unusual/ exceptional activity such as BUSINESS profiting from using the PUBLIC roads. They use it excessively and this MUST have rules to reduce that impact on the public costs. This is the remedy , licensing for commercial activity not for me going to the store to get a gallon of milk. Now even of i speed past the speed limit sign does not have any bearing on my free citizenship and constitutional right to travel these roads. YOUS ARE WRONG and need to study this out a bit more. BTW you did know that all district courts are operating on Admiralty jurisdiction which is a UCC corporate control of a FOREIGN agent which is in LONDON thats why the esquires are Shield bearers for the Knights Templar and do not represent AMERICAN constitutional LAW. They ,Rather, represent the COURTS and not the defendant no matter what nor common LAW aka public law. EVEN the admiralty jurisdiction prevents the over stepping of the COMMON law that is still in place by UCC 1-308.4 that cannot over ride the COMMON law , at least not until they remove this provision in the Admiralty jurisdiction.
That is a lovely collection of nonsense with no basis in reality. I note that you have no actual proof for any claims you are making not to mention, now you are shifting the subject AGAIN. BTW I am and have been an attorney for over 35 years and most definitely am not a "shield bearer" for the Knights Templar, whatever that is.
What do you think the word esquire is. Look it up. Also YOU may not be aware but that does not mean its not so. I have all the proof and case law to back it up.I cannot believe that you have been entrenched in that career so long yet dont know about the deliberate deception being done to us. You have not even mentioned about the Admiralty jurisdiction we are under and that all of it is civil law and not criminal . There is a difference . our constitution was written so that we had pure freedom unless we injured or caused HARM. WHo is harmed in violating speed limits And to argue we are safer makes nonsense . For the punishment of the injury or harm will suffice as punishment , we dont need a fence around a fence .
Again, a bunch of claims, dodges and other drivel. You have produced noting to support your original point and now you are simply making claims with no facts or aw cases to support them. Let's get back to your original nonsense. The 5th Amendment among other things, states that the government may not arbitrarily take a right or property from an individual with a proper hearing and compensation. It says nothing about any person being able to hop in a motor vehicle and "travel" on a public road any more than it says a person may hop into an airplane and fly off into the sky without proper licensing. If you have a SCOTUS case to support that claim, lets see it.
BTW given how enamoured you are with Black's Law Dictionary, here is their definition of esquire – What is ESQUIRE?
In English law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight.Also a title of oflice given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of thepeace, and others. 1 Bl. Comm. 406; 3 Steph. Comm. 15, note; Tomlins. On the use ofthis term in American law, particularly as applied to justices of the peace and otherinferior judicial officers, see Call v. Foresman, 5 Watts (I>a.) 331; Christian v. AshleyCounty, 24 Ark. 151; Com. v. Vance, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 37.
https://thelawdictionary.org/esquire/
Since 1938 the Bankruptcy of the Unites sates (a corp) caused the Admiralty law to come into affect the Maritime law yes. They are all answerable to the BAR … British accredited registry ,a foreign corporation based in LONDON. Look it up please. I would like to be wrong on this but I m not.
You keep repeating the same drivel with no proof. It is your burden to prove the veracity of your claims. You have not done so. You have just been working your way through a series of logical fallacies, like the one about, "Since 1938 the Bankruptcy of the Unites sates (a corp) caused the Admiralty law to come into affect the Maritime law yes. They are all answerable to the BAR … British accredited registry ,a foreign corporation based in LONDON."
very true awesome thank you for your comment
Frustrating isn't it? The reason why so many of our fellow USA citizens fight against us to their own detriment even, is because true freedom = equality. Unfortunately they like the class system created by the slavish nature of our current society. They can then boast about their "superior knowledge" of the law and such. Keep up the good work, my friend.
They can thank us later.
A luta continua!
True freedom is anti-social anarchy. What killer would agree to be bound by a law against murder? Every society has rules. There are benefits to the complex interwoven nare-global society we enjoy today. Do you think computer factories, electrical grids and the internet would arise without a global system of relatively stable government? Without government, the cables would be ripped up and sold for scrap.
True freedom does not equal anarchy. Your example doesn't make sense as there are laws against murder, yet murders continue.
You seem to think, like most slavery apologists, that I am anti-government. I'm not…I'm anti-government abuse/over-reach. "For the common good" wasn't to give government unfettered power over all things and all people.
No-one said laws prevented all evil. Laws discourage and punish evil. So you agree laws for the common good are acceptable, but you don't think it's reasonable that 5000+ pound machines that can be easily operated at high speed in public should have some sort of regulatory scheme around them? Driver's licenses are utilized the world over, in probably 150+ countries, to discourage operation of vehicles by those who are inexperienced, incompetent, disabled, drunk, etc. You can read research that proves they and other regulations save lives. What do you know that they don't?
I didn't really say I agreed that "laws" for the common good are acceptable, I recognize the responsibility of the Fed. gov. to provide for the common good…slightly different. Anyway, regulating everything in life is exactly the type of over-reach 'm talking about. I readily admit that there is NO freedom without responsibility and I willfully accept the responsibility of operating a 5000 lb machine, just so many others, in addition to those who accept the responsibility of being on the road with other 5000 lb machines. With your train of thought virtually everything we can lead to some sort of calamity and therefore should be regulated by gov't. How is THAT freedom?
It's not freedom – it's a system that balances individual liberty with the greater societal good. If/when it fails or becomes too corrupt the people will be required to rise up and start a new system. Personally I don't think it's quite time for that yet in the west. There are many, many worse countries than the US are far as civil liberties are concerned.
…and again that leads to the question I have about any other human being having authority over another human being…from where does such authority come? That another human's thoughts about my life and how I live it hold more weight than my own thoughts about the subject is absurd.
It's not another human, it's collective humanity, and its will is imposed by force through the institutions it supports. Every serial killer probably feels the same way as you. What gives anyone the right to jail a murderer? There are many social contract theories. What's your favorite?
"It's not another human, it's collective humanity"
If a single human doesn't have the authority to control another, why does a group of single humans?
"Every serial killer probably feels the same way as you. What gives anyone the right to jail a murderer?"
Come on…seriously? Taking things to the extreme is never helpful in a discussion, but just "for the record" (as you legal types like to say), we're talking about operating an automobile to and from work, from home to a relatives or the store, etc., none of which encroaches on the rights of anyone else. Murder is the ultimate encroachment, wouldn't you say? Hardly a good analogy.
The same legislature that dictates the traffic code dictates murder statutes, so it is relevant. When you argue that "no man should have power over any other man" that's the same as saying laws against murder should be optional, is it not? If you allow people to ignore the vehicle code they're just as entitled to ignore the murder code.
If you don't like the state laws your remedy is to rally your friends, family, city, county, state to pressure your representatives in the state legislature to change the law in accordance with the state constitution. Or you could move to another state, or one of nearly 200 other countries that might have less vehicle regulations.
You can imagine a situation that fits your personal ideal all you want, and fuss and complain in comments on blogs all over the internet, but reality is what it is. You can't enforce your law. The state can enforce theirs. Ergo, the state wins.
"When you argue that "no man should have power over any other man" that's the same as saying laws against murder should be optional, is it not?"
The answer to your question is YES…it is NOT. This goes back to the foundation of the country again and the origin of its laws. As is proper, all of this country's laws were derived from God's laws and were determined to be "common" laws, which were essentially based on the idea that personal freedom existed for all absent the encroachment of the personal rights of others.
Again, MURDER, and other actions against another human beings don't fit that criteria.
"You can't enforce your law. The state can enforce theirs. Ergo, the state wins."
Yes, thanks to people like you, who refuse to stand up against government overreach and abuse. If the populace as a whole took a firm stand against the government tyranny that is growing ever prevalent, we could certainly and effectively hold them back.
So you do agree that men can and should have power over other men for certain things, like murder.
Various natural law theories influenced the creation of the US, sure, but the supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Pursuant to the supremacy clause, the federal and state governments can make laws in accordance with their constitutions, as interpreted by the superior courts. There has never been a system of government that could not modify and update its law. So-called "God's law" is subjective and arbitrary – it has no place in an ordered society with predictable justice. The law of the land is the federal and state constitutions and legislation, first and foremost, with decisions of judges, common law, filling in where those are vague or silent.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes once curiously opined:
You find the requirement to renew a state driver's license every 5 years tyranny? You really don't know how good you have it. There were far less liberties in the past. It used to be that you could be required to get a license in every city you operated a vehicle in. It used to be that you would be chained up in the town square for days, or worse, if you pissed off the King or a local governor. Some would say the government just keeps getting better, less arbitrary, more reasonable. Some are spoiled, short-sighted, selfish, anti-social, ungrateful and entitled.
Simply denouncing the system on blogs all over the internet doesn't do much to mitigate government overreach or abuse. To change state laws, you have to influence your fellow men and women in your state to put pressure on your representatives. I'm not in your state, so I can't really help you. Sovereignty in the US and States is held by the People as a collective – the will of the majority rules. There is no individual sovereignty in any society. So what percentage of people in your state are for abolishing the vehicle code? And what percentage of support is required by your state constitution to change the laws?
"So you do agree that men can and should have power over other men for certain things, like murder"
I agree that certain authorities have been delegated those who serve in a governmental capacity to deal legally with offences against humanity, such as murder.
"So-called "God's law" is subjective and arbitrary – it has no place in an ordered society with predictable justice."
Now THAT is just laughable. Omnipotent, Omniscient creator…"subjective and arbitrary"..unlike the created, fickle self serving humans, huh? LOLOLOL
"LAWS" are only pertinent to those to whom they apply. If there is No proof that they apply, then they don't and nothing can go any further until such proof is provided.
The reason that is case is because of exactly what is happening these days. People "assert" that laws apply to other people that then "assume they do as well" and then the former people can control the latter people. So, effectively anytime the former people want to acquire more power over the latter people all they have to do is write more laws.
No thank you…I'd rather exercise and defend my own individual rights.
If the omnipotent, omniscient creator was down here ruling directly, that'd be one thing. He's not, and religious laws have been notoriously inconsistent, intensely hostile to individual liberties, sadistically cruel, and otherwise unfit for a nation that prefers freedom to slavery. The application of religious law in the UK and its colonies was one of the driving causes behind the American Revolution, the rejection of a state religion, and representative government instead of a King supposedly justified in all actions by God.
What are you doing about it in the real world, anyway?
"If the omnipotent, omniscient creator was down here ruling directly, that'd be one thing."
He is. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
"What are you doing about it in the real world, anyway?"
Uhhh…like I said, defending my individual rights.
Not omnipotent enough for the court to perceive him, but that's one of those things where zero proof will suffice as absolute proof and there's no point pursuing it.
Can you be more specific? Are you practicing civil disobedience with licensing and registration? Writing letters to the editor? Testifying before legislative committees?
False. "Common law" refers to the English common law, which was invented in the 12th century by King Henry II to create a consistent, uniform judiciary and body of law throughout England. Specifically, it is the continuous line of precedent and rules formed by sovereigns and judges, displaced by statute, overturned by superior courts, executed by sheriffs, and otherwise forming the foundation of our legal system. It was not and is not intended to implement God's laws or natural laws or individual liberty. It was intended to implement the laws of King Henry II.
I am not going to rise up against the government and risk my property, my career, my life, and my family over having to get a driver's license. I think it's a pretty good thing that we have traffic laws that prevent our roads from being a chaotic mess like in Yemen or Ghana. You have not made a sufficient argument for why I should actually, in reality, and not just on the internet, reject the legitimacy of a government I've found more helpful than harmful in my life. It's your job to convince us, not our job to bite a hook with no bait on it.
"False. "Common law" refers to the English common law"
…which is why I referred to it as "common" law, NOT "Common Law". You know, like ALL men being created by their creator (God) and such…? In this case you have a higher being from which the tenets of law over humans are derived. Not just another human or group of humans who somehow have elevated themselves to deity status.
"I am not going to rise up against the government and risk my property, my career, my life, and my family over having to get a driver's license. "
Fine. Nobody's asking you to. That's why you have patriots both past and present, willing to risk it all to stave off tyranny…and again I say, you can thank us later.
"You have not made a sufficient argument for why I should actually, in reality, and not just on the internet, reject the legitimacy of a government I've found more helpful than harmful in my life. It's your job to convince us, not our job to bite a hook with no bait on it."
AU CONTRAIRE! Not my job nor my desire to convince you of anything. If you are happy being enslaved, have at it! That's why I always say its about INDIVIDUAL rights and freedom. No one is required to be free, but don't try to include me and others who desire freedom into your group of those content with being the chattel of our government servants.
People who describe natural law as "common law" are being deceitful and dishonest. You are being dishonest. Period. Your sentence was plainly and obviously meant to confuse the actual common law system with your own opinions of natural law. You can try to backpedal, but your wording was clearly meant to conflate and confuse the two.
Thank you for what? Lying about the law, talking down to those who actually understand the theories and practices of law, and congratulating yourself for cleaving to simple delusions instead? You don't even understand what you're criticizing, so I know that you're not part of the solution to the problems that exist in law and government.
You have an impractical view of freedom and slavery that is not consistent with the modern world. You can call me "chattel" if you like, but I unequivocally reject your intensely selfish and destructive view of what law should be. I am glad to have laws that protect the commons from people like you.
"People who describe natural law as "common law" are being deceitful and dishonest. You are being dishonest. Period. Your sentence was plainly and obviously meant to confuse the actual common law system with your own opinions of natural law. You can try to backpedal, but your wording was clearly meant to conflate and confuse the two."
Wow… 1st of all, if I had the desire to be "dishonest and deceitful", which I don't, it wouldn't be over this discussion. So, let me just say this right now…I'm sorry I used the words "common" and "law" in succession causing confusion on your part. It wasn't my intention. You are absolutely right on the origins of "Common Law.
"Thank you for what? Lying about the law, talking down to those who actually understand the theories and practices of law, and congratulating yourself for cleaving to simple delusions instead?"
Where did I "lie" about the law and why is that YOU are able to voice your opinion and I just counter with mine, but voicing my opinion is considered "talking down"?
I just don't happen to believe that "LAWS" are not the end all, be all because they are instituted by other humans who through selfish desire, greed, arrogance, etc. tend to make "LAWS" that benefit themselves and those that are party to their ideology. You not only can choose to believe differently, but I will gladly stand beside you defending your right to do so.
"You have an impractical view of freedom and slavery that is not consistent with the modern world. You can call me "chattel" if you like, but I unequivocally reject your intensely selfish and destructive view of what law should be."
Freedom and slavery are the same whether in the Modern world or in past history. If you are able do what ever you please as long as it doesn't encroach on the rights of others to do the same, you're free. If you are not or have to ask permission from another human being, no different from yourself, you are NOT free and therefore a slave, at least to some degree.
My fight is for maximum freedom and liberty for everyone that wants it, and yeah, that includes me, but i certainly don't how you can consider that selfish.
"I am glad to have laws that protect the commons from people like you."
ok
You do realize there is no physical force, i.e. military or police, on the planet that enforces your idea of "common law", correct? English law, both statutes and decisions of the courts, was imported by (most of) the States, subject to their constitutions and legislation. If your ideas aren't recognized in any court or by any power, what good are they? They don't mean anything outside your personal clubhouse unless you can enforce it. Call me skeptical but I doubt you can defeat the US military or State police. Ergo, you're stuck with their law just like everyone else.
"Call me skeptical but I doubt you can defeat the US military or State police. Ergo, you're stuck with their law just like everyone else"
Thank you for making my point. "LAWS" are only as good as the ones making them, so if the ones making the laws are evil, you end up with evil laws forced upon you at the barrel of a gun.
Yup, and if/when it gets too bad the people as a whole have to rise up militarily and start a new country, à la 1776. Until they're prepared to do that it's arguably best to participate, bad laws notwithstanding.
Tyranny is progressive. If there is NO resistance at all, getting "too bad" will come sooner than we might expect.
There was resistance to driver's licenses and other regulations in the early 1900's, however regulation won out, as the article sources show. The people demanded more regulation for safety, and their representatives in the 50+ state legislatures saw to it that the laws were enacted. If you want to change the law, convince the majority of people in your state, then write your representatives. That's how democratic republics work.
That only works if you have an informed populace, which is why there has been and still is a concerted effort to dumb down the public by indoctrination, obfuscation and lies. There is absolutely no other reason for the codes, statutes, laws to be written in the confusing manner they currently are. Aren't they written by intelligent people? Of course they are…intelligent enough to know exactly what the effect of their actions are.
What part of your state's constitution or vehicle code do you struggle to understand? Why don't you look to court decisions where judges have done all the interpretation for you? (Plus, their interpretation is binding). It's not that confusing when you understand how the law works. Sure, people could learn more about the intricacies of law, but they would have less time for other things. As one judge put it, people being ignorant of their rights is a luxury that shows the system works to provide a reasonable, stable society.
"What part of your state's constitution or vehicle code do you struggle to understand?"
None of it. I didn't say I didn't understand it.
"As one judge put it, people being ignorant of their rights is a luxury that shows the system works to provide a reasonable, stable society."
Uh huh…sure judge.
The language and structure of statutes is designed to do a few things:
1. To precisely express the intent of the legislature
2. To either lay out or conform to established definitions of specific terms
3. To be easily altered by amendment of specific sections, subsections, and paragraphs.
They can be time-consuming to read and understand, but it's not a secret code, and it can be done with patience. The more you do it, the more easily you begin to recognize the patterns and vocabulary. After a while, you know exactly where to look for definitions, exceptions, related statutes, and more. You'll get a feel for when you're missing necessary information from elsewhere, when "includes" is inclusive or exclusive, the peculiarities of "may" and "shall," the significance of absent sections, and so on.
"After a while, you know exactly where to look for definitions, exceptions, related statutes, and more. You'll get a feel for when you're missing necessary information from elsewhere, when "includes" is inclusive or exclusive, the peculiarities of "may" and "shall," the significance of absent sections, and so on."
yep….piece of cake.
Well, it's a lot harder if you aren't actually interested in what they say. If you've already decided what a statute or opinion says or means before you read it, then you're never going to learn how to read them correctly. If you will not tolerate being surprised or disappointed, then you've decided in advance to ignore the source material. If you aren't willing to put your opinions about what the law should be to one side, you have no ability to learn what the law is.
What, specifically, should we be resisting? I'm honestly interested in what particular portions of law you find so tyrannical. There are a few on my mind, but nothing so trivial and balanced as transportation laws. I'm not asking so I can lay into you, I'm just curious about the specifics.
We should be resisting any attempt to diminish or encroach on our individual and fundamental rights.
Laws are not meant to (or shouldn't be meant to) punish us for victimless "crimes" such as traveling at some speed that is in excess of an arbitrarily posted "speed limit"… or for going through a traffic light at 2am when there is no one else around, etc. etc, etc. It's just silly, and what's more, its main purpose has become the collection of revenue, not public safety.
We should vigorously resist the financial ruin of our society by the misapplication of our tax codes on every individual who uses their talents and skills to provide for themselves and their families. Everyone should be furious about that.
The federal and state constitutions are the supreme laws. Where do these documents state that victimless crimes are not allowed to be legislated? Nowhere. You don't understand the system at all. And yeah, combined with improvements in driver culture and depending on road conditions speeding laws demonstrably save lives.
I think Dale is more concerned with the philosophical ideals of justice in terms of individual liberty, not whether any particular laws are consistent with current practice. I'll let Dale speak for himself, but appeals to the mandatory jurisdiction of the state don't mean much to a person who considers the body of laws to be perverted regardless of its internal consistency and forceful execution.
Then he needs to get back on topic. This article is about the right to travel on the public roads in the existing US and States.
If you guys are done talking about me I'll go ahead and comment now.
Ken, frankly I'm not sure what heck you just said (now, I'm positive you're a lawyer,lol) but from what I could decipher, my answer is that I don't consider all laws to be perverted, I just reject the notion that because a law exists, it's assumed that it applies to everyone.
pseudolaw, I'd like to remind you that WAS on topic. It was you two took us down thi rabbit hole, not me.
Every human being has a fundamental right to travel, whether by horse, carriage or automobile. It is NOT a privilege given to us by government servants, it does not cease to exist with the creation of a law, and no law can convert that right into a crime. There are copious court cases, Supreme and higher courts alike that confirm that over and over again.
Using the public highways for personal gain, through commercial, for hire activity (Driving) is a state regulable activity.
[Citation needed]
I'm really not a lawyer! What I mean is that your position seems to be based on your beliefs about fundamental human rights, not statutes or interpretations of federal or state constitutions, so there's no point trying to convince you with references to statutes and case law. I think you're not concerned with what the state does by force, but with what you see as human rights that supersede the state. If I've understood you correctly, you maintain that some transportation laws unjustly violate the human right to travel, regardless of whether they're consistent with the federal and state constitutions.
…and again we're back to the question, what FACTS do you have to PROVE that the federal and state constitutions apply to me?
The constitutions don't apply to you, per se. They limit the government's use of force against the people. People who break the law get penalized, fined and locked up. Fact. The government doesn't consider who consents or not. It doesn't have to, because it's the biggest dog in town.
Without resistance and with the continuous application of half-truths, lies, word twisting, those limits are radically diminished. "Ordinary" who break the "law" are penalized, but those in power can operate outside the law with impunity.
"The government doesn't consider who consents or not. It doesn't have to, because it's the biggest dog in town."
The biggest reason YET to resist the usurpation of our rights.
Where do you think rights come from? They come at the pleasure of the greatest physical force on the territory, the government. Without government it's the law of the jungle where brute force always wins.
Though government can be wicked at times, it is arguably a necessary evil. I like this commentary on 1 Peter 2:17:
Rulers, whether good and bad, oversee the laws of civil society, and in that role they should arguably always be considered valuable to the common man.
You're kidding….RIGHT??? So you're an atheist? Well be that as it may, the Declaration of Independence doesn't even agree with you here. That's is the most important aspect of our Liberty and Freedoms in this country. They are viewed as "fundamental" because they are derived from a higher being, the CREATOR of all mankind. Just as the created human cannot rule or have power over its creator, neither can the created government rule over or have power over its creator, "the people".
The Bible verse you quoted is within the context of a monarchy and even with that, look at the conditional statements…"so far as he acts the part of a civil magistrate, preserves the peace, the property, and liberty of his subjects, is a terror to evil works, and an encourager of good ones, and rules according to the laws of God, and civil society…" Those are pretty important qualifiers don't you think?
Besides, in the context of the U.S.A., "WE THE PEOPLE" are Caesar.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Declaration was only "enacted" in the preamble of the USC by Congress. You obviously haven't done your research. The courts enjoy the power of judicial review pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution. Your individual YouTube-inspired, conspiracy-fueled interpretations mean nothing. Show me where a court has recognized the Declaration as having any legal effect. Show me where a court agrees with anything you say and we'll know whether you are talking out your ass about something unsupportable and unattainable in reality. This article is about the reality in the US and States, not your personal fantasies. Keep pushing uncited, unrecognized, unusable, unlawful crap and you can expect to be deleted or banned. In fact, I've heard enough and think I'll do that now. Cya
In the end, it boils down to force. If somebody violates your constitutional rights, you can haul them into court, and if they refuse to show up, they can be compelled by force. If you violate a constitutionally valid law, you can be hauled in by force. Enough people accept the federal and state constitutions as valid that this force is available.
" If somebody violates your constitutional rights, you can haul them into court,"
Yeah you can, even government, but with their unlimited resources (paid for by our tax dollars) and cast of supporting characters (attorneys, judges, politicians) it's extremely difficult to prevail…and they know that.
"Enough people accept the federal and state constitutions as valid that this force is available"
Enough for WHAT?? You see, here is where the difference between a democracy and a republic really matter. We (are supposed to) have republic where each individual's rights are not affected by the will of the majority, no matter how many are the majority.
So, back to my question which you nor pseudolaw will not directly answer…
what FACTS do you have to PROVE that the federal and state constitutions or ordinances and laws apply to me?
Paramount to ANY legal application is the matter of jurisdiction. Without it there is no compulsion to comply with a law and therefore no possible violation. Without facts, empirical evidence to prove a law applies, it doesn't and nothing can proceed further along that path.
Are you sure you know what a republic is?
State police can lawfully enforce state law against anyone and anything on commonly-recognized state territory. There is, at the moment, no court or military power on earth that will help you fight off the state police so you can ignore state law. Just being on the territory is enough for the government and its courts and police to assume jurisdiction in accordance with all historical and international law. Fact.
"Are you sure you know what a republic is?
A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body"
Although that definition applies to our form of government, what I meant and should have said is a "constitutional republic" which yes, gets its origin from the strict definition of "republic" but is in no way solely defined by it for the purposes of the government of the united States of America.
"State police can lawfully enforce state law against anyone and anything on commonly-recognized state territory. There is, at the moment, no court or military power on earth that will help you fight off the state police so you can ignore state law."
"lawfully"…state "law"… Do you read what you're typing? Claiming the "laws" apply because one is physically in a "state" is yet another assertion that requires facts to prove. Without them the assumption is and should always , be that they don't apply and therefore those with the duty and power to enforce them don't have jurisdiction.
By the way, there are many beating traffic tickets and such TODAY with that very argument.
FACT
No, it doesn't require your arbitrary definition of proof, as you'll find out if you try to act on any pseudolegal theories in real life. This will be you, in shock when your magic words fail to deter the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM And you won't be able to win damages when the state enforces its law that hasn't been struck down by a superior court.
Plaintiffs routinely win civil rights lawsuits against governments and have charges thrown out because of unconstitutional government conduct. This is something that happens on a day to day basis. Police departments lose lawsuits, school districts lose lawsuits, state governments lose lawsuits, and federal agencies lose lawsuits. Defendants are acquitted every day. Law enforcement officers back off all the time because (most of) them know the law (usually) applies to them. You're implying that the government is above the law in practice, but this is demonstrably false.
Enough that if you break the law, it is a fact that you can be seized, prosecuted, and punished against your will and without your permission, subject to the state and federal constitutions. Enough that, as a practical matter, the federal and state constitutions have physical force instead of simply existing on paper. Enough that whether you accept their applicability is completely irrelevant unless you contribute to concrete acts that prevent the police, courts, and prisons from functioning.
Guns, tasers, fists, handcuffs, and bars. Those are the facts. "Oh, tyranny! Tyranny!" Yeah, OK, sure, but your philosophical objections don't stop bullets, resist voltage, block punches, or break steel.
Then don't comply. Have fun. Jurisdiction isn't a physical quantity that can be measured, so I can't tell you that rural Illinois averages out to 108.3 millimadisons of jurisdiction. It's pretty tough to change the law by just ignoring it, but there's no force of nature to stop you from trying. I prefer legislation and lawsuits for now.
P.S. Ultimately, everybody who obeys the law upholds its applicability. You may not realize it, but you, individually, play a part in upholding the body of statutes and precedent when you pay attention to the lane markings, when you file your taxes, when you don't trespass, or when you pay to use a subway. Your compliance with the vast majority of the law contributes to its general applicability.
OK, let's look back at the original line about common law:
None of this is true.
This country's laws were not derived from God's laws. They were derived from the statutes and common law inherited from the colonial period, with the introduction of new republican ideas.
These laws were not determined to be "common" laws. The use of that term has no purpose other than to confuse readers who are aware that the United States operate under the common law legal system, but don't have a clear understanding of what that means.
Neither the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, nor state laws, nor the English common law revolve around the kind of absolute personal liberty you describe. That's a red herring.
"OK, let's look back at the original line about common law:"
You're kidding!!! Let's NOT and say we did. You guys are really stuck on this "common law" theme. I already explained what I meant AND I apologized for even using the words! I'm done with that…we're getting off topic.
"This country's laws were not derived from God's laws."
False. Most obviously, the Ten Commandments was a major influence on the formulation of this country, its morals and subsequently its laws.
"Neither the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, nor state laws, nor the English common law revolve around the kind of absolute personal liberty you describe."
Nonsense. What do you think they meant by…"endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, AMONG WHICH are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness"?
Paraphrased that would be the right to do anything one pleases as long as it doesn't deny another the right to the same.
Bottom line Ken, it has been well documented that a state's authority to regulate "Transportation" only extends to the use of the (OUR) roads for commercial gain. The only reason it has gotten so out of hand is because the natural reaction to power by humans is gain more and more of it. That's precisely why our rights were pointed out in the founding documents and why those who seek to impose tyranny on us make sure the populace doesn't understand those documents nor the statutes they create, by making them so convoluted and complex.
You may feel comfortable with the status quo. I don't and I cannot sit by idly and do absolutely nothing while my rights and the rights of my fellow Americans are being trampled.
Slavish obedience is harmful and stupid. Knowledge of the current law and reality is essential. I fight for the laws I want because my eyes are open and I can see that I have to win before I can declare victory. I want just laws in a representative government, not hippy-dippy anarchist dreams.
"Slavish obedience is harmful and stupid."
Amen to that!
"I want just laws in a representative government"
You notice that most of the original laws were focused mainly on restricting the activities of the government? It wasn't until later that they began to be directed at the populace, all in an effort to bolster power. That's exactly why your current president doesn't like our constitution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "original laws," to be honest. State laws were in force alongside the first Acts of Congress, and colonial laws preceded the states. The common law preceded any acts of a colonial legislature or governor, and the English monarchy preceded the common law.
Obviously I'm talking about the Law of the land the constitution.
In that case, the U.S. Constitution was actually written to increase the power of the federal government. A lot of protections were added on after ratification, but the focus was on resolving the dysfunction of the weak Articles of Confederation. The federal government was granted much broader powers over interstate matters and taxation, but that's not really related to driver licensing and motor vehicle registration. That's a state issue, and state constitutions have granted broad police powers since before the American Revolution. Have you looked at the kinds of laws that were passed in the colonies and early United States?
If you buy a car with cash…the govt is the executor of your property that is if you have a title in your name declaring it as a vehicle!!! Registration will show probability, drivers license etc.. probability. Municipal courts use that as evidence to validate it is in fact a vehicle subject to vehicle traffic code.
These are silly assertions with no basis whatsoever in fact. They're the product of desperate minds demanding exemption from reality.
Protip: Before asserting a truth…make sure it's not just an opinion you desperately want to be true.
I think your both misleading yourselves by the words. See regulation replace it with right see drive replace with travel see the rest and make it common rights like right to travel set forth by both sides of jurisdictions own definitions within financial bounds to punishment by death. No commerce no harm no crime, common law and ucc into federal.. Blah… Seriously. Consumer goods ucc 9-109. mass says they offer private passenger plates to drivers. Keyword drivers. Still a registration scam to give police assumption you may sometimes (as I take it) be involved in commerce.. Dig that.
That private passenger registration puts you into driver status just by registration keyword alone. No registration per ucc associated maritime aka international..
Hello. I want to win can you fight my case? I'm talking to you truthman
they use different names once you get into the court room. they might use your full given name when arrested, but at first appearance they will leave out your middle name or use a middle initial. Object immediately and tell them your full given name (with middle name). http://reaperishere.weebly.com/under-standing-laws.html
3 years late to the discussion, better late than never I guess. Definitions of terms used in the codes is everything, I noticed when reading the traffic codes of my state it specifies Jurisdiction over citizens of "the state" all lower case, and the code's definition of "the state" is "District of Columbia and the several US territories" then you go into the US legal dictionary to find the definition of "US territories" defined as "A portion of the United States, not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized, with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial officers appointed by the president"
and Wikipedia states "Territories of the United States are sub-national administrative divisions directly overseen by the United States (U.S.) federal government. Unlike U.S. states and Native tribes that have sovereignty alongside the federal government, territories are without sovereignty (according to a 2016 Supreme Court ruling called Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle)…..The U.S. has sixteen[4] territories in the Caribbean Sea, the south Pacific Ocean, and the western portion of the north Pacific Ocean. Five of the territories are permanently inhabited and are classified as unincorporated territories. The other eleven are small islands, atolls, and reefs with no native or permanent population. Of those eleven, only one is classified as an incorporated territory. Two territories (Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank) are administered by Colombia.[5][6]" so it seems to me since I'm not a citizen of the district of columbia or the us territories and I'm not even anywhere near those places then they have no jurisdiction to enforce those laws on me. am I wrong?
"transportation" includes transporting YOURSELF and/or your personal belongings. It doesn't have to mean you're being paid or hired by someone else. The "right to travel" means that one US state cannot block you from entering from another US state arbitrarily.
Awesome 👍
In The United States, The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is Constitutional, and what is not. Simple. End of story. Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941) Have a great time trying to convince the police, the courts, and anyone with a brain in their head differently.
ThAnk you………. I have been robbed so much by police and Tow yards and my license is suspended I am going to court for this stupid issue of getting behind a wheel and I'm tired of it I've even gone to jail for it
The problem here is you left out important parts. Keep reading Thomson v. Smith and you will see the court makes a distinction between the privilege of driving and the right within liberty of personal locomotion. Not using those terms exactly but plain as day if you read it. But the case is about the right to drive which that right does not exist. Commerce is trade,transportation or traffic . So what does vehicle and Traffic laws regulate? it should also be noted that title 18 section 31 united states code defines motor vehicle , would the states not be in violation of federal laws if they made motor vehicles something different then the federal government? Or is it that federal laws regarding motor vehicles only apply to persons engaged in commercial activities and when it comes to states federal laws apply to anyone regardless?? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35ce293adeaf09c33eb3d1758c735dfe75a00e53e66fc27707f3ec74cad36962.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4199618f78d1faf752f69d24688dc8e1f6384d8e03673022da24dbd87cede45a.jpg
1. The definition in 18 USC § 31(a)(6) doesn't apply to federal laws outside that chapter, let alone to state and local laws. Its definition is narrow because the federal government has very little authority to regulate intrastate non-commercial traffic.
2. That's a nice bit of history in the pictures, and it is indeed accurate at describing the situation in 1909, before New York required a license for all drivers.
Yes of course, was to make a point. But on that subject, nowhere does it provide a definition in conflict with that definition. The fact remains ,the license is for person's engaging in trade,transportation or traffic, which is commerce. Provide the legislative Bill jacket that shows the intent of the legislation and I'll show you. Much like every gun control act,the subject of the Bill is the regulation of trafficking ,trade or transportation of firearms. The same applies to motor vehicles. The government's power the people delegated to the government is limited. The right to be left alone from government intrusion is just that. There is no direct tax in America today. Indirect taxes can be avoided ,pass them onto the consumer, don't engage in the taxable activity, ect. The registration fee for motor vehicles has been deemed a tax. same with the license fee. You can not tax a common right.
You're making the claim, so why don't you provide the bill jacket? For that matter, who deemed registration fees a tax? When did driving a car become a common right?
Read the Thompson v. Smith case. Clearly says it's a common right. My local library has the legislative intent on mirco film and won't allow me to take pictures. But I'll say this. The laws regarding motor vehicles registration and licenses have not changed the requirement for who it applies.
Then I'd appreciate a transcript of the relevant portion when you have the time and inclination.
As for Thompson v. Smith, the Virginia Supreme Court does describe it as a common right, but one subject to regulation, including licensing with standardized qualifications. The ruling upheld the city's power to issue, deny, and require licenses, but not on an arbitrary basis. I'd be interested in a case arguing that licenses can't be charged for, but I haven't seen one.
It's funny , when someone speaks more common sense and truth than you may like ,you ban them. Hahaha. Even though the only document I had on my phone was from 1909 attorney General report it still showed more proof then anyone in here arguing something different. Not one of you have shown any laws that show when or why the license was for commerce and then all of a sudden changed to apply to everyone. Prove it. No one but you have been repeating themselves. I've changed my information in almost every comment . I apologize if you are offended by the truth. Hope you find the legislative intent for the driver license in your state. The online vehicle codes don't show it .
For some reason i was banned ,must have been to real for the moderator, the truth hurts and no one likes hearing it. Keep justifying the misapplied laws. I'm not sure what your point is here? Well I'll take a guess , when I first read this I thought ,darn , then I looked into the words more. Private automobiles most definitely can do business upon the roads. A corporate entity would have private automobiles. Automobiles not owned by the state (the state is the people) . The case is mainly dealing with the commerce of it anyhow .
Yes, which is part of why it's very poor evidence against non-commercial driver's licenses, despite being regularly trotted out for that purpose.
The mirofilm legislative Bill jacket is in Albany New York I live in Rochester. I won't be back to Albany for awhile. But you can definitely email your local law library and see if they have the bill jacket for your state.
That may be a state-specific term. By "bill jacket," are you referring to the original act in its entirety, including the preamble?
The bill jacket is one of several folders . There is a veto jacket , a bill jacket and i forgot the other one bit it deals with sending the bill back to the two houses. The Bill jacket has everything the governor needs to make a decision. All the positive and negative from the two houses, lobbyists, The people individually, bar association ect. It gives the legislative intent behind the Bill. What the purpose of the legislation is. The legislative Bill itself should state themselves subject in the title anyhow. Like I mentioned the gun control act of 1986 is for regulating the commerce of firearms. But most are lead to believe it's something more personal when really it applies to persons engaged in the regulatable activity
Interesting! I haven't heard of an equivalent here—so far as I know, the Governor just receives the bill itself, and the context comes separately.
It's possible it's called something else where you are, what state? Or the process might not include such a folder. Nevertheless, if you can find the intent behind the legislation, you will quickly change your mind. Words change , laws change , rights do not.
Let me know when the first court invalidates driver licensing or vehicle registration, then.
You can find a summary of the development of automobile laws in New York here. Get ahold of copies of the original amendments and perhaps legislative proceedings around that time and you will find the intent, etc.
I've read several cases from other states where the appellant has argued he has the right to drive and the license impeads on his rights …………. The court's have held the right to drive a motor vehicle is non existent. The right of locomotion under LIBERTY is valid. The fee for the license is an excise tax under indirect taxes. It's not a direct tax . The registration fee is a tax on the value of the motor vehicle, ad valorem. Indirect taxes can be avoided, they can be passed on to consumers or you can avoid by not engaging in the taxable activity. Real property tax is ad valorem, you can also avoid by passing it on to the consumer (renter) again you'd have to know the purpose, intent of the property tax. There are no direct tax in America. So the property must be used in a manner that is taxable. Same with motor vehicles.
Not sure what you're getting at, here.
Please cite the cases and/or laws as just saying things isn't binding on anything. Everything that the system recognizes as valid will be found in writing in the public record.
I'm not home. I'm on my phone , I'm not reading through case law right now to find the exact phrases from certain cases. But I do have everything minus the bill jacket that's only on microfilm in Albany New York. . I am more focused on the income tax laws right now so off the top of my head I can't think of any cases . But this one in the picture is not technically about this topic makes it clear commerce is traffic if we didn't already settle that. Traffic laws are for the regulation of traffic.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/921b6d8a13afa7133789295f106eba65b2f085b5c3b77884ce69bbb5b0565459.png
I can see how that could be confusing. Indeed, the federal government is bound by the commerce clause. However State governments are a separate jurisdiction and are not bound by the same.
The States handle most regulation for health and safety internally without the federal government.
Was pointing out the fact that the license and registration fees are a tax . And there are cases regarding whether or not the tax violates the rights of people , but everyone I've read has dealt with someone who has a motor vehicle registered and license. None have been on the topic of whether the tax is applied if you don't register and license.
When has a court recognized it as a tax and why would it matter?
Because you can not tax a right. And because of that fact when a tax is involved, it should be looked at in a different manner.
What authority tells you this? The federal Supreme Court? The state Supreme Court? Individuals don't just get to interpret the law however they like. The courts are in charge of that pursuant to the state and federal constitutions.
What makes you think laws can't be created to apply to non-commercial activity? The existence of a right does not mean it can't be regulated, just that it must not be removed arbitrarily without due process of law and for a good reason such as public order or safety.
I never said that. Public safety is always a topic where laws can be applied. To a certain extent. Again find the local legislative Bill jacket in your area. Show me the intent of your legislative body that states it's for the people. I promise you it's not. Several cases that made it clear an automobile is no more dangerous than a horse and carriage. The registration of property does nothing to the wellbeing of the public . Nor does a license if you've been on the roads lately.
Yes that is true it does enhance the right . By regulating The commerce done upon the public roads we prevent accidents , the theory is ,if you have a business dealing with hauling goods , the longer you can hold off on maintaining the trucks the more profit you gain. So many persons on the roads failing to maintain their equipment caused to many accidents. I'm a truck driver with a class A license, The regulations are to keep the public safe but again the government's powers only allow them control over certain aspects. None of which are to limit the people except I'm regards to public safety and welfare (not welfare as we now know it) (leveling which is what welfare today was called ,was forbidden ,is forbidden ).
People operating 5000+ lb machines at high speeds in populated areas is a safety issue whether they are doing business or not, which is why the people generally believe it warrants regulation and began demanding it from their representatives in the early 1900s.
Still have not proved that last statement. Again you may believe it's for that. But find the bill jacket. Regulations to the point of public safety, stop signs ,road signs warnings ,ect. Licenses have nothing to do with public safety. That is not the purpose of a license
You haven't named a state and it can be a chore to find official enactments and their history, but I might be willing to do some research for you. It would be better if you could do your own, though. The Supreme Court disagrees with your conclusion that licenses aren't for public safety. See the citations from Hendrick v. Maryland and Reitz v. Mealey in the article. State laws are part of the police power of the state which I already referenced, which are inherently based on public order and safety.
That is true the people do believe it's warranted. But not one of them has read the actual Bill. You won't find it online for a reason. I had to study some public officer law and other laws just to force them to let me gain access. Again can they deprive liberty for a civil infraction in your state? What is a traffic infraction defined as,criminal or civil? What are the procedures for depriving liberty for a criminal action? If I was home I'd pop out some more case law on the right of locomotion. The right to travel cases usually touch on international travel . Locomotion is under your right of liberty. Life liberty and property can not be deprived without due process, right? What is the "Due" "process " required when depriving liberty for a traffic stop? Or have you waived those rights to due process with a license? I'm not asking ,I already know.
Some states view certain traffic infractions as civil others criminal. You can almost certainly find the original current vehicle code enactment online. Sometimes you have to ask the state legislative library for copies of older, superseded enactments which they're more than happy to provide on request. What state are you interested in?
Not always but for this I have yet to find the legislative intent for the current vehicle and traffic laws. I had to trace it back to almost the beginning. And yes true some states are criminal some civil and both should tell people what should be done everytime a traffic stop is implemented. Regardless of if you believe there laws are applicable or not . If it's civil what should happen ;criminal? And yes if you have some secret source and can post the New York legislation bill current for the driver license requirement please please please do!!!!
Thomson vs Smith makes it clear there is a right to travel but it is not unlimited. Cities (and States) may grant and revoke permits to operate an automobile.
Now the right exists ,hahaha before it didn't at all . Again find your local bill jacket for the subject. I'll be waiting
Yes, the people have a general right to lawful access and use of public property. If you want the intent of a state law it can be looked up in the original enactment in state records. Be sure to find the most recent and current amendment which will contain a note that it supersedes certain historical enactments.
I know where the legislative intent is . I'm asking you to go read it.
It was also said after that that if a city,ect. Can prohibit the act all together it has the power to permit the act on any condition. At some point the right no longer is a right and becomes a privilege. The ignorance of the people has caused many rights to disappear. When a right is converted into a crime and a license is required,without which would make it illegal, The law requiring the license is void. But because people don't argue it in court or don't make the right argument ,it's stands as law. The very principles of the forming of this republic, the foundation, forbids this .
There are really no unlimited rights – all can be regulated for public order and safety. The right to bear arms, for example, doesn't mean you can take a basket full of grenades or a nuke to a football game or down to the public courthouse just because you feel like it. That would be extremely dangerous and chaotic and wouldn't be conducive to a reasonable, peaceful society. Likewise, when you're operating 5000 lb machinery at high speeds in populated areas, some rules are warranted.
Are we now on the topic of public safety or are we still talking licenses? I completely agree with regulatory acts to keep the public safe . But the license requirement is for engaging in trade ,transportation or traffic. The concept of unlimited rights is within amendment nine of the U.S. constitution. It's meant more on the basis that the people have rights not listed . A right is something that can be done without permission.
The recognized police power of states is based primarily on making laws for safety, so all laws could reasonably be said to be part of that. You say "the license requirement is for engaging in trade, transportation or traffic" but if you read the state vehicle laws you will find definitions and laws that clearly apply to non-commercial activity. So you're in error.
In new york a driver is an operator or a chauffeur. A driver license is a operator or chauffeur license. The motor vehicle definition is very vague . that is why I had to go to Albany and look at the only record apparently available to see the purpose of the bill. And sure enough nothing has changed , the 1909 attorney General opinion is old and will not have any weight without the legislative intent , but the fact still stands that no member of the family need a license or permit unless employed for hire or wages or wishing to be a chauffeur. Also used in that opinion The term persons to make clear corporations and other legal entities wishing to do business soley in this state . What does your state constitution allow the state or local government to regulate? I'm sure it's limited to commerce and a few others but I doubt it has authority from the people to tax their rights, regulate their private life , there's a legal maxim (which don't mean shit now) that I forgot the Latin term but something one the lines ,the people in their private affairs are judged only by their creator and in public are bound to public laws that required, lack of better words, respect for other people's rights and liberties. I see nowhere in my constitution that gives them the authority of licensing a right. Or taxing one. Or being able to regulate a right if a majority say it's ok. Yes it's true you cant swing a sword in public ,even if you don't hit someone you are still negligent. Just as if you raced through a village in a car , that's negligent but until you engage in traffic ,commerce Traffic laws can't be applied. Just like you wouldn't apply aviation laws to someone not flying a plane for hire. I can fly a one man plane under 4or 5 hundred feet legally. Without a license. Look at what a passenger is. A passenger in law that i know of has always been someone who pays a carrier for transportation of his person and or his property.
If all that were true you could win damages in court and have the driver's license laws overturned when the state enforces them. Unfortunately it's not true. Legal maxims aren't binding on the state, law dictionaries aren't binding on the state. All that matter are the state constitution, legislation made thereunder, and court interpretations of the constitution and legislation. No state recognizes some "law of the creator" that people can make up however they want. The law is written down and public record and stems from the state constitution. We've gone over a lot of things repeatedly and at length so I am now removing your ability to comment. Others will read and may choose to comment on what you have written. Good luck.
New York law can be seen here. Scroll down and click the "VAT" section.
These sovereign citizens are just an embarrassment. Not only are their legal arguments laughable (which is why I so enjoy seeing their windows broken II, watching them get tased and laughing at their court shenanigans) – their use of blacks law dictionary as some sort of legal analysis is just adorable. Oh and my personal favorite is when they use a notarized document as if it’s some official state endorsed form. Do you people understand that a notary just verified your identity? That’s it my uninformed douchey friends.
You're un-American, by virtue of your anti-freedom, anti-Constitutional wallowing in authoritarian apologetics. You would have thrived in Fascist Italy or Bolshevik Russia. Hey, North Korea is calling!
Sorry but you do NOT need a License or tags or insurance. Read Marbury v Madison, then read Murdock v Pennsylvania, No State can issue a License or Fee for that,and Shuttlesworth v Alabama ,says if they do issue you a license and a Fee,you can ignore the license and the fee,a with out impunity,meaning they cannot punish you for it. People need to read the US Constitution, and there are other Supreme Court Cases to back this up. Shapiro v Thompson. also Google Charlie Sprinkles. and go to YouTube,and watch CARL Millers Videos, he is a Constitutional Las Expert.
This article is very misleading. U.S. codes regulate all states.18 U.S. Code § 31(10). tells exactly what the states can regulate. And U.S. code 49 also regulates state dmv. once anybody argues state statues you fell in the trap
18 UC § 31(a?)(10) does not specify what the states can regulate. It is the definitions section of a U.S. code chapter on transportation-related federal crimes. The definitions contained in 18 U.S. Code § 31 only apply in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Title 18. There's nothing in this section that restricts the police power of the states to regulate private operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads.
49 USC is simply the federal transportation law title. It defines federal law, but does not restrict the police power of the states to regulate private operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads. Nothing in this title prohibits the mandatory licensing of private operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads, nor the registration of self-propelled vehicles operated on roads.
The existence of federal law embracing a general subject does not invalidate state law embracing the same general subject. The reason there is no federal law about private driver licensing or private vehicle registration is that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to interfere with the internal police power of the states. Only the states have the constitutional authority to regulate private drivers and vehicles within a state, so these laws are created on valid state authority, not federal authority.
Fifteen years ago I researched and wrote about a related topic – "the right to travel by human power". Walking and bicycling are frequently attacked by governments and individuals who want to clear the roadways of slow traffic in order to speed the pace of motoring, but many or most roads lack the provision of alternate infrastructure to facilitate the nonmotorized modes. I was particularly interested in those court opinions that, in the process of supporting driver's license laws, identified walking and bicycling as usable alternatives to motoring. My thesis was that non-motorized travel would or should be more difficult for the government to restrict or ban, particularly in terms of preventing equivalent access to local destinations, because doing so would eliminate the most affordable and universally accessible means of locomotion. The travel rights of non-motorized users seem to be better established over the past 2000+ years of traffic law, dating back at least to the Roman Servitus Iter. Do you have any suggestions of where else to look for legal support for the right to travel under human power in the US? I'm not a lawyer but I think it's important for people to try to understand these principles.
While both sides of the argument are well represented here, it really comes down to the one thing NOT mentioned here.
pseudolaw is of the belief that the government corporation is sovereign. In America, the sovereignty lies with the people, individually and collectively. We are each Kings without subjects, in the law.
The other side of the argument has not stated the issue of legitimacy, and the capacity in which the corp govs operate.
Both sides bring up the constitution and laws to support their claim, but neither side looks at the SOURCE of sovereignty. That is the critical piece of information missing from the discussion.
All government sovereignty is derived from the People, who have given a limited amount of sovereignty to governments who form under the constitutions. The fact is, there are no governments, state or federal, formed under the constitutions in existence today.
The basic standard to which government should be held is that it can not do anything, that any single man can not do. If I can not do it, the neither can the government.
If I can not force my neighbor to register his property with me, the government can not force me to register my property with it.
It comes down to the use of force, and that forced is only ever legitimately used in the protection of private property as evidenced that my only lawful use of force is to protect my own property.
The fact is, ALL governments are corporations. That is confirmed by the Supreme Court, when it was a Lawful court. It has also been stated by the SC that when governments use commercial paper that they do so in a private character as opposed to a government of Lawful authority.
Because of the use of Federal Reserve Notes, there are no legitimate state governments in existence. They act as private corporations using privately issued debt as currency. Because of that fact, they are restricted only by the Uniform Commercial Code.
ALL statute law put out by these corporations is PRIVATE LAW, only applicable to those within the corporation. The fraud of the drivers license is intended to do nothing other than subject the unwitting victim to the private jurisdiction of the corporation issuing the "license", while it is pretending to operate as a Lawful government under the constitutions.
It is a question of form of government. In the Republics created by the constitutions, all rights not specifically delegated to the government are by nature meant to be unregulated. In the private corporations acting as government, all rights are considered privileges which are to be regulated.
The drivers license creates a corporate citizen who functions under the private law of the issuer, as a privileged entity.
What we have is a private corporation pretending to be the government of a constitutional republic formed under the constitutions. Those who are willingly a member of the private corporations and those who would choose the constitutional republic will never agree on what law is.
The problem is, there is no protection for the rights of those wishing to reside in the long dead republic. And as to the protection offered to those in the corporation, which has no Lawful or moral authority to act against those who refuse membership to it, it is an illusion as the corporation will always protect itself from it's involuntary officers who hold it license out of fear.
Is it lawful to "drive" without a "license". In a word, yes. However, there are no protections from the private interest for those who choose to exercise rights over privileges.
There is no such thing as being "individually-sovereign" in any fair and just society – they all have rules everyone must follow. In the US, the will of the people can only be enforced collectively. State legislatures have enacted highway codes and it is therefore not lawful to travel by a self-propelled device (see your state's definitions) on the public highways without following those codes. How would it be fair or lawful under any law to use the products of a society, exploiting the labour and taxation of its members, without any of the duties? These creations, and everyone availing themselves of the benefit, are subject to their creator. Consider the legal maxim he who enjoys the benefit ought to bear the burden. If you want out, if you really want out, stop being dependent and go make your own clothes, electricity, transportation, computers, internet, then negotiate with the rest of the world to gain some sort of recognition as a sovereign state under public international law.
pseudolaw, In the United States of America, the People ARE the sovereigns. Individually AND collectively. There are only two choices. You are a sovereign, or a subject. A free Man is sovereign, a slave is a subject. There is no middle ground here. You must be one or you become the other.
So long as you view the government as possessing sovereignty separate from and superior to that of the People of America, instead of the government deriving LIMITED authority and sovereignty from the consent of the governed, you are discussing the entire subject in direct opposition to the ideals and Law upon which the country was founded and still purports to operate under (though we know that is not the case).
ALL government in America was formed for the stated purpose of protecting the rights and property of the People. It's also has a responsibility to control it's officers, employees, and corporations through statute law and commercial regulations, the purpose of which is to keep those entities from trespass against the rights and property of the People.
The People are not subjects of the government, or it's statute law. They are the sovereignty. They are the author and source of the Law (the constitutions) which restricts government powers and actions. So long as no harm is done to the rights or property of another man, there is no violation of Law. Legitimate government force begins when someones rights or property has been violated.
A state is formed by the people that inhabit the land. A corporation is not, and can not become, a state.
In the current state of affairs, the state legislatures (State of ______") are privately funded departments of the United States government. Their codes are copyrighted (see your states codes) private law. They engage in private commerce with debt currency, and are not related to the constitutions in ANY way. They exist in a fraud, which gains no rights for it nor takes any from me.
You have accepted that you are a subject and creation of the government, thus brainwashing apparently works fully and deeply. You have decided for yourself that you are NOT free, and have no right to expect liberty or it's responsibilities. Many people do not agree with you because that is where you are coming from.
You are free to accept slavery as your life condition, but not free to force your slave condition on others.
As I stated, the only problem with being free in America is that there are no Lawful governments in existence to protect the free people from commercial crimes being perpetrated by the corporate "government". They have been hijacked by private commercial interests, as evidenced by what they use for money.
Just because you, as a slave, feel a requirement to gain a license for the exercise of natural rights, doesn't place that requirement on everyone else.
I do not need recognition of my status by any corporation ( or international law written by other corporations). As a Man, created by God, my status is apparent simply by pricking my skin and watching it bleed. My rights, inherent in ALL men, were in existence long before these corporations formed to violate them.
All valid law is against the commission of certain acts (thou shall not murder, thou shall not commit adultery). All law that requires an action on your part is invalid, unless you first agree to abide by it (consent), which requires a contract.
The simple act of obtaining a drivers license is what gives force to the rest of the Motor Vehicle codes. The penalty for failure is revocation of the license, and the theft of debt currency.
If you want to discuss public safety, a legitimate state would issue drivers competency certificates. As for speed limits and stop signs and red lights, these are required for public safety and ought to be followed. To ensure that, a full disclosure contract should be entered before issuing the certificates.
If you are following the rules of the road, but have no license plate or drivers license or insurance (a maritime contract so says the Supreme Court, by the way, placing you and your car in Admiralty jurisdiction (compelled performance)), then there is no crime being committed.
Alas, it is not about public safety. It is about revenue generation through the enforcement of commercial law against the free People, without consent, for the profit of the financiers who furnish the debt.
Enjoy your world of slavery. You may even believe you are free, if you so choose. but don;t try to tell me or anyone else that I have to be a slave just because you choose to be.
Freedom and liberty come with responsibilities. Those responsibilities do not include obtaining a license for ANY purpose. I will accept my rights from God. Meanwhile you can continue to petition corporations for your right to exist.
There is no duality at law where some magical higher power overrides the US, the States and their statutes and swoops in to militarily defend your personal imaginary rights. The US, States, and Congress and the Laws they make (Article 1) are the supreme law of the land (Article 6, 2). Your personal interpretation of what that and other lawful things mean doesn't matter much to them. Their courts hold the exclusive power of judicial interpretation and review (Article 3 & State Constitutions). "Natural law", i.e. law above the nation-state, theories are sometimes mentioned as inspiration but are not seen to bind the US, which is clearly a constitutionally-limited, representative, democratic, republic. As the current world-order stands, the nation-state is the highest law on earth. Therefore if you want to understand the actual, enforceable law, read the Constitution(s), legislation and decisions of the courts.
What does the beast, aka the great whore, Egypt or Caesar have to do with God? "No man is justified by the law in the sight of God." Read Galatians and stop clinging to false idols. God's kingdom is "not of this world." It's not lawful, a creation of men. "If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain." God's kingdom does not necessarily involve the ability to wield legal superiority over whoever and whatever one wishes.. God's kingdom is in fact a renunciation of such things.
The gist of what I get from your replies is that you honestly believe the Constitution is still in effect and regarded as Law by the corporate governments. That is simply not true. They are commercial entities, not contemplated in the constitutions.
All crimes are commercial (CFR 27 SECTION 72.11), and all commercial law is only enforceable against entities engaged in commerce, or through fraud against the people when they are presumed by unlawful commercial courts to be acting in commerce without being told such.
Our differences are a matter of perspective. You assume that the corporations acting as government are doing so in accordance with the Constitutions and are acting legitimately.
I understand that they are acting in a private commercial character, self evident by what they use for money, and function as a pure mob rule democracy that claims ownership of all things (including People) in obvious violation of the Constitutions. The institutions and appearance of the Republic have been maintained to hide the reality of what these so-called governments really are.
You will continue to believe the government is legitimate so long as they continue the charade and tell you they are. They will do so only as long as they profit from the deception.
You, and the vast majority of others, have willingly given up your liberties to be a part of these monsters. Once the illusion of freedom and the rule of law is removed, perhaps you will be more open to the ideas of those of us who see through the illusion and refuse to surrender our liberties to a fictional entity that exists solely for it's own profits at the expense of the People rather than for their benefit.
By standing in defense of these commercial criminals, you are doing yourself and everyone else a huge disservice. I know that is not your intent, but people should be told the truth of what these corporate monsters are rather than try to convince them that they must submit to illegitimate authority.
We are each right from our own perspective. The question to ask is, which perspective is right? The answer depends on if you want to be free as God intended, or are content with (corrupted) man as your current masters.
I will choose freedom as God intended for me. I can not nor do I desire to make your choice for you, nor to force my choice on you.
There is only one hand-written constitution you can view online that cannot be ignored and is regularly interpreted by the courts to this day. You can read the public records for yourself. If you don't think the constitutional congress, courts, etc. exist your only option is military overthrow. Anything less is simply begging from those who purportedly enslave you.
Read the federal CFR definition page you quoted carefully… particularly the top, i.e. As used in this part… The definition only applies to charges brought under that Part. Furthermore, just because certain crimes are considered commercial crimes for one small part of federal law does not make them inherently commercial in any manner. It is in fact saying that those types of crimes, when applied to anyone, are considered commercial, for that Part. Why do this? As we see at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/part-72, the intent of the Part is to federally regulate the disposition of seized personal property. So it was probably done because disposition of seized assets works the same for commercial and non-commercial crimes, and they didn't want any questions arising about a difference. We can check the public court decisions that interpret the section to be sure. Further as we read in 72.1 the scope of application of the Part is "personal property and carriers seized by alcohol, tobacco and firearms officers as subject to forfeiture as being involved, used, or intended to be used, as the case may be, in any violation of Federal laws." So what does that have to do with, say, the violation of a highway statute enacted by a State legislature where no seizure of property is involved? Nothing.
Anyway, why quote CFR like it matters if you believe the Congress that made it is corrupt?
I am not standing in defense of anything except how the law actually works.
"""I am not standing in defense of anything except how the law actually works."""
Exactly my point. I agree that the law works just as you say. The difference is that you believe it is all done according the constitution and I disagree with that assumption.
There is no longer a constitutional form of government in this country.
The Constitution makes it very clear that no state shall use any thing but gold or silver as money. The purpose was to keep control of the money, and thus the government itself, in the hands of the people. Banks can not produce gold or silver, thus under such constraints their power was limited. Unfortunately, not limited to the point they could not corrupt the political process.
That changed in 1913. Private banks wrote themselves several laws. The Federal Reserve Act gave the private bankers control over the money and a license to counterfeit. Add to that the 16th Amendment, which gave the perception (incorrectly) that a tax on income was permissible, and the 17th Amendment which created a democracy where the republic once stood by removing the state legislatures representation in the federal government.
So you are correct in that the law currently works the way you say. It is run under the Law Merchant system (required of commercial paper), and enforced in Admiralty courts of compelled performance, against the people who were pledged as collateral to the US corps debt, without consent or knowledge of the people.
You are incorrect in asserting the Constitution plays any part in any government currently in existence in this country.
Finally, in 1968, the remaining money (silver) was removed from circulation, leaving the states with no lawful money to conduct their constitutional business. They were forced to resort to becoming federal "states", as evidenced by each having their own federal tax ID number. Every state government agency, including courts, have them. They are merely federal corporations, owned by the creditors of the United States Government, and exist for no reason other than enforcing the federal bankruptcy.
Of course, all of that information just scratches the surface of what has been allowed to happen. By reading the Congressional records of 1933, you will find that is when the United States, under the control of the bankers, declared the Citizens of the several states as enemies.
You are absolutely correct in your belief that the courts will enforce federal and state laws, however they do not do so in conformity with the constitution. Nor are laws passed in accordance with the constitution. Witness Obamacare for a recent example, and the absurd ruling of the SC calling it a tax when that question was not even raised.
The institutions of the Republic are still in place to keep the charade going and the people confused, but the functions have been compromised by the same cabal of bankers that controls and creates the debt currency currently in use.
You, and most others including myself, grew up with an unlawful government posing as a legitimate constitutional body. It has now devolved into a police state, where any government can do anything it wants to anyone, without restraints from the constitution.
In fact I agree that not all government acts in accordance with the constitution. However it is not up to the individual to interpret what is or isn't constitutional – it's up to the courts, pursuant to Article III. The way the system works and evolves is this: 1) Potentially bad laws are enacted. 2) The law is enforced, people are allegedly harmed and thereby gain standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. 3) If the courts agree that a fundamental or superior right has been breached the law is struck down, sent back to the legislature for them to rewrite and reenact and try again. — It is up to the people as individuals to bring constitutional challenges when they are harmed by potentially unconstitutional laws. Until such time as a proper challenge is brought and sustained the dictations of the legislature are considered for all intents and purposes to be actual, valid law.
If you're interested in how it was found to be lawful for the US to use paper money, see the Legal Tender Cases.
The Federal Reserve Act, being an Act of Congress, that can be repealed or amended at any time by that same Congress, is and always will be subject to Congress. Board members are selected by the President, shareholders are regional not foreign banks, most of the profits from the Fed are returned to the federal treasury. You can verify the votes of hundreds of members of Congress yourself, and read the comments and debates in newspaper archives – there was no secret enactment at Jekyll Island.
Can you show me where the courts agree with your interpretation of the 16th and 17th amendments? Of course, pursuant to Article V Congress and/or the States are allowed to amend the Constitution at any point and it becomes the supreme law of the land. The US was designed to evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of society.
The US began as and is still a constitutionally-limited, representative, democratic, republic.
Wow, why are you arguing with idiots? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The quran says something i try to keep in mind right when i have the urge to engage with belligerently ignorant idiots.mm i do not believe what you believe and you do not believe what i believe so i will go my way and you, your's
Governments and agencies have tax ID numbers and D&B numbers and credit ratings for a very simple and benign reason: they are corporations that need to be able to lend, borrow, contract, sue, be sued, and otherwise exist as entities that can receive and spend money. This is also why foreign governments are in the EDGAR database, not because they are "U.S. corporations." To start off, corporate does not mean the same thing as commercial. The fact that governments are incorporated does not mean that they are commercial entities, that they operate under secret rules, that they are run by Reptilian executives trading it on the intergalactic stock exchange (clearly orchestrated by the Space Jews), that the collateral is people, or that you've discovered some ghastly secret they're trying to conceal from the world. Governments are incorporated. They're corporations. Bingo A-1 Yuppers, they're corporations, and that beats the hell out of the alternative. In the context of the English language and our understanding of entities in law for the last few centuries, almost any kind of government you can imagine must be a corporation. Here's why:
A state (with the exception of horrifying monarchies where the entire state is the personal property of an individual) is not a natural person. It has no parents, it has no signature, it has no body. The world can be a harsh place if you don't have a body. You can't walk into a bank and open an account, you can't walk into a courthouse to sue or be sued, you can't discuss the terms of a contract and agree to it, you can't do much of anything. Bodies are important things. The word "incorporation" is related to these crucial bodies, through the Latin word "corpus," which simply means body. The term incorporation refers to the creation of a legal entity without a body. By "incorporating," we all agree to give it a fictional body and to accept its ability to exist in law through representatives and agents. For the federal and state governments of the United States, this incorporation was performed with the adoption of constitutions. These constitutions don't mention the word "corporation" or "incorporate," because they don't need to. It's simply a consequence of creating a government that 1) is not synonymous with an individual and 2) exists as a legal entity. It's very important for governments to be legal entities, because otherwise it would be impossible for them to sue or be sued, it would be impossible for them to have accounts and pay into or out of them, it would be impossible for them to employ agents and officers to administer the business of government, and it would be impossible for them to enter contracts.
This winds up giving you three choices. Which of the following do you prefer?
1. A government that doesn't exist in law
2. A government run as a sole proprietorship where taxes are paid directly to the head of state's personal bank account
3. A government run as a corporation
(Hi from East Africa, by the way!)
Title 18 INTERNET LAW
Section 020 Redundant posting
Prohibited:
a) redundant posting
agree
I'll try to believe your BS if you can get by this ..
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private
commercial paper is used by corporate government, then
Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
different than a mere private corporation.
As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and
laws that govern private corporations which means that if they
intend to compel an individual to some specific performance
based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then
the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder-
in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement
between it and the one upon whom demands for specific
performance are made.
And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract
or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to
the court to enforce its demands, called statutes. … I do not have any contract or agreement with any state … I travel in my Teflon coated Kevlar flesh and blood bag of bones .. You should try it , if you have the balls .
You're taking a specific statement and trying to make it general. Nowhere in that opinion do they state that the United States government "loses its sovereignty status" when it uses commercial paper. What it says is that when the U.S. federal government is doing business, it can't ignore the rules of commercial law that maintain equity and stability. Nothing about that fact prejudices the sovereign nature of the United States government. Justice Douglas lays this out fairly explicitly with the line: "When the United States disburses its funds or pays its debts, it is exercising a constitutional function or power." Put another way, that means that when the federal government is engaging in financial activity, it is still doing so as a sovereign government. The decision to make the federal government accountable to consistent commercial law does not degrade its authority in other matters — it merely prevents it from abusing its sovereignty to gain short-term victories against creditors and debtors at the expense of long-term stability and trust. When the federal government owes you money, it is obligated to pay you. The alternative would be devastating.
Now, seeing that the federal government has to obey commercial law when it is doing business, doesn't that mean that it's merely a business like any other, with no claim to sovereignty or any authority over the people who live in the USA? Nope. This rule does not extend to any other context than business law where the federal government is party to a dispute. It does not invalidate the lawmaking authority of the Congress, the judicial authority of the courts, the executive power of the President, the status of the Constitution as its final and highest source of law, or its nature as a sovereign government. More importantly, it has overwhelming recognition by the people as a legitimate government, and lots of force behind its laws.
EDIT: Oh, I missed a whole different aspect to this. This case is about the federal government anyway, not state governments. The federal government doesn't issue or require licenses or registration for private drivers or vehicles. The individual states do, and this case has nothing to say about them besides expressing concern that it would be dangerous to apply 48 sets of state commercial laws to suits with the federal government.
While this has been put together well it is not correct but dont take my word on it like the writer of this artical said "think for your self" do the leg work and you will see that there is a lot of word play at hand here and the referances used to debunk the Right to Travel are out dated as well
Any examples? If you're talking about "wordplay," I can't help but suspect that you're thinking about privately-published descriptive dictionaries published more than a century ago. Black's and Bouvier's update to follow the changing courts, not the other way around. Well, Black's does, anyway. I don't think Bouvier's has been updated for a century, but I could be wrong.
The judicial power of the US is ultimately vested in one Supreme Court pursuant to Article III of the federal Constitution. I have presented 3 decisions that clarify the right of States to reasonably and fairly regulate the highways for public safety. You can't "debunk" the Supreme Court – as the highest judicial power within the sovereign nation-state known as the US it dictates to you what the law is, unless and until you gain enough support to influence your representatives in Congress to repeal, amend or enact new legislation that the courts can't ignore. But the federal government, so far, doesn't seem to want to regulate highways, and has left it up to the individual States. So your battle is with the States, and your challenge is to gain the support of your friends, family, city, county, state and influence your representatives in the State legislature to change the law. At this point, since the early 1900's as outlined in the article, I'm not sure unlicensed driving is desirable to many voters… but if you convince enough people you may get your wish in one or more States in time.
Seems that this article is confusing Common Law with Commercial Law. Traveling is not the same as Driving. Traveling is a Common Law term. Driving is a commercial term. Same with automobile and motor vehicle. Automobile is a Common Law term. Motor vehicle is a commercial term. If you are not in commerce not for hire you are in Common Law. You do not require a drivers licence, insurance or registration. If you are in commerce for hire you are in Commercial Law (Uniform Commercial Code Act). You do require a drivers licence, insurance and registration. The so called drivers licence you have is a class D licence. The class D licence is a noncommercial licence. If you are not in commerce you do not need a licence. This is proof of fraud against the People by criminalizing a Right, the Right to Travel.
1. Common law was received by the individual State governments (former colonies) via reception statutes, clearly subject to the local State constitutions and legislatures (the same legislatures that make the highway codes). 2. State legislation, such as the highway code, made by democratically-elected-and-influenced representatives of the people, is in fact the law of the land and unable to be avoided. 3. The federal Constitution, laws and courts offer no protection for your imagined right to travel unregulated, as clearly shown in this article, which shows the Supreme Court saying residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial activity on the highways may be regulated by the States for public safety.
"residents and non-residents, commercial and non-commercial activity on highways may be regulated by the States for public safety."
This is so open to interpretation. Activity on highways may be regulated tells me that law enforcement may patrol highways to ensure the safety of all drivers. This doesn't mean to me that they can dictate who may or may not drive. I don't think anyone is contesting that there are inherent safety issues associated with driving and that regulating speeds and what not is necessary to maintain public safety but to require licensing is a whole other animal. For instance the government can tell me what I can and can't do with a gun but they can't tell me I can't have one.
As the Supreme Court says in Reitz v Mealey, "The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers." And as we read in the linked The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel By Automobile, "No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement." As I see it, there is, as of yet, nothing unconstitutional about State license requirements, and in my opinion no such challenge is sustainable. You're welcome to try to appeal, though. All you need is a "driving without a license" charge to gain standing. It might be better, or the only way, to simply convince your friends, family, county, state to pressure your representatives in the State legislature to change the highway laws, reversing what was debated and settled in the early 1900's democratically.
Where are you getting this notion that "drive" is exclusively a commercial term? State courts (you know, the ones that write the common law) have upheld state laws defining private operators of self-propelled vehicles as drivers for about a century now. There is no common law escape hatch to crawl out of, because the common law recognizes the validity and authority of the licensing and registration statutes. Under common law, the statutes apply. Common law is not an alternative to statute law, and statute law is not commercial.
It's difficult to interpret the intentions of people with lesser technology more than 200 years ago and the practical application of what should be considered common law now. Back in those days carrying a license to ride a horse would have been absolute blasphemy but the argument that a motor vehicle is a potentially hazardous machine and warrants regulation has merit. That said you have to consider the alternative. I live in San Diego, CA which is not known for having convenient mass transit. The county is spread out like any major city so taking the bus is generally inconvenient and the trolley system is also very limited. Therefore driving is an absolute necessity in order to get to/from work in order to make a decent living. Driving is a necessity to get food, transport children, receive healthcare, etc. As such, limiting people's ability to travel freely using the technology of the day and geographic location threatens their ability to achieve basic functions necessary in their daily lives. To limit that or make that difficult to achieve is oppressive and therefore in voilation of people's natural right to travel. The fact that the government has used tax dollars to build roads further illustrates the necessity of driving. It would be like if I poured broken glass on your porch and rang your doorbell but told you it's manditory to obtain a license to wear shoes outside. The problem with the state's requirement to register vehicles and obtain licensing is that people don't have a choice. It's either do what want or forfeit the right. As was pointed out earlier only opressed people are not given choices or only provided with unfair choices. Free people should have the right to travel the roads for which they have paid. So my personal policy is that I will comply with the state's request for registration and licensing until which time I disagree with their administration. What that means is I will purchase a license and carry it while driving but if the state's deparment of motor vehicles suspends or restricts my license I shall do so anyway under my natural right to travel.
Article 6, Clause 2 – the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not any natural law theory. Under international law nation-states, e.g. the US, enjoy absolute sovereignty over their recognized territory. No court of any force or effect in the entire world can or will help you if you go the route you propose. Yes, the advent of driver's licensing in the early 1900's could be seen as a considerable reduction of liberty. But that's why we have the state and federal legislatures, so the law can evolve with new technology and societal requirements. The laws were democratically installed. When licensing came about, it was demanded, seen and accepted by the majority of people. If you're not a fan of the US model you could try living in one of a couple hundred other countries. Personally I think the US is still one of the best countries around and should be supported over others like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., where there is less equality and civil rights.
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point — that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
by lawfully amending the constitution, orby a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
“Liberal” scholars, such as pseudolaw, and others, consider private property rights to be government grants of privilege–to be tolerated when convenient to the government, but no longer as a significant human right in itself.
In pursuing substantial state interest, state cannot choose means which unnecessarily burden or restrict constitutionally protected activity. Dunn v. Blumstein, 92 S.Ct. 995, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Police power, Due Process) Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.
Does property constitute the rights of individual owners to actions which enjoy constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions or is the government
supreme? The essence of private property is the bundle of actions which owners may rightfully perform. Logically, any legislation restricting these ownership acts amounts to a regulatory “taking” and the owner ought to be entitled to be compensated for the decline in value of his assets.
United States v. Guest – 383 U.S. 745 (1966)-
Rights which are attributes of national citizenship, of which § 241 is deemed solely applicable. Section 241 reaches conspiracies specifically directed against the exercise of the constitutional right to travel freely from State to State and to use highways and other instrumentalities for that purpose; the District Court therefore erred in dismissing the branch of the indictment relating to that right. Pp. 383 U.S.757-760.
One of the federal rights which 18 U.S.C. § 241 aims to protect are the right to travel freely within any of the states of the United States. If the predominant purpose of the conspiracy is to impede or prevent the exercise of the right of interstate travel, or to oppress a person because of his exercise of that right, then, whether or not motivated by racial discrimination, the conspiracy becomes a proper object of [section 241]. The ultimate purpose of the conspiracy is to unlawfully deprive people of their personal property and to exercise control over that property.
Governments are instituted to secure our rights, not to decide which rights we are allowed to have. I prefer citations from the federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges on a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional, See; Harris v. McRae, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 448 U.S. 297, 65 L.Ed.2d 784,rehearing denied 101 S.Ct. 39, 448 U.S. 917, 65 L.Ed.2d 1180 (1980).
Constitution 101; The Basic Constitutional Rights of a U.S. Citizen
Civil liberties;
Rights protect you from unfair treatment under the law. Your individual civil liberties are those – inalienable – liberties mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The Right to Life;
Is about personal decisions. The Right to Hold Property; Your right to hold property is an extension of your right to life. Once you own something, the
government can’t in the normal course of events take it away from you.
The Right to Liberty;
Liberty literally means freedom. Allows you to live your life free of government control. The government can’t force you to take certain actions against your
will, in the interest of society at large. You have the right to make up your own mind about issues, including those that affect the whole country, not just yourself.
The Pursuit of Happiness;
It gives you the freedom to pursue choices that give you pleasure, satisfaction, and self-fulfillment, as long as you don’t break any laws in the process or hurt others. It can’t tell you that you must sacrifice your personal happiness for the good of your country.
"The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.
What's your point? No court on earth finds typical state highway laws unconstitutional. If you want your interpretation to be recognized as binding law in the US/State you need to take your argument to the US/State courts and have them agree with you in public and on the record. If they don't agree with you then there is nothing you can do other than change your argument or overthrow the entire country by force.
I would love to have the opportunity to do just that, but I can not get an officer to pull me over and ticket me for not having a license. As you know you have to have standing in a court and unless I get ticketed for my lack of a license I have no standing.
I have been pulled over for various reasons over the years but once the officer finds that there is NO contract (licensed driver) he no longer has jurisdiction and the stop comes to an end and I am sent on my way….. I have asked, and had other who work with police, ask the officers about the subject. They always come back telling me the officer said he can do nothing about it (travel in a private automobile w/no license). Further, one said "his contract must NOT have been renewed".
I am now waiting for an auto mechanic friend of mine who works on our secretary of states auto's to show her some paper work I drew up and see what she has to say about it. I will return to this site once I have that response!
Bear in mind that cops, prosecutors and judges have a degree of discretion, and them choosing to dismiss a charge or let you go, as is sometimes seen to happen, isn't the same as having a recognized, enforceable right. You may be able to evade minor laws of the elected legislature by wasting public time and resources with pseudolaw but you can't force them to do anything or collect damages when State law is enforced unless they break their own law, in their own eyes, when doing it. If you become a real nuisance they will lock you up and there's nothing you can do. It all comes back to enforceability. The US/State is the only enforcer in town.
"If you become a real nuisance they will lock you up and there's nothing you can do."
Do you mean like they do to all truth tellers, like they did to Irwin Schiff. He proves the law then the court ignored his evidence and ignored the law and locked him up for being too honest??
I mean like they do to murderers. You can't go on a killing spree and simply say "hey, your murder statute doesn't apply to me" or waste a bunch of public time and money with frivolous legal arguments to evade punishment.
If Irwin Schiff "proved the law" he wouldn't have been locked up. I suggest you go read the decisions against him for yourself, if you haven't, and see if you still feel the same way. Anyway, income tax arguments are off-topic here.
Unalienable rights don't include the ability to murder. Stay on topic, if you have the mental capacity to do so
And he died in prison last month after having spent fourteen years of his life there thrashing against the plain meaning of the law.
Asserting that words and phrases mean what you think they mean is not the same thing as "proving the law." He is not invested with judicial authority in the United States, he lost, and the (collective) sovereign he defied used force to end his rebellion. The law was proven, but it was proven by federal courts (many times) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (twice). The law is that federal income tax must be paid by individuals, and that if you don't, you are subject to penalties including fines and imprisonment.
It's a horrible tragedy that his life was destroyed by these delusions, and we shouldn't see him as a martyr to a just cause. He was a sick man who couldn't bring himself to accept that the meanings and opinions he'd written in his own head weren't actually binding law. It's because of examples like him that I spend so much time fighting pseudolegal theories. The law isn't always the way we want it, but it generally is the way it appears to be. You haven't already won, you aren't the keeper of the sacred and secret True Law, and judges and bureaucrats will not fall to their knees and clear a path for you when you stretch out your hand.
Every country on Earth has progress to make and fights left to fight. If you're passionate about justice and holding the government accountable, then we badly need you in the fight. We need you to help us challenge the NSA and domestic spying. We need you to join us in ending the abuses of civil asset forfeiture. We need you in the fight against TPP and foreign business interests out to put us out of a job. We need you here in reality working with us to make our government and society better and more just, not arguing fantasies about definitions that have already been settled.
I'll tell you two, Ken S. and pseudolaw, what…. I will leave the two of you to your own fantasies, since the only way either of you can get any upvotes is by giving each other the positive click, I don"t think too many Americans believe what either of you have to say.
Ken, I will say you give a good speech, and I am up on all the above topics you mention. However, those matters are not my fight and are WAY above my pay scale. Although I do disagree with ALL of them, since like the laws others are fighting, they too DO NOT MEET CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY and are illegal under the Supreme Law of this land, in one way or another. The fact is, as you should well know, this boat (America) is about to sink. So, if you two are as smart as you try to sound, you might want to start thinking about siding with the people of these United States. Cause once this ship starts to go down you know who they will blame…..ALL those in power, including those authority type figures like police, lawyers, judges and others. Those in today's ruling class have gone too far. The people back the Donald, that should tell you something…..
As far as Schiff, he got the shaft! Have you not heard what A LOT of IRS agents have been reporting? As well as numerous CPA's, accountants and even tax lawyers are saying?? Also, as I have said I live by facts, I researched the tax code and Shciff was correct the way the law reads. But I guess it is like the 10th Amendment regarding citizens suing their own state. The law says you can, the Supreme's say you can't (Sovereign Immunity)….go figure???
At any rate I was going to respect pseudolaw and not make Irwin Schiff a topic here, but felt compelled to respond. I will now remove myself from your company and make no further statements/comments nor return to this site in the future. I wish you gentlemen a blessed future and hope you find the respect and praise you both desire! But remember it has to be earned….. God Bless!!
You do understand that if there were some loophole to get out the government could simply write another law, right? They, the so-called People's representatives, are in charge of making the law, interpreting the law and enforcing the law. They can even amend the Constitution. But you seem to think you can beat them at their own game. If/when it goes to shit (not yet in the west, in my opinion) it will be up to the people as a whole to declare their independence and start a new government (and military) just the same as in 1776. PS lose the ad-hominem – it is NOT a valid rebuttal. PPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments
"the so-called People's representatives" This is why we can never have freedom or justice. When they are under investigation or allowed known abuses of power they are never held accountable, but we the people are expected to be subject and accountable to every law they make. When they're under investigation and know the crimes they committed will end them in prison for a very long time the evidence mysteriously goes missing or is accidentally destroyed. There is no freedom or justice, the only amount exists inside the heads of people that are content with the way their life is because they believe the way things are cannot be changed. People are far from happy with government or the country they live in but allow their daily life to keep them occupied and have little free time to do anything else after hard work. Back in the 80s they could fill a whole one or two weeks grocery shop with $20-30 and now that costs over $100. The USD is worthless. The American Empire is falling fast. The establishment will continue to commit any and all crimes it can against its own people and the world in order to attempt to claw onto its power, it will ultimately fail. Because, there are better countries in the world than America and they will be fairer and more honest and rise above America, to the point where it becomes dependent on the rest of the world for its existence. America had the best chance in all modern history to give it a good go and it blew it. It now lives on debt, perversion, corruption and wars – the very things its founders and countrymen claimed to be escaping from, it has become!
Personally I think there are many worse countries that should be reformed before the US. In my reality, the US democratic republic remains a beacon of freedom and civil rights throughout much of the world and plays a significant and important role in the global economy and society.
I'd let you go, but my goal is to avoid letting bad information seem to have the final word. I won't let you end with misleading questions and information.
1) Many Americans do believe what we have to say, because the overwhelming majority accept the United States and the federal government as legitimate governments with the authority to create and execute law. Most Americans accept that they have to pay income tax, most Americans understand that licensing and registration is mandatory, and most Americans grasp that the definition that fits best is usually the one you should use. Some people support Donald Trump, and some do not. He is not the appointed representative of the American people by popular acclamation.
2) Schiff was a buffoon and every single argument he raised against the federal income tax was easily dismissed with a little research and a little common sense. His entire work depended on trying to find terms and technical points he could twist and misrepresent in order to enrich himself and sell his books. The fact that he lost every case he was ever in is not because of a conspiracy within the IRS or federal courts — it was because his arguments and logic were laughable and without any real merit.
3) No, I have not heard what "A LOT of IRS agents" (who?) have been reporting, nor CPAs, accountants, and tax lawyers. Why don't you tell me so I can show you why they're clueless, lying, or misrepresenting their credentials? Or perhaps you just read a conspiracy theorist's blog post asserting that these ominous, anonymous reports have been made, and it has no basis in fact?
4) Sovereign immunity is more or less a consequence of the fact that the courts are run under the authority of the government/sovereign. It would be a simple matter for the government to tell the courts, "no person has standing to bring suit against us in any case whatsoever." Every government in the world has this theoretical power over their own judiciary. In the United States, the state and federal governments have all surrendered a portion of their sovereign immunity and can be sued. They are sued often, actually, and the plaintiffs win on a regular basis. Nothing in the 10th Amendment annihilates sovereign immunity, the 11th Amendment affirms sovereign immunity, and sovereign immunity has been with us since the invention of governments.
And so we have mob rule by majority. No better than Nazi Germany.
"The worst thing in this world, next to anarchy, is government." Henry Ward Beecher
That's natural law for ya. It's not quite as simple as the majority, though. Throughout history, there have been two things that determine who gets to rule: violence and popular support. If you can apply enough violence, you don't need popular support. If you have enough popular support, you don't need violence. A hundred dictatorial bureaucrats can rule over ten thousand people if those people are unwilling or unable to fight them. A hundred revolutionaries can topple ten thousand dictatorial bureaucrats if the bureaucrats are gutless or unable to protect the regime. That's what's so great about elections, really. They're regularly-scheduled bloodless revolutions, so we don't need Romanian term limits.
Except for the fact that elections are a sham until the electoral college is done away with.
So, no, they are most definitely NOT a revolution of any sort.
The Electoral College only affects two elected offices. There are thousands of important elected offices that are completely untouched by the Electoral College. The Electoral College is just a way of balancing the influence of states in the union. There are downsides and I think it should be changed too, but it's not a tyrannical or evil institution.
Among important important elected offices:
100 U.S. Senators
435 U.S. Representatives (voting)
50 Governors
1,972 State Senators
5,411 State Representatives/Delegates
There will never be justice in their system. They are above the law and all laws they make they do not abide by, if recent history of the past decade or two has not proven this then the past few centuries won't be proof enough either. If things are shown in a court of law to be corrupt or illegal under their system they simply law make a new (bill) law and keep pushing until it comes into law to make what they want to do legal. The statutory system is probably the most perverted thing in existence along with the banking system. It poses as being there to protect people and their rights and attempts to replace all natural law and common law. For me, there is only one law, natural law, not common law or statutory law which is no better than laws by corporates. I am not saying some laws are good and do serve us very well, but most do not.
NSA and global echelon spying was happening for decades before the revelations of Snowden, some people warned about this in the 1980s and 1990s when few people knew about the existence of such a global encompassing electronic surveillance system. Some of those even made it to TV so people cannot say they were not warned.
It doesn't matter what rights you have under their system, they grant them and can just as easily deny them. Representative democracy is not democracy at all because those people are always easily corrupted, which is human nature to an extent. The necessary safeguards for a fair and free world do not exist in any government, one that could work would be a version modeled on the Swiss system, democracy with proper safeguards to ensure corruption is promptly dealt with and to a large extent is prevented in the first place due to its near perfect design.
I don't like the direction the world is heading with many things including the use of certain technologies and lack of regulations. Some new technologies may end up taking away our liberty or used as an excuse for that when in reality there is no reason for it at at all (to take away freedom). Such as self driving cars. We may find if we are forced to by law to only be able to use cars that are self driving and fleet owned, then down the road into that world, our freedom of movement is restricted to certain areas only. When reading articles on this upcoming technology and how the world will soon have autonomous vehicles, they are nearly always projected in a positive light with extreme bias (not obvious to most people it seems). Many areas including insurance, cost reductions, safety are very biased and no fair comparison to human driven cars are given. If the technology is ever to be allowed then it will need to be safe enough to cope with human drivers and this means an AI that is very dynamic and intelligent at predicting the unpredictable behavior of people and their actions. Hopefully Americans and the rest of the world will never allow the enforcement of automated only self driving vehicles. I accept they are far more efficient and safer when only they are on the road, but there are many exceptions and scenarios that journalists and the industry conveniently ignore or have not thought of. Including exceptions to efficiency because of the way we actually use cars when it comes to a mode of transport. I know there will be many cases that self driving cars actually do not suit our dynamic and versatile schedules at all, especially in smaller towns. Closed source codes are also very vulnerable to hacking and may even be subject to terrorism and mass murders caused by deliberate crashes.
Unfortunately when we discuss politics people are too easily (by design at this point in time because we could definitely do better) divided by left right wing paradigms, when in reality no one truly fits into either right or left on all policies, so why let such lame arguments define us when it comes to politics instead of finding solutions and policies that actually would work for everyone. I am not naive enough to believe a perfect system can ever be devised but we can definitely do better than we have now.
There is no fixing their system when they always call the shots. Did I elect to be a part of this society or their laws? No, and representative democracy has no answer to that, other than to suck it up. At least the Swiss model of democracy does offer some solutions to these problems but it is far from a better version of what it could be. There is no way we can reform government, not until we become government! I don't see that happening right now. The government and its laws, how many billions more must die at its hands before we do wake up and admit we can do better than what we have now. Every government murders, lies and is corrupt. They lied about income tax being temporary measure, they lied about the war on drugs and war on terror and billions of other things. The governments of the world have been responsible for killing more than any other source of power or group ever in existence. Government and its law should NOT be followed or blindly obeyed. We have natural [secular] law that should be obeyed above all else. Government will never allow peaceful people to live a peaceful life, they are not happy until they dictate every aspect of their daily life and even then they forever want more and more control They are a bunch of maniacal psychopaths with a thirst for control that is never satisfied.
The answer is that you are going to have to suck it up and make decisions about what to do in reality. Philosophical arguments aside, the practical fact is that governments are usually able to enforce their laws. No government in the world is immune from corruption or tyranny, so our options for improvement are limited. We can participate in government to the best of our ability (which varies greatly from country to country), or we can replace it with a new one. The USA are actually very good at allowing meaningful participation, and lots of things are accomplished through that. They also have significant failings that undermine their representative nature. I've traveled a LOT, and I can tell you unequivocally that the USA are faaaar from being hopeless tyrannies.
In fact, that's the reason that it's such a simple thing for people to stand on their principles and reject authorities they find repugnant. It may seem like the government is out to foil you at every turn, but if you saw how tightly other nations are restrained and kept in fear (or prison), you might have a more optimistic view of rescuing the republic. We're a lot better off than people think, and we can make it a lot better than it is now.
P.S. I really do like your post! So-called "radical ideologies" have a place in the fight for better government, and there's nothing evil about yearning for freedoms that I might personally consider impractical today. There's a big difference between opposing statutory law and pretending it isn't real, and I'm glad you haven't been duped by the scammers and woo.
Well finally we agree on something … so why do you alienate those clearly interested in the law and the proper application of it. My personal experiences is that the Judges do not know the laws themselves and do not actually read them as most agents. To which I created the "Ten questions of oath verification or indictment" problem is no one except me has used them.
Now another solution which only requires the people to get and get others to sign petitions to get it on the ballots and vote it in. It is simple and should have been corrected a long time ago. In short: periodic testing (every 6 months) as to their knowledge, understanding and accurate use of "The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" as it is the founding public Trust from which Principles "any Form of Government" is founded, The Constitution, as it is the "Form of Government" which is present today, and their respective State Constitutions, which is the corporate charter from which the State and "The State of Corruption" corporate entity is subject to and bound by (see Hale v Henkel p. 74 above) and any Statutes, Codes etc that their particular activities make use of. If it is the Code of "Motor Vehicle" then they need to know all of the Terms and definitions and yes we need the legislature to definitively declare that it "Does not apply to any of the people not engaged in some form of Transporting of Property or Passengers for Compensation, Hire, Pay" and have the officers trained to know this as well.
I raised the issues before because they are applying law that just does not exist!!! It is called "color of law action" and is subject to suit. I will be filing suit on this issue once I am done with what I consider more important issues, such as Fraudclosures, Property tax which is unlawful because there is no activity going on which is taxable under the Statutes!! And they do not follow due process when they unlawfully sell counterfeit instruments appearing to be the sale of your property!! I actually called the Secret Service and after telling him I don't care if you have studied it for two weeks, just shut up and listen as I read it as it is written. Then I narrated exactly what is being done and he then agreed that it was in fact violations of 18 USC 471, 472 and 474… he then upon the realization said, "this is going on nation wide" Yes, and then he said the most astonishing thing "this is just too big for us" to which I replied "how do you eat an elephant.. one bite at a time" he said ok send the evidence over…
This is what we need to do, one bight at a time, one proper case at a time… that is why I am not haphazardly filing bullshit based upon bullshit cases which were improperly argued or the wrong thing argued. Instead I am studying and helping others and reading an realizing "how" it is being done and "how" to box them in. I have won several times now and the first was the hardest and I had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the State and actually imply that I was going to force the 9 judges to indict themselves by an declaratory judgment in which it would say "this court no longer is going to abide by the clear wording of the State Statute which reads " quoted it" and we are over turning the five cases (I listed them) in which we did abide by the published law."
Fastest return mail I ever got, which was more evidence of consistent mail tampering, only two days.. they granted my reconsideration. It took them six months to figure out what to do, finally, took original jurisdiction as it appeared to be a "novel case" did a writ of mandamus, and Vacated all of the Judges orders. They still did not apply the law properly to which I made record of and will sue later for but I got most of what was in accordance with the law as it is written and not misused or interpreted.
So please work with those that have succeeded and stop bashing and attacking them personally when they have what appears to be the same desire… and perhaps just perhaps you may learn how they have succeeded where others have not and spread that around, instead of the lie that the statues and codes regulate your Rights, whether or not it is travel without license or regulation so long as one "does not trespass upon "any others "rights"… yes it seems insurmountable at first but once you know that they are applying law that does not exist the only way to discover the solution is to study and know the entire Statutes and Codes so that you can cut them off at the pass.
Example, in court my friend said she was not "working" which in her mind was sufficient to express that she "was not engaged in any form of transportation upon the highways of property or passengers for compensation as defined and regulated by section 46.2" and she is right if the judge knew the law and was in honor and in "good behavior" "to secure these Rights" But he was not he had no clue and even asked "were you behind the wheel"
Having full knowledge of the Code in that state I would have ASKED.. "where is the definition of "behind the wheel" in the Code so I may answer your inquiry properly".. knowing that no such thing exists. He had a show to put on and did not want all the other people finding out that they are not subject to the code if they are not engaged in an activity clearly described in it.
But the ground work was laid for a complaint and a suit against the State for "color of law action" and violation of 18 USC 241
"§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
So you see the law is on our side.. after all we created it to "bind" those in office and the judges
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"
So you see they are engaged in criminal activities and so far as any laws of any State to the contrary… "notwithstanding" and also see 14th Amendment "
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So even if you think that it is a privilege "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge"
Gotta go do a show with people that actually want to learn this how, not the patridiot stuff nor the tried and untrue dumbass claims nor improper pleadings nor trying to ignore the laws, Statues etc but actually using them and showing that they are being misused as written.
Wait a second. How does the 14th Amendment apply to you? Did you suddenly become a "person?" I thought the 14th Amendment only protected the rights of "persons," and that only corporations were "persons!" What's going on here!?
Is it possible that you know perfectly well exactly what "person" means in the law, but purposefully use a different definition whenever it suits your crackpot theories, regardless of whether any language, history, or case law suggests that your definition is applicable?
Nooooo, that couldn't POSSIBLY be what's happening here…
Oh look another dumbass arguing definitions who thinks he knows how the world works. Hey news flash, definitions are only what two or more people agree on. That's why different dictionaries have different definitions. And I thinks its pretty obvious how I am recognized as sovereign "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Settled by the same criminals that rule over us.
Judges? In what way are they criminals? So far as I can tell, they interpreted the law as any reasonable person would read it, and rejected Schiff's frivolous pseudolegal claims.
L. O. L.
To add onto what pseudolaw said, police are not judges. Their legal training is not extensive, and many of them will back off from legal-sounding phrases out of fear of a lawsuit. Others just don't care enough about a small money violation to put up with your bogus crap. Not to mention, drivers who claim they don't need a license kind of have a history of murdering people, and many police are keenly aware of this. Most of them would rather let you feel like a winner than stay where you can attack them over a minor administrative violation. If you happen to get pulled over by one of those officers whose ego won't tolerate ever backing down, you may get your chance to see what the courts think of your fun little theories.
I would just add and respond with the following;
I never say any more to the officer then to let him know “my license is expired”, not revoked or suspended, I just never renewed it. Once I say that the officers (three to date) have told me it's no longer necessary to even show them proof of registration or insurance. Wounder why that is…. No, I never attempt to educate an officer on the side of the road with
“legal-sounding phrases” nor ask them to “put up with [my]
bogus crap” as you call it.
Don't you think that is a little extreme saying, “drivers who claim they don't need a license kind of have a history of murdering people”?? What is it that you are insinuating when you say “kind of have a history” anyway? Regardless, thank God I am a Traveler by law and not a “driver”. LOL
Then you go on to say, “Most of them would rather let you feel like a winner than stay where you can attack them”. Now that is too funny (lmmfao)!! They have night sticks, pepper spray (mace), stun guns, loaded pistols, loaded semiautomatic (military style) weapons in their trunks and can call for BACK UP (more weapons) if the need arises. Not only are they (police officers) typically the ones doing the attacking, but those in the system protect them even if they kill a citizen. So don't make it sound like citizens who want their freedom back are in any way the aggressors. I have NEVER heard of anyone attempting to murder or attack an officer over this issue! I would think I would have heard about it cause my oldest son is actually a Fort Worth, Texas police officer…
Bottom line is your comment above is one of you own “fun little theories”!!
Sovereign citizens like these sorts of arguments, and yes, they have murdered police before. Most notably, a father and son team of crackpots burst out of a truck in West Memphis and shot two officers dead because they were upset that police had pulled them over for such a violation. Other attacks have occurred, and some FOTL/SC gurus (like "the Admiral") do openly advocate murdering officers of the court, as well as their families. I doubt you have any wish to attack police, but officers are very well aware of these threats. A lot of them would rather just drop the issue than risk the kind of sudden extreme violence that some pseudolegal enthusiasts use to overpower police.
Well Ken, I would like to thank you for the clarification on your statement. Your absolutely correct that I personally would NEVER harm anyone, unless in a self defense situation. I prefer the courts to fight my battles, even though I know just how corrupt they really are. When I take a case to court I put my best fight forward and learn more with every case. At very least I put those who DO WRONG on notice. Had I known then what I know today, those I have sued in the past in federal court would have never walk away with government immunity.
I am also sorry that there are those folks out there that think they need to "attack" or "murder" to retain their rights. Maybe if there was less corruption in our systems of government citizens would not feel the need to resort to such actions.
I can sympathize, but my problem with this is that when you adopt pseudolegal theories in your fight against corruption and bad government, you're punching at a target that doesn't exist. Trying to get rid of bad laws by insisting that they aren't real and that you've already won means that you're not going to focus your efforts where they really belong, which is in legislatures, juries, and executive offices. An individual who counts on living under laws of their own choosing may get away with it for a while regarding minor regulations, but they don't really change anything. If you want government officials held to a higher standard, you need to be part of a movement to change the law that the courts use. Part of that law includes statutes which specifically define you as a driver within the context of state transportation codes. If you don't want the state transportation code to require licensing of drivers (read: all operators of self-propelled vehicles on roads) and registration of motor vehicles (read: self-propelled vehicles on roads), then you need to start campaigning for it and get the law changed.
See, that's where the problem started. People who think your only form of redress in a "civilized" society is to write letters, take people to court, protest, etc.
What are you left to do when the whole system is corrupt and "justice"is basically for sale?
If we were that far gone (and we're not), I would recommend convincing people that you're right with examples and rhetoric, and organizing them. When people are dissatisfied, organized, and determined, options include electoral challenges, general strikes, revolution, and so on.
Assuming you're living in a first-world republic, it's not realistic to think that you're going to get people to tear down a long-established, stable government that few people actually have the desire (or nerve) to seriously challenge. In 2015, the options most likely to succeed are within the system, not outside it. Implementing change through elections and litigation is much more feasible right now. I support your right to agitate against the government and call for its dismantling, but I don't think we're in bad enough shape for people to take up that cause.
Late to the party here, but can you compare statistics of how many people who have "private property" sign in place of a license plate kill police compared to people who do not? One case in your lifetime (and doubtful they used "machine guns") vs a dozen cops executed in the last month or so by Muslims and other African fanatics.
Seems to me that out of groups that are likely to shoot at police, the "private property" types are pretty low on the list statistically speaking, though for some reason the state is more interested in them than the Johnny Jihad types that we import by the tens of thousands to enrich us with their vibrant culture.
That all said, I know guys that do this whole no license and "private property" on the car business and while they seem to beat the rap, they can't beat the ride. Being beaten by police, thrown in jail, 5 day psych evaluations, then many hours of court appearances and other time wasting…. I chose my battles and 100$ a year in "registration" and "drivers license" is a small price to pay for avoiding the troubles associated with making a stand for this particular issue.
I'm not aware of any statistics kept for that specific question, so I can't compare them. You're probably right about the gun, though. It keeps getting described as "an AK-47" or "an AK-47 variant," but it was a mistake to guess that he had actually gotten his hands on one instead of a semi-auto copy. Not sure what I was thinking there, so I'll edit that.
As for the actual likelihood, I'm not trying to make a statistical point. I'm explaining why any given police officer might be inclined to drop the issue. They're being told that there's a war on police (there isn't), they're valiant heroes being gunned down at every turn (they're not), and the whole world is out to get them (it's not). When they run into an ideology whose adherents believe that police are criminally victimizing them by enforcing the law and may have prepared for exactly such a confrontation, writing a ticket for a missing or expired registration sticker suddenly becomes a lot less important.
There isn't a war on police? Have you seen the news in the last year or two? Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago, NYC?
Statistically speaking police are more likely to get clipped by a car standing on the side of the road trying to generate revenue for the state, but you don't see them stopping that. They are further more statistically likely to be shot by black males under the age of 30 but you don't see them just letting them go.
There are legitimate arguments as to why people "get away with" not having a drivers license or registration, but I think police fearing being shot isn't one of them. I'd wager that scenario is statistically about as likely as drowning in a bathtub.
And yet police are still statistically safer than private security guards. There is no general campaign of violence against law enforcement officers, so I'd say no, there is no "war on police" in the sense meant above. As for why some offenders and offenses are more likely to be ignored than others, you'll have to ask a police officer if you want their perspective. 😛
What I can tell you for a fact is that it is illegal and unlawful to operate a private conveyance on public roads without a driver's license and registration in every jurisdiction in the United States and every other developed country I've looked at. If you do so for an extended time and don't get cited for it, you are indeed, "getting away with" a violation of the law.
No general campaign of violence against LEOs. You'd have a hard time selling that to the boys in Chicago, Baltimore, or East St. Louis, but OK then.
Keep an eye on that idea though because it seems the anti-police propaganda war is raging strong and there is some money and organization behind those subversive groups. The battle may very well heat up over the next few years with the meme of more federalized police replacing local authority or more federal control of local police gaining momentum.
"You'd have a hard time selling that to the boys in Chicago, Baltimore, or East St. Louis, but OK then."
I would, because they're being told that there are far more violent attacks against them than there really are, and that the whole world is lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to kill them. The reality is that they're still safer than mall cops.
Do you have a source for this claim? Seems to me that actual big city police have a very dangerous job and any low(er than average) death toll would be chalked up to equipment and more efficient first response to incidents than an overall statement of the safety inherent in the job.
Or is this just a matter of averages and demographics? That in my little rural town we don't need security guards anywhere (except I suppose driving armored cars) and also police have a rather easy job. So for example, a mall cop in Detroit is inherently in more danger.
That "statistic" seems a bit bent and misleading in any event.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/how-dangerous-is-police-w_b_6373798.html
I know it's HuffPo, but it's pretty well-sourced. Policing is not nearly as dangerous as it's perceived to be by the public, or by officers themselves. Even in big cities, this is the case. There is not a growing epidemic of attacks on police.
Hell, I just did the math from the 2014 occupational fatality stats.
My NAICS is 48311. In 2014, average employment under that NAICS was 40,529. There were seven fatalities under that NAICS, for a rate of 0.173 fatalities per 100,000.
The NAICS for police is 92212. In 2014, average employment under that NAICS was 645,186. There were ninety-three fatalities under that NAICS, for a rate of 0.144 fatalities per 100,000.
So, my job is 20% more dangerous than a police officer's. Somehow I don't feel like I'm in constant peril.
Your other comment showed up in my email but appears to be deleted on the thread.
Again, I wonder if "fatalities" alone really shows the danger of police work? If I'm out in the woods with a chainsaw and get hurt I bleed out and wolves eat me before anybody finds the bones. If cop has pulled over a car that comes up stolen or owned by someone with felony warrants help is already on the way if not on the scene and if something does go badly they have first responders right there and likely the fastest access to ambulance dispatch possible.
I don't know what your job is, but I'd wager if you get hurt vs when a cop gets hurt his odds of survival are far better just by the nature of the job, when the risks occur, and how they prepare for those risks.
Of course Huffpo is publishing that with an anti-police agenda so their methodology and phrasing is highly suspect. Considering police are paid to apprehend societies degenerates and malcontents it's silly to assume the job is not inherently dangerous particularly in areas with high populations of said degenerates.
I'm not sure why it's taking so long, but I do have a correction. I used a different tool from the BLS and got 105 fatalities instead of 93, so the fatality rate for police is 0.163, not 0.144 per 100,000, and my job is 6% more dangerous, not 20%.
As for my industry, if I get hurt, I could be a week from adequate medical treatment. It's rare that we're close enough to land to get airlifted quickly, and even if I am removed to a hospital, it's likely to have substandard facilities. I still feel pretty safe at work.
I got the employment numbers from http://www.bls.gov/cew/ and the fatality numbers from http://www.bls.gov/data/#injuries.
So can you see my point that "fatalities" alone don't tell the whole tale of danger, and a big city police officer (who is more likely than a small town copper) will have fast access to the best medical care in the world compared to nearly anybody?
There's plenty of bad stuff short of dying that can and does happen to these folks every day.
They haven't finished compiling the injury/illness data from 2013 yet, but I can look at 2012 if you like. Still, this is more about perception than statistics. Police are told about sovereign citizens and trained to be extremely cautious and careful with them, more careful than with almost anybody else. Cautious enough that disengaging instead of pursuing a fix-it ticket or a plate citation would look pretty smart.
Could be. That really puts us in Bizarro-world, when we're supposed to pretend that tens of thousands of Islamic fanatics (who's home countries are perpetual warzones) are going to be model citizens while a natural born American who just wants to be left alone is the enemy. I suppose that's the priorities of the powers that be though.
I find it hard to believe that experienced police are that stupid to not have developed some sense of pattern recognition of who is likely to be dangerous, but you may well be right. At this point you'd have to be insane to take that job in the first place.
I have to agree with the Oklahoma City University Law Review Summer, 2005 30 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 245. The article – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950 / by Dr. Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., Ph.D., who stated in the article;
“The degree of traffic regulation is discounted as trivial by some Americans, but it has important implications on the level of freedom in the United States. Americans are largely dependent on motorized travel today because a substantial amount of all land travel is by car. Most Americans do not have access "to any viable alternative public mode of transportation." They must rely on automobile travel as their primary means of getting to work and for many of their basic practical, social, and recreational needs. Today, people are more likely to come into contact with law enforcement officers as a result of road traffic than in any other circumstance. Thus, the impositions of driver licensing and traffic patrol by agents of the State have generated a very real increase in the State's control over Americans' lives.”
You mean the paper that pseudolaw links to in the article text? You don't need to add all that fluff at the top to make yourself look authoritative and well-read.
It's an uncomfortable situation when the majority of Americans rely so heavily on a dangerous activity like driving to go shopping, get to work, see doctors, and so on. How do you provide for both safety (not just theoretical unmet liabilities) and access to such an essential means of personal transportation?
Finally someone who gets it and actually does it!! Good on you!!! The problem is that they are so used to being slaves that they are scared to death that they are actually responsible for their own actions so they cling to the dictators so they will have and out.. "not my fault I was obeying the dick-tators…." I saw a lot of this in the military "lifers" we used to call them because they just could no longer survive on the outside.. same thing with people in jail for too long, it is called being "institutionalized" these people will commit a crime just to get back "home" in jail.
It is similar here these persons do not understand Rights, Freedoms or Liberty and the responsibility that goes along with it. Because they can not grasp it themselves they Fear it in others and can not conceive that people actually can and do act responsibly on their own without government (meant to be governed). They also can not conceive that the People Create the Government and are the Principles thereof and actually liable for the criminal activities engaged in around the world.
No explanation will satisfy them and until they realize that the Government is our creation "That to secure these Rights Governments are instituted among men,.."
In the same manner that a corporation can not create laws for the State the State can not create Laws for the People.
Hale v Henkel – P. 74 "
that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to
Page 201 U. S. 75
act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges."
Stick to arguing the facts and lose the ad-hominem and I might not delete your posts.
I don't need a license. I haven't murdered anyone. Also, the "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron used by morons.
If you want to lawfully operate an automobile on public roads in the United States, you do. That's the consensus of the legislatures and the courts, as guided by the common law.
What bullshit!…
Emotional and personal attacks devoid of substance are not a constructive substitute for a valid argument, therefore I've deleted your post.
Faxz
thank you, wiseguy. I appreciate your knowledge
1215 chapter 42 of the English Construction is at the root of right to travel (private) – there was two restrictions- one being trade, unless in times of war and if I recall – you being a bad person as in a enemy of the country.
Rights devolve from a sovereign, i.e. government, because rights are only as good as the ability to enforce them. In international law the highest law is the nation-state, i.e. recognized countries such as the US. You can't just make up whatever you want and expect the whole world to bow down to your will. You need the government and all its force to back you up. Or, if what you want to do is against the local government's laws, you need to overthrow the government. (Do you even have a military?)
The people are the sovereign, hence why the powers are reserved for the people , and DELEGATED to the federal government. read the us constitution sometime eh? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The people are collectively, not individually, sovereign. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty. The people speak through their representatives in the state and federal legislatures, the highest law-making bodies in the country. The powers of the people were certainly not contemplated by the founders to enable individuals to wield legal superiority over the government. That would be chaotic, not orderly. Looking at interpretations of the supremacy clause, I am not sure the powers of the people have ever been considered by the courts. I assume it would be interpreted to mean the people reign directly where the federal and state governments are silent.
Your mentally deranged babble makes you a FOOL after seeing the
following videos… EVERYONE will believe and have knowledge of the REAL
truth!
Look on youtube for a November 7, 2015 posted traveler video called;
Short Traffic Stop: Right to Travel VERIFIED! (good view)
LISTEN CLOSE TO WHAT THE POLICE MAN SAYS……!
Then look at this brave young mans other recent videos including;
Shortest Traffic Stop EVER! Right to Travel upheld.
HAPPY TRAVELS ALL!! IT"S YOUR RIGHT!!!
I'm really curious about these videos, but I'm on a satellite connection off the coast of Mozambique at the moment that couldn't handle YouTube even if it wasn't blocked. What does the officer say?
The guy was apparently traveling by self-propelled vehicle without plates, insurance or license. The officer seemed primarily interested in protecting the public from uninsured drivers and appears to agree with the traveler, saying "it sounds like you're doing what you have a right to do", before letting him go. Obviously the cop doesn't know the law when he speaks of such a possible right, but as for not making an immediate arrest for uninsured or unlicensed driving, my guess is they are cautiously biding their time, collecting information, or have been instructed to not waste too much time and money on non-violent civil disobedience. That, or they may be seeking to ensure they remain relevant in the future by creating more misguided criminals. LOL
Best to get the real facts of what is said by both, the officers and the man, by seeing the videos for yourself. And be sure to watch the one labeled, "Not the shortest traffic stop ever.", where he is detained by several police vehicles while officers contact lawyers, I would imagine since he was detained for over 15 minutes and apologizing for taking up his time! Further, breaching his Forth Amendment rights under the latest Supreme Court ruling in RODRIGUEZ v UNITED STATES (2015) which the court stated;
"How could diligence be gauged other than by noting what the officer actually did and how he did it? If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of “time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. As we said in Caballes and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” Ibid. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6.".
And further stated;
"A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407."
Three different officers in three different videos let the man on his way without incident and the man thanks the last officer by hand shake for upholding his oath!
If the officers wanted to at very least give the man a ticket to appear in court or give him a verbal warning, that could have taken place in less then the 15 minutes in that video ("Not the shortest traffic stop ever.").
And he was NOT traveling by "self-propelled vehicle" either, he was in his unregistered private property "automobile". Which has been ruled by federal courts as a consumer good, as the man states.
In what way is it not a self-propelled vehicle on a highway? Whether it's private property or not, I have a hard time believing that these videos depict a person who is travelling by some means other than a privately-owned vehicle propelled by machinery (including but not limited to electric motors or internal combustion engines) on roadways normally accessible by the public, operated by the person, entity, being, or autonomous assembly of elementary fermions being addressed by the officer, which fits every state's definition of a vehicle, conveyance, automobile, motorized rig-a-jig, thing, object, or assembly of elementary fermions, subject to registration, and whose operators (the individuals, men, women, flesh and blood human beings, persons, or other assemblages of elementary fermions, capable of sense and action as typically expected from those types of intelligent tool-using organisms [i.e. "living things"] numbering roughly 7.3 billion as of 15 November 2015, without regard to capitalization) are subject to mandatory licensing under the police power of the states to regulate domestic use of paved or unpaved surfaces (whether flat, inclined, straight, curved, capitalized, or uncapitalized) prepared and intended for the use of self-propelled vehicles (as described above) without regard to federal laws concerning interstate commerce on roads, which do not invalidate state transportation articles.
(Wow, it is difficult trying to head off freeloaders-on-the-land and their bad faith semantic games.)
I find it far easier to believe that a small number of confused officers have been filmed declining to cite an offender than that a century of statute and case law has been flipped on its head in secret. If he was unprepared to address pseudolegal arguments that are carefully designed to be confusing and call on imaginary authority (such as the myriad "right to travel" assertions that rely on a completely fraudulent and fictional excerpt from Routh v. Quinn), fifteen minutes with only secondhand radio access to legal advice is an extremely short time to make a decision that could result in a disastrous civil lawsuit if not made with absolute confidence. Any decision made by an LEO on-scene in this timeframe is hardly persuasive evidence of the complete dismantling of state police power over public highways.
^what I read above is, "I'm going to ignore the video evidence and revert back to what I believe is correct because it is more comfortable, and less scary.
Just went back and watched the video, since I'd forgotten about it. All it shows is some guy badly misinterpreting case law that refers to automobiles as household goods in certain contexts. Claiming that this means that they cannot also be vehicles subject to transportation laws is like saying "I can't possibly be Catholic, I've already been defined as overweight!" I don't know why that particular cop let him slide, but it doesn't "verify" anything. This kid is just vomiting up memorized phrases from cases he hasn't read or understood.
State police have an oath to defend the State constitution which includes laws created by the State legislature. The video is an example of a cop lacking knowledge, exercising discretion and/or failing his sworn duty to the State, nothing more. The State of Utah, where the video was apparently filmed, does not view its laws about motor vehicles or driver licensing as optional or infringing on any right, nor has any appeal claiming the same been successful. See e.g. City of Salinas vs Wisden.
Police have the authority and discretion to make an arrest for any violation of any federal, state, county or municipal law as outlined in Atwater v Lago Vista. Ergo, you can lawfully be arrested if you so much as breach a littering or jaywalking bylaw. That means the officer certainly had discretion to arrest the "traveler" for not having insurance in contravention of the Financial Responsibility of Motor Vehicle Owners and Operators Act.
I expect that next I will be showing you how to properly define words such as "motor vehicle" and "driver" under State law. Tip: 41-1a-102, 41-6a-102, 41-12a-103, 53-1-102, 53-3-102, etc.
Oh shit, I just realized that I used "fermion" in my explanation below, but the 1902 edition of Black's Law Dictionary doesn't have an entry for "fermion!" Therefore, no being composed of fermions can possibly be a "person," a "human being," or an "individual" subject to licensing statutes, and no object made of fermions can possibly be a "car," "truck," "motor vehicle," or "automobile" subject to registration! We were wrong all along!!!
Even the 1757 edition of Ye Olde Almanack of English Jurisprudence is completely silent on the LAWFUL DEFINITIONS of "fermion," "boson," "hadron," and other subatomic particles. Clearly the law only applies to people who aren't composed of particles, since the older the legal resource you use, the more binding it is on officers of the court in 2015.
You Don't need to show me anything at all…. I already know, all the terms in my states Motor Vehicle Code are commercial in nature…. as are other states as well, take a look;
257.33 “Motor vehicle” defined.
Sec.33. "Motor vehicle" means every VEHICLE that is self-propelled,…..
257.35a “Operate” or “operating” defined.
(a) Being in actual physical control of a VEHICLE.
257.45 “Proof of financial responsibility” defined.
Sec. 45. “Proof of financial responsibility” means proof of ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the proof, arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor VEHICLE, …..
257.76 “Transporter” defined.
Sec. 76. “Transporter” means every person ENGAGED in the BUSINESS …….
257.79 “Vehicle” defined.
Sec. 79. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which
any person or property is or may be transported ………………
Personally I am not in the business of a type that would "transport" any person or property. Thus my automobile can not be classified as a "motor vehicle" or a "vehicle", even under the states definition of such words……. I even travel on occasion with guest in my private consumer good automobile, not passengers (like an airline or taxi). To "transport" is a term used when one is receiving a fee to pick up and deliver goods (property) or persons and is a TRANSPORTER ENGAGED in the BUSINESS …….!
Where has a related court agreed with your interpretation? If the legislature doesn't explicitly define a word the court, not you as an individual, decides the definition at common law. I'd be willing to bet a significant sum of money that no court agrees with your interpretation that "transported" in the definition of "vehicle" doesn't apply to those acting non-commercially and you are entitled to your own personal anarchy on the public roads. And even if it was interpreted as such, the legislature could simply change the law to prevent unregulated chaos. There has never been a requirement that laws only cover commercial activity.
"It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such power [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of BUSINESS by using them as a “common carrier for hire”. Such use is a “privilege” which “may be granted or withheld by the state" in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.' (Buck v. Kuykendall , 267 U. S. 307 (1925) [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct . Rep. 324].)
Under the states definition of a “license”, within the MVC, it clearly states that the definition of a license under the code is in the category of any “driving privileges”.
257.25 “License” defined.
Sec. 25. "License" means any "driving privileges”, license, temporary instruction permit, commercial learner's permit, or temporary license issued under the laws of this state pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.
Licenses are for the conduct of a business, profession, occupation, the exercise of such when they are a privilege. licensing is in the nature of a SPECIAL PRIVILEGE entitling licensee to do some thing that he would not be entitled to do without a license. San Fransisco v Liverpool, 74 Cal 113.
“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3D 213 (1972).
I DO NOT "drive". Everyone knows driving is a privilege. What
everyone doesn't know is that driving is a profession or occupation and that's why it's a privilege. One must be licensed by the State to engage in the profession of driving. Again, I DO NOT drive, I use my personal property for household and other noncommercial travel purposes.
Check the definition of "drive" and "driver" in the transportation code. You might be surprised. You might also be surprised to learn that your excerpt from the Wingfield v. Fielder decision is fictional. Made-up. Fake. It's not in the opinion, and that case had nothing to do with the right to travel. You might also be interested in the fact that the right to travel and use the public roads for noncommercial use mentioned in the Buck v. Kuykendall decision (which, by the way, didn't include one syllable of disagreement with Hendrick v. Maryland) is not the same thing as a right to operate a motor vehicle (i.e., to use your personal property for household and other noncommercial travel purposes). Having the right to use of the roads is not the same thing as having a completely unregulated right for anybody at all to operate whatever conveyance they please in whatever manner they please.
Back in the early 1900's was when automobile legislation first began to appear, as explored in the article sources. At the time some states probably did only require driver's licenses for vehicles operating commercially. I haven't checked the state from the 1925 decision you posted but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the law at the time. The law changes, though, and you can follow the amendments and enactments all the way up to the present day in the state legislative records likely available online.
EDIT: Never mind, I see that it's Michigan. I think it's interesting that you left off the rest of the definition of "transporter."
So, going by your logic, the word "transport," in all contexts, means only to transport vehicles from makers to sellers? That doesn't really fit very well into the definition of "vehicle," does it? That would seem to suggest that 1) vehicles can be people, and that 2) only flatbeds and car carriers can be vehicles, but then you need another vehicle that can carry a flatbed or car carrier, since those are the only things that can be vehicles… Oh, dear!
Ken, that sounds like your twisted characterization of my logic. The logic comes from a study of the code and the use of such terms as used within (since such words are not defined);
257.6 “Chauffeur” defined.
Sec. 6. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), “chauffeur” means any of the following:
(2) For purposes of subsection (1)(b), a person shall be considered to be "employed" for the principal purpose of "operating a motor vehicle" when the person's employment customarily involves the necessary use of a "motor vehicle for hire" or for "transporting passengers for hire", or for "transporting for gain or hire" any merchandise for display, sale, or delivery.
And;
257.7a “Commercial motor vehicle” defined.
Sec. 7a. (1) "Commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles "used in commerce to transport passengers or property" if 1 or more of the following apply:
Most every reference to these words within the code, as well as everyday understanding and definitions, as well as some court cases I have read, usually regard "transportation" and/or "transporting" has something done by a carrier for hire….
Alright, then let's look at the rest of the definition of "vehicle" that you also conveniently left out:
If you don't like "transported," then what do you think of "drawn?" It's evident that you're a liar and a fraud when you need to snip definitions off in the middle of a sentence to make them fit your laughable claims.
Just falling in with the rest of this back words country I see. Everything that is wrong is right today and everything that's right is wrong. One tells the truth and is called a liar and a fraud. The reason I shortened ALL the definitions had nothing to do with being a fraud but was simply to save space! As well as the entire definition was not needed to prove my case and I only pasted what was necessary to prove a point.
And so…what have you proven with the rest of the definition of "vehicle"?? Oh yes, you have proven once again that I am right with my "laughable claims" as you call them…. Lets take a look at "drawn" then within the code…. so what do I think about it you ask….. Of course there is no definition in the code again so lets see how it is used within the MVC;
257.7 “Commercial vehicle” defined.
Sec. 7. “Commercial vehicle” includes all motor vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for hire, or constructed or used for transportation of goods, wares or merchandise, and/or all motor vehicles designed and used for "drawing" other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry any load thereon either independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load so "drawn".
257.59 “Semi-trailer” defined.
Sec. 59. "Semi-trailer" means every vehicle with or without motive power, other than a pole-trailer, designed for carrying persons or property and for being "drawn" by a motor vehicle and so constructed that some part of its weight and that of its load rests upon or is carried by another vehicle. Semi-trailer does not include any implement of husbandry.
Yep, looks commercial in nature to me!
Then when the code refers to a non-commercial use of the roads for leisure or pleasure, like a camper the term "towed" rather then "drawn" is used!!
257.74a "Travel trailer," "camping trailer," and "fifth wheel trailer" defined.
Sec. 74a. (1) "Travel trailer" means a trailer coach, fifth wheel trailer, camping trailer, or other vehicle that is designed to be “towed” by a motor vehicle; is designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping,
or travel use; and does not require a special highway movement permit under section 719a to be “towed” on a street or highway.
Just calling them as I see them….sorry if it offends you!
The reason you shorten definitions is the same reason every other bullshit artist uses deceptive cuts and excerpts. That's exactly what happened when you provided a false and misleading excerpt for the definition of "transporter" and tried to work that backwards into a false and misleading implicit definition for "transport." If "transport" is just the action performed by a "transporter," then your assertion would more properly be that to "transport" can only mean to move (commercial, according to you) vehicles from makers to sellers, and that this is the definition you have to use when reading the definition of "vehicle." That obviously makes no sense, but you conveniently falsified the true definition of "transporter" to avoid facing that fact.
You need to alter the meaning of the definition to make it almost sort of fit your theories, and leaving or misinterpreting words out is a very convenient way to do that. Reasonable people understand from the text, context, execution, and history exactly what "transport" means in the code. The common sense understanding of these words makes all these separate sections fit together in a rational and complete way. One section uses the word "transport," another uses "motor vehicle," another uses both, another makes a distinction between commercial and non-commercial motor vehicles, and the common meaning of the definitions makes them into a functional body of law.
When people like you start trying to fit them into your super special imaginary definitions, suddenly two sentences in the same subsection don't make sense to each other, chapters fall apart from absurd and illogical constructions, and plain language sections that rely on another plain language section get tied up in tortuous knots.
The definition of "transporter" only applies to other uses of the exact word "transporter". Since "transport", "transported", "transportation", etc., are not defined, usage in other sections notwithstanding, the court decides. So to prove these mean anything you need to look to the state traffic court's interpretation of the section in question. If the court hasn't interpreted it yet then that could be an exercise for you – you can bring it up when you get charged and thereby gain standing to defend and appeal. You could also try for a declaratory judgment that confirms what you think is true before potentially breaking the law.
Ask a judge, not a cop. Cops don't have the knowledge or power to interpret the law. This would appear to be just another case of an officer exercising his discretion, probably because he doesn't want to ruin a poverty-stricken family or waste who-knows-how-much time and taxpayer dollars over some minor civil disobedience. That and/or they may be being cautious, collecting evidence before making a move, as some so-called sovereigns are willing to defend their beliefs with violence and abusive legal processes. If you understand the law, though, you know that there is no lawful defense or possibility of collecting damages if/when police do decide to enforce state law in accordance with the state constitution and their oath of office.
Here's an update on the guy in the traveler videos you referenced. As I understand it he has four outstanding charges, three for traffic, and a felony for covering the VIN. The three traffic charges were initially dismissed without prejudice for prosecutorial discretion but were reinstated. When you mess with law it's potentially very serious. I recommend studying for years before "trying" anything, not acting on a whim in desperation or on the advice of some idiot on the internet. https://www.facebook.com/ShaggyPS/posts/985499181519283
You are in error… the Constitution trumps federal or state statutes. You need to review the excellent brief here…http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
That's not an excellent brief. It's a collection of deceptive mined quotes and obsolete, inapplicable definitions completely removed from context to make them appear to say things that they do not. 0.00% of the people who post that link have actually read any of those opinions. It's laughable bullshit that only works if you decide that it's true from the beginning and refuse to investigate a single one of the claims it makes. It's lawful-looking schlock for gullible idiots, couched in feel-good "liberty," "rights," "freedom," and so forth to make them feel all fuzzy about the fact that they have zero understanding of how law functions outside of some child sex abuse compound in Texas.
This is tactic #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 for pseudolegal woo pitchers. A flurry of nonsense quotations with no context, carefully cited by name, date, and number and surrounded with flowery phrases so people think they'll look authoritative when they regurgitate points from cases they've never read and phrases they don't understand.
BONUS: Here, have these excerpts from three of the cases cited on your little page:
CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929) in which the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the power of the state to require licensing of private and commercial drivers, but did not allow Chicago to arbitrarily refuse licenses to some commercial operators and not others.
CASE #2: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930) in which the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the power of the state to require licensing of private drivers and to revoke those licenses, but not to revoke them arbitrarily.
CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958) in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State Department's power to revoke passports, but not on the basis of protected political beliefs.
Well, You ARE WRONG!! Sorry, but by taking the time to read the State statutes and codes .. all of it and copy past it into a word doc and then search the terms Person, operator, transportation, transport, business, for compensation, for hire, for payment, (different states use different terms) You will soon see a pattern of precise usage of these terms. Most are defined in different sections and may have slight different meanings to be applied to each section but they are defined and when defined no other stretching of the term can be devised! Period.. tons of case law and the courts rely upon the "clear and unambiguous meaning of the terms"… What you will see is a pattern, that each and every time it is referring to a business entity of the state, or an activity which is for pay, compensation or trade, transportation of property or passengers (two terms again for hire, pay or compensation.. once a state uses one term they tend to stick with it.. like Va uses "For compensation" "transportation upon the highways for compensation" and so forth)
When you read the codes, statutes literally as they are intended to be read it becomes clear that it is only regulating certain activities and those activities are having to do with "operating" a "motor vehicle" "for compensation" "upon the highways" Highways is defined very differently
*"Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the streets and alleys,
" Here are some examples:
"Operator" means the employer or person actually driving a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles
"Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association, and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof.
"Personal vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is not used to transport passengers for compensation except as a TNC partner vehicle.
Now there is a good example where the untrained will jump at this definition to show it does not apply to them because they do not read the whole thing and recognize that "person" is not them. The key is "except as a TNC partner Vehicle" Once you look up and read all about "TNC partner vehicle" you will know that it is regulated as well because it has to do with "transportation of "passengers" for compensation or under an umbrella of a business or for business purposes. Passengers is virtually exclusively used and one can see that a passenger is someone who is either paying or trading or has their trip (being transported) already paid for.
*"Prearranged ride" means passenger transportation for compensation in a TNC partner vehicle arranged through a digital platform.
*"Restricted common carrier" means any person who undertakes, whether directly or by a lease or other arrangement, to transport passengers for compensation
*"Bulk property carrier" means any person, not herein exempted, who undertakes either directly or by lease, to transport exclusively bulk commodities, as defined, for compensation
Are you seeing the pattern yet?
*"Courier service" means a motor carrier that engages, directly or by lease, exclusively in the transportation of letters, envelopes, negotiable or nonnegotiable instruments, or other documents or papers for compensation.
Other key terms "engages" and "undertaking" both business or activities of business.
*"Household goods carrier" means a restricted common carrier who undertakes, whether directly or by a lease or other arrangement, to transport "household goods," as herein defined, by motor vehicle for compensation, on any highway in this Commonwealth, between two or more points in this Commonwealth, whether over regular or irregular routes.
"by motor vehicle" "route" "household goods" is another tax term and has to do with the business of households not homes! if only we would read more!!
*"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the highways in the transportation of property,
*"Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association or joint-stock association, and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof.
Now don't let the term "individual" trip you up. it does not mean one of the individual people.. it only means singular business entity or an "individual" of the business entity.
Again lets look at the contrast to the definition of "Roadway"
*"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the shoulder.
Here the only other time "ordinary use for vehicular travel" terms are used.
*"Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the streets and alleys,
And here ya have it "every way or place "open to" the "use" of the "public" for purposes of "vehicular" "travel"
"Open to use of the public" not "persons", not "motor vehicles", not "operators", not "for compensation" but "ordinary use"
"Passenger car" means every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle or autocycle designed and used primarily for the transportation of no more than 10 persons, including the driver.
Now here it may seem a bit tricky except we see the key terms, "motor vehicle", "transportation" and "driver". Leaving no doubt to the diligent and well read that it clearly is not talking about "travel" or "ordinary use".
And finally we see in the other definitions sections where it is laid out clearly
*"Operation or use for rent or for hire, for the transportation of passengers, or as a property carrier for compensation," and "business of transporting persons or property" mean any owner or operator of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer operating over the highways in the Commonwealth who accepts or receives compensation for the service, directly or indirectly;
So, What have we learned here? Stupid is as stupid choose not to read.
Now go back and read the cases given and find what the court said is perfectly correct because each and every time they referenced terms of "drive" as in "driver"
"The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves"
Clearly using the term "motor vehicles" "over the highways" as in transportation of carriers which "is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves"
"public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles…"
again we see "operation" "upon" and "motor vehicles" Absolutely correct and we want those engaged in the various business fro pay, compensation, and driving upon the highways with product, property and passengers or persons to be regulated.!!! But they carefully have not said anything about the "ordinary use of the public for vehicular travel" now have they? Nope cause that is our right and in fact those roads are for us to "use" "ordinarily" thus the regulated use is "unordinary" and needs to be regulated, licensed and so forth. Yes sir. Just lets not mix them up and apply one to the other, ok?
"Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process."
"to protect others using the highway" That is us who need protecting from the "licensees" engaged in or "undertaking" an "unordinary use" of the "transportation" of "property or persons or passengers" for compensation or pay "operating" a business of "drivers" "driving" the product, property from one place to another.
Now I am sure in your "ordinary use of the highways for vehicular travel" you have encountered several of these "motor vehicles" with "drives" operating "upon" the highway for compensation, and I am sure that you want them to be licensed and regulated and pay various fees for the use of your "roadways" from which "undertaking" they are paid or compensated and causing increased wear and tear whether or not it is on a regular "rout" or not.
Get it? Got it? Good. So let's stop being so unread and uneducated as to be so easially mislead by clever use of terms and words to deceive without actually lying or deceiving except by ones ignorance of the laws, statues and codes.
Remember this, "Government" is "meant to be governed" and since we are the Creators of it, and
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" and "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Notice "it is their duty, to throw off" (not over throw, but throw off as a coat that becomes uncomfortable) because we are the Principles of these our agents and we the people are liable for what they do. When our Government injures others, we are liable…. and of all countries we are the creators of this Government and fully liable for what it does. Remember the Nuremburg Trials, "I was just following orders did not an excuse make, nor does "ignorance of the law" excuse one from allowing abuse of it by their agents and office holders.
So stop being "Americant's" who can't take time to read, can't take time and effort to "alter or abolish", can't do your duty to hold your public servants accountable to the law the way it is written. STOP paying tickets you are not liable for nor be extorted by color of law actions, intimidations and misuse of the laws created to secure our Rights and the powers we grant "to effect our Safety and Happiness"
STOP paying commercial ad valorem property taxes if you are not engaged in some sort of business tax subject to the State or ad valorem tax by the United States. Stop paying "income" or "excess" or "profit" tax from some sort of business activity via an entity of the State, if you are not "engaged" in such activity!!!! Stop taking the easy way out and consenting to extortion, threats and intimidations. Study the law, use it for the purpose it is intended, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted.."
If you are fed up and ready to make a difference and learn how to stand up, use the laws as they are written, contact us at truthmonger6@gmail.com that's truth monger 6 at g mail dot com.
Create groups (right to assemble), read the laws all the way through, copy paste them, with your children and find the key terms, and discover what is not there to know what is not regulated!!
And then create legislation that causes your public servants to act within the law and with the intent of the law!! For your protection and your children's… Blessings to all who come in kindness
You've made it complicated in order to fool yourself. You don't understand the law by reading isolated portions, making up connections and definitions that fit your preestablished conclusion, and ignoring everything else. You understand the law by reading entire sections at a time, looking at the legislative history, and looking at the case law. All these phrases that you've extracted, imagined new interpretations for, and reassembled like Frankenstein's monster do not support you when the plain meaning of the law is clear. When the meaning is clear, you have to make it appear very complicated and conspiratorial in order to fabricate evidence for yourself.
Take your points about TNC partnerships. You've completely misinterpreted the meaning of that line, and used it to support a baloney point. Do you know what TNC partners are? Do you know why their cars are regulated the same way as personal vehicles not used to carry paying passengers? Why do you assert that the definition of "motor vehicles" is purely commercial when the very text you posted says nothing of the sort? Where are you getting this fantastic notion that "individual" does not include human beings? Are you aware that such tortuous logical stretches have no real connection to reality? Everything you've written is a confused mish-mash of misunderstandings and completely baseless assertions.
In particular, the common pseudolegal claim that "person" refers exclusively to corporations is the legal, semantic, and logical equivalent of claiming that, since the meaning of the word "fruit" CAN include tomatoes, any use of the word "fruit" MUST refer exclusively to tomatoes, and never to apples, oranges, or bananas. You, the flesh and blood human being using the name "truthman" on Disqus, are both an individual and a person as these terms are used in the traffic statutes of Virginia. There is no rational basis for claiming otherwise, other than the need to use a phony definition to make your theories fit the plain wording of the law.
Also! You've included the definitions of "prearranged ride," "restricted common carrier," "bulk property carrier," "courier service," and "household goods carrier," when none of these have anything to do with the requirement for private, non-commercial drivers (i.e., flesh and blood human beings in actual control of self-propelled vehicles, owned by flesh and blood human beings for mostly non-commercial purposes, and operated on publicly-accessible surfaces intended for the use of self-propelled vehicles) to be licensed. They merely serve to confuse the issue and let you include more authoritative-sounding excerpts from the transportation article. You're so many different kinds of wrong, it's taking me a while to work them all out.
And if anybody is intrigued by your exhortation to skip out on their tax liabilities, I would refer them to the estate of Irwin Schiff, a man who lived by the conviction that private individuals have no tax liability and spent fourteen years in federal prison involuntarily proving himself wrong. He hadn't even given them permission to put him in prison!! How can that even happen?!
Actually you are WROG again.. I have read them from beginning to end several times and that is how one can see the pattern of the use of certain terms which have specific definitions and no others and soon you see that they do not go outside to the definitions or terms used and trespass on the rights of the people by governing them.. but you will undoubtedly cling to your missconceptions to which I say .. all the best in your perceived slavery. I have used these and won so perhaps it Is the way in which I use them?? and in different states… but you have not.. question is have you even ever tried.. I give ore credence to those that try and fail and learn from those failures than those who never try and I abhore those that discourage others from asserting their Rights and that is "giving aid to the enemy" Now go read the whole Constitution and tell me what and where that is and what it means… after you read and memorize The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America as I have.. from which all Forms of Government are derived from and subject to.
I know you won't look it up so here ya go lazy bones, distractor, giving aid to the enemy.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If you do not "hold these truths to be self evident then perhaps you need to find another country with a dick-tator to suck up to ….
Either you support the government based on the state and federal constitutions, legislation and interpretations of the courts or the people overthrow the government and start all over again. You can't have it both ways.
PS. Lose the ad-hominem BS and stick to the facts or you may be deleted.
Actually not "over throw" that is a crime but to "throw off" is our duty. " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." yup!!
Yeah, and to "throw off" means ripping up the Constitution, forming a new military and making a whole new country, hopefully not worse than the existing one. I can think of a number of other countries I'd like to see that happen to before the US, which I don't find half-bad by comparison.
So you espouse two positions and seem to have difficulty choosing one. One, the rule of law within the US nation-state, and two, rejection of the US nation-state. Do you support the current state and federal constitutions, legislatures and courts or not? And what exactly do your comments have to do with the regulation of travel by automobile on the public highways in the US/States? Are you considering overthrowing a country because you're expected to hold a driver's license? I've got news… hundreds of other states and countries employ the same types of licenses because it's generally agreed to be an effective method of maintaining public safety, so they may not be going anywhere, even if you get your shiny new nation-state. From the article sources we see how the highway laws were installed democratically across the US in the early 1900's. In your state would you ignore the people?
The Declaration of Independence is enrolled in the US Code as a reference, but it is not binding law. My understanding is that it has roughly the same status as the Uniform Commercial Code.
In other words, the Declaration of Independence is historically significant, but not legally significant.
The Maryland Declaration of Rights includes a similar sentiment, however, and that is law. I like the way they phrased it, actually: "That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
thank you. Very intelligent, well researched, and presented.
Please only comment if you have something meaningful to add. "Thanks", etc. merely waste screen space. Thanks
So explain to me the redress a citizen has when the supreme court violates the constitution because that's the case here.
We can't make it where the supreme court can but no one else. The Constitution, then, would be as worthless as the people who consent to loss of liberty in exchange for safety.
As stated at the beginning of the article the Constitution is interpreted to enshrine the right to freedom of movement between States and doesn't speak to the mode of travel or regulation thereof.
If the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in a way that Congress or the State legislatures don't like they can amend the Constitution so it is unambiguous and unable to be misconstrued. In this way, the highest power always remains with the people's representatives. If the people become unhappy with all of Congress, the State governments and the courts it becomes time for a violent revolution and a brand new Constitution / nation-state, then the same thing likely starts all over again.
The creator of this post isn't able to read legalese very well.
What's the difference between a State Citizen and a U.S. citizen? If you don't know, you'll believe the creator of this post.
When the States ratified the Constitution guess what happened to State Citizens? They became federal subjects. Then the 14th amendment came along and made slaves, then State property, but already subject to the federal government (the 14th only applied to federal subjects – read it), into citizens of both the State and US.
What do you believe? Or are you just going to make unsubstantiated attacks?
The difference is pretty obvious. One describes a person's citizenship with regard to the state in which they reside, and the other describes a person's citizenship with regard to the federal government. They usually come as a package deal.
The courts are running on maritime admiralty jurisdiction, hence the gold rim around the flag when you go to court, would love to see kens explanation for that. Look at the language he uses "citizenSHIP" its so obvious
"Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman." http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss4.html#fringe Keep asking questions.
Gold fringe has nothing to do with admiralty courts, and never has. It's mentioned in one regulation that doesn't even apply to civilian courts, and that's it. As for citizenship, the suffix -ship is common in English and has no maritime meaning. Similarly, the -hood suffix does not indicate automotive law, and -ness has nothing to do with Scotland.
And you don't seem to be able to make an argument very well. Do you have an actual point or any facts to back up your claim?
Thank you for this article: it helps to clear up confusions that driving, though a constitutionally guaranteed right, is subject to state regulation!
I have been doing my own research on a similar subject, and (though I agree that the law is the law and followed), I can't seem to settle my mind about what keeps a state from becoming totalarian: what is to keep the State from putting people in jail for speeding? After all, a crime consists of three component parts: the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss; somebody's criminality as the source of the loss; and the accused's identity as the doer of the crime (United States v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917 ¶ 9 (10th Cir.1989)). An “injury,” legally speaking, consists of a wrong done to a person, or, in other words, a violation of his right (Alabama Power Company v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 58 S.Ct. 300, 82 L.Ed. 374 (1938)). A “loss” is the generic term whereas damage is a species of loss (they are synonymous): damage signifies the lost thing, which a party is entitled to have restored to him so that he may be made whole again (U.S. v. City National Bank of Duluth, 31 F.Supp. 530 at 532 (D.Minn.1939)).
For example, if a statute says that its a crime to travel faster than 20mph and I don't violate a right or cause damage to anything by traveling 100mph, would that mean that I didn't commit the crime of speeding? Though the statute says don't do it (element 2) and I could be identified as violating the statute (element 3), no injury or loss occurred (element 1). If I'm tried in criminal court for speeding, shouldn't the case be thrown out as there was no injury or loss?
The ability to travel between states is protected, but the mode or manner of travel isn't.
The injury or loss on a criminal charge is said to be against the collective People of the municipality, county, state or country. The legal rights of the People are said to be breached when a statute made by the People's representatives is violated. Anything that violates the letter of the law is arrestable and may be prosecuted.
Thank you, pseudolaw. I agree that a violation of the statute is arrestable and prosecutable, but that is not the question posed. I understand the argument that the People's rights are said to be collectively violated. In such a case, one would have to call each and every resident of the State as a witness to testify of the specific injury or loss. After all, the alternative (presuming that there was an actual injury or loss sustained by such a resident a part of the "People") is hearsay, especially so since they are alive and can answer for themselves. What is to keep a State from becoming totalitarian in nature–what keeps a person free from government ternary if not the constitutional right to act without causing a specific injury or loss to another person?
Nothing keeps it from becoming totalitarian except the threat of the people withdrawing their support. I see the logic of "in common law, harm against a specific individual is required", but who created the court? Who pays the judges? It's all under the constitutional framework and legislation. Statutes have always displaced common law. In fact, historical common law only has power in the States because of reception statutes. Without those what little remains at common law wouldn't be enforceable in any existing court. Some States have abolished common law crimes entirely.
Silly follow-up …
The question in Atwater was "The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense." The answer: "We hold that it does not."
This finding is already well established: the Atwater court just made it explicit. When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)). When a police officer seizes a person, said officer has arrested that person (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 at 10-19 (1968)). A warrantless arrest by law enforcement is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152–53 (2004)).
I think it is important to point out that just because a person is arrested and prosecuted does not mean that the accused actually committed a crime. All that means is that a person did what the legislature said is the cause of a criminality. (Court is then held to determine, amongst other things, if the criminality was actually committed, the accused is the person who committed the criminality, and the criminality caused an injury or loss.)
Then make sure you vote for lawmakers who won't pass oppressive laws! The only people who really have the power to create, prevent, or destroy totalitarianism are We the People. There's no such thing as an absolute, permanent defense against tyranny. It absolutely could happen here if we allow it to, and it will never happen here if we don't allow it to.
You might want to re-think that comment. Every anti civil rights legislation created in the democrat controlled state legislatures-including when democrats seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy-has been declared unconstitutional without fail BUT every one of those statutes were THE LETTER OF THE LAW. You might want to read the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html
That case declared:
The first section describes the act forbidden, and is in these words:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia."
The Supreme Court struck down the premise of "the letter of the law."
To add to what pseudolaw said, the state is the second party in every criminal case, even violent crimes with known victims. The way criminal codes are written makes the existence of a victim completely irrelevant. This is why it's not possible for the victim to instruct a prosecutor to drop a case or to forbid prosecution. In a case like that, the victim is merely a witness and not otherwise a party to the case.
Thank you, Ken. I understand that the victim whose rights were violated or who sustained a loss does not get to choose whether or not to prosecute: that is the decision of the State. Are you suggesting that the way a statute is written overrules the required elements described in Shunk?
I'm looking for a succinct reference to cite, but what pseudolaw said explains how the elements listed in Shunk are consistent with "victimless crimes," because the state, as a sovereign, is injured by acts contrary to statute. The federal and state constitutions form one line of defense against totalitarianism by limiting what the state is allowed to require or forbid. Put another way, these constitutions lay out acts which cannot be considered to injure the sovereign state.
I'm trying to find a more satisfying source for this doctrine, but it's difficult to research since the relevant terms lead to a lot of irrelevant results.
Thank you Ken. It just seems very counterintuitive. Suppose the state passes a law for universal healthcare, then requires us to do push-ups and sit-ups every morning to stay healthy as to not burden the system. To enforce this regulator scheme, they put cameras and speakers in our homes to monitor us and administer warnings to warn us of non-compliance and penalties. There's nothing that I can find in any state or federal constitution to prohibit this. It would be allowed as promoting "general welfare."
If that happened, I would be very interested in a lawsuit claiming that the laws violate substantive due process clause by creating historically unsupportable, unreasonable burdens on liberty. I would also be very interested in the next Congressional election!
But, what defines that limit? It is certainly not our constitution: history shows us that the State can implement policy to protect the state from damage (aka, out of shape people who use more healthcare resources thereby causing the state to spend more money on the universal healthcare system); and due process is in place to ensure compliance via a warning and a court to try the complaints. (See below where pseudo says there is nothing to stop crossing the line except the people withdrawing support: a/k/a the boston tea party.)
The courts decide the limits. That's their job. If they do it badly, then we replace the judges, replace the courts, replace the state, or suck it up and do what we're told. There's no supernatural force that repels tyranny, so I'm not sure what kind of answer you're hoping for.
What's the last line of defense against oppression? You and me, buddy.
Ken & pseudolaw: thank you both for your comments. I always was of the impression that the United States was created to separate ourselves from the overbearing government types of Europe where those in power influence our opinions and votes by dominating the political conversation. in those systems, there is nothing to stop the state from infringing upon the natural rights of the people. But it seems as though, from what you two are saying, that we just created another copy of a European political system. You two have given me even more to think about!
https://youtu.be/rplyZdDiCxI…..CHARLIE SPRINKLE TALKS ABOUT NOT NEEDING A LICENSE AND HOW HE TOOK MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO COURT OVER HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL FREELY
In fact, Sprinkle's case was dismissed: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=10228
"The Complaint is frivolous. The acts complained of were in the course of enforcement of state statutes whose constitutionality has long been established." https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjlydibpp3m4rug/Charlie%20Sprinkle%20Lawsuit%20Case%20Docket%20and%20Final%20Judgment.pdf?dl=0
Those guys should try and get some pointers from ISIS on how to produce slick videos. This is embarrassing as well as completely false from top to bottom. Seriously, he thinks that being married to somebody automatically makes them an "accessory after the fact" to everything their spouse does? What a complete moron.
Most of the following is case law which cannot be argued with. Your rights always supersede legislation.
"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St.
Lawrence,*and the carrying places between the same, shall be common
highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said
territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any
other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax,
impost, or duty therefor." [Northwest Ordinances, Article 4]
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the
right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is
an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo vs. State 35 C2d 870
in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher vs. Safety Coach
Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme
Court in Thompson vs. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for
hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those
using the highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. vs.
Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.
"Constitutionally protected liberty includes…the right to travel…" 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416
In California, a license is defined as "A permit, granted by an
appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a
person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on
some business subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt
vs. California 158 P2d 199, 300.
"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is
not a mere privilege but is a RIGHT or liberty protected by the
guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams vs. City of
Pocatello 416 P2d 46
"One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act." Pontius vs. McClean 113 CA 452
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely
transports his own property and who transports no persons or property
for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412
p.833
"A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property
upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make
the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for
hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by
the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or equal
protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or
privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to
provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state
authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll
charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." –
PG&E vs. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.
"The same principles of law are applicable to them as to other
vehicles upon the highway. It is therefore, the adaptation and use,
rather than the form or kind of conveyance that concerns the courts."
Indiana Springs Co. vs. Brown, 74 N.E. 615
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Moore vs. Roddie, 180 P. 879, Blair vs. Broadmore 93 S.E. 632.
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a
livlihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to
conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways
partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the
Constitutional guarantees…Berberian vs. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869,
872
"Truck driver's failure to be licensed as chauffeur does not
establish him or his employer as negligent as a matter of law with
respect to accident in which driver was involved, in absence of any
evidence that lack of such license had any casual or causal connection
with the accident…Bryant vs. Tulare Ice Co. (1954) 125 CA 2d 566
"The RIGHT of the citizen to drive on the public street with freedom
from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct
associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People vs.
Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
"The RIGHT to TRAVEL on the public highways is a constitutional RIGHT." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.
"The right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ that a citizen cannot
be deprived of without due process of law." Kent vs. Dulles 357 U.S.
116, U.S. vs. Laub 385 U.S. 475
"A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property
upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has NO right to make
the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier
for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld
by the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or
equal protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
"CVC 17459. The acceptance by a resident of this state of a
certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor
vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this
code, shall constitute the CONSENT by the person that service of summons
may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he
is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts
of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the
ownership or operation of the vehicle." California Vehicle Code
"CVC 17460. The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state
of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code,
shall constitute the CONSENT of the person that service of summons may
be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is
then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of
this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his
operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state." California
Vehicle Code
"When a person applies for and accepts a license or permit, he in
effect knows the limitations of it, and takes it at the risk and
consequences of transgression." Shevlin-Carpenter Co. vs. Minnesota, 218
U.S. 57.
By what logic do rulings made in courts created by constitutions and legislatures supersede what created them? Legislatures determine judge's salaries. The purpose of the courts is to enforce the constitutions and legislation. There is no lawful right to ignore state highway legislation. Your quotes are misinterpreted and out of context. If you actually read the cases you will find they don't say what you think. For example Thompson v Smith clearly states cities may require and revoke driver's licenses.
The trouble is that you haven't actually read the sources for any of those. You've copied and pasted a tract of excerpts somebody else provided. They don't mean what you want them to mean.
http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/travel.htm
Ok, you know what, I don't have to do your job for you anymore, you obviously didn't study enough so everyone please go find out more on the subject then what the criminals themselves tell you.
How many supreme court rulings do you need to see?????
Obviously the three SC rulings in the article have escaped your comprehension.
You haven't provided any relevant Supreme Court rulings, so…one?
The supreme Court has ruled that you don't need a license to travel 2014 & 2015
[Citation needed]
Who said you need a license to travel?
Louisiana State Law Defintion
TITLE 32
MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
CHAPTER 1. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY REGULATORY ACT
PART I. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY
(16) "Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
(92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.
§52. Driver must be licensed
No person shall drive or operate any vehicle upon any highway within this state unless and until he has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state nor shall any person permit or allow any other person to drive or operate any vehicle owned or controlled by him upon highways of this state unless and until such other person has been issued a license to so do as required by the laws of this state.
Acts 1962, No. 310, §1.
The Argument I would present to the Court is below
If I establish for the record that I am a flesh and blood human being, in which the device is moved by my power. I have established the foundation in which my argument will determine the fact that my device is indeed not a "Vehicle" by the state law's definition of what a "Vehicle" is. Therefore I have not voilated any state laws. By the state's definition of a "Driver". I'm not a "Driver" either. By also establishing my status as a natural person/human being and not an "artificial person". I have fallen under the category of the "except" in the state definition of what a Vehicle. Therefore I have not violated any state laws and should be allowed to travel the roads using my human powered device with a license.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Need to make a correction to the above post…
During my argument I wanted to typed
"I have fallen under the category of the "except" in the state definition of what a Vehicle *is" and "Therefore I have not violated any state laws and should be allowed to travel the roads using my human powered device without a license." Sorry for any confusion… It's late and I'm sleepy.
Sorry but I blocked you – that's enough for now. We're more than familiar with all of the basic, introductory sovereign woo you speak – it's copy-pasted all over the internet. But is it true? Does it actually work? Or are all the people trying it ending up with fines or jail? Keep seeking and asking questions. Thanks for stopping by.
I understand why you blocked me. I know my rights and to present a false name as me is not a lawful thing to do to anyone. In those cases they told the judge that their name was spelled incorrectly. That gave the judge jurisdiction over them by admitting it was their name just spelled in correctly. You blocked me because your not looking to have a debate. You believe that your concept of the law is right and exact when that's absolutely false. Status and Jurisdiction does play a role and bring up a bunch of court cases in which the defendant or plaintiff lost because of their ignorance of the law isn't a good bases for a argument.
No, I blocked you because you don't consider the evidence presented nor cite sources or evidence for your claims. When one actually looks at the law and decisions in the public record you find your arguments are considered frivolous. You can't just make up whatever you want and expect the whole world to bow to your opinion of the day. You seem to think you're onto something super secret and special but you're not the first and won't be the last to question the authority of government. The legislatures, courts and police have dealt with everything you speak of many times. And in the end they find that everyone on the recognized territory of the state / country is bound equally to the same laws, and you can't escape with silly word or name games.
I don't consider the evidence? I replied like what twice? Then I read your comment and tried to reply, comes to find out I'm blocked. I was gonna ask some very difficult questions that I know you can't answer… but you know what? I'm not gonna waste any more of my time. I know my international human rights as an indigenous person. I don't have to follow useless state laws like being required to have a license or registration. My ancestors were here way before any of you foreign Europeans or your policies. Have a fun with those legal burdens foreigner….
Unless you can defeat the police and military you can be held to state and federal law just the same as everyone else. It's that simple. You can't enforce your law. No courts were created and no judges or police are paid to enforce your law.
All so-called living flesh-and-blood men and women, whether citizens, stateless, nameless or not are construed as natural persons under law. State statutes apply to both natural and artificial persons.
Under what law? Every legal book I have ever read puts persons into one of two categories. Either Natural or Artificial persons. I know that laws and statues apply to both. That's not my argument. At law I established my status. Your status determines jurisdiction and how the procedure goes. A civiliter mortuus person can and may have their privileges violated. So if I came into the court screaming black power and claiming racism when legally black means your dead. I have already established to the court that I'm incompetent and should be appointed an attorney on my behalf. Who usually get the person they are speaking for to take plea deals.
The police and military enforce state and federal law. No-one can escape them. Where is evidence your theories work on the record? Where have you or anyone else won damages or recognition? How is an attorney managing your person for you a win at all? You could probably have more fun and more wins by playing the game creatively.
The police and military enforce state and federal law. No-one can escape them. Where is evidence your theories work on the record? Where have you or anyone else won damages or recognition? How is an attorney managing your person for you a win at all? You could probably have more fun and more wins by playing the game creatively.
What. Sure, you're a natural person. That doesn't mean that you're "civiliter mortuus" (which doesn't exist in the United States) Being black doesn't make you legally or civilly dead. Having Bey in your name doesn't give you made-up treaty protections. All of this is complete garbage, and just because legal terms have fancy names doesn't mean you're impressing anybody smarter than a cabbage. Who's teaching you this crap?
Also all capital letters in a person name does deal with their status. We are taught in grade school that a proper noun starts with a captial letter and the rest are lower cased. Making the excuse that there is no difference between all CAPs and a proper noun is a sign of incompetence. So I would never acknowledge my appellation to be given to me in all CAPs. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Am I to believe that the the Courts are incompetent by placing a proper noun in all CAPs? No. It's in all CAPs because it's not a proper noun. It's for a artificial/corporate person not natural person/human beings. I am never my straw man but I am able to speak for the staw man because my mom signed the birth certificate and I do carry information about the straw man. I am it's attorney… but it could never be until it's put into it's proper context.
The courts deal with you the same no matter the capitalization you use. Such arguments are considered frivolous. See these cases, for example.
Be *me
"Person" includes individual flesh and blood human beings, and always has. This is a frivolous argument with no basis in fact, logic, or history. As a side note, capitalization has never had any legal significance as applied to a name. John Doe, JOHN DOE, "Doe, John," and john_doe (as in a computer file), are all the same person as far as the law is concerned. All-capitals are frequently used to improve legibility and prevent errors by OCR equipment or mail sorting systems. In case you're about to bring it up, "capitis diminutio maxima" is an extinct aspect of law in the Roman Empire, and it predates the invention of capitalization.
If you're referring to an automobile like a Honda Accord or a Ford F-150, then no, you are not moving it by your own power unless you get out and push. In normal operation, they are moved by the power of an internal combustion engine fueled by gasoline, or electric motors driven by batteries.
You're certainly free to ride a bicycle, though.
Why doesn't the mod respond directly to truthman below from four months ago…he actually nailed it. Everything used to attempt to convince people that licencing/etc is absolutely required always uses word sophistry, that can easily be picked apart by anyone who understands it. Truthman did a great job doing just that.
It's not a trick – everyone is required to obey the will of the People expressed through their representatives in the State legislature, as judged by courts created by the State constitution, and as enforced by agents of the State upholding their oath to the State constitution. No word games can stop the courts or police from being able to lawfully enforce State law.
You say things that are very misleading that I have to address. For example you have said;
"….. obey the will of the People expressed through their representatives in the State legislature, …",
A state citizen only has to "obey" a lawful order of enforcement agents of the state, if a state statute is found unconstitutional it's enforcement would be unlawful and a trespass upon a citizens rights.
"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). Also;
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
And you have also said many times; "…. enforced by agents of the State upholding their oath to the State constitution ….".
How about the required oath of ALL state officers, including ALL "executive" (police) officers under the United States Constitution?? Which says;
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
According to your reasoning, the federal laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on!! Please correct me if I am seeing your line of reasoning in the wrong light….
The federal law surrounding motor vehicles is extensive and I have the law facts, including but not limited to;18 USC 31, 23 USC Chapter 4 – Highway Safety Act of 1966, U.S. Code: Title 49 – TRANSPORTATION, 49 CFR 390.50 – FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL, that show the state is overstepping it's regulatory authority upon "private citizens" through it's police power and the DMV to embezzle millions of dollars from the general public! That would mean we have a conspiracy among state actors against the people who need to be charged with things like the Rico act for one!
Where the subject is one in which Congress or the state may act, a state may legislate unless Congress does so. Thereafter, a valid FEDERAL REGULATION of the subject SUPERSEDES conflicting STATE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS and decisions and actions of state judicial or administrative bodies.
If Congress has clearly demonstrated its intent to regulate the entire field, like MOTOR VEHICLES, then the state is powerless to enact subsequent legislation even if no conflict exists between state and federal law. This type of congressional action is known as federal Preemption of the field. Extensive federal regulation in a particular area does not necessarily result in federal preemption of the field. In determining whether a state may regulate a given field, a court evaluates the purpose of the federal regulations and the
obligations imposed, the history of state regulation in the field,
and the Legislative History of the state statute. If Congress has not preempted the field, then state law is valid, provided
that it is CONSISTENT WITH, or supplements, the FEDERAL LAW.
State laws that interfere with foreign and interstate commerce
no more than is necessary in the proper exercise of the state's police power are valid as long as they DO NOT CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS on the subject. Such laws must have some real relation to the objects named in them, in order to be upheld as valid exercises of the police power of the state.
If that were true you could appeal state traffic charges to a federal court and win damages. That doesn't happen because it's not true.
While Congress cannot force the states to expend legislative or administrative resources in enforcing a federal law, states affected by federal laws must bow to them under the Supremacy Clause. (Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000))
Sure, but the federal government does not, in fact, claim the right to regulate the public highways in the states generally. You're mistaken. Try to find a case that directly addresses your concern and isn't vague or in questionable context, or take it up with the courts yourself next time you're charged with a state traffic offense.
Wow, I thought you knew about this topic.
The FACT is the federal government does, in fact, claim the right to regulate the public roads and highways in the states. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is the federal government’s lead agency for planning and support of the nation’s land, air and sea-based travel systems. DOT develops, implements and enforces federal regulations GOVERNING USE of America’s ROADS and HIGHWAYS, airports and air corridors, railways and seaports. The corporate state is not the owner of these highways and common ways, or the land of which they are constructed. The Federal Department of Transportation (USDOT) has the priority claim and exorcise of enforcement power on all highways of every state in the union.
According to the July 15, 1966, Public Works committee report on the House version of the bill (H.R. 13290), each STATE must “have a highway safety program APPROVED BY THE
[Secretary of Commerce] . . . IN ACCORDANCE WITH uniform standards to be approved by the Secretary.”. President
Johnson signed the Highway Safety Act into law on September 9, 1966.
Passage of two related bills–the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S 3005–PL 89-563) and the Highway Safety Act (S 3052–PL 89-564)–initiated a major campaign to increase the safety performance of motor vehicles, tires, DRIVERS and ROADS.
Yeah, the federal government regulates a few things related to vehicles. That's why I said the federal government doesn't regulate the public highways in the states generally. Can you find a federal court decision calling entire state vehicle codes unconstitutional or a violation of federal law, or saying the states may not enact vehicle codes such as they have universally? If not, don't believe it.
Do you think the federal government does not regulate the states mandated drivers license code?
The facts are the feds regulate the states in everything the states do when it comes to motor vehicles including the licensing laws of every state! Under 23 USC 402 – §402. Highway safety programs, (a) Program Required.-, (B) improve driver performance, including- (iii) driver examinations (physical, mental, and driver licensing).
Unfortunately your or my interpretation means little in a court of law. Better look to case law or take it up with a judge yourself.
Title 23 requirements are tied to federal funding. I don't see any indication that states can be compelled to fulfill them. If they simply refuse to participate, they just don't get certain federal highway funds. This is similar to how the minimum drinking age was established: there's no federal law reaching into the states and forcing them to set it at 21; they merely forgo federal highway funds if they don't. The states still have the sovereign authority to set the drinking age to whatever they like.
This is rather informative re: Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aid Highway Program: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IHt9Kpy5MiAP4pXTmZPUMCboUHKGjDrXw0dAt7GmVwo/pub
This is rather informative re: Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aid Highway Program: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IHt9Kpy5MiAP4pXTmZPUMCboUHKGjDrXw0dAt7GmVwo/pub
And how are state statutes found unconstitutional? When someone is charged, they gain standing to defend and bring an appeal. Until such time as someone successfully appeals and a law is clearly struck down by a superior court, it's valid.
State police officers swear an oath to uphold the state constitution and laws created thereunder. They're paid by the state government to enforce state law. Their primary duty is to the state, not the federal government. Often the states make laws that are in fact contrary to federal law. Consider marijuana laws. State police don't enforce federal law in their own state. The federal government has to pay their own police to enforce federal law.
Besides, no federal court since the early 1900's, if ever, has found state vehicle codes generally unconstitutional or contrary to federal law. Read the article again. There are three Supreme Court rulings that altogether say the states may regulate residents and non-residents whether acting commercially or not on the public highways, including requiring driver's licenses. How did you rationalize ignoring these federal Supreme Court rulings?
Titles 18 and 49 of the U.S. Code are not applicable to private operators of automobiles and do not displace state transportation codes. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate private intrastate travel.
You do realize that within the 42 U.S. Code sections there is a distinct difference in the definition of "motor vehicle" – PROPELLED or drawn BY MECHANICAL POWER, and "automobile" – vehicle that is PROPELLED BY FUEL, right? So, believe it or not, I AGREE with you when you say, "….. the U.S. Code is not applicable to private operators of automobiles ….", because it deals with motor vehicles, not automobiles.
Also, not just (3) "commercial driver's license" is listed with the codes definitions section, § 31301, but another state (6) “driver’s license” is listed as well. So why would they put both a simple (6) “driver’s license” in the same commercial section as (3) "commercial driver's license"? Could it be that "driver" is the common commercial word…..Hmmm
49 U.S. Code § 31301 – Definitions
(3) "commercial driver's license" means a license issued by a State to an individual authorizing the individual to operate a class of commercial motor vehicles.
(4) "commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle used in
commerce to transport passengers or property that—
(6) “driver’s license” means a license issued by a State to an individual authorizing the individual to operate a motor vehicle on highways.
(12) “motor vehicle” means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer PROPELLED or drawn BY MECHANICAL POWER and used on public streets, roads, or highways, but does not include a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer operated only on a rail line or custom harvesting farm machinery.
Let me not forget to list the above mentioned distinction in the definition of "automobile";
49 U.S. Code § 32901 – Definitions
(3) except as provided in section 32908 of this title, “automobile” means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is PROPELLED
BY FUEL, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, ……
Those definitions are not used in the state laws requiring private operator licensing. They're irrelevant to this article.
A "commercial" driver's license typically, if not always, refers to the size of the vehicle and the extra skill needed to operate it without killing people. It usually, if not always, has nothing to do with whether the driver is involved in commerce on the road. And yeah, as Ken mentioned, those definitions don't apply on a state charge. Notice at the top of the definitions it says "In this chapter"? That means the definitions only apply to charges brought under 49 USC Chapter 313. I can probably find 5 different definitions of "motor vehicle" in the USC. Anyway, it's irrelevant on a state charge. The definitions on a state charge can usually be found at the top of the chapter, title, etc. containing the section the charge is brought under. Some states go so far as to explicitly define "drive" and "driver". What state are you in? I can show you clearly in state law how the definitions fit everyone whether acting in commerce or not.
As an example, here's NH:
259:24 Drive. – "Drive," in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile.
259:25 Driver. – "Driver" shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle as defined in RSA 259:60 or an OHRV or snowmobile.
259:60 Motor Vehicle. – "Motor vehicle" shall mean:
I. Except where otherwise specified in this title, any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively on stationary tracks, including ski area vehicles; …
259:122 Vehicle. – "Vehicle" shall mean:
I. Except as provided in paragraphs II and III, every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; …
259:125 Way. – "Way" shall mean:
I. Except as provided in paragraph II, the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use, or any such way which has been used for public travel thereon, other than to and from a toll bridge or ferry, for 20 years, or any public or private parking lot which is maintained primarily for the benefit of paying customers; …
Now interpret the following using the above definitions:
263:1 License Required; Penalty. –
I. No person, except those expressly exempted under RSA 263:25 or other provisions of this title, shall drive any motor vehicle upon any way in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license, as required under the provisions of this chapter, for the class or type of vehicle being driven. …
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc/NHTOC-XXI.htm
A "commercial" driver's license typically, if not always, refers to the size of the vehicle and the extra skill needed to operate it without killing people. It usually, if not always, has nothing to do with whether the driver is involved in commerce on the road. And yeah, as Ken mentioned, those definitions don't apply on a state charge. Notice at the top of the definitions it says "In this chapter"? That means the definitions only apply to charges brought under 49 USC Chapter 313. I can probably find 5 different definitions of "motor vehicle" in the USC. Anyway, it's irrelevant on a state charge. The definitions on a state charge can usually be found at the top of the chapter, title, etc. containing the section the charge is brought under. Some states go so far as to explicitly define "drive" and "driver". What state are you in? I can show you clearly in state law how the definitions fit everyone whether acting in commerce or not.
As an example, here's NH:
259:24 Drive. – "Drive," in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile.
259:25 Driver. – "Driver" shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle as defined in RSA 259:60 or an OHRV or snowmobile.
259:60 Motor Vehicle. – "Motor vehicle" shall mean:
I. Except where otherwise specified in this title, any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively on stationary tracks, including ski area vehicles; …
259:122 Vehicle. – "Vehicle" shall mean:
I. Except as provided in paragraphs II and III, every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; …
259:125 Way. – "Way" shall mean:
I. Except as provided in paragraph II, the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use, or any such way which has been used for public travel thereon, other than to and from a toll bridge or ferry, for 20 years, or any public or private parking lot which is maintained primarily for the benefit of paying customers; …
Now interpret the following using the above definitions:
263:1 License Required; Penalty. –
I. No person, except those expressly exempted under RSA 263:25 or other provisions of this title, shall drive any motor vehicle upon any way in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license, as required under the provisions of this chapter, for the class or type of vehicle being driven. …
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc/NHTOC-XXI.htm
Now you know how to prove everyone needs a driver's license to "operate an automobile" on the public roads.
walk,
Don't walk, run to these CRAZY BARGAINS!
walk thru the fire
fly thru the smoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWvdO3l4_P8
Looks like a comment board populated with misinformation by common sheeple affected with acute cognitive dissonance. Wake up and think a little – were you born free or a slave ? Once you have gained the physical and cognitive abilities to produce thoughts and move your body you will have some decisions to make – do you want to work for yourself for your own benefit or would you like a combination of the 187,000 different federal, state, city, county, town and municipal corporations to hold your property, promissory notes, liberty and your children for you because you are too mentally incompetent to handle your own affairs ? Well you are in luck then the United States Corp has set up a program for you – be a citizen, public officer, franchisee of the US Corp and they will take your money and rights and write miles and miles of confusing statutes and codes filled with legalese for you to live by. Does a group of people who never met you give you your human rights because they had a meeting and decided to grant you some freedom ? Is that how it works for you ? Voluntary servitude …legal but not lawful or morally correct but hey nobody is going to stop you from being a slave and giving away your liberties, go for it, got a whole comment board filled here with people who need and want to be governed. Fundamental basic logic, deep breath, the Constitution gives you NO rights , you were BORN with human right given to you by your creator. Listen up for something that will sound absolutely absurd to most of you. Why were governments formed ? TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS , almost sounds funny huh ? Seems that 90% of the people on this board believe that the people are subordinate to the very governments that they created. ( ridiculous conclusion, illogical) Oh but for most of you here that is the TRUTH because you willingly, ignorantly made yourself a slave , voluntary servitude seems to be perfectly fine for most people commenting here , Some more basic shit you might want to know – two people live in you – a legal person and a private, natural person – important , those statuses have different rights , you decide what STATUS you want to be and claim and assert it OR be quiet and do as you are told and be administered to like the ward of the state that you declared you are. Unfortunate that people died for the rights that 90%of the population are too misinformed, apathetic and uneducated to give a fuck to learn and assert their rights, that would take a thing called "reading". Incredible how many are baffled by the basic travel question and licensing. One moron here wrote that the act of 1871 did not do away with the organic constitution, he said it acted on it. ( non sensical statement) Fuck stick that document stands on its own creating the territory of DC ; to have federal code/statute apply to you you must domicile in a federal territory AND consent . So to all you scholars who are filling out w 4 s and declaring yourselves citizens of a territory that you do not inhabit , continue, give them your money and liberty( not really money, that is another subject, research fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and educate yourself) and to all of you who buy gasoline, hey news flash, there is a tax on that which funds the highways, roads, etc. Your tax dollars (not income tax) paid for it all. Why did we make roads ? For the public who paid for it to use, right ? So why are you paying a toll on a road that your tax dollars paid for ? Oh that is because the state DMV wrote codes/statutes that apply to people doing commerce on a public roads . Those people engaged in commerce on public roads require a license and they are defined specifically as "drivers of motor vehicles" a "motor vehicle" is NOT an "automobile" and a private person is not a "driver". Legal is for citizens/franchisees/public officers – employees of a government // Lawful – common law is for private, natural people who take full responsibility for their lives and actions and do not require the approval of any body politic do anything. There are only 3 ways to commit a crime – hurt person or property or commit fraud in a contract. You know how you wound up in jail if there was no victim, you literally volunteered. You volunteered to be governed by registering, certifying and signing for things that you didn't know what the fuck meant and then you hired an officer of the court ( BAR registered attorney) to serve you up to get administered too . Good luck trusting authority and be happy to save %58 of your income that you keep after all the various taxes you pay. Reading these posts just confirms how tragically misinformed people are , USA is 5% of the world's population, go walk through disneyland or any walmart and see our diabetic, obese, Kardashian loving population and see a parking lot full of commercial drivers, oh wait they are not doing commerce and they do not need a license and the right to travel IS A HUMAN RIGHT and your rights cannot be turned into a privilege ….oh wait , yes they can, all you have to do is stay stupid. You are doing excellent so far. Ignore facts and have beliefs instead , lots of sheeple think that way, it is easy to be common, aim low, you will reach your goal !! Keep giving your kids vaccines and ignore fucking basic facts like that in the real world the chickenpox or mumps or any disease very rarely comes attached with preservatives hanging onto pig intestines in a hypodermic needle. Hey who cares if there is not a central reporting office for vaccine deaths, why count ? Oh yeah and if your 7 lb kid doesn't drop dead in 48 hrs ( all depends on where you are at as that subjective number will change to benefit the institution that poisoned your baby but no worries you cared and did research to see exactly what they were pumping into your 7 lb baby, right ? And mercury , although it is one of the most toxic substances known to man somehow if it is in a hospital setting it miraculously turns into a positive, just magic what these doctors can do, right ? Oh yes and then you did sign the waiver so if your kid dies you won't hold anyone responsible, excellent parenting , brilliant !!! Now go outside and get a good breath of barium and aluminum and them tell yourself that the incredible increase in respiratory diseases has absolutely nothing to do with bioengineering programs that have been going on for decades worldwide. Hey and just plain ignore the common core (mis) education that your child is receiving, hurry back to work, you piece of working capital. Ask yourself what is the comprehensive annual financial report for the corporation of where you live . Ask yourself why you don't know what the fuck that is. Then ask yourself why your 7 year old has an ipad that is cooking his/her reproductive organs and a cell phone and a playstation while he drinks red bull and takes Zoloft because he can't understand why 2 x 10 isn't 20 anymore because they learn common core curriculum, hopefully the bottle is not empty and he/she left a few for you…nighty nite
I'll stop you at the third sentence. "do you want to work for yourself for your own benefit or would you like a combination of the 187,000 different federal, state, city, county, town and municipal corporations to hold your property" – Unless you can defeat the police and military and overthrow the local sovereign state you can't operate outside governmental constitutions, laws and corporations beyond what the government in its discretion allows. Apply the same reasoning to the rest of your arguments. Magic words simply don't make the cops run away and leave you alone forever. When the government enforces its law you can't win damages unless they break their own rules. The rights you imagine don't exist because there is no physical force behind them.
Could you put this in paragraphs?
eddy – Most of your points are right on target! Like when you said; "Those people engaged in commerce on public roads require a license and
they are defined specifically as "drivers of motor vehicles" a "motor
vehicle" is NOT an "automobile" and a private person is not a "driver".".
The people are learning the truth on these topics. But it's a slow process.
If you're just going to completely ignore my responses and continue spewing sanctimonious bullshit you can leave.
Look up the legal definitions of ordinance, statute, driving, motor vehicle, and automobile. Also person vs natural person.
On a vehicle code charge, where do you look for definitions? At the beginning of the vehicle code, at the top of the specific chapter, etc. Tell me your state and I'll show you the definitions that mean you need a driver's license to operate a private automobile on public roads.
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary
To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name
2
2
“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga.
104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. – The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23
NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…"
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st)
Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." – Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
“Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City
of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
if thats not enough go here http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
You state that "you have no recourse" In the US you do have recourse these are courts. You bring up the 10th amendment as default action that state receive the burden of the law as if the 9th and later part of the 10th did not exist but before the the 10th is the 9th amendment which Gives the PEOPLE enumerable right, lets also not forget Bill of Attainder or ex post facto, Article I, Section 10. Justice Samuel Chase defined ex post
facto laws as:
"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the
law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such
action. " seeing how my great grand father,grand father and for a time my Father drove with out a license and was then a innocent act would fall right under the definition of a bill of "Attainder or ex post facto". Forcing people to get a licenses now with auto being found guilty of a crime is against the law. as far as traffic regulations MOST do not prohibit you from driving just being safe and non polluting (ie: not abridging any oneself rights, (ie: freedom of life liberty pursuit of happiness, property…..).
If you had actually read and thought about the article and sources you'd know automobiles were invented in the late 1800's and by 1920 no court could find any grounds to strike down a driver's license requirement. Where have your suggested arguments verifiably succeeded in a court of public record? When has any "free traveler" won damages when a state enforces its vehicle code created by the state legislature in accordance with the state constitution? Why believe with no evidence?
"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action."
This means something a little different from how you've interpreted it. It means that you can't prosecute a specific act occurring before that kind of act became illegal. In your grandfather's case, this means that he couldn't be prosecuted for all the times he drove without a license before there was any requirement to have a license. When the law changed and licenses were required, that law now applied to him. If he drove without a license after the requirement had been made, he could be prosecuted for that.
The problem with ex post facto laws is that legislatures could reach back in time for abusive reasons to punish somebody for obeying the law. New laws must only affect conduct that takes place after they're enacted. It can still become illegal to do something that used to be legal, but your grandfather could never be prosecuted for something he had already done while it was legal.
Question: If a person has charges brought against them for a DUI was I was in MAryland in 1985. Can the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles Suspend or Revoke my driving privileges beyond what the legislature gave them power to do prior to an actual conviction? In other words I believe in 1985 if you were stopped for suspected driving under the influence and were given a test for alcohol and it was found to be .08 or higher you were required to surrender your License And that a temporary one would be issued for 7 days after which time your license/driving privileges would be suspended for a period of 120 days for a resident and according to the Maryland reciprocity with another State would be suspended for that which would be the penalty for a similar charge in your home State. In this case Minnesota which was at the time 180 days automatic surrender where alcohol intoxication is suspected. There were no aggravating circumstances in this case no other person or persons were injured or threat of harm or rights were violated and no property damage occurred and there was no careless or reckless charges brought. Okay so my question is under what law can Maryland, Minnesota or any other State turn that Civil law into a Criminal one. And how can they arbitrarily without a court order continue that Suspension beyond the initial period allowed under law by the State without My rights of Due process under the US Constitution and Civil Rights And that a Court bring an order after a conviction rendered and the Court passes sentence or orders a judgment which may be more time be added to the initial automatic civil suspension as mandated by State law. Or that if there is a conviction or pea of guilty that the court may order the license be revoked or suspended until a fine is paid this being what would be an allowed amount set forth by the legislature. Or usually both. But what if the charges were never satisfied in other words there was never a trial a bench warrant was issued but the court didn't notify the State of an order by the court to continue the suspension until which time the accused (Myself appeared)(After I called in 1992 the bench warrant was revoked) In 1984 I was a seriously practicing Chronic Alcoholic with no ties in Maryland . I had just got divorced had a nervous breakdown and attempted suicide and was hospitalized for 30 days at the VA in Austin TX. just 2 months before going to Maryland. I had 2 young children in Minnesota who before I left to find work in Texas I had been their primary caregiver and had been sober for 3 years minus a 2 day slip.. I was literally afraid for my life if I stayed I would die and my two little girls would grow up without a dad. So I left before my court dates even an arraignment (as I was only issued a citation and released from holding 4 hours after first being stopped). I shouldn't have left I know this but I did (and glad for it because if I hadn't there is no way I would have the life I have now). At the time I had a valid Texas License as I had moved there to find work make a home and then bring my family eventually. I had a suspension in Minnesota but had satisfied it days before I went to Texas. After 30 days I applied for a Texas Driver's License. they verified I ad met my obligations in Minnesota and issued me a Lic. When I was stopped in Maryland the officer impounded my Texas license telling me it wasn't valid because I was under suspension in Minnesota. I guess it didn't get put into the computer.. Anyway I returned to Minnesota and over the years attempting to get a Minnesota License has proven to be impossible. Maryland continues to tell Minnesota I'm suspended and noncompliant. MY family has always come first or I would have returned to Maryland. I have made an attempt every year to settle these minor misdemeanors ( (I was parked in a gas station and was about to give attend my keys so I wouldn't drive when a deputy pulled in and subsequently arrested me and charged me with a DUI even though the attendant verified I had arrange to stay there over night) I have offered to be extradited to turn myself in here in Minnesota to do whatever but that for me to pay to travel to Maryland I wasn't financially capable. So now all these years later and after losing my youngest daughter of 31 killed in an alcohol related accident in 2014. In 2012 an elder sister who herself had 36 years sober started drinking and was found in a coma in here home. She is now in a Nursing hoe and doesn't recognize me. She was the person that helped me get into treatment when I returned from Maryland. I would have a slip but have now been sober since May 18 1986. My sons or grandchildren have never seen me drink. I have a new wife I met in 1987 and Married in 1989 27 years this July she has never seen me drink anything with alcohol in it even cough medicine I lost both my parents although elderly would have probably lived but there lives were shortened due to alcoholism. My eldest son just finished 6 years in the Navy and also completed his 4 yr degree in criminology. He attended a police academy for Portsmouth VA while in the Navy and served on that force in a temporary position for 2 years. He was hired by the State of Texas in Aug of 2015 . The FBI conducted a background search on him as well as myself and his mother. He completes The Texas State Patrol training this June 17 2016 . And I his father who raised him to respect the law to the letter will not be there because I don't have a driver's license . How ironic it should be Texas the last place I held a valid License all those decades ago. I have never stolen anything, I have never committed any crime other than the DUI's when my disease was active and in control of my judgement. I have never struck another person or brought harm in anyway to another person. Yet my right to travel freely of my own accord has been denied me. Can they do this?
I think you'd be better off getting a licensed attorney.
You legal types (by the way, that's as far as I choose to go on the name calling front, despite the fact that those of us that love and aspire to freedom are constantly referred to as "kooks", "crackpots", etc.) seem to have an aversion to freedom and liberty based on the way you seem to derive great joy from "proving" us wrong in our efforts to be free. You always make good arguments, but then again, isn't that a part of the legal profession? For example, a defense lawyer's job is to defend his client even if they know they are guilty by convincing the jury that they're not. So, really being convincing is not what counts and is probably why there was a prohibition of "titles of nobility" (esquire) in the original constitution.
What's always missing is the logic behind your argument…
This country was founded on individual liberty and freedom. The federal government was formed to protect them. The constitution was written to insure that those in the federal government didn't move away from their responsibility to do such. Since it was the states that initiated these things and the formulation of the government, being keenly aware of the importance of freedom and liberty, it only made sense to leave certain determinations to the states. What wasn't expected at that time I'm sure, was for the states to eventually become as "statist" in nature as our federal government and as effective in diminishing the very rights originally fought for.
Does any human being have natural authority or jurisdiction over another?
Does a group of humans, by sheer numbers now have natural authority or jurisdiction over another human being?
Absent the forfeiture of rights due to irresponsible behavior causing injury to persons or property, what facts or evidence exists to prove that the laws of a state apply to an individual simply because they are physically located there?
The simplest fact, readily observed in reality, is police and military hold everyone on the recognized territory of the local nation-state to state and federal law, and their ability to do so is recognized under international law. They don't demand or require your consent. Courts admit this, founders admit this, presidents admit this. Right or wrong, law is only as good as the ability to physically enforce it.
I used to believe magic words and papers would make the police leave me alone, too. I'm still cleaning up the mess it made in my life. Thankfully I was lucky and didn't end up in jail or with a criminal record like many achieve before they wise up.
Once again, that's sounds convincing to most, but you know as well as I do that what you said proves nothing and sought to sidestep or complicate things by introducing irrelevant subject matter.
All laws DO NOT apply to EVERYONE. That is a fact. You also know that the lack of PROOF of jurisdiction = the LACK of jurisdiction. Before there can be a violation of law there has to proof that they apply.
What FACTS do you have to PROVE that my states traffic laws apply to me?
You can sometimes evade the law and "win" a dismissal of minor charges if you waste enough public time and money (paid by your fellow man's taxes) with pseudolegal arguments, but if/when the state decides to enforce its law you have no remedy. You can't win damages. What court will you use? What police will you call? Who will free you from jail? The only thing that can actually excuse you from state and federal law is to overthrow the entire country. How many fighter jets do you have?
Murder statutes are created by the state legislature just the same as the traffic code. Do you really think they'll "just let you go" if they "can't prove jurisdiction" if you go on a killing spree and they arrest you? Don't be naive. That would be chaos.
There's no such thing as "natural authority or jurisdiction" in the laws of men. Authority and jurisdiction are held by force and/or cooperation.
No, but sheer numbers are very useful for getting authority or jurisdiction in practice.
Because the state forcibly applies them to you whether you like them or not. That's it. Unless you have a plan to overwhelm and defeat that force consistently over a long period of time, you're going to have to deal with it some other way.
Re: the sheer numbers thing.
Of course, historically before succession…the ruler was the ruler because…..well…um…..do YOU have a bigger army than he does?
Well, uh, yeah, my army's way bigger, I mean, I'd overthrow him like that, but you know, I don't wanna get it dirty…
Look mf, it's breaking an amendment. Simple as that.
You're allowed by the supreme law of the land to travel freely, without restrictions or a fee.
Will we need to have a license for our wives to use a damn blender, or a license to use a fucking lawn mower?! Just because it has a motor?
What amendment? Where has a constitutional court agreed with your interpretation?
If your blender or lawnmower is self-propelled and you ride it on the public roads, yeah, it's probably covered by the state vehicle code. Read it and find out.
YES! Mwahahahaha!!
I know for an absolute truth that some Moorish Americans,not sovereign citizens travel without driver's license some have been stopped and let go some have been to court and had there violations dismissed and they still travel to this day without a license. Proofs online try YouTube.
I'm sure some have been let go, and some have probably had their violations dismissed. There are many reasons police might back off or drop the issue. They might be too tired to deal with a Moor's claims of absolute immunity from prosecution, they might be nervous about violence (à la West Memphis), or they might be unwilling to bet that the Moor's legal-sounding arguments are invalid. It happens to freemen, sovereigns, and plumbers, too. As for the judges, they have similar discretion and may dismiss a minor violation if the defendant is jamming up the court with frivolous motions or speeches. A Moor may put up a vigorous defense on other grounds that the state genuinely can't overcome, or the witnesses against them may not show up.
The excuses that you're making don't make sense to most of us that know the so-called courts and the magistrates that sit on the bench or Bank because the etymology of the word bench is Bank. We know for a fact that they would try to squeeze you Dry of every fiat that you have in your pocket all they care about is getting a Fiat. Active Moors are coming with the truth in the form of writs and Affidavits. I know of at least one Moor here in Cleveland that's have the courtroom cleared when he made his special appearance in front of the judge / Magistrate. We're awake now. Peace.
If you say so, buddy.
The courts and police have a degree of discretion. Consider that having something withdrawn by a prosecutor or dismissed by a judge for discretion is not the same as having an enforceable right with the ability to claim damages when the state enforces its law. Where has a Moor or anyone else won damages when the state or federal government enforces state or federal law that hasn't been struck down? Why can't they enforce a claim for false arrest when they're stopped or arrested for not having a driver's license? It's because the rights they think they have don't actually exist within the system. If/when the government wants to affect them, it can and will.
So why can't they win damages when the state enforces its law? It's because the government has discretion to dismiss stuff, but there is no actual right to ignore laws made by the state legislature in accordance with the state constitution. Dismissals don't prove anything other than that the court or prosecutor is lazy or inexperienced or has an ulterior motive.
https://youtu.be/OqM5Yab6pkw
What's the tl;dw?
With advance apologies (to @pseudolaw:disqus and @Glaug:disqus) for my asking to entertain a semi-OT, entirely tangential-to-this-post set of queries: Does Freedom of Movement also apply to intrastate travel? Alternatively, are there State-level constitutional equivalents to Freedom of Movement that address intrastate travel (or interstate, for that matter)? In my defence I offer that FoM appears in the post and hope that the questions may present a breather from jousting with your regular commentariate. (BTW, fascinating.)
Hypothetical case (okay not really, but also not me) is how a state probationer’s travel may be restricted under the law versus how it plays out in common practice. In this case, a graduate student and current special education teacher under probation (Ohio OBI/DUI) has been granted limited driving privileges for work and medical reasons by the court, but the probation officer indicates this person may not leave the county (which the judge has already allowed) and further may not seek work elsewhere nor relocate for employment purposes*. The probationer has nearly completed the advanced degree and local employment opportunities are limited, if available at all (with the current employer projected to enter layoffs). Fwiw, the PO also meddles in the probationer’s medical matters, which strikes me rather like practising medicine without a license, but that’s another issue.
In general, I’d tend to recommend keeping a low profile with one’s PO. However, this battle seems to me to be one worth fighting, as the stakes are quite high, but only if the battle stands some chance of a non-pyrrhic victory. Essentially I’m wondering if the PO is overstepping their authority. I’m also aware that probationers' rights are conditionally limited (e.g., privacy), at least temporarily, so are nearly as restricted as are those of the incarcerated.
*It seems to me that transferring into another county’s probation jurisdiction should be a relatively trivial matter. I found very little in the way of comprehensible references using g__gle, and those primarily related to an old GA case of someone banned from all but his home county, who ended up leaving the state entirely.
I’m not seeking legal advice on the internet, just thinking some things through and trying to possibly help someone else do the same. If there's merit along these lines, it may be worth pursuing with local representation. That IANAL is likely also painfully obvious.
I appreciate any insights offered (and am okay with a rebuff, as well).
[ETA: link to GA case and end result of same]
Case law has at least inferred that the right to travel both between and within states is included in "liberty" as described in the 14th Amendment, subject to regulation, but I'm not aware of a particular case where a law was struck down or damages awarded specifically on that basis. At least in theory, any law that didn't justly balance the right to travel within a state with public safety and other legitimate state interests could be readily struck down as a violation of the right to travel.
(These 'inferred rights' are described as "substantive due process rights," BTW.)
As for probation officers, their power differs from state to state, but they are not judges. Their job is to execute the decision of the Court, not to modify it. If the sentencing judge has issued an order that the probationer is permitted to leave the county, then they are permitted to leave the county. Period. The probation officer is forbidden to shorten sentences, extend sentences, excuse probationers from the conditions of probation, or impose new conditions on them. If a probation officer is attempting to usurp the power of the court, then the probationer should direct their attorney to contact the sentencing judge. Judges do not like being undermined, and a PO who openly defies the Court after being talked to is gonna have a bad time.
EDIT: The probationer is probably still required to notify the probation officer of their travel, but permission is not the officer's to grant or deny provided that the probationer's travel is consistent with the court's decision. That is, if the court says you can travel for work, then you may legitimately be required to demonstrate to your PO that your travel is work-related. Some forms of travel do require the probation officer's permission and handling, such as actually relocating out of the state or county. These are special cases where the probationer may be SOL.
Hiya, Ken. Thanks for your thoughts. I'm going to ask to see the written order from the court setting probation terms. (In another case of which I'm aware, the judge's instructions were not formalised by court order, so were unenforceable. It's worth checking whether what was said in court matches what may be proved.) Pissing off one's PO can be risky, but pissing off a judge is even more so.
I can't send you (or me) to Law School, but am not averse to fronting a few brews, if the opportunity should arise. 🙂
Sweet! I added an edit there, since I realized that relocating is a much trickier subject and POs generally have greater power to deny a probationer permission to move. This would be an interesting civil rights case, but I wouldn't anticipate a victory. It would be a hard sell that such restrictions during probation violate due process when the court probably had the option to forbid the probationer from moving out of a particular 8×12' jurisdiction instead.
RCW 46.25.050
Commercial driver's license required—Exceptions, restrictions, reciprocity.
(1) Drivers of commercial motor vehicles must obtain a commercial driver's license as required under this chapter. Except when driving under a commercial learner's permit and a valid driver's license and accompanied by the holder of a commercial driver's license valid for the vehicle being driven, no person may drive a commercial motor vehicle unless the person holds and is in immediate possession of a commercial driver's license and applicable endorsements valid for the vehicle they are driving. However, this requirement does not apply to any person:
(a) Who is the operator of a farm vehicle, and the vehicle is:
(i) Controlled and operated by a farmer;
(ii) Used to transport either agricultural products, which in this section include Christmas trees and wood products harvested from private tree farms and transported by vehicles weighing no more than forty thousand pounds licensed gross vehicle weight, farm machinery, farm supplies, animal manure, animal manure compost, or any combination of those materials to or from a farm;
(iii) Not used in the operations of a common or contract motor carrier; and
(iv) Used within one hundred fifty miles of the person's farm; or
(b) Who is a firefighter or law enforcement officer operating emergency equipment, and:
(i) The firefighter or law enforcement officer has successfully completed a driver training course approved by the director; and
(ii) The firefighter or law enforcement officer carries a certificate attesting to the successful completion of the approved training course; or
(c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for noncommercial purposes. As used in this section, "recreational vehicle" includes a vehicle towing a horse trailer for a noncommercial purpose; or
(d) Who is operating a commercial motor vehicle for military purposes. This exception is applicable to active duty military personnel; members of the military reserves; members of the national guard on active duty, including personnel on full-time national guard duty, personnel on part-time national guard training, and national guard military technicians (civilians who are required to wear military uniforms); and active duty United States coast guard personnel. This exception is not applicable to United States reserve technicians.
(2) No person may drive a commercial motor vehicle while his or her driving privilege is suspended, revoked, or canceled, while subject to disqualification, or in violation of an out-of-service order. Violations of this subsection shall be punished in the same way as violations of RCW 46.20.342(1).
(3) The department must, to the extent possible, enter into reciprocity agreements with adjoining states to allow the waivers described in subsection (1) of this section to apply to drivers holding commercial driver's licenses from those adjoining states.
Great, let us know when you win in court or find someone who has. By the way, here's why you need a license whether acting in commerce or not:
RCW 46.04.197 Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.
RCW 46.04.320 "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. …
RCW 46.04.670 "Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. …
RCW 46.20.001 License required—Rights and restriction.
(1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. …
Other than the fact that WA appears to distinguish itself from some other states by not defining "drive" or "driver" – for that definition we may have to look to the common law of the state traffic court – it's pretty clear, wouldn't you say?
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=46
What point are you trying to make? This article isn't about commercial drivers.
item (c) below shows if you are in a recreational vehicle in WA state you are exempt
WAC 308-100-210
Recreational vehicle—Definition.
For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050 (1)(c), the term "recreational vehicle" shall include vehicles used exclusively for noncommercial purposes which are:
(1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, or travel use;
(2) Towing a horse trailer; or
(3) Rental trucks having no more than two axles (one steering and one drive axle) used strictly and exclusively to transport personal possessions.
So some recreational vehicles are excluded from commercial driver's licenses, which only apply to certain large, heavy vehicles. That's nice. Now how do you get around the definitions in RCW 46.04 and related requirement of RCW 46.20.001 wherein:
Where have the courts agreed with your apparent interpretation that those acting non-commercially are exempt from 46.20.001?
Do you think you can ignore 46.16A.030, too?
2. The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and Natural Beings cannot be rightfully deprived. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 337 Illinois 200, 169 NE 22, ALR, Ligare v. Chicago 139 ILL. 46, 28 HE 934, Boone v. Clark 214 SW 607, 25 AM jur (1st), Highways, sec. 163:
3. The right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen cannot be deprived without “due process of law” under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:
4. The Right of a citizen to Travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege, which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a com- mon right, which he / she has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579:
5. State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc., Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971):
6. The State is prohibited from violating substantive rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662 (1980); and it can not do by one power (eg. Police power) that which is, for example, prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter of law. US and UT v. Daniels, 22 p 159, nor indi- rectly that which is prohibited to it directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294, 300:
7. Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health
and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed nothing more than “due
care” (as regards to tort for negligence) to the public and the owner owed no other duty to the
public (eg. State), he / she and his / her auto, having equal rights to and on the roadways / high-
ways as horses and wagons, etc.; this same right is still substantive rule, in that speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety, and thus, are not arrestable offenses. Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905 – 1910: California v. Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).
8. Under The United States Republic’s Constitutional system of Government and upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control one’s conduct to others, leaving one the sole judge as to all that affects oneself. Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623, 659 – 60:
9. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
10. The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
11. For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
12. If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
You might want to actually read these cases and research the various concepts mentioned in them because they don't mean what you think they mean. Most or all of these citations are misquoted or misunderstood. Thompson v Smith, for example, clearly states licenses can be required, and it is only necessary that regulation not be applied too arbitrarily:
There are few to no unlimited rights. All can be restricted reasonably for public safety. Unfortunately many people are duped by copy-paste jobs like yours when they're blindly spread around the net without proper examination, which is the reason for this blog and article.
I may come back and update this to address some of the other citations later.
"There are few to no unlimited rights. All can be restricted reasonably for public safety."
Bullshit. This is not a Democracy. This is a Republic. It doesn't matter at all what everyone else wants. ONLY THE LAW MATTERS!
Democracy and republic are practically synonymous… The law is made by common consent by the people's representatives in the State and federal legislatures, as envisioned by the founders.
http://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states#comment-2211064187
Dictionaries aren't binding on states or state courts. On a state vehicle code charge the definitions can usually be found at the top of the vehicle code or the subchapter, with the definitions nearer to the section taking precedence. If the legislature doesn't define a word or phrase the state courts decide at common law. The state legislature is the highest lawmaking body in the state and can create, amend or repeal any state laws and definitions provided they aren't struck down as a violation of the state constitution by the courts. The courts can't ignore legislated definitions. Once a definition is legislated the courts lose power to redefine it.
Why would I look up the definition of commerce when it isn't used even once in the driver's license requirement, plate/registration requirement, or insurance requirement sections?
Can you cite any decision where the terms "drive," "driver," "vehicle," "motor vehicle," or the verb "transport" have been unequivocally tied to commerce and only to commerce in the context of private driver licensing? (Hint: The answer is no.)
Do you realize that Bouvier's hasn't been updated in a century? Do you realize that Black's has been updated about ten times to keep up with the changing and developing meanings of words in the courts? Do you realize that the private publishers of these dictionaries do not have lawmaking power, but only the power to suggest useful definitions consistent with previous decisions? These dictionaries are cited when the court chooses to use them as a useful reference and ignored when it does not.
This is false. "Vehicle" is defined using the verb "transport," not the noun "transportation." The definition of "transportation" doesn't become implicit in every use of the verb "transport." If it did, you'd have absurdities like another poster inadvertently making circular claims about vehicle carrier carrier carrier […] carriers.
The definition of vehicle in the Illinois Vehicle Code does use the word "transported" which isn't defined. What that means is the traffic court decides what it means, not you. Have you seen any indication from the courts that the definition is meant to apply solely to commercial vehicles?
Pingback: Your Right to Travel - Humans Are Stupid
What I think is bs is I lost my Id and they won't take my birth certificate and social card they say that it's not good enough what the fuck I can hardly walk I'll have to sue the state for me having to walk myself into a wheel chair because 2 forms of ID wasn't good enough
Sounds like you're in an awful spot — do you have any way of getting a federal ID like a passport to start climbing the ID ladder? What would happen if you were able to travel those 1,600 miles? Would it be easy to renew an ID you already have there?
EDIT: Are they saying you need a new copy of your birth certificate? Your birth state should be able to mail that to you if that's the problem.
I think drivers license should be a thing but it should be more about just meeting you and realizing your not incompetent and maybe a fee not this impossible red tape Bullshit…..man guys I'm really upset about this I don't know what to do I called the state that last had my Id but they said it was to old I cant go 1600 miles to get a id that's stupid and the state I'm in said I have to have one of my parents I'd me……I haven't seen or spoke to my parents in 20 yrs wtf!!
It is the same with New Jersey "justifiable need" clause in the Handgun Permit Law. All such cases get denied certiorari. What has happened with with automobiles may soon happen to firearms.
This whole thing is complete crap!
We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic! It is fundamentally unconstitutional to pass laws that penalize people BEFORE they commit a crime. Ever hear of due process? Anything repugnant to the Constitution can be ignored with impunity.
The fact is, local police and judges will almost always railroad you through their kangaroo court and you will have to appeal it, where they will almost always find an excuse of some sort to dismiss or discharge the case and deny ou a jury trial or the opportunity to establish precedence. They will do anything to avoid validating you so you will probably never actually "win" but you will be able to make a few grand suing the people responsible later. Put enough liens on enough bonds and sue the bastards directly a few times and they will start ignoring you, and your tagless car, like you don't exist.
Where is that in the Constitution? Has any court agreed as relates to State vehicle legislation, or at all?
Yes, provided a superior court agrees with your interpretation that a thing is repugnant. So where have the federal courts said State vehicle laws, or other laws that "don't require harm", are generally unconstitutional?
Can you cite an example in the public record of anyone winning damages when a State enforces its vehicle laws that haven't been struck down? Don't you think the States would repeal their vehicle codes to save money if they were truly acting unlawfully and liable? Word would spread very quickly. People aren't as dumb as you think, especially when they can make easy money.
UCC-1 financing statements, aka liens, require the express consent and authentication (signature) of the debtor on a security agreement. See UCC 9. Some states like Georgia prescribe up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine for each false lien, and a number of people have been sentenced to several years in prison for liens. If you enjoy liberty, don't play with them.
More bullshit scare tactics.
You may want this to be a democracy where everyone decides your life for you. I prefer my individual liberty in a Republic and the sovereign power to establish government by consent to protect my rights, not restrict them without due process if I have committed a crime. It is funny how you think your servants can command you instead of the other way around. Many a slave would have wanted you as a master.
The bullshit you spew is the convolutions that lawyers and the courts have cooked up to make themselves seem necessary. They purposely confuse everything to make it hard for honest Americans to understand their rights in the eyes of the law. Fact is, we don't need lawyers at all. We just need to understand that they cannot move forward lawfully without jurisdiction. Since they cannot prove jurisdiction unless you give it too them it is all a bunch of revenue generating bullshit anyway that doesn't even apply to the average Joe. Will that get you out of everything? Nope, because the crooked bastards won't follow the law, but, if you pursue it you might eventually get a fair judge and a fair hearing so you can beat the bitches at their own game. I've done it but there is a risk of tyranny and it just isn't worth the risk any longer.
Until then, I carry a gun. Why the fuck would I walk into their court with their judge and their prosecutor all payed by the same corp. the cop is knowing they are going to break the law and violate my rights? Fuck that. Give me liberty or give me death. I'll not play their stupid games anymore. We have the right to defend ourselves to the death if we are attacked and S.C.O.T.U.S. has ruled on multiple occasions that a false arrest is akin to any other felony including assault and battery. Any time they stop you it is an arrest, and if they don't have a warrant, if you aren't violent constituting a breach of the peace, or actually witness you commit a crime by creating an injured party/victim, it is a false arrest and can lawfully be met with deadly force.
To fully understand this reference "A Treatise on Arrest and False Imprisonment" and the following cases.
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
You really should visit the area between Kingman Arizona and Las Vegas Nevada. You could learn a lot from the American Indian population around here like; How to drive without license, tags, or insurance anywhere you want, any time you want, and however you want as long as you do not cause harm to another or their property. How to tell a pig to go fuck themselves when they try to apply statutes, codes, policies, etc… on people that aren't bound to them by contract. How to do things like make and sell your own brand of liquor without a license, grow and sell pot with total immunity, or how to gamble lawfully and even open a casino on your private land. How to acquire allodial titles, and so forth. You could learn a lot. I know I have and I haven't lost a case in 20 years or more.
People, you don't need all that legal bullshit or a liar lawing to you. All you need to know is your rights and how to protect them, even if sometimes that means shooting at people that try to oppress or molest them. The cost of freedom is death because once you acquire freedom there will always be someone there trying to take it from you until you die. It all depends on what it is worth to you and what you are willing to do to keep it. If you want easy and security, get thrown in prison. Life isn't safe and cannot be legitimately regulated to make it that way. All along they have told us that the laws they make are for our safety and our benefit. If that were the case we would be safe and have benefitted by now. They do this shit for one single reason, to control you. It may not seem like much but that's the idea, to incrementally whittle away rights until one day we wake up in a prison state and can't figure out how we got there or how to get out.
In a republic the people's representatives make the laws, just like State governments do when they make vehicle codes.
According to the federal Supreme Court you can be lawfully arrested for any violation of statute law, even minor municipal bylaws. Check out the full text of Atwater v City of Lago Vista. State laws vary and can limit this for anything within their purview, though.
Just because you live in an area full of indians who have special rights with limitations doesn't mean you also necessarily enjoy them.
Being left alone or having a charge dismissed doesn't prove a right exists, just that the government thinks there's a better way to spend taxpayer resources than to continually harass a guy who doesn't want a Driver's License but doesn't really disturb people too much and is happy to continue participating in society in other ways, such as by buying computers, internet, cars, gas, food, and other corporate products where income and sales tax are generated.
Where can we find the cases you have initiated and won in the public record? Dismissals are not wins. Dismissals are "you can go for now but we'll be back." Where's the judgment that removes all doubt?
Have fun storming the castle!
First off, Kudos for putting up with all of these nutjobs.
Second off, what concerns me, and probably concerns most of the 'nutjobs' with enough sense to do their own research, is that you haven't updated the original post. You refuted dozens of people discussing definitions, but didn't include that in the original topic to keep others from repeating it. ..which they did.
Third off, I am a bit concerned that you keep referring to international law, but never refer to common law. By definition any international law can only be as valid as the undersigned treaty to which the sovereign nation-state has ascribed itself. Any and all blanket laws or regulations promulgated or proposed by any international entity are entirely void of any authority what-so-ever. Kindly stop referring to international law in general.. before people start believing that the U.N. or some such has some sort of mystical authority. Common law however does hold at least more authority than the various dictionaries you continually berate, as it is generally understood that our entire legal system has its roots in common law, and therefore it is at the very least a valid reference point in situations where one is needed.
..you know, such as a lack of all encompassing Federal definitions for various purposes, and getting to the core meaning of various obscure subjects such as 'driver' and 'travel'? (That was a joke.) 😉
Kindly DO at least add an addendum on to the original post to update and answer the other common questions. If a dedicated researcher such as myself can't make it through the lot of it, I can guaranty you that the masses will simply reiterate what you've already heard a dozen times. 😉
i would suggest that instead of leaning on your own knowledge and understanding, seek an expert. eddie craig from rule of law radio is an acknowledged expert on the texas traffic code and he can and will answer if you ask him. pseudolaw mod if you really want to debate it try going to that site and writing him or call and debate it. he will embarrass you and i suggest you get all the info before you put out what is basically only your opinion and confusing other people.
You can't "debate" laws enacted by the State legislature in accordance with the State constitution that haven't been struck down – they just apply to everyone. The Texas Transportation Code states:
We can search Texas courts on Google Scholar for "521.021" to see exactly how they apply the section. Some quotes from the cases are as follows:
Here's someone who claimed to be "engaged in private travel for private purposes utilizing private property". The court decided:
The judge further clarifies the definition of "motor vehicle" as used in section 521.021:
I'm sure you can find some more fun and informative results.
Do you still think your guru's ideas are going to have the desired effect in court?
still you have the same basic flaw. as for my gurus advice helping me it has on numerous occassions as it is based in the law of the state of texas and has not only defeated a drivers license charge but also defeats fmfr charges as the code by the definitions it supplies is commercial and never set up to regulate the general public. like i said maybe you should call into his show tonight. i am sure you have looked him up and even though you might believe you are right, without research and applicable due diligence all you are doing is spinning your wheels.
To think you can get around Texas Court of Appeals decisions such as MARZETT v. McCraw is incorrect. If you or others have "defeated" charges, it's more likely the prosecutor or court exercised discretion because they didn't want to spend time and taxpayer money debating frivolous, well-settled arguments to try to correct minor civil disobedience. If they didn't voluntarily exercise discretion and wanted to make an example of you they could impose State law and there's nothing you could do. Evidence that this is true can be seen by the fact that you cannot win damages for false arrest when a State enforces its laws that haven't been struck down.
For one the definition of traffic is commerce and the words used I. The court of law have legal definition the word Driver is one employed in conducting a coach,carriage, wagon or other vehicles in use for commerce traffic is not cars on the road it is what actions are being g done on the road legal commerce. I have so. In a courtroom in a case as a common law citizen defending my right to travel without a driver's license or registration and no insurence. Under Shapiro v. Thompson and other case law. This article is bull crap. The liberties we as the people have rights that are far above the law. The freedom of movement is not what the case law states, it. Is a landmark case that established fundamental right to travel. That a free people would not be free if they had to ask of their servant to privilege to move around. We the people are not citizens of any one state, but are citizens of the united states. Our automobiles are personal property and that can Not be regulated by our servants as well. I will take anyone to task that thinks my rights are privilege's. Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 " No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it and attach a fee to it." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137:" The Constitution of these United States is the supreme laws of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law. Also Thompson v. Smith,154 SE 597, 11 AMERICAN Jurisprudence, Constitutional law. Section 329, page1135 Google that to much to type here . But this article is crap and the case law you will see the US supreme Court has many to prove this article is a lie. Before you bash on me read and educate yourself on this. I did and won In Court. So if it wasn't true I would have been put in jail, because they tried everything in the book to convict me and they couldn't. I did it without an attorney also. Because I did not give up my power of attorney and loose my rights. That's another problem you give up your right when you hire an attorney. Because the attorneys have to put the courts before their clients. This article was probably written by an attorney who makes lots of money off defending people without a driver's license. Think about that.
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE
THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen_________________________: hereby Certifies, by Rights Secured under provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the several states, Common Law, Nature and Laws of Natures GOD, that these Rights are retained in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, and held and protected with special regard to Rights designated and/or set forth as follows: ALSO NOTE Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING-by the Honorable Justice LOUIS BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT.
NOTICE AND ADVISORY OF RIGHTS CLAIMED INVIOLATE:
1) The Right to TRAVEL FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETTERED is guaranteed as a RIGHT and not a mere privilege. That the Right to TRAVEL is such a BASIC RIGHT it does NOT even need to be mentioned for it is SELF-evident by Common Sense that the Right to TRAVEL is a BASIC CONCOMMITANT of a FREE Society to come and go from length and breath FREELY UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED distinguishes the characteristic required for a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. Please See SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. The above named Common Law Citizen listed IS NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE and as such is thereby EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE AS SUCH. Further, the _______________ state, isFORBIDDEN BY LAW from converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and requiring a LICENSE and or a FEE CHARGED for the exercise of the BASIC RIGHT. Please SEE MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if _______________, state does ERRONIOUSLY convert BASIC RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES and require a License or FEE a Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE OR FEE WITH TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH EXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT. Please see Schuttlesworth vs. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 U.S. 262. Now if a Citizen exercises a BASIC RIGHT and a Law of ANY state is to the contrary of such exercise of that BASIC RIGHT, the said supposed Law of ANY state is a FICTION OF LAW and 100% TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD IT AND NO Citizen is REQUIRED TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR LICENSE REQUIREMENT. Please see MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, see Shephard's Citations. Now further, if a Citizen relies in good faith on the advice of Counsel and or on the Decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT that Citizen has a PERFECT DEFENSE to the element of WILLFULNESS and since the burden of proof of said WILLFULNESS is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, said task or burden being totally impossible to specifically preform there is NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF LAW. Please see U.S. vs. Bishop 412 U.S. 346 . OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASIC Right to TRAVEL for a regular Common Law Citizen NOT IN COMMERCE on the common way Public HlGHWAY. THAT IS THE LAW!!! The above named Citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTY MAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS!!! YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON THIS Common Law Citizen!!!
2) The original and Judicial jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is ALL actions in which a State may be party, thru subdivision, political or trust. This includes ALL state approved subdivisions and/or INCORPORATED Cities, Townships, Municipalities, and Villages, Et Al . Please see Article 3, Section 2, Para. (1) and (2), U.S. Constitution.
3) The undersigned has NEVER willingly and knowingly entered into ANY Contract or Contractual agreement giving up ANY Constitutional Rights which are secured by the CONSTITUTION, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. This Common Law Citizen has NOT harmed any party, has NOT threatened any party, and that includes has NOT threatened or caused any endangerment to the safety or well being of any party and would leave any claimant otherwise to their strictest proofs otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. The above named Citizen is merely exercising the BASIC RIGHT TO TRAVEL UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED on the Common public way or highway, which is their RIGHT TO SO DO!!! Please see Zobel vs. Williams, 457 U.S. 55,held the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is Constitutionally PROTECTED!!
4) Conversion of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL into a PRIVILEGE and or CRIME is A FRAUD and is in clear and direct conflict with she UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. LAWS made by any state, which are clearly in direct CONFLICT or REPUGNANCY are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are NOT WITH STANDING IN LAW AND ARE BEING CHALLENGED AS SUCH HERE AND THEREBY ARE NULL AND VOID OF LAW ON THEIR FACE. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD SUCH FICTIONS OF LAW AND NO Citizen is bound to obey such a FICTION OF LAW. SUCH REGULATION OR LAW OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY OR FICTION OF LAW AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED IN LAW. No CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!!!
5) The payment for a privilege requires a benifit to be received As the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is already secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges without direct damage to the specific party . Nor may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the exercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. Please see Miller vs. UNITED STATES 230 F2d 486 . Nor may a Citizen be denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW or EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
6) The undersigned does hereby claim, declare, and certify ANY AND ALL their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE state wherein they abode as a SOVEREIGN, COMMON LAW CITIZEN existing and acting entirely AT THE COMMON LAW, and retains ALL BASIC RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD AND UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD THE SUPREME LAW GIVER.
7) ANY VIOLATOR OF THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND CLAIM IS CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING UPON THIS ABOVE NAMED COMMON LAW Citizen and WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT UNDER THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. BE WARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!
Unfortunately no court on the planet views the laws of a sovereign nation-state and its sub-states as contractual in nature. In fact, "contracting into a state" is impossible, because contract law itself comes from the state, and every state has its own nuances different from other states. Furthermore, in any western model of contract law you can't simply send an arbitrary notice or offer to someone and expect it to bind them absent their clear, express, voluntary acceptance. All such one-sided notices must be empowered by some parent legislation, court rule or voluntary contract.
A license is permission to do something unlawful…
and I, nor the STATE have any authority to allow what is unlawful…
I do not care about illegal…
Otherwise, we could get licenses to armed rob….
I do not require a license to go from point a to point b, on public roads/highways that I in fact pay for.
The freedom of movement is the most basic right there is …
NO obligation to beg, or pay servants sworn to protect that right, an extortion or fee…
Been doing it 11 years now…
and NO "cause of action" with "standing" according to 1 AmJur2nd Section 70 Actions.
NO obligation to appear in the BARS treasonous extortion racket courts.
The state and federal constitutions are the supreme laws, and each empower a state or federal legislature to make further laws, and courts and police to interpret and enforce those laws. It is these same constitutional legislatures that made the driver licensing and vehicle laws. The BARs, too, were created by the legislatures, so to say a BAR made laws or has courts is totally incorrect. Legislators, that can rewrite constitutions and change the laws, police and courts, don't have to be lawyers. I am happy to hear the state isn't destroying your entire life because of minor civil disobedience when it does in fact have the lawful authority to do so. I don't suggest doing anything much more serious or intrusive as I am certain you will find the state unwilling to exercise discretion for every violation.
In the court cases you mention above there is no mention to the affect that any state CAN require driver's license or registration! It is just recommended. In the first case (Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) it is referring to those "moving in commerce". The average citizen is not normally traveling in commerce nor for hire.
States can make whatever laws they want. If a state creates a law contrary to the federal constitution or laws, or its own constitution or laws, it's up to a charged individual to challenge it in court and have it overturned. Failing such a challenge, it stands. The average citizen may not be traveling in commerce or for hire but by the early 1900's the people's representatives in all 50 states saw fit to require a driver's license of them regardless. Check out the legislative history of your state to find out exactly when and how it happened there. The federal courts have not overturned any such licensing legislation unless it was designed to be applied unequally or arbitrarily, such as mentioned in the oft misquoted Thompson v Smith.
I'm sorry chief but your arguments presuppose that our government represents us. We are no longer a representative republic nor are we a democracy. The experts at Princeton have already surmised that our government is an oligarchy that represents the elite and corporations. Here's the article. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
"our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our
government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elec-
tions, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if
policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then
America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriouslythreatened."
With this in mind, it is in the power of the people to dissolve a government that no longer represents them.
Yes, when government gets too out of hand the people will have to rise up, overthrow it and start again. However, I can think of a lot worse governments that should probably be dissolved first. Despite your unrecognition, the US remains a leading example of equality and civil rights throughout the world. If you believe otherwise perhaps you should start a blog about it instead of ranting here, where the topic is rights within the existing US that are enforceable without a violent revolution.
The US is not a leading example of equality and human rights. Ironically, China accuses the U.S.A. of violating human rights when we offer a higher education in exchange for an insurmountable debt burden while removing bankruptcy protection from student loan borrowers.
Maybe you should move to China then.. Meanwhile, people who understand things say https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015
So you're here on a page about a right to travel in the US to say you don't recognize the US? If you're not interested in rights in the US this page isn't for you. Try anarchy .com
[Citation needed]
It's a matter of opinion, and off topic. Start your own blog for that.
Off topic.
Title 18 USC 31:
"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City.
Definitions for use with federal charges "in that chapter" of the USC have no bearing whatsoever in a state court on a charge brought under a state vehicle code. You need to look at the top of your state vehicle code title, chapter and/or subchapter for the applicable definitions, as mentioned many times throughout the comments here.
CVC 260 says passenger vehicles are not commercial motor vehicles.
Look up CVC for definitions
P(9) states: in the absence of
A federal definition, these definitions apply…
And relative to the interstate compact- it relates to all states.
The state definitions apply -in the absence of a federal definition…. which we have in
Title 18 USC 31:
"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City.
"motor vehicle" is defined numerous times throughout the USC. Those definitions typically do not apply on a state vehicle code charge but only apply "in that chapter" or another scope as defined at the top of the definitions. Notice at the top of 18 USC 31 it says "in this chapter"
California has required registration, license plates, and operator's licenses since the Vehicle Code of 1935, seen at http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1935/35Vol1_Chapters.pdf#page=48 in Chapter 27, which starts at the bottom of PDF page 48.
In that enactment, we find the following definitions:
31. A "vehicle" is a device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
32. A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle which is self-propelled.
69. "Driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
70. "Operator" is a person , other than a chauffeur, who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.
81. "Street" or "highway" is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel.
And the laws:
140. It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive or move, or for an owner knowingly to permit to be driven or moved, upon any highway any vehicle of a type required to be registered hereunder which is not registered or for which the appropriate fee has not been paid …
141. … registration of the following vehicles is required: Any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly.
156 (a) The department upon registering a vehicle shall issue to the owner two license plates …
158. … License plates issued for a motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall be attached thereto, one in the front and the other in the rear …
250. Unlawful to Drive Unless Licensed. (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway unless he then holds a valid operator's or chauffeur's license issued hereunder, except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code.
None of the exemptions apply to individuals operating private automobiles.
"motor vehicle" is defined numerous times throughout the USC. Those definitions only apply in that chapter or other specific scope, as defined at the top of the definitions. Notice at the top of 18 USC 31 it says "in this chapter."
Can I get some help? I’ve been having a rough last few years.. Now heading in a new direction getting into internet marketing.. It’s slow and I’m broke, homeless and have a family.. I live in Haverhill, Massachusetts. Have court on 12/22/2016 at the haverhill court house for 3 charges.. License not in possession, unregistered car and no plates. I see 3 accounts of failure to intervene and 1 account of malicious prosecution. Was threatened imprisonment, told I was infact a operator when I had already made it clear I was a traveler in my automobile. They stated my ss card was my license. ? Totally didn’t check any of the case law I had or definitions to actual laws they were trying to charge me with. Stole my 91 accord. I’m frigging homeless.
Police aren't authorized to make binding interpretations about law – that's for the courts. The State is recognized as having the power to regulate things for health and safety anywhere in its geographical area of influence. This includes the regulation and limiting of both private and public property, commercial and non-commercial activity, and the regulation of vehicles and those that operate them on the public roads. Beginning in the early 1900's all 50 States, through the People's representatives in their constitutional State legislatures, have seen fit to require license, registration and financial responsibility of every single human operating self-propelled vehicles on the public roads. This can be seen clearly in the definitions and laws of your State vehicle code. I'm sorry you believed a lie. I recommend seeking competent legal advice, but if you want to get an idea of how things might go for your particular charges, and the various arguments that may or may not work if you decide to represent yourself, search Federal and Massachusetts case law on Scholar for the sections of the MA code you're charged under. Good luck.
While you agree that there is no federal constitutional power to regulate driving. No state constitution also has been given that power.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since the people never gave up powers to the state to regulate travel/driving, the states are regulating driving unconstitutionally.
It does not make sense that the 10th amendment is intended to allow individuals to wield legal superiority over the State and federal governments. Think it through to the end. By that interpretation a murderer could opt out of State law against murder to avoid going to State prison. That would be chaos, not order. As sourced and cited in the article, the people, through their representatives in municipal, county and state legislatures, began making laws about vehicles on the public roads in the early 1900's. Yes, many or all State governments are based on the consent of the governed, as a collective, and some even enshrine a right of revolution, but the people only speak if the State government fails to maintain order, or where its rules clearly violate the spirit of the constitution(s) or their recognized police power, and a wide majority of the people come together to rebuke and correct it.
It does not make sense that the 10th amendment is intended to allow individuals to wield legal superiority over the State or federal governments. Think it through to the end. By that interpretation a murderer could opt out of State law against murder to avoid going to State prison. That would be chaos, not order. As sourced and cited in the article, the people, through their representatives in municipal, county and state legislatures, began making laws about vehicles on the public roads in the early 1900's. Yes, many or all State governments are based on the consent of the governed, as a collective, and some even enshrine a right of revolution, but the people only speak directly if the State government fails to maintain order, or where its rules clearly violate the spirit of the constitution(s) or their recognized police power, and a wide majority of the people come together to rebuke and correct it.
Well I guess you don't understand the 10th Amendment.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers not delegated to the United States. The United States only gets delegated powers by the Constitution, want the federal government more delegated powers, pass an Amendment.
If the Constitution doesn't prohibit powers to the states, the the remaining powers belong to the states respectively or to the people.
Now each state should have this, even though they don't, but this is how our government works.
The powers not delegated to the "State" by the "State" Constitution, are reserved to the people respectively.
Don't believe any of this garbage. You have a freedom of travel. Its federal law that the only reason you need a license or registration is if you are driving commercially (any driving that makes you money) not driving to work, school or the store. If you don't believe me look it up. There are plenty of supreme court rulings that prove this right.. it is both your inalienable right along with your Federal Constitutional right! Stop letting the police state of our country scare you, stand up and take it back. I cant be the only person getting sick of the government stopping in to our private lives!
[Citations needed]
What's federal law got to do with it? The federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate private intrastate travel. That's up to the states, and the states require licensing and registration of drivers and automobiles, respectively. These requirements do not violate the U.S. Constitution, as explained in this article.
I found a good video in you tube call carl miller he is a very smart guy people there also state codes for not using driver license a license is use for commerce like limosine taxi or something you are doing to make money driving you dont need a driver license to travel to get food to the supermarket take you to point A to point B is cover on color of law shuttlesworth vs burminham and a lot of supreme court cases out there you can find that you dont need driver license state cant change a right to a previlege us against our constitution free of travel is a common law and everything is renember our constitution is our federal law no state should not follow
Don't believe everything you see on the internet. If it were actually legal to ignore state laws that haven't been struck down by any court everyone would quickly figure it out and the states would immediately change or repeal their laws to avoid further liability.
"A lot of supreme court cases"
Not really. No Supreme Court decision has ever found licensing and registration laws unconstitutional, either directly or in passing. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham has nothing to do with licensing, registration, or the right to travel. Hendrick v. Maryland, Hess v. Pawloski, Reitz v. Mealey, and Wells v. Malloy do, and they all contradict you. So do a whole raft of state decisions.
You have the right to freely travel, unmolested, safe in your papers and personal effects..That is common law, and yes common law exist. However, when you travel in a motorized vehicle you must follow laws related to them. For example, a DUI on a horse is unconstitutional, but a ticket public drunkenness on a horse and endangering the public would be legal.
English common law and statutes were received by each state, except Louisiana, separately, clearly subject to the state legislature. Now each state's common law, created in state courts where judges are paid to enforce state law, differs greatly. You need to read your state constitution and legislation created thereunder to find out what the laws are there. Every single state has enacted vehicle codes regulating residents and non-residents whether acting commercially or not on the highways.
How about in Louisiana?
Hold on, I have alot of comments and its difficult to see what you are replying to them all if i missed somthing I am here to learn as well. I have my email with like 30 tabs in it so no i havent read each tab i nthe email to find each and every response.
You know what thanks for the help but I'm just going to leave. I hope that this country dosent keep gettign more and more restrictive and that you are never legally backed into a corner like so many people allready have been. Good Bye.
There is a simple, albeit, extreme resolution to this and that is 2 part:
First-multiple class action federal lawsuits in at least 5 separate federal circuits demanding the Court Ordered termination of the theft and extortion by the state through its unconstitutional mandatory drivers license laws.
Second-In the petition for damages, a request that every police officer who has-with contempt for the court-participated in enforcing such illegal mandatory drivers license laws-be charged and prosecuted for Treason.
As is discussion goes the problem is with what these people are saying on this site says that you can do drive with which the federal government already in court says you have a right to travel the problem is that the state government sand the federal government have all been Incorporated by an outside source which means nothing is right to drive whenever they sold your birthday certificate on the new york stock exchange they put you in a corporate status now you are a piece of paper that your state government and federal government what's to take your birth name all small letters I mean all small letters and claim the capitalization that's on your driver's license back among other things properties then you can have the right to travel the problem is these states are mixing up purposely there free right to have rights and converting them to privileges which is wrong
Debunk yourself.
This is so right! And I bet this site is being ran my America BAR (British accreditation registry)!
There's no such thing as the "American BAR". Each state has their own State Bar, which was created by an act of the state legislature, which was created by the state constitution. Legislators don't have to be lawyers – legislators created lawyers. The form of the State Bar and the rights and duties of its members are clearly outlined in the act. See e.g. the California State Bar Act. Federally, less than half of Congress are lawyers, and it's on the decline.
Fucking Jewry satanic lies….check out the Jews and there lies by martin luther….right to travel is a right from God….it is in Blackstone commentaries freedom of movement to move your PERSON from place to place without restriction…there are supreme court car that say you can travel I anything…automobile plane boat your fucking feet….I even got cases that tell you it doesn't matter if you got license or not…I'm a post it so this page can rot
Let us know your results in court.
You can move your person as much as you like. Moving an automobile or a plane, on the other hand…
As for your cases, I'm guessing you have a couple of vague excerpts ripped out of context to mislead you into thinking they mean things they don't?
if you want to say there is no such thing as the American Bar maybe you ought to go to one of your local attorneys and ask them if they're in American Bar and it's a club and its members are really associated with London England where the bankers are they're the one that runs our country under the table.
Based on what actual evidence? Just reading it somewhere and saying it doesn't make it so. Please cite some meaningful sources, if you can.
The answer is "no."
A driver licence is issued by the department of Motor vehicles, which is not a federal Government agency. It is a private business which seeks to make a profit by Licence fees,
vehicle title and registration, etc.
Tickets, fines and fees, suspension of driver licence and other costs are issued by Government agencies in order to profit both Government and private business.
That is an act of RACKETEERING!! Which is a Criminal act upon the United States of America!
Oh no! You'd better press those charges immediately!
More seriously, the states are sovereign states with the police power to regulate transportation within their borders, including the management of destructive road traffic. They're no more "private businesses" than the federal government or Denmark. Your argument presupposes a strictly unitary form of government that does not exist in the United States.
I don't question a states right to have people demonstrate their ability to safely operate an automobile. I do question the states right to suspend a license (and thus infringe on your right to travel) based on a civil matter (fine) vs a criminal matter. I think the constitution protects your right to travel in that case. But I do think you should demonstrate your ability to safely operate a vehicle.
I'm afraid the constitution doesn't protect us from DL denial for civil reasons (unpaid taxes, for instance), but I think statute should. It sucks for people who have gotten themselves in a mess and are punished in such a counterproductive way.
Wouldn't the suspension of a driver's license restrict freedom of movement or a restriction of liberty? I'm not a scholar, but intuition tells me there is something in the articles that protects against this. Or perhaps that would be more of a due process argument in a civil case? In cases where a license is suspended automatically (many cases without the individual even being aware) you literally have an automated theft of liberty.
No, a driver's license has nothing to do with protected freedom of movement. Legally, they're like any other license (occupational, business, equipment) and are subject to various conditions of issuance or validity. A challenge to those conditions would have to rely on some other argument. I'm not aware of any challenges on due process or equal protection grounds, but I would be interested in the arguments and outcome.
"A driver's license has nothing to do with protected freedom of movement" I'm having trouble agreeing with this. Is there a legal definition of "freedom of movement" that deviates from a laymen understanding? Absent that, a suspended driver's license means you can't travel using a common means to execute the normal course of personal business or execute your pursuit of happiness. To me that's a restricted freedom of movement under the threat of use of force (arrest).
The court decisions described in the article have held that there is no constitutional right to drive a car. "Freedom of movement" applies to your actual movement from place to place, rather than a right to use a specific means to do so.
I found some court decisions that disagree, but they are from 1898,1914, and 1948. Do court decisions have less relevance as they age?
The age doesn't matter, but old decisions can be overturned. Which cases are they?
The ones I came across are below:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Now again, some of these tend to challenge the legitimacy of driving with a license….which I am not really contending. But, the fact that states can freely suspend people's licenses for anything other than a criminal infraction "wreckless endangerment" or the like….is what I challenge.
For clarity's sake, Chicago Motor Coach and Thompson explicitly uphold licensing requirements while Kent and Schachtman are about passports, not driving. So far, I'm not aware of any successful challenge to a DL denial/suspension/revocation on the grounds you describe. So far as I've found, states are free to enforce almost any qualification they like for the license itself. I suspect that almost anything short of racial or religious tests would pass constitutional muster in most courts, but it's hard to predict how any particularly novel case will play out!
So could someone use excerpts from un-related decisions to support their argument, or does the decision actually have to be directly related? If a judge gives a legal opinion, could that serve as supporting evidence?
Excerpts usually aren't very useful, since they're divorced from context and meaning. For example, having a constitutional right to use the roads is not the same as having a constitutional right to operate an automobile on them. These four cases were quote mined to extract sentences that, out of context, appear to support ideas that are explicitly rejected in the decision.
For instance, in Chicago Motor Coach, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that:
What they wound up deciding is that Chicago may indeed regulate companies that use its roads, but it may not do so arbitrarily, picking and choosing which similarly-qualified companies can have permits. They found that there is a right to use the roads which is infringed by discriminatory regulation, but not by uniform regulation. If there was no right to use the roads, they could ban UPS and only allow FedEx to operate in Chicago. Since both UPS and FedEx have an equal right to use the roads, neither of them can be selectively banned.
Also there is a big difference between the denial of a drivers license and the suspension of an already granted drivers license right?
In execution, yes, but not in effect. Both a denial and a suspension/revocation mean that, under the laws and regulations of the relevant state, you can't legally drive a car. Suspensions and revocations are legit.
And if this was tumblr, we would rapidly spiral into a discussion about how it's …Problematic TM that we have a society set up that it is in such a counterproductive way.
Since it's not tumblr, I will stick to stating that my opinion on the matter is that licenses alteration or revocation should only be for offences relating to the license itself.
I tend to agree. I've got a friend who's recovering from opiate addiction, and one of his hurdles is that he owes back taxes. Since he owes back taxes, he can't get a driver's license. Since he can't get a driver's license, getting a job is going to be even harder. C'est la vie…
Inspection officer: Good afternoon.
Me: Hey there.
Him: Agricultural inspection, I have to look in the u Haul.
Me: You 'have to'?
Him: Agricultural inspection.
Me: Ahhh, so my constitutional rights are not in effect here?
Him: Sir, it's an agricultural inspect.
Me: Oh. I didn't hear that the first three times you said it. Did you hear me mention the Constitution? Have you heard of the 10th amendment
Him: I need to inspect your uHaul.
Me: You have to or you need to?
Him: *takes off super trooper sunglasses*
Sir, are you going to allow me to inspect the uHaul?
Me: *puts on kick ass Smith Optical sunglasses*
I don't know what's in it. I was hired to drive it up here and back.
Him: So it's not your stuff in there?
Me: I don't know what's in there, but she has air holes to breath.
Him: What?
Me: *look of guilt*
Oh, nothing. You said agriculture right? Can I get busted if there is a human riding back there that I don't know about, even if she has breathing holes?
Him: Calls for supervisor and back up.
Him: I need you to open the uHaul.
Me: I'm crippled.
Him: *sees blue placard*
Do I have your permission to look in the uHaul?
Me: Only of I'm not held responsible. *waits a couple seconds* okay go ahead.
Him: please turn off your engine. *puts one hand on my door and the other on his gun*
Me: Okay.
*two officers open the uHaul*
Them: It's empty.
Me: WHAT THE FUCK?! Where she'd go?
*BUSTS OUT LAUGHING*
Him: What's your problem?
Me: Having my constitutional rights trampled.
*takes off super cool Smith Opticl sunglasses in a very aggressive manner*
I'm going to be on my way now.
Him: waves me on after checking with the supervisor.
Me: have a great day! *pulls out laughing*
I love doing that!
*I had a government van follow me to the border.*
Way to put your tax dollars to work.
Ha ha ha hilarious!
If the power is vested in a derived from the people how the heck did a public servant become more powerful than its creator
And if consent of the governed is required why does government think it isn't required.
People have said " oh well you have the right to vote and if you live here you consent….. Bull shiiiiiit.
I never gave consent, I was born or came into existence and people I never met or talked that I remember think they are my boss or owner.
There is a "super natural power that has been messing with me as though it owns me" the other people that think they own me and thus think they can tell me what to do……
Government fu#%ers. Human hunters and cagers…..DICKtators
Blood sucking TICKet issuers, the people with guns and other WEAPons
The state can not prove that a trained licensed driver is safer on the roads than a trained unlicensed driver is. The mere possession of a drivers license doesn't prove that one knows how to safely operate ones "vehicle" The state contends that through its "police power" that the reasoning they require a drivers license is for the protection of the public. I contend that a Drivers license does not prove that one understands how to operate a "vehicle" nor does it really protect the public safety. All it does is make you less rich. If requiring you to have a license for the safety of the public then why do you not have to retake your driving test every 4 years? All you have to do is just pay the fee. It should be required every for years.
If you disagree with how things are, in a representative democratic republic feat. judicial review your remedy is to apply to a court and/or write your representative(s) in legislature.
I have written to senator and the conseses is that they don't want to rock said financial boat.
I suppose one man does not often inspire changes in the law. Try getting more people on your side and having them, too, write their representative. When enough people do this, and polls start suggesting widespread support, the representatives should not perpetuate the unwanted law. Check your state constitution for the percentage of representatives needed to enact, amend and repeal laws for an idea of how much support you need. It might be 60% or more. So start convincing people in your city, county, state…
So how am I supposed to do that if everyone is as comfortably close minded as you are No offense?
Self-propelled vehicle laws were established democratically nationwide in the early 1900's when people complained about unsafe vehicles, demanded road maintenance, etc. The only way to change it is to convince your fellow man and thereby your representatives in the legislature who make the law. It's either that or military overthrow of the entire state and country. These are the facts that no amount of open-mindedness can change.
Yes and back then a lot of people still used horses and the automobiles spooked the horses and and everyone went crying to their mammas. . .The traffic laws were created solely for the Commercial vehicle as a way to protect the general public. Then the cities saw how much more money they could make if they just lumped everyone into the same driver box. . .
Every state did it differently. What was the first vehicle code in your state and what does it say? Some states, like California, started with a commercial chauffeur license requirement only, then extended it to non-commercial vehicles as well shortly thereafter. There is no requirement that laws only cover commercial activity.
THERE IS NOTHIN TO SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS.
You were given a brain for a reason so why aren't you using it? Automobiles back then were new and kind of scary to the general public. Also it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the states figured out how much money they could make off of the license fees. Or do you need proof of that too. . .
Why not every four years?
Short answer: Because nobody's pushing legislation to do that.
Longer answer: People want their school-age kids to have to learn the materials and skill and pass a test before they can get licensed, but they don't want to have to take a new test every four years, they don't want to pay to hire hundreds or thousands of additional full-time examiners, they don't want to add thousands of time-consuming MVA users every single working day, and they don't want to have to take off from work to repeat what they already did once. The vast majority of people who can prove competence once will remain competent for a very, very long time, and it's a waste of everybody's time and money to do it over and over again.
Just out of curiosity, I ran some numbers:
According to the Federal Highway Administration's "Highway Statistics 2015" publication, there were roughly 218 million licensed drivers in the United States in 2015.
If a quarter of them had to take a driving test each year, that would be 54.5 million test-takers each year.
States typically have about 250 working days each year.
Assuming that the test-takers were absolutely perfectly distributed throughout every day of the year, that would be 218,000 test-takers every day.
Assuming that a single examiner could handle sixteen half-hour road tests every workday with no vacations, interruptions, or failures, it would take 13,625 full-time examiners to accommodate every test-taker.
Are you starting to see why why nobody's seriously considering repeated testing?
Words and (legal) definitions of words mean a lot in Law. A Motor vehicle is not an automobile. A motor vehicle is only an automobile when it is being use in commerce (supreme Court Ruling). I'm not going to go all into it but whoever created this blog is spreading misinformation (purposefully). And every case posted was either about a company operating in Commerce or the legal definition of the words needs to be known. Case1: Chicago Motor Coach(company in commerce) This is pertaining to the validity of statutes and ordinances (for commerce) use upon PUBLIC (definition of public or public highway) highways. Do you see what is being done? Every case is pertaining to commerce. They have nothing to do with private rights of a natural person. Everyone needs to learn how to look up legal definitions. No face value should be taken in law without knowing the definition of the words being used. I could break down each case in that manner and prove Ken wrong. Stay vigilant everyone and stand firm for your unalienable rights!
Definitions are important, but definitions in state laws are up to state courts and legislatures, not federal courts or Congress. Do you have an example of a jurisdiction where there is no requirement for noncommercial drivers to be licensed, or for noncommercial vehicles to be registered?
Any citizen of the United States of America, has THE RIGHT to travel on any of its roadways tributaries and subsidiaries by any means necessary, whether it be by horse drawn buggy or automobile. Civil Rights
What makes you think the laws, police or courts agree with that?
You could ask Timothy MacVeigh…it didn't work out too well for him.
Kansas laws allow DUI and identification check points. But it clearly states as most states do that the city roads are for the public use. The laws definition of a driver is not of the Webster's it's there own written definition which says you must obey regulations when there is a monetary gain.most citizens do not follow that definition. We do have the right to move and travel within the states with any and all of our personal belongings by boat, plane, train, or using our personal belongings. Don't let this fool fool you.
Kansas has a vehicle code made in accordance with the legislative section of the state constitution like every other state. That code, and the definitions therein, clearly show all who operate vehicles on the public roads must be licensed, etc. The courts and police follow these constitutional state laws in accordance with the state police power. There is no requirement that laws only cover commercial activity.
You must think codes are laws. Sadly that's a mistaken thought. Codes are not laws but only exist to guide the cop and show him that he can basically break the law if he wanted to be an asshole and without a lawyer or money and you to tell them that you know that was an illegal ticket. Ive asked around and read up on it. That's why there is a fight to totally rewrite the books and have all the " outdated" laws that are still in effect.
The police, military and courts only support state and federal law that devolves from the state and federal constitutions, not your imagined version of law. Unless you can start a popular uprising that eventually defeats the military you are stuck under it like everyone else.
Your argument is flawed. Status, and Nationality has everything to do with domicile. Jurisdiction determines what Law you have to follow and only Laws have enactment clauses that decree the sovereigns will!!! So unless it's in the Constitution it's null and void!!!
"We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted" *S. Carolina v United States*
But the real question is… who really are, *We The People* and I can assure you, it's not anyone of European decent!!!
All that Kansas law requires a driver's license is to drive on the highways. Everyone i mean anyone who has gone through driver's education or taking the DMV driver's test and was operating the car In a safe manner can drive on city streets as long as they are being safe. Don't be smokin weed and driving fast or drinking. 8-235. Licence required; city license, when; appeal from denial of license; vehicles registered under temporary permit; penalty; motorized bicycle driver's license. (a) No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license. No person shall receive a driver's license unless and until such person surrenders or with the approval of the division, lists to the division all valid licenses in such person's possession issued to such person by any other jurisdiction. All surrendered licenses or the information listed on foreign licenses shall be returned by the division to the issuing department, together with information that the licensee is now licensed in a new jurisdiction. No person shall be permitted to have more than one valid license at any time.
(b) Any person licensed under the motor vehicle drivers' license act may exercise the privilege granted upon all streets and highways in this state and shall not be required to obtain any other license to exercise such privilege by any local authority. Nothing herein shall prevent cities from requiring licenses of persons who drive taxicabs or municipally franchised transit systems for hire upon city streets, to protect the public from drivers whose character or habits make them unfit to transport the public. If a license is denied, the applicant may appeal such decision to the district court of the county in which such city is located by filing within 14 days after such denial, a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court and by filing a copy of such notice with the city clerk of the involved city. The city clerk shall certify a copy of such decision of the city governing body to the clerk of the district court and the matter shall be docketed as any other cause and the applicant shall be granted a trial of such person's character and habits. The matter shall be heard by the court de novo in accordance with the code of civil procedure. The cost of such appeal shall be assessed in such manner as the court may direct.
(c) Any person operating in this state a motor vehicle, except a motorcycle, which is registered in this state other than under a temporary permit, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2409, and amendments thereto, shall be the holder of a driver's license which is classified for the operation of such motor vehicle, and any person operating in this state a motorcycle which is registered in this state shall be the holder of a class M driver's license, except that any person operating in this state a motorcycle which is registered under a temporary permit, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2409, and amendments thereto, shall be the holder of a driver's license for any class of motor vehicles.
(d) No person shall drive any motorized bicycle upon a highway of this state unless such person: (1) Has a valid driver's license which entitles the licensee to drive a motor vehicle in any class or classes; (2) is at least 15 years of age and has passed the written and visual examinations required for obtaining a class C driver's license, in which case the division shall issue to such person a class C license which clearly indicates such license is valid only for the operation of motorized bicycles; (3) has had their driving privileges suspended, for a violation other than a violation of K.S.A. 8-2,144, and amendments thereto, or a second or subsequent violation of K.S.A. 8-1567 or 8-1567a or K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025, and amendments thereto, and such person: (A) Has completed the mandatory period of suspension as provided in K.S.A. 8-1014, and amendments thereto; and (B) has made application and submitted a $40 nonrefundable application fee to the division for the issuance of a class C license for the operation of motorized bicycles, in accordance with paragraph (2), in which case the division shall issue to such person a class C license which clearly indicates such license is valid only for the operation of motorized bicycles; or (4) has had their driving privileges revoked under K.S.A. 8-286, and amendments thereto, has not had a test refusal or test failure or alcohol or drug-related conviction, as those terms are defined in K.S.A. 8-1013, and amendments thereto, in the last five years, has not been convicted of a violation of K.S.A. 8-1568(b), and amendments thereto, in the last five years and has made application to the division for issuance of a class C license for the operation of motorized bicycles, in accordance with paragraph (2), in which case the division shall issue such person a class C license which clearly indicates such license is valid only for the operation of motorized bicycles. As used in this subsection, "motorized bicycle" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in K.S.A. 8-126, and amendments thereto.
(e) All moneys received under subsection (d) from the nonrefundable application fee shall be applied by the division of vehicles for the additional administrative costs to implement restricted driving privileges. The division shall remit all restricted driving privilege application fees to the state treasurer in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4215, and amendments thereto. Upon receipt of each such remittance, the state treasurer shall deposit the entire amount in the state treasury to the credit of the division of vehicles operating fund.
(f) Violation of this section shall constitute a class B misdemeanor.
History: L. 1937, ch. 73, § 2; L. 1949, ch. 104, § 2; L. 1959, ch. 49, § 2; L. 1961, ch. 52, § 1; L. 1969, ch. 51, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 36, § 5; L. 1976, ch. 42, § 2; L. 1977, ch. 28, § 3; L. 1987, ch. 45, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 38, § 20; L. 1991, ch. 36, § 5; L. 1993, ch. 154, § 2; L. 2000, ch. 179, § 7; L. 2007, ch. 181, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 3; L. 2011, ch. 105, § 4; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 3; L. 2016, ch. 73, § 4; July 1.
The Kansas vehicle code is interpreted by the courts using the definitions found near the beginning of the code.
If the legislature doesn't dictate a definition, the court decides.
I really won't argue on this because I've literally experienced this and gave them the law book and showed where it's all said. They dismissed the case. It woulda been my fifth time and six months in jail. Didn't spend but a day and a half til I was out
If the police, a prosecutor or a court drop a case due to prosecutorial discretion it doesn't mean there is an actual right to travel unlicensed. It just means, at best, they're tired of wasting taxpayer resources on minor civil disobedience that doesn't really hurt anyone. The fact remains that they can apply state law to you any time they like and there's nothing you can do. As long as the legislation is found to be constitutional and they are enforcing state law correctly you can't and won't win a case for false arrest or win any damages or get the state vehicle code struck down as being unlawful.
The federal and state government cannot regulate private cutizens. They can only regulate the laws of the business. Unless they saw a crime the police can't do anything. And since your not guilty until innocent they can't write up a nonsense ticket
There is no government force on the planet that supports the view that private citizens or property cannot be regulated. Yes, there are certain rules for police in investigating crimes and gathering evidence, and knowing these is useful and can help you defend yourself, but it doesn't make you individually sovereign, subject to no-one – that would be chaos – you could kill whoever you wanted and not be held under state laws against murder.
That's…not true at all… Why do you think that?
You just said it in your statement "It just means, at best, they're tired of wasting taxpayer resources on minor civil disobedience that doesn't really hurt anyone"
They leave it alone because for it to be a crime, there has to be an injured party. Corpus Delecti not to mention willful intent!!!! The agency can't be executor, trustee, and beneficiary!! Come on people fraud, fraud, fraud!!!
The definition of a driver has yet to be changed in the books. And citizens haven't either. And public city roads are defined as well. It's all right there.
Many states define "driver" explicitly, but as I said in another comment, if the legislature doesn't dictate the meaning, the court decides. The courts are allowed to make law/precedent where the legislature is vague or silent. And yeah, driver clearly includes non-commercial people in Kansas, otherwise anyone could easily win damages and get the law overturned. But go search case law on Google Scholar to be sure. Someone has probably already tried the argument you propose and failed.
As I put out there the definition is a owner or employee using the vehicle to make a monetary gain city roads are defined to be for the use of all the public to be able to use to travel from point a to point b. And highways are owned by the government some fed some state and have the use mainly for commercial uses. So if your gonna use the highway I suggest you not. Otherwise don't drive unsafely and if you do get pulled over be respectful and polite and don't be drunk or have anything visible to give them the suspicion of a crime. Use your lights and turn signals.
If you're going to make a claim about an unlegislated definition you're going to have to post some Kansas court case precedent to support the claim.. as just claiming so isn't binding on anything.
Court decisions aren't something to base the law off of. If you have a lawyer that the judge likes and knows then all you need it that's cash to pay the man
Whatever your opinion about the constitutions, legislation or court decisions, the executive department, military, police, bylaw officers, etc. all follow them and will combine forces against you if you resist. Instead of arguably childish direct disobedience that can lead to prison time or economic disadvantage, it might be more useful to tolerate the unprecedented system of popular sovereignty / representative democracy and put it to good use. Your job then is to convince the people in your city, county and state to write their representatives and respond to polls on the topics you care about. If the representatives ignore the popular, collective voice of the people, then one could be said to have legitimate reason for rebellion.
Court decisions aren't just something to base the law off of—they are law.
I've shown the information the is needed the courts put that out there. Those are what the laws are
Here's off the topic but a good example. I used to cut trees down for a living. I had to take a course and get a piece of paper saying I can cut down a tree. As a homeowner and private sitizen I can't cut down any tree I want to that grows in my yard without it. Why? Because I'm not making money and it's my chainsaw. It's my choice to fuck up on my own time but not on companies time
There are plenty of minor non-commercial crimes and they are not unlawful for municipalities, counties or states to enforce. In fact, you can lawfully be arrested for any minor violation at all. Maybe read the police power wiki again.
Your going off of what wiki says which is written by random people that spread their insights on I can't trust that kind of source. But yes you can tech be arrested for anything if the cop deems it needed. That doesn't mean your guilty and its def not a charge until the judge says the verdict
You can look up the citations for yourself, and the same can be found throughout government documents and decisions. This article shows the Supreme Court saying it's within the state police power to regulate the highways including requiring licenses, etc. The police and military follow the constitutions, laws and decisions of the courts. Unfortunately personal interpretations aren't going to make them stop.
The HIGHWAYS not city roads city and county roads are specifically for the use of all the public. Which isn't regulated because it's main population is the public using it.
As previously pointed out, for purposes of interpreting the Kansas vehicle code "highway" is defined as:
I am certain if you search the Kansas courts on Google Scholar for related sections you will find numerous cases expanding on what exactly is included by this.
Individuals unfortunately don't get to decide how the force of the state is applied, constitutions, laws made by the people's representatives and courts do.
And bam there's all ya need to know case closed. *Drops the mic* enjoy the remainder of the day
here's an interesting read on the subject via Boston University Law School,
https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/wilhelm.pdf
Are you a lawyer with personal experience on this? Obviously not! States do NOT have power over the Constitution! There are hundreds of cases people have had charges dropped for driving without a licence because they knew their Constitutional RIGHTS!
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Bless your heart, you just believe anything you read, don't you?
CASE #1: "Many cases have been decided respecting the validity and construction of statutes and ordinances regulating their use upon public highways, and it has been uniformly held that the State, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use." Chicago Motor Coach v. City of Chicago 169 NE 221 (1929)
CASE #2: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579 (1930)
CASE #3: "And, as we have seen, the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress." Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125 (1958)
CASE #4: "The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law." Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938 (1955)
This is owr state not the governments ore the states land terratory its the peoples they cant tell you what you can and cant due we live outside the District of columbia.
Luis Ewing, take the spam elsewhere and come back with a case number where you or someone else received a favorable judgment.
Meh, I just banned him. It's not worth it to give him the chance to spew more ads and lies. That criminal's a prolific fraud, scammer, and antisemitic nutjob.
Then he was banned twice. 🙂 Yeah, he didn't seem to be letting up on the repetitive monologue and I don't think it could go anywhere constructive.
there is no law higher than the constitution. The constitution what is not even a law the constitution just stands and cant no man, police officer, judge, state ledg., change it. So right to travel is your fundamental constitution guarantee right of liberty that can not be changed. Check out what happens when a constitution is threaten article 18 section 241.
Next time, read the article before commenting on it. Driver licensing and vehicle registration laws do not conflict with the right to travel.
Unfortunately the courts don't agree, and they are the ones with the state or federal constitutional authority to interpret the law. Where would we be if just anyone could declare what the law means?
City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P. 2d 981 – Utah: Supreme Court 1987
Is there any way to legally drive without a driver's license ?
Sure, no license is required on private property.
there are a few agents working for the corporation on this comment line, namely Ken S. i know you are a cointelpro operative because their giving you nothing but documented facts and you still come with your idiotic rebuttals, not trying to let go are we, well know this the Moors are waking up and we know we are the Aboriginal and Indigenous people of the land now known as America but anciently known as Amexem so you can keep trying to keep the people from the truth but this is the age of information now, you cant stop the shift! I wonder what your going to do when the planet Asia becomes the 2nd planet from the sun! hahaha
Hi, please try to stick to the facts of what the law is as determined by the courts and therefore what the enforcers enforce and avoid ad hominem attacks.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of person who believes that driver licensing and vehicle registration laws are void. Maybe on Planet Asia, but not in the USA.
If you notice when you get pulled over one of the first questions Jeff's rescues where you headed the reason the officer ask this almost right after he approaches her window usually either s it before or after yes you do you know why I pulled you over it's not because he's interested in your social life Who You Are he's asking you this question because if you say that I am headed to Kentucky when you are in the state of Illinois or when you were in Michigan today I'm on the way to Ohio this is called Interstate travel through the states freelee by wagon horse chariot or motor vehicle. These rights shall not be infringed upon however when it comes to you and me in a state that's different you know hey I'm just going to the mall now you got a problem now it's there jurisdiction. When most people are pulled over they speak as if they know everything not that what they're saying is wrong just tone they say it in some of the things they say or inaccurate we're not whole when an officer ask you I'm worried about you injuring somebody or their property remember unless you were doing those two things you are not committing a crime. Your first amendment is the freedom of speech freedom of religion and freedom of press a lot of people say it's my first amendment no it's your 4th unless you're on your way to church and your late. You have the right to Interstate travel through the state freely. However not if you live in one state but if you contract with that state and you're driving around that's different the driver's license was created to make the roads safer in which it did just that there are no more traffic infractions are they can make they've already made them all. Like the toll ways were made to pay for the tolls but once they started doing and they realize hey this is a lot of money and continue to do it. However when a cop asks you where you're headed say the state in which the direction your vehicle is facing or that you're traveling. In this case the officer has no jurisdiction over you on top of that you never contract with the state meaning get your ID getting a job is not contract from the state that's contract with the Federal Reserve. In which was created by selling you you and me to pay back the death of the United States is in back in 1933. However the government does not run a most people see it that way Harvard is flip-flopped we run them. Do not be rude I mean you don't have any warrants you're exercising your rights Talent talk to him talk to the officer when it comes to this most officers are more interested in the information that you're giving them then they are arresting you kind of like drones. Come up and just say hey you know what is this to how high does it go how good is the camera some may even offer to turn on their lights and so that way you can get a lighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
When an officer pulls you over cooperating when he ask you where you're headed state the state in which the nose of your vehicle is facing it is now out of his jurisdiction you're traveling. He may stick around ask you some questions but not to harass you trust me, he's curious, very. In fact after June so most officers would say you're free to go I think we just both see it two different ways . You got to remember this key if the officer ask you to step out of the vehicles for yours or his safety do so politely say yes or no or yes officer by doing this you gain his respect and officer can order you in and out of the vehicle as many times as you wants however he cannot search your vehicle or your pockets if he does this you violate your fourth amendment anything from under violation of your fourth amendment is admissible in court. And don't be rude 9 times out of 10 if you're smart and accurate in this situation he's curious as to he was trained in such a different way in fact will look into it. I'm sure he's been pulled over by other people who say it's my first amendment unless you're on your way to church in running late that won't work. Most likely this is the first time this officer's hearing this accurate information that you were giving him other people just and I'm being detained in it you were detained when those lights came on behind you when a cop puts his hand on your shoulder that means your detained. I'll tell you right now if everybody in Chicago this Saturday refusing an illegal DUI checkpoint they would stop doing them. Just like after you pass all your tests in your eye exam at the DMV refuse your license you passed the test
According to 18 U.S. Code Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 31 , Motor vehicle.-The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
" 'Used for commercial purposes' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit;
They, The Public Servant want you to be ignorant so they can dictate your Unalienable Rights. You are not a Driver or Driving. Blacks Law Dictionary definition of Driver: One Employed
The Domestic Enemy Politicians, Judges, Lawyers, Public Servants (Employees), and Law Enforcement are trampling your unalienable Rights for a paycheck or revenue gain.
In Ohio, the Legislatures enacted Operator Licensing Law in 1935 for the Legal Right to use the Roads and highways. Afterwards in the same year, they enacted the Financial Responsibility Act and it became a privilege.
The Affordable Care Act is another fiasco, depriving the Citizens of their Right to obtain Health Insurance or not to obtain it. When creating this Act, Insurance Companies, and the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industries raised their prices, because you, the ignorant American, allowed them to do it.
The Government was created to protect your rights, not abuse their powers.
Email me at Spock9584@gmail.com if you want to know more.
Look at the top of that definitions page, as it defines the scope of the definitions within. Note it says "In this chapter," which means the definitions only apply to federal charges under 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2, which includes just 11 sections.
On a state vehicle code charge, which is far more common, you need to look for definitions at the top of the title, chapter and/or subchapter containing the section you're charged under, with the nearer definition taking precedence. If a word is not defined, the state court decides the meaning, not the federal government or an individual, such as yourself.
The courts, not individuals, are in charge of interpreting the laws, so unless you can support your other claims with court decisions they're meaningless… Keep seeking. 🙂
What you don't realize, our unalienable rights do not come from you, the State or the Federal Government. Prior to 1935 in Ohio we had a right to travel which included an automobile, not a Motor Vehicle. I am Retired from the U. S. Navy, and a former Marine Sergeant. I don't listen to Domestic Enemies. Article 1 Section 20 of the Ohio Bill of Rights states, they will not Construe to impair or deny other Rights retained by the people. Never delegated my rights to you or anyone else. Stick that in your stocking, because there are a lot of us veterans who want to do our duty 100% and put bullets in people's Domestic Enemy arses.
Your so-called "unalienable" "God-given" freedom ends as soon as you participate in and benefit from organized society. This site is about the law within society and how it is applied, not such airy-fairy notions that are unenforceable in any court on the planet.
Your so-called "unalienable" "God-given" freedom ends as soon as you participate in and benefit from organized society. This site is about the law within society and how it is applied, not such airy-fairy notions that are unenforceable in any court on the planet.
Read the Constitution(s) in full and you'll see how the law is to be applied. Legislatures make constitutions and laws, executive departments enforce the laws, and courts interpret the constitutions, laws and lawfulness of executive actions.
You haven't seen what's becoming effective 1/1/2018 in OHIO!!! The Montu Proprio seems to be doing is job. As of October 2016 the Federal Reserve fell in line with Operating Circular 4. The Trust is there for anyone who t asked what lawfully belongs to them!!!
119.01 [Effective 1/1/2018] Administrative procedure definitions.
As used in sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code:
(A)
(1) "Agency" means, except as limited by this division, any official, board, or commission having authority to promulgate rules or make adjudications in the civil service commission, the division of liquor control, the department of taxation, the industrial commission, the bureau of workers' compensation, the functions of any administrative or executive officer, department, division, bureau, board, or commission of the government of the state specifically made subject to sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, and the licensing functions of any administrative or executive officer, department, division, bureau, board, or commission of the government of the state having the authority or responsibility of issuing, suspending, revoking, or canceling licenses.
Your so fool of shit. All the laws you shared are repugnant and unconstitutional, and in conflict. And should never be obeyed, they are void. Who says so, the law, supreme law. Article 6 paragraph 2. What case many cases. 1803 Marberry v Madison US. Says so.
Title 18 us treason by sedition, 241,242,1628, 2681, and many more.
Also violations of police powers, that are limited.
The reason officers look the other way is they don't want to die for violating someone's rights, and they 're the wise ones.
There is people in the population that study's law.and know the difference between actual law v statues and codes and unconstitutional acts.
There is so much actual law, like the bill of rights, and and every states constitution that is in harmony. If a cop or a judge in collusion is violating any of the locked law upon the people, this is a crime it's self.
Closing thought, if you don't know your locked laws, then it's what they say by constructed fraud.
Know your contract, the Constitution, you will find out that they are in harmony, and those who ate not, then has broke the contract with its people. .
If no court and no police or military follow your interpretation, such as that the federal or state constitutions and laws are a voluntary contract, does it apply practically in real life?
Don’t know if this has anything todo with drive…. but I heard that Florida and 6 to 8 other states are going to make people show passports in air ports to travel from one state to an other state with in the United States of America so a country that a person is born into having to show a ID that we should not need in the first place according to the right of free travel. Now having to show ID and a pass port. WOW.
There are federal laws and every state has laws created by the legislature under its constitution regulating the right to travel by plane, automobile or any other method. There are few to no unlimited rights – they can all be regulated when reasonably necessary, such as for public safety.
I read some good comments pertaining to Texas in which I have researched & agree. There is a right to public vehicular travel in Texas. It is found in the definitions of the Natural Resources Code; (5) "Public highway" means a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel, even if the way or place is temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or repair. It is my understanding that all 50 states have the right to public vehicular travel, see wevgov.com.
There is a "right to access" the public highways in probably every state, but having a right to access doesn't mean unlimited access – it can still be limited for a good reason such as safety. On charges brought under the Texas Transportation Code, the definitions in that code apply. Unless a court recognizes that the Transportation Code violates the state or federal constitution or some other higher law, it stands, and you can't win damages for false arrest, etc. when it is enforced.
There is NO SUCH THING as a "sovereign citizen!!" One is either a "sovereign" or a "citizen!" One CANNOT be both!
There is no such thing as recognition of individual sovereignty in any country on the planet. The US is based on popular sovereignty, the will of the collective majority, and it's enforced with all the power of the police and military. And what are you going to do about it? Nothing, without the support of the majority of your fellow countrymen.
The courts bar association has no say over the living humen man and women of America national creditor we are not a debtor by definition birth certificate and its a debtor the people don't look this up they believed everything someone tells them because their lazy to find out by themselves they get cought up in lies and deception never hire a lawyer they are not for you in the court they are for the courts not you they are just fiction telling you the laws apply to you and they don't apply to you you don't work for the government and states corporations then they apply never give up your natural American rights to their no good regulations its made up to make you their slaves don't ever give them up the police department is a private contractors they are not paid like you think your tax dollars they are private contractors paid with you tax moneys money they get paid twice there double dipping the bankruptcy act 1889tell you in plain words you don't apply by there Raul we have no money you can't pay a debt with a debt and the traiding with the enames act read that it all come together for you to understand they are scammers don't fall for their bull use this on them it was ritting for them not use.
Who ever wrote this article is a real idiot. Sorry but you are wrong and I just saw a court ruling about this and guess who won? Thats right. We the people did. Not this fake crap clearly written by a red coat.
Georgia Felt the need to create a statute to address this called The Right To Travel Act of 2010.
That bill was introduced by one assemblyman and read twice in the House but never reached the Senate and was never voted on or signed by the governor to enact it as law as required by the Georgia Constitution. Here's how a bill becomes a law in Georgia.
No, one do not have a right to operate a motorized vehicle without a driver's license. Your right of travel is being able to move from one state to another and does not invalidate the requirement to have a driver's license when operating a motorized vehicle. You cannot redefine or swap certain words and think it allows you to break state law, or allow to you be exempt from the consequences of doing so.
I still cannot believe there are people trying to pull this sort of bull shit, or could be so stupid as to to think they can actually try to get away with trying to keep the rights of being a citizen while refusing to obey the laws put in place. Not only that, yet I see how much wasted effort so many "sovereign citizens" put into trying to circumvent the law and justify trying to get away with what they try to do.
Especially when it comes to driving or operating one's motorized vehicle without a license.
Have you ever read the laws? According to this author states can not violate federal laws, check out title 18 usc section 31 definition for motor vehicle. Check out the bill jacket for the intent for the legislative Bill for driver license. Learn what the government's scope and duties are and are not. Of course you can not blow through red lights and speed recklessly. The issue is not that, but what can the government regulate? Where are the government's powers listed and who gave them that power ?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35ce293adeaf09c33eb3d1758c735dfe75a00e53e66fc27707f3ec74cad36962.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4199618f78d1faf752f69d24688dc8e1f6384d8e03673022da24dbd87cede45a.jpg
The laws of New York have been amended since 1909. Check the current state legislative records. Expand the "Vehicle & Traffic" section here. Federal definitions that only apply "in that chapter" (see top of the page) do not apply to state charges in state court which are governed by the state constitution, state legislation, and state common law where the constitution and legislation are vague or silent.
Rights don't change or go away just because the laws change. Laws are made to protect rights. If the license was for person's employed for hire or wages , and the people had the right to personal locomotion in their property, that right doesn't change . Yes even with horses there were laws for public safety, And same with automobiles. License and registration fees are a tax for engaging in a privilege. And because a right can not be taxed because if it could ,it could be taxed out of existence, The license is for a privilege that does not need to be exercised and the tax being indirect can be avoided. That would not be consitutional if one had to pay a tax in order to move freely. . Yes you could walk , yes you could ride a horse or you could use an automobile all of which require people to be responsible not to harm or injure another. Even walking in public has laws to keep everyone safer. This logic if applied to any other right would look foolish. A license to own a firearm, a license to worship god, a license to live, own property, a license to speak freely. And no I'm not talking the right to travel. That is not the best description for the right of the people to move within their liberty which has been held to be better termed the right of locomotion. Be safe.
Laws have never been restricted to commercial activity. See the Police Power wiki for starters. It's not because technology changes that you're obliged to follow state or federal law. It's because the law made by the people's representatives in legislatures formed under constitutions changes. In the early 1900's the people demanded more laws for vehicles and they got them.
Pseudolaw, has banned me . He was upset I had him at every turn. What topic would you like to discuss on the discussion for right to travel? If you disagree that's one thing. Banning someone for apparently having more knowledge then you is just cowardly. I was never attacking you. I was having a discussion. If you provided something I could use that wasn't from Wikipedia ,It appeared you didn't read my comments clearly enough to understand. Wikipedia is not upheld in court. Again I hope you find the legislative intent for the driver license requirement in your state , the online vehicle codes don't show it. Thanks for banning me. Was getting late. I was actually looking up income tax cases when I stumbled upon this site. Again I've seen the legislative intent on mirco film. Look into it. You'll have to come back here and apologize to everyone.
If you read your state constitution it outlines the exact procedure the state legislature must follow to create laws that are applied to everyone within the geography of the state. The current vehicle code was enacted that way, and is therefore lawful unless/until you bring a successful court challenge to have it struck down. But you won't be able to get it struck down, or win a case for damages for false arrest if you are held to it, etc., because state courts and the federal Supreme Court agree such regulation is a valid and reasonable application of the recognized state police power.
That's wrong ,doesn't matter if there is a valid law, if liberty is deprived there is always a cause of action . Like the case in Florida. And I don't disagree the police power of the state has the authority to regulate on the subject of motor vehicles. Of course they do. Im not making that argument.
I'm not saying at all that the vehicle code is unlawful. I've never said that.
Yeah public and private laws, General laws apply to all of the state where special law is more focused. Again I'm not arguing the fact of if the vehicle laws are valid I know they are.
You can find a summary of the development of automobile laws in New York here. Get ahold of copies of the original amendments and perhaps legislative proceedings around that time and you will find the intent. The specific documents / books you need to locate are the "Laws of 1901", "Laws of 1903", "Laws of 1904", "Laws of 1910", the amendments of 1919, 1924, etc. Here's a link to many of the books on Google.
Better yet ,is this a law site with actual attorneys present? Request a current opinion from your state attorney General. They will review the laws and the legislative intent. Now it's not law (the opinion ) it does hold some weight
And I'm really not a fan or even like wasting my time reading wiki
I have, the current statutes do not state the intent . They are also very vague on the definitions. When you trace the current laws back you will see the intent and purpose. These current laws are actually amended versions of the 1920s laws. We'll the registration laws were 1901. Those are the original acts. And the current statutes are amended versions. The history of the words used is extremely important. You must trace it back to see the intent .
That's not true . The definitions trace back to the very beginning. The current statutes are not the original enactments. It's funny you keep banning everyone who speaks the truth. I'll leave you to rot in your ignorance. Keep spreading lies and misinformation. True many site also give false information, and you are no different
Only the current definitions laid out in the VAT are important and they aren't vague.
What does the attorney General for when giving an opinion on the law? Or matter of fact what does a court do when giving an opinion? Do they rely only upon current statutes and definitions or do they trace it back to the beginning of the law?
When someone is charged under state legislation the court must use the definitions from the legislation. This keeps the state police power with the People's elected representatives instead of an unelected judge. A judge is only free to interpret and create common law where legislation is vague or silent. The VAT Law of NY is not considered vague or silent regarding words used with its driver licensing and other vehicle laws, and it is not for you to decide if it is.
Yeah you definitely must not understand. Pseudolaw just keeps relying on current statutes without understanding where those statutes came from. There's no help for this group or single man . Ban away .
Then why can states pass medical marrijuanna laws then?? Isn't that a violation of federal law.
Also don't you think that if a person does something that could endanger themselves or others they should have to answer to that?? Mabey you and me would just own up to it if we did something wrong but I'm not so sure about other people? This is why laws exist and why the gov has authority to enforce laws. Some people may not have good enough morals to be honorable and willfully admit and submit to a consequence. How many people would just keep doing dangerous things if there wasn't a consequence?
The fact that you dont argue your right to happiness and if you wish to smoke a plant then that's what you will do, is beyond me. Laws don't just repeal themselves . And does anyone know what a laws purpose is for? Laws are meant to protect rights. Not regulate the individual man in his home. So smoke away learn to be free .
It has nothing to do with claiming to be a "sovereign citizen", which do not exist, as that claim comes from the predecessor to the Constitution. It has everything to do with the Constitution, itself. As far as changing a word to change it's meaning? I can't stop laughing about that one – do you know how many court cases in history have been nothing but arguments over one word? It's how lawyers make money! Hillary Clinton was charged in the email scandal because they changed two words!!!! But, in good 'ol America, when all else fails, play the "public safety" card, and all fall into line. Does requiring ONE TEST then nothing but a fee paid every 4 years for the rest of your life ensure public safety? ABSOLUTELY NOT. What it does is provide for a steady stream of revenue.
Certain things are very clearly defined by state vehicle codes and courts, e.g. "motor vehicle" typically encompasses all self-propelled vehicles on the public roads, and "driving" is typically defined as being in control of such a motor vehicle. The definitions come into play for charges brought under the vehicle codes. Calling it an "automobile" or "traveling" can't be used as a defense to the charges because the activity is clearly captured and defined by the code. The state has the power to decide that what you were doing is called "driving" and what you were doing it in is a "motor vehicle," for purposes of the charges.
Licenses provide for public safety through not just road tests, which are perhaps more frequently employed than you may believe, but also the ability of the state to revoke them if you drive irresponsibly and endanger others. This, and escalating charges when suspensions and revocations are ignored, serves as a strong deterrent to harmful behavior.
you don't know what the f**k you are talking about..
This article and the as***le who wrote it are intentionally leading you
down the wrong path. It's more than likely a 'legal system' paid
article, or written by a liar, excuse me, lawyer, who works in traffic
court. Unfortunately, many people who realize things are 'not right'
don't know what to do, and try resisting a system that 'assumes' you
have given 'consent to contract' with them because you did not resist
when you were expected to apply for a driver's license, and register
your private property with the state. The wrong path?… YES, so the issue
is not 'freedom (or right) of movement, or travel. That is all bu****it!
The issue is whether you have rescinded your 'driver's license, and
vehicle registration, in order to make sure you are not contracting with
the state. An 'American', or 'American national' is a completely free
American man or woman, and is not compromised, or limited in their
freedom by ANY state regulation. That goes for property taxes, 'income'
taxes, building code, and a myriad of other 'regulations', or 'statutes'
that have been unlawfully passed in conflict with State and Federal
Constitutions. In regard to the secondary argument about freedom of
movement or travel, many states 'Vehicle Codes' are written specifically
to apply ONLY to commercial drivers, and plainly DO NOT apply to
private Americans operating their private property on the public roads. A
great example is California: CVC 260 (a) (b).
Have a friend who got his window brocken pepper sprayed and arrested for not having a license. He won the case and sued the officer for a new window. Federal TRUMPS state. I wouldn't have believed it myself unless I witnessed it. I personally would not want to go through that b******* but my buddy is exercising his constitutional right.
Just because the officer was found to have used excessive force or something else doesn't necessarily make it lawful to ignore state laws about requiring a driver's license. If the license law was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid it could be struck down and the state would quickly change its laws to remove further liability from enforcement. Court name and case #?
Todd v. Davie case no
Msb 17014590
San bernardino districk court read please and stop thinking you know it all case dismissed. 12/28/2017.
I found it and saw the documents. I see it was dismissed on motion of the prosecutor. Looks like prosecutorial discretion for whatever reason – lack of evidence, which can happen if the cop didn't do things right or couldn't show up, or they weren't interested in entertaining drama or spending more than the usual 2 minutes on the case because it wastes limited state funds. It won't happen every time, and you won't win damages for false arrest or anything because it's not unlawful for the state to enforce the laws created by the legislature in accordance with the state constitution. Anyway, congratulations.
Dont get a license and safeguard your rights you are what people see as non believers.
Why did you leave out the part that does NOT agree with what you state?
18 U.S. Code § 31 – Definitions (a) (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power ****and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.**** (I added the asterisks)
State codes and courts are not subject to federal definitions. That is for specific federal charges under that chapter. You're still new to this…
@pseudolaw:disqus I disagree. Im new by the way, hello to all of you. But, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that state codes and courts ARE INDEED subject to federal definitions and law if they CONFLICT with federal law.
State codes and courts are not subject to federal definitions only if they coincide and fall under federal law.
This means that in some states, the state is definitely infringing upon the freedom of movement and infringing upon peoples liberty because their laws conflict with the federal definition that @Jaybird1966:disqus gave above therefore,conflicting with federal law.
State law must follow federal law. It can only further define federal law. If it completely sways away from federal law or CONFLICTS with it, It is deemed inequitable and unconstitutional
The federal government can only regulate things explicitly outlined in the Constitution. The States retain the right to regulate the rest. This is expressed in the 10th amendment and recognized state police power. There is no one definition that applies to all laws. The USC has numerous definitions for "motor vehicle" with specific scope. For example, In 18 U.S. Code § 31 (6) it's restricted to "In this chapter". In 49 U.S. Code § 13102 (16) it's restricted to "In this part". In 42 U.S. Code § 7550 (2) it's restricted to "in this part". The federal government agrees, as seen in the Supreme Court rulings mentioned in our article, that it is a proper exercise of state police power to regulate the highways for safety including by requiring licensing and registration. To achieve this, the States enact legislation which is interpreted with specific definitions defined in their highway/vehicle codes. The definitions for "motor vehicle" in state codes typically encompass all self-propelled vehicles with a few exceptions. You will not find the federal government overriding any definitions or anything in State codes where the States are lawfully able to regulate, unless it violates some federal law or right. If State laws do violate some federal law or right they technically stand and are considered lawful up until the federal government strikes it down on the record.
Ok. Im fairly new to the extensive research of law but i believe i'm catching on pretty quickly. I agree with your assertion of the how the definitions work. I also agree the the 10th amendment delegates to the state those powers which are not in the constitution. But then comes the 14th amendment which states:
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Im pretty sure that this amendment was put in place because of the supremacy clause in article VI.
If state laws abridge your right to move freely which is an IMMUNITY or curtail your LIBERTY in any way then, the state law is not valid. The requirement of Licenses, registration and insurance by the state does exactly what the 14th amendment is trying to prevent against.
It is evident in the fact that these things can be revoked at will, therefore not allowing the people to travel to where they need to get.
Its also funny how the majority says that driving is a privilege but the word privilege is included in the amendment. So even if traveling were a privilege (its an Immunity) the constitution still protects it from hurdle put in place by the state
As mentioned at the very beginning of our article a federal right to freedom of movement or travel was gleaned by the federal courts from the Constitution. Specifically it's defined as having the right to leave and enter the several States without arbitrary restrictions, taxation, etc. Having such a right to travel doesn't mean the mode of travel can't be regulated by the states for health and safety, though. i.e. you can be prohibited from travel by automobile by fair and reasonable laws but would still be allowed to walk. Keeping dangerous or unqualified people from operating vehicles on the public highways has been described by some courts as protecting the right to travel, not hindering it. See e.g. City of Salina v Wisden.
Just as there is case law for right of the state to lawfully restrict the mode of travel (your POV), there are many, many examples of caselaw that say the right to travel cannot be infringed at all. including federal accounts like the one you stated above, I am sure you are aware so I wont bother citing. Case Law isnt law. It just gives a judge or jury some insight on how to rule on a case. So lets throw case law to the side for a sec…
Do you not see how these health or safety regulations violate the 14th amendment?
And also, where did you get your definition of the right to freedom of movement?
The wikipedia article has references in the first paragraph:
There are few to no unlimited rights. The right to bear arms, for example, doesn't mean anyone can carry a high-powered machinegun or nuclear bomb anywhere they want. Every right can be limited reasonably for public health & safety.
Wikipedia? Cmon lol. ill entertain anyway for the interest of our conversation…
A court definition is not law. And also the supreme court does not have to invest the federal government with the authority to protect the freedom of movement because it is already protected under the 14th amendment in the constitution.
And I understand that the 10th amendment is in place, but state law does not and can not trump the constitution, ever. Or at least it shouldn't.
I also understand your viewpoint in your last paragraph but just like the case law from wiki it seems that you are failing to Acknowledge the 14th amendment and everything it stands for.
By law, the state can not at all abridge or curtail the freedom of movement in any mode, even if it is for safety because it violates / conflicts with the 14th amendment and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The supremacy clause within the Constitution backs this up.
Caselaw and state law cannot conflict with the constitution in any way
Do you agree?
Federal and state law is based on their respective constitutions and legislation, first and foremost. Courts are in charge of interpreting the constitutions and legislation, particularly where they are vague or silent. The federal "right to travel" is only found in federal case law. It's not in the Constitution – it's an interpretation made by the courts. The courts, not individuals, are in charge of making binding interpretations of constitutions and legislation, so your or my personal interpretation is meaningless. No court has found that a state "can not at all abridge or curtail the freedom of movement in any mode". Until a court finds that, it's not true or enforceable.
Rights are not categorized to a federal or state level. A right is a right. Period. You're also wrong about it not being in the constitution. Because it is. You have yet to give me your opinion on the 14th Amendment. lol. And furthermore, you are right in the right to travel not being listed specifically so I wont make anymore interpretations but the courts do not make law. Congress makes law. So it can be argued that a courts interpretation of the law is meaningless as well. At the end of the day courts are made up of individuals and some one in a robe will see things the way that many other people are seeing things as well unless there is a conspiracy at work. However, that does not matter since courts don't make law they just have the power to adjudicate.
Also, the right to travel would also be thrown under the 9th amendment of Unenumerated rights
Courts can make binding decisions where the constitution or legislation is vague or silent, and often do. If the legislature doesn't like a court decision it can simply make non-vague legislation that overrides the courts. Until the legislature clearly overrides a decision it has the force of law. My opinion on the 14th amendment or anything is meaningless – individual interpretations have no power, only court interpretations do. You can theorize about what falls under what but until a court agrees publicly it's not enforceable.
Ok. Fair enough. You don't have to give me your opinion but it invalidates your claim. It does so because you state that only court interpretations matter but the only job of the court is to hear the case and make the final judgement. If the court makes any attempt to interpret the law, the court is at that point overstepping its boundaries since congress writes laws and the executive branch approves laws. The 10th amendment also delegates power to the people so who is to say in which instance it is that the state or when the people take control?
Im also not theorizing about what falls under where. This isn't rocket science. It would clearly fall under the 9th amendment as well and this amendment also protects the right to travel from abridgment because of the fact that it isn't specifically listed.
Where do you think the federal right to travel between states came from? It's not in the Constitution or legislation. The courts created it, like they create a lot of things through interpretation. What makes you think they can't? The courts have the power of decision, so they decide on the 10th amendment application, too. Why don't you read some decisions about it and find out.
You need to read the 9th amendment. People created this issue because people inherently know that this is a right and they therefore brought it to court.
Reading decisions doesnt change the fact that Case Law (decisions) are precedent and nothing more than help for the court to decide on future cases. Decisions are not the law. No matter what the outcome is.
Im not saying that what youre declaring is wrong. But if the courts are in fact doing this, it doesnt make it right. The judiciary branch is not autonomous.
Some things are left exclusively to the courts. Contract law, for example, is largely un-legislated and remains in the state courts, with each state's common law varying depending on the court decisions. The decisions have the force of law and are the law until the legislature decides to modify or override them with legislation. In countries and states using the civil law format everything must be legislated and courts don't have the same power as in common law systems to make binding decisions. Your idea of so-called inherent rights end when a federal or state constitution or legislation decides otherwise, such as when states make vehicle/highway codes.
How can my idea end when my idea comes directly from the pages of the Constitution of the United States? Till this very moment and into the future as far as we know, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Federal law and state law get their power from the Constitution so long as they do not infringe on the constitution. Once they start to infringe, the laws do not apply.
Common Law is based on Case law like you said. But how can a decision have the force of law? That sounds color of law to me and I can tell that you know that the color of law is a facade. a cover up.
A decision is a decision. A law is a bill passed by congress and approved by the president. And thats facts. Force of law is not law. U messed up.
How do state vehicle/highway codes infringe on the Constitution or federal law? They don't. The Supreme Court says as much, as cited in our article. If we were to extend your "inherent rights" idea beyond mere travel, the government couldn't make any laws..
Requiring people to pay for a license, registration, and insurance for property/goods which the people own is an abridgment / infringement to those who may not be able to pay the fees. Its also a problem because a state has the ability to revoke a license and/or registration which in turn would prevent the people from traveling via their chosen mode of movement. The state doesn't have the power to do this according to the constitution.
Who is the supreme court cannot tell us what the constitution means. The supreme court is in place as the last line of defense to protect the constitution and to enforce the constitution. They have the final word on judgement as they are the ultimate court. Judgement however isn't Law.
The government does not have the power to "extend" or diminish rights. Not even the Constitution can do that. The Constitution was put into place to protect the right of the people.
P.S. The right to freedom of movement falls under the 9th amendment and therefore is free from subjectivity of state law granted power by the 10th amendment. The 9th protects all unlisted rights Freedom of movement) and the 10th grants power to the state and the people for other matters not delegated to the federal level.
Thank you for your intellectual conversation sir. I learned a lot from it.
Out of curiosity, how much experience do you have in law? you dont have to answer if you dont want. No hard feelings.
Agree ,the ninth amendment is ignored by so many. Seems to many people believe everything comes from government. In reality everything originates from the people. Government is DELEGATED it's power from the consent of the governed. When the State or federal government pays for something that funding came from the people . The vehicle and traffic laws are completely legal ,constitutional. But they have been applied to people outside of the regulatable activity. Through ignorance and fear people have over the decades waived certain rights in the name of public safety. Law has one purpose, to protect the individual rights of the people. Government has one and the same purpose. Again through ignorance and fear people have lost their common sense ,and we now have a society of people who honestly believe we can't because government says so or just except it because it's written as a law. Bad laws are written and passed and court's uphold them all the time. That does not mean the law is law or legitimate. No one has rights unless they are willing to defend them personally. No attorney has a duty to defend your rights. No police officer has a duty.nor do you, but if you want rights don't expect them to be handed out like candy in Halloween
Also true. Yet the real issue is not the right to travel. The proper argument would be the right to locomotion within our right to personal liberty. The right to use our property in a safe manner. The right to the roads. As we didn't build roads for walking.
I agree partially. The right to locomotion within our right to personal liberty brings us right back to our right to travel. State governments feel that its ok to abridge / regulate our mode of travel as long as we can find other ways of travel. Thing is, once you start down that path, the ball keeps rolling from there. Its called the snowball effect. Sooner or later more rights will be violated in the name of safety and its not right. The world will always be a dangerous place, no matter how much a government tries to police it. People have to be savvy and protect themselves at all times. The Constitution clearly states that our rights cannot be abriged. Period. That means that people just driving a vehicle to get from point a, to point b, to point c, etc are being violated right now.
I plan on filing a motion via the proper channels to see what the people in charge say. Im not on a mission to win or be right, I honestly feel like i'm being taken advantage of. Its clear as day that the requirement of a drivers license, registration and insurance is unconstitutional.
Personally, I may keep insurance but the other two are absolutely unnecessary.
Considering it's unlikely you will harm somebody by merely walking down the road, as opposed to when operating a several-thousand-pound machine at high speeds, the states will find it difficult or impossible to justify a prohibition on walking. From the first paragraph of our article, the right to travel the courts created from the Constitution is the right to enter and exit the states without taxation, etc. There is an implied right to access public property such as the public roads subject to reasonable regulation, though, even at the state level. As also cited in our article, the federal courts haven't found driver's license requirements unconstitutional in the past, so why would they begin now? You could request a "declaratory judgment" to get a court's opinion before violating any laws.
Some people that live near borders of states or in different towns CANNOT walk to work everyday. The only option besides driving would probably be a taxi depending on where they live and the price for the commute to/from work everyday would be unreasonable.
Your whole argument is now unfair to people which is exactly what the U.S. constitution was trying to prevent. And the definition of right to travel created by the courts is based on case law. There are other cases that say differently. Courts do not create law, courts make decisions based on the law. This can be argued against politicians
And there is a fee to exit and enter states. Tolls.
The more I look into this topic the more B.S. I see on behalf of state governments.
He loves using Wikipedia lolhahaha. The term "person" is the real question. Not motor vehicle. As in Texas and many other State laws regarding opetartor/driver license, The term person is a member of a fictitious entity, firm, copartnership, association. .. And an operator/driver is defined as any Person…… just as with all regulatory laws ,they are applied to person's engaging in the regulatable activity
Wikipedia is useful when it cites the correct principles of law and authoritative case law. Look into the citations don't just trust Wikipedia. All men, women, individuals are considered "natural persons" in law. If you try to argue otherwise the court will say something like:
I agree, but when you understand statutory interpretation rules along with law itself you can only come to one conclusion . It would be just as easy to word it with people or every citizen. But it's termed the way it is because a fictitious entity only exists on paper and needs a natural person to act, therefore a person is a fictitious entity or a natural person associated with the entity. Hence why Texas and many other states make it clear in their original Acts regarding VTL.
A person is a fictitious entity, sure. There is no way to use law or be seen in law without a person. But men and women are automatically considered natural persons bound by the laws no matter what they claim.
A person is a fictitious entity, sure. There is no way to use law or be seen in law without a person. But men and women are automatically considered natural persons bound by the laws no matter what they claim. An interesting Canadian case states:
It's similar in the US.
My eyeballs hurt, I've been reading this for hours, I just want to know if I can drive again. I have witnessed personally the corruption in the judicial system. When the state can file a motion to suppress your only evidence as to not confuse the jury where is the so called fair trial ? I didn't get one that's for sure. I haven't been able to drive now for 3 years I live way out in the country and miles away from any town. I just want to drive. Please anyone if you can help me figure this out please email me.
Jay, that definition only applies to the chapter of Title 18 it's in, which covers crimes committed against commercial motor vehicles in interstate service. The true federal definition of a motor vehicle is 40 CFR 85.1703, which reads:
85.1703 Definition of motor vehicle.
(a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled and capable of transporting a person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or more of the criteria set forth below are met, in which case the vehicle shall be deemed not a motor vehicle:
(1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved surfaces; or
(2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use, such features including, but not being limited to, a reverse gear (except in the case of motorcycles), a differential, or safety features required by state and/or federal law; or
(3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, such features including, but not being limited to, tracked road contact means, an inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry.
(b) Note that, in applying the criterion in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, vehicles that are clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles. Absence of a particular safety feature is relevant only when absence of that feature would prevent operation on highways.
[ 39 FR 32611, Sept. 10, 1974, as amended at 45 FR 13733, Mar. 3, 1980; 73 FR 59178, Oct. 8, 2008; 75 FR 22977, Apr. 30, 2010; 81 FR 73972, Oct. 25, 2016]
Please note: this definition does not include "commercial use." And it's the definition the states adopt to define a motor vehicle.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
–Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Please go read the case in full then come back and tell me if you weren't misinformed.
I was only referring to the sovereign citizen claim – you don't have to
think you're one to bring up the "driving is a right" claim. You people
should pay attention to what you read.
People who insist that driving is a right invariably point out that the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. And it does.
So can I get into a car without a license and drive? No. You can ride as a passenger anywhere you want – that is your constitutional right. But operating a motor vehicle still requires a license, because the states have reserved the right to require one.
The matter came up in California in 1999. The case was Miller vs. Reed, in the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The decision stated: "While the ‘right of travel’ is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules. If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege."
So the matter is settled in California, and courts in other states are not falling all over each other to rule otherwise. So we can expect to see the “driving is a constitutional right” pages fade away as people discard their mistaken ideas and embrace the truth? Ha, probably not… but we can hope.
You are wrong. Please see my post. It is perfectly legal to drive without a driver’s license, registration or insurance, as long as you appropriately rescind your contract with the state, which involves canceling your driver’s license with the DMV. To those who may be interested in doong this, be aware that you will no longer be eligible to collect social security benefits when you retire. If that’s not important to you then don’t worry about it)
Lenaiya, if you "cancel your driver's license with the DMV," you are no longer allowed to drive on the public roads. The author of this article relies on federal court decisions, but for this let's pull out a state decision: State v. Booher, from Tennessee. Mr. Booher, who refused to hold a driver's license because they required your SSN on the license at the time, "rescinded his contract with the state" by surrendering his titles, license plates and registrations on all five of his vehicles. He then got pulled over and lost his original case – no license, no registration. He appealed on grounds that he had no contract with the state so couldn't be required to follow the law. The Supreme Court of Tennessee told him it didn't work that way.
M.R. Hamilton, Superior Court Chief Justice Badge #20001
WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' of legislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives, subdivisions, and property of government. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)
So you see, while statutes apply to "persons" the term persons does not refer to people. Have you ever wondered why you never see the term "people" in a statute? It is because the courts have repeatedly held that people are sovereign.
" …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves….. " CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.
As you will see, it is not enough to read some case law and think it applies to everyone. You have to know what the definitions of words used in the case cite mean. The argument you use falls on deaf ears of the people I know that rescinded there "drivers license" over 15 years ago and judges do not want too see them in court, because they might teach the sheeple in the court something tt interferes with the corporation's gravy train.
Flournoy v. First National Bank of Shreveport actually says, "an UNCONSTITUTIONAL statute is not a law." Your Rodriguez quote isn't in the case and wouldn't be anyway. Self v Rhay doesn't contain your quote and it totally negates one of the principal sovereign citizen arguments – that you can choose which version of the law you like best. (Joseph Self killed someone in Seattle and was sentenced to death in accordance with the laws of 1919. Self argued his death sentence should be thrown out because the only law he respected was the law of 1909…the court didn't see it that way and ordered the King County Superior Court to set an execution date.)
And, as the piece de resistance, Chisholm v. Georgia was the first Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States to be nullified by constitutional amendment. So the whole thing is bad law.
Grow up.
Wow, thank you for posting this. I had no idea that statutes were not actual laws, but what you describe makes sense. So any idea WHY the court holds these statutes against defendants who appear in court? (Or is “appear in court” the keyphrase here?, meaning, they only impose the statutes on ppl when they appear as “defendants”?
Don't believe every fake citation on the internet.. Go read the case for yourself.
Don't believe every fake citation on the internet.. Go read the case for yourself. State law is based on the state constitution and includes legislation made by the state legislature and decisions of the state courts. No-one is exempt from state police power.
So for a criminal act like murder we have a right to remain silent and not self incriminate, be secure in our papers and effects, but you are saying for vehicle and traffic laws which many States have deemed civil, you must waive those rights? Please explain what civil offense allows arrest without warrant and is a justified deprivation of liberty? You can not have one law that covers commerce on the roads (trade,transportation or traffic ) and then statutory amend it to include something not engaged in commerce. Laws are bound by one subject matter.
I've cited the laws themselves. Anyone's time I'm wasting sure needs to learn how to stop reading things that waste their time then. The very fact the government has power to regulate in the name of public safety does not give them unlimited power, and must not violate the peoples rights such as the right to locomotion within our right to liberty. Much like the case I posted yesterday where a private carrier could not be forced to license as a common carrier. The law applies to who the laws says and the original acts that are still in force since they are the basis for the current statutory amendments and those Acts say who a person is and who an operator is. And it's not me. How can someone come back here when you ban them ? You asked for cases and proof ,when I posted that before you banned me but then you have no problem posting Wikipedia. Ok it's your page, so be it. But for giggles go to the Texas laws of 1935 for operator license and read who a person is, and if an operator is any PERSON , explain that
You always have the right to remain silent. You can (and it is generally advisable to do so) keep your mouth SHUT as you present your license to a police officer after being pulled over. And if you don't have a license, then don't expect to be driving away unless the officer manages to positively identify you and verify that a valid drivers license. And even then you might get a citation for failure to show it. You MAY NOT legally operate a vehicle on a public road without a license.
False. Police power…if you read the actual law states that jurisdiction of police power is WITHIN the confines of the US and State Constitutions. That inherently restricts police power in many and varied ways.
Yeah, I'm well aware of such theories. You think you can do whatever you want and state law can't touch you. If that were true it would be chaos out there. Good thing individuals don't have the power to make binding interpretations of the law.
It's law. Where do you find it to be theory? It's actually written in the law. And you are completely off base assuming "You think you can do whatever you want and state law can't touch you." Absolutely false. There are many types of law which govern the actions of people. There is also public and private law. Public law must be constitutional within the republic, private law is by consent. Basically, one who chooses not to associate is not required to. Rights of others may not be infringed.
I see you've been very careful with your wording. Marc Gossack and others are correct when they speak of the limitations on state power being outlined in the various Constitutions and you, too, are correct in that individuals are subject to the statutory jurisdiction of the various legislatures. The lynch-pin, which I'm sure that you're aware of, is in your definition of the term "individual." The People of the several states are irrefutably sovereign with respect to all levels of government. This is evident in the federal as well as most state Constitutions. With that being said, can you show me where or how the People of the several states are included in the term "individual?"
Likewise, all State Constitution and State Statutes must be in adherence to the united States Constitution, else held UNCONSTITUTIONAL and thereby NULL and VOID. This is the reasoning why those calling themselves Law Enforcement do not take an oath of office to uphold STATE STATUTES, but do in fact take a SWORN OATH of OFFICE before GOD to uphold and protect the united States Constitution and the RIGHTS therefore enshrined within!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e27a1b910496ed450f4507f87de036ce9012a0735d2547732eb733ea523f9cd.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eff3a1fd95959be23b6bb42b127e82ede7b42fd7b5e89b0fa5ab029b91d80a13.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/535478ae2d31b8f3b8ead91d8554ebf3d16a39e05bf82111f3ff2e7f0c219e9c.png
Most courts uphold statutes against defendants because the argument the defendant is making denies or does not acknowledge that the State also has rights. If the court rules in favor of such an argument a precedent would then exist allowing for the denial of a states right. Defendants who get these cases dismissed are the ones who argue their case from a jurisdiction basis.
It is this simple, you are an idiot. There is no such legal definition of sovereign citizen in respect to those residing here except for the people of hawaii, and the indigenous population, within the constitution of the united states. If any court felt that requiring licenses, registrations and insurance was unconstitutional, the states would not be allowed to issue or require them. Thank you for playing, you've been a lovely contestant but you ARE the weakest link, goodbye.
In law there is "implied consent". When you accept the regulation by accepting a feudal gift, you are saying you agree to all the terms, whether the terms are enumerated or not. The weakest links are those who are too stupid to study BEFORE you expunge drivel and name call (which, BTW, is the VERY tactic employed by those that don't know what they are talking about, so seek to discredit others with degradation rather than fact.) And I can tell you I HAVE been researching this for over 30 years, so I have learned a few thing about contract law, etc. where travelling is concerned. How many days have you actually spent studying more than statutes and codes?
Federal, state, county and muncipal laws don't require your consent. If they did you could go on a killing spree and be exempt from punishment. It doesn't work that way at all. If you think otherwise, what law against murder would apply to you, and what court, police and prison would enforce it?
The laws that prevent us from infringing on another INDIVIDUAL'S right to life, liberty, etc. Remaining in the US is agreement to abide by the God-given rights of others, and that contract used to be taught in school when you were taught the bill of rights, etc.
In a Constitutional Republic, such as America is SUPPOSED to be, individual rights are SUPPOSED to be protected over society rights, unlike in a democracy where if it was 10 against 1, the 10 got their way, even if that 10 is "represented" by just 1 (elected). For criminal acts to be prosecuted, there must be a victim (rape, murder, theft, etc.), and/or a first hand witness in the case or murder or theft, that can be cross examined by the defendant. No government is a person that can be cross examined, which is the natural right of the accused, and no representative of that government entity can speak for that entity because of personal bias (pay check). Coming from second or third persons (the arresting officer, etc.) is heresy in court that can only be admitted in civil, not criminal, court. The maxim goes "silence is consent" and "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Just like with tax laws. You don't have to file taxes or have a SS#, and even the IRS testifies to this, but you can not file a false claim, which is a civil case worthy of remediation. All non physical damage cases with no verifiable victims that can be cross examined are civil cases. And higher courts do hear civil cases with the tacit (if unknown) agreement of both parties. The implication is you accepted the contract to live by their rules when you accepted documentation from them, and according to international law, that contract is null when it is forced unto or misrepresented by one of the parties. In order for contracts to be valid and stand, there must be INFORMED consent of both parties. Most "laws" prosecuted by states are victimless crimes, and are merely statutes and codes that are binding in commerce. The US and all state, local, etc. governments are corporations listed on the stock exchange, and all persons accepting driver's licenses, birth certificates (only thing required by law is a certificate of live birth, different from a B.C.), SS#s, etc. are considered employees of and answerable to those codes, etc. However, as I said, there must be informed consent of both parties or that contract is void upon the finding of previously undisclosed facts and conditions. These cases also do have implications in many other instances, such as abortion, etc. Since abortion was not specifically cited in the BOR, the modern assumption was that killing babies fell under the personal, natural rights and freedoms of individuals (while discounting the rights of the unborn) and the move was used to allow it, while that same document is abused to also state that those same personal, natural rights do not count when local governments ("for the good of the kids") impose restrictions on personal, natural rights and freedoms. Travelling nor driving are specifically mentioned in the US Constitution or BOR, so states use that argument to curtail natural rights – all while proclaiming other issues not specifically mentioned should be protected natural rights (murder of babies). There is a direct conflict of enforcement and interpretations.
There are laws that apply to all and then laws for specific areas that are not applicable to just anyone. Driver license requirement is for person's engaging in commerce. The registration or license plate is presumptive evidence that the car is engaged in commerce . Laws regarding motor vehicle drver license can not be applied lawfully to someone not engaged in commerce. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f54a8ff025dc7bc2764cbd18c51273c910801f1a437202e2b9808ed568ceff80.png
I'm aware of the mantra, but repeating it doesn't make it true. The state police power covers non-commercial activity too. Your arguments are not recognized as valid in any court interpretation of state law, and citing some random law or definition that probably isn't current and probably doesn't even apply in your state won't change anything. Sorry.
Please show me a state law that says the driver license is for people not engaged in traffic trade or transportation. The simple fact is the license is for activities within commerce. There is not two separate licenses one for federal and state. Sorry proved you wrong with the actual law. You can post numerous cases that all deal with commerce as a subject matter . You can twist those cases in whatever way you like. It's clear as day. But I see what you are doing ,so I will sign off here ,as there's not much of an audience to inform, I'm guessing that's because everyone sees what this site is. Lol anyhow. If you can show any state law without using your word trickery to convince me. The law I provided was clear and to the point . Show me a case where it says if people want to use a car to go buy groceries or visit their friends they need a driver license and registration. Show me how a license plate and registration on a car gives the presumption the cars acting in commerce for the federal side of it but not the state???
Read your current state vehicle code definitions, laws and cases yourself. I'm tired of doing it for you. They clearly define "motor vehicle", "driver" etc. and there are certainly no commercial requirements. You're not especially clever or special. If it were true you didn't need a license for non-commercial activities everyone would quickly find out and easily win court cases with damages for false arrest. I'm sorry, but the internet lied and you need to debunk yourself before you get yourself into too much trouble.
Hahaha. The Senate bill lied? Good one. I don't go on the normal third party sites I actually go to the law library. Or government sites to do foil requests. Keep up the confusion. Not to moral of you but to all their own. Good day sir
What the federal government legislates really has no bearing on what the states legislate and enforce. The two jurisdictions are quite separate. There are relatively few highway-related federal laws. Do you know anyone who was charged under federal law for operating a vehicle? The federal government has never tried to take away general highway regulation from the states. State vehicle law is what the majority of people deal with and the only thing you likely need to be concerned about regarding operating a vehicle on the public roads.
States incorporated many federal laws ,especially if they want federal funding. Income tax for New York can only be applied to federally required tax filers. Seems the only definition that means something different , murder is murder both federal and state, commerce definition is same federal and state. But the very license plate you would get from a State means one thing for the state and a completely opposite meaning for federal. Wow.
If a state legislates something the federal government wants them to they don't cede their sovereignty, they enact it under their own authority. State taxes are separate from federal taxes and are not interdependent. Murder between jurisdictions may have similar definitions but the authority is separate and it would be two different charges. And yes, the state and federal governments can define things differently if they choose for use with charges and regulation under their separate laws.
Ignorance does wonders
So, You are a socialist. That's your prerogative.
I don't believe there is such a thing as the collective, only individuals acting collectively.
Your political philosophy has, historically, been quite brutal. I choose freedom.
1. Find your state vehicle code law about driver's licenses. 2. Go to the top of the chapter and/or title and find the definitions for "motor vehicle", "highway", "driver", etc. as used in the law. 3. Note that the definitions don't mention any need for commercial activity.
Because the federal government does Not issue license or registration for motor vehicles, the only possible conclusion would be that the presumption the registration and license plate gives for a federal law would also be valid for state. Especially since we don't have federal agents patrolling the streets.
Did you even read the article? The federal Supreme Court agrees it's a proper application of the state police power to regulate the highways including requiring license and registration for commercial and non-commericial activity. It doesn't get much clearer than this:
Again you have cases dealing with commerce hahaha. And residents which are not domiciled in the State. And I agree the States are the ones who issue driver license and registration the federal government does Not. It would seem silly to think that once you cross into another State the license and registration gives presumptive evidence that the car is acting in commerce But if you dont cross borders the registration and license is just for public safety. Hahahaha .
You don't have to contract in or be "domiciled" or anything for the state laws to apply to you. It would be chaos if that were true. The states wouldn't even be able to punish murder. You'd have to check federal decisions for what exactly qualifies as commerce when crossing state lines, but whatever the federal government decides about its laws and what is or isn't commerce has no bearing whatsoever on the application of state law, which is completely separate. The federal government might see something as commerce that the states don't care about at all or view completely differently.
You seem to forget that crossing state lines makes it federal. If the federal government deems the registration and license plate from one State is seen in another State that is presumptive evidence that the car is acting in interstate commerce. So what would the car be acting in within the state that issued the plate ? Intrastate commerce!
Yeah those engaged in interstate commerce as well as others…… um what is intrastate commerce Alex ? More commerce cases for a 1000 please Alex lol
"As well as others." i.e. others not in interstate commerce. Your comprehension is very poor and selective. Here's a case from Texas where a guy argued what you would probably try to. That's the state you're "on," right?
Federal;
"‘‘Motor vehicle’’ means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo; … "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]" 18 U.S.C. 31.
"A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.
(Same as a horse)
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8
mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness against himself," is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling that to force anyone to register anything is communicati and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th amendment.
Constitutional Law § 101 – right to travel – 5. The nature of the Federal Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 6. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the right freely to travel from one state toConstitutional Law § 101 – right to travel – 5. The nature of the Federal Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 6. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the right freely to travel from one state to another is a basic right under the constitution.
Constitutional Law § 101 – law chilling assertion of rights – 7. If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322. another is a basic right under the constitution.
Constitutional Law § 101 – law chilling assertion of rights – 7. If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322.
State vehicle codes don't use definitions that apply to only a limited portion of the federal USC, they have their own.
The states through their police power began regulating automobiles in the early 1900's i.e. around the 20's and 30's. My article cites the Supreme Court supporting them in those efforts. Arthur v Morgan was decided before automobiles were created and Hillhouse v United States in the very early days of automobiles when decisions could go either way. Regulation eventually won out, though.
An analysis of Haynes v US states:
Regulating the public roads on a limited basis by requiring license, registration, financial responsibility, etc. is not an "unreasonable burden," but a proper exercise of state police power consonant with due process, as cited from the Supreme Court in my article.
State vehicle codes do not inhibit traveling from one state to another, only the mode and manner of that travel. This is addressed in the first paragraph of my article.
State vehicle codes have the clear and reasonable purpose of protecting the health and safety of residents of the states and those using its highways.
State vehicle codes don't use definitions that apply to only a limited portion of the federal USC, they have their own.
The states through their police power began regulating automobiles in the early 1900's i.e. around the 20's and 30's. My article cites the Supreme Court supporting them in those efforts. Arthur v Morgan was decided before automobiles were created and Hillhouse v United States (1907) in the very early days of automobiles when decisions could sometimes go either way. Regulation eventually won out, though.
An analysis of Haynes v US states:
Regulating the public roads on a limited basis by requiring license, registration, financial responsibility, etc. is not an "unreasonable burden," but a proper exercise of state police power consonant with due process, as cited from the Supreme Court in my article.
State vehicle codes do not inhibit traveling from one state to another, only the mode and manner of that travel. This is addressed in the first paragraph of my article.
State vehicle codes have the clear and reasonable purpose of protecting the health and safety of residents of the states and those using its highways.
Again you generalize and fail to delineate public vs private law and what is legal vs lawful. Killing is infringing another's rights. Always unlawful even without government. A really ignorant example.
Not really. Without a sovereign dictating and enforcing a law it's just personal opinion and whim and nothing is unlawful per se, except perhaps against what you fabricated and decided arbitrarily in your mind. Governments exist to remove that subjective arbitrariness and offer some predictability and stability. "Natural law" theories, theories of "God's law", etc. are numerous and varied.
Common law is the foundation of law in this country available to the people. It is guaranteed to the people twice in the US Constitution and is visible in many states constitutions. Common law is ancient and largely unwritten. Common law is where private rights are defended. And yes, there are absolutes in common law where there is not in equity. Common law must stand on verified claim. The courts you are defending have no such thing. They have rules which give judges trained in administrative law discretion to do some really crazy things… and time and again they do because they are up against ignorance. I'd much rather stand in a court of record and face my accuser than in an admin court who does not care to recognize either a man, law, or constitution. Comical that you find that more "just" than actual proof vs actual proof. Comprehend a true jury of peers and the court of record is far superior. Hmmm, in fact that's what the US Supreme court says as well. A court of record is a superior court all others are inferior with limited jurisdiction.
Common law is simply court decisions, and it, too, is subject to a sovereign. English statutes and common law were received by the states, except Louisiana, clearly subject to the state constitution and legislature (and courts). Why would a government import a law that couldn't be modified to meet the demands of evolving technology and society? Who made vague theories and unelected judges from ancient history your master? If you actually read your state constitution you would know your state courts are also courts of record, which simply means the decisions and proceedings are recorded for appeal, public knowledge, future consideration, etc.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE! Do some research beyond what they want you to hear. That's what the BAR association wants you to think. Lol! What a joke! The US Supreme court recognizes it to be something far more than that! And that makes no sense if you study the history behind law and the foundation of our country.
Visit the link and see for yourself. Old English law including common law is subservient to the constitution and legislature. It's in the original constitutions of many states, such as the 1777 New York Constitution.
The State Bar in each state was made by an Act of legislature, not the other way around. Legislators don't have to be lawyers. Though many legislators are lawyers, it's on the decline.
Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals. Courts admit this.
Public or private law? Simply stating a generalization where their must be a distinction renders your statement both true and false. This is the approach used by government since they are not responsible for individual rights… and other non-legal entities.They don't address it. Eg. The tax law and code bend over backward to define the legal term "taxpayer" and have admitted that because there are "taxpayers" there are also non-taxpayers but that they are not responsible for defining them. The courts state that the IRS has no authority to do anything with a non-taxpayer and the IRS agrees. Pretty short work to determine your world view is like that of government, IRS or sergeant Schultz.
The law based on the federal and state constitutions, legislation and court decisions automatically applies to everyone. You can't opt out lawfully except perhaps through the so-called right of revolution, which is even written into some state constitutions, where the majority of people decide they are no longer being represented and violently overthrow and reform the government. Do you have a lot of people on your side with military equipment?
False. Clearly you don't understand different types of law or jurisdiction. You generalize. Public or private law? Discussion with you is pointless unless you begin to show that you understand and can discuss this. You clearly do not.
All legislation made by the federal, state, county and municipal governments applies to everyone. Your consent is not required. I'm not talking about private law between individuals and corporations, such as made by contract (contract law IS dictated by the state courts and legislatures, however, and varies somewhat between states), but the statutes and codes that apply to everyone generally.
Where on earth did you get that idea??? Statutes and codes BY THEIR VERY NATURE do not apply to everyone generally. Wow! There's a big mental hurdle in your way somehow. In enacting most statutes and codes government is no different than a corporation. In fact your government has a corporate charter just like any other corporation and by its nature can lose that charter, like any corporation of they infringe the rights of man. That's ancient law.
I already cited a court, president, founder of the USA, international law and more that say exactly that, so yeah. Your arguments have no actual lawful basis and are not enforceable in any court that matters on the planet.
Your perspective keeps you as a slave. Enjoy that life. You fail to see that in those cites they necessarily refer to captives like Resident, US Citizen, taxpayer, driver, etc. Jurisdiction must be established for those laws and statutes to apply in inferior courts. If a true crime exists than the criminal laws automatically apply. This is common law not congressional law. Congressional law does not create criminal laws. They craft penalties. And those are applied to the crime. You clearly are a slave.
You can pretend not to be subject to the law but it's not true, so you're a slave to your own ignorance. I'd rather understand what's going on and be able to use it to my advantage when necessary. All men and women are considered "natural persons" in law – it doesn't matter if you're a citizen, stateless or whatever. And if you read the definitions in your state vehicle code that apply on a charge such as the Driver's License requirement you will see that by definition you too are a driver when you are in control of a self-propelled vehicle on the public roads.
if your statement above, about "all legislation applying to everyone" is true, then I find it interesting how city ordinances are literally almost meaningless.
Cite your authorities then. Just saying so doesn't make it true.
There's a huge list of tax protestor arguments on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been tried to death. I'm sure you'll believe all of them are valid.
Not at all. Most are horriblly ignorant of law and state. They're comical.
The IRS is simple. They deal with taxpayers only. There's a lot more to that but it really is simple to understand once you get it. And there is a perfect example of "by consent" which keeps the actions of the IRS constitutional.
The vtl is not unconstitutional, The driver license requirement is legal. Yet it's being applied to everyone instead of what the law was intended for. The people are sovereign, Not sovereign citizens.
The people are sovereign as a collective under the general principle of popular sovereignty. Individual sovereignty is not recognized by any government and would lead to chaos, i.e. murderers roaming free and without lawful punishment.
Agree.
False. People is a word whose use can be both singular and plural. A republic consists of singular people who make up a plural of people. This republic recognizes the unalienable rights of a people. Those rights are not defined by the state or by society. It is the prerogative of a people to defend their own rights.
If the people could do whatever they individually wanted there wouldn't be much point to a government, now would there?
Right to associate via consent. There are distinct benefits provided by government. Many/most people trade in for these benefits. However, within a republic, a people may do whatever they wish SO LONG AS they do not infringe the rights of another. Within that requirement rests a tremendous amount of restriction and responsibility. There are many uses for government, but by it's creation here we did not give them power over our rights without consent.
Yeah, the consent of the collectively governed, not individual consent. Courts, presidents, founders all understand this. Seems you're the last to know.
Lol! By the very lawful definition of "consent" A collective cannot legally or lawfully consent. Only an man or woman can. Clearly discussion with you is not to learn something new but to watch you defend a position without lawful reference. In short, a waste of resources. Peace brother!
Here's all the reference you should need: "consent of the governed" on Google Scholar
Are we Borg? You clearly don't comprehend what was described earlier. A group cannot consent for the individual in a republic. Your reference is exactly correct in the few I read, but not in the way I think you believe. Tell me, how does one become part of the group labeled "the governed?" What are some of the lawful and legal ways in which one associates or disassociates from "the governed?" Do you do it or does someone else do it for you? Is it automatic or is their defined process involved? What is "implied consent" and how is that used in our legal system?
In a republic the collective people's representatives make the law. Since the mid 1600's with the rise of Westphalian Sovereignty sovereignty has been internationally-recognized as vested in nation-states. You can't opt out, and "Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals." It's automatic.
One can opt out by leaving the state (or country).. Of course, then you'll be subject to the laws of another country, unless you can find some unclaimed international land and establish your own.
Our liberties are in fact individual.
As far as safe roads you pay for the via taxation of fuel, tolls,or as an vestment in voluntary rolls. BAKE SALE FOR A TURN PIKE.
The The bases of Americas founding documents The Organic Laws of the United States, have been misconstrued by lawyers. The lawyers seem to ignore the words within these documents that they were written to mean what they say.
We hold these truths to be self evident.
The government by it's existence is corrupt , society will never balance it self under government. but that's for another discussion
It varies by state but most rely primarily on taxes to pay for roads. The Constitution is the supreme law, not the Declaration or any other documents.
If what you say is true why are all 4 organic laws in the first pages of the United States Federal code book?
The 4 pillars where one would not exist with out the others.
The Constitution is the supreme law pursuant to the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, clause 2). Congress was established by the Constitution in Article 1 and can't override its creator without following the proper amendment procedure. The Declaration, Articles of Confederation, etc. are of little to no effect and practical application – you can't cite them as a source of rights that supersede the Constitution. Even if you could, they certainly weren't intended to abolish reasonable laws for health and safety such as state vehicle codes.
As a properly licensed driver, I have the right to expect that my state government properly regulate roads for safety. By driving without a license, you infringe my right to a safe road.
Having a license does not make a person safe. That statement was dumb. Accidents happen every day by licensed drivers.
"As a properly licensed driver…infringe my right…" First of all, there is no such thing as a private right to a safe road. You can imagine as such. You do have a right to move about in your life without someone injuring you, however, estimating, projecting, guessing, suggesting, etc. that something MIGHT happen to you is not enough to show or prove that another is going to injure you. And such a suggestion is not enough for the state to interfere with private right, despite what they want you to believe. With your idea, it gives anyone on a whim the ability to make up whatever they BELIEVE might be a problem to remove the liberty that is the foundation of our country. Let's face it, licensing does not a good driver make. It makes a basic driver, whose tester said, ok, you're good enough and understand the rules we have in place in (name your locale). The same is true of all other state regulations. The fact of the matter is, no matter what you wish, individual action in the republic, is not unlawful so long as it does not cause injury to another, regardless of how you "feel" about it.
The only reason your license is legal to you. Is because, you think the name on that driver's license is you. Pull out your driver's license and look at them tell me if you see all capital letters. Now go to a black Law Dictionary and it will explain to you why your name is in all capital letters. Because the United States government turn you into a commercial identity. Another words they took your rights away from you. In this is illegal under the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution protect your rights. So another words when a state police or whatever asses for your name. You give him the information of all the capital letters as your name. That's how the police officer gets subject matter to take you to court. So basically under statute and code laws if you tell them yeah my name is whatever. The courts have you exactly where they want you. And they can do whatever the hell they want with you. Because you gave them permission to do it. Supreme Court judge Selena made that statement. You have to realize when you're standing in front of a judge, and second thought he's not really a judge he's a magistrate. They have so many tricks to get you in that contract. I've been studying this stuff for years. I work with a private attorney general. A driver's license is a complicated system, just like statute laws, and, UCC laws. And you should remember this they are for government and state and local government laws only. In other words color law. They are not constitutional laws the only law of this country should be run under is common law.
Numerous court cases have considered the issue of names in capitals and concluded it's irrelevant. A big list of such cases can be found here. Law dictionaries made by private corporations don't have authority over states or their courts, which ultimately derive their power from their constitutions and legislation made by their constitutional legislatures and the people's support of them. Whether you're a citizen, foreign national or stateless, the state assumes jurisdiction over you, and all people and property in its geographical area of influence, under its recognized constitutional police power.
First beginner you don't know anything about the strawman. A straw man is a commercial identity. And if you look up the Congress in 1933 they took your flesh and blood name in the garbage. Then they turn around and used your straw man name 4 statue and codes law. If you look up the black Law Dictionary you will see this. And just to let you know they did this without telling you. Under the Constitution of the United States they can not take your rights away. So it is unlawful what they did to the American citizen. And turn every American citizen into a corporation instead of a flesh-and-blood human being because the freaking government went broke file bankruptcy three times. Now you became the government's collateral for their debt. So this guy are trying to tell you what is real and what is not. But you freaking idiots don't take the time to see what's true and what's not. But instead tell everybody else they're freaking stupid. And you're the ones that are freaking stupid gullible ignorant.
None of those cases say what you posted.
Michael R. Hamilton is a pretend judge, affiliated with pretend judge Bruce Doucette, pretend judge Michaeline Jo Formanack and a whole bunch of other pretend judge and pretend grand jury people in Colorado. He's not a judge in any real court that actually exists. So anything that pretend judge Hamilton says about the law should be highly suspect.
Hamilton's track record at being a pretend judge who could make real things happen is pretty pathetic. All the members of the Colorado pretend judge and grand jury crowd that have gone to trial after their April 2018 arrest have been sentenced to decades in prison. All the magic paperwork that Hamilton and his friends filed did absolutely nothing to get them acquitted. And that came after lots of self-congratulation on the "4 Corners Doctrine" weekly conference calls about what a swell job they were doing with their legal research, assuring themselves that they were not only going to win the criminal cases but also going to file and win billions of dollars in civil suits filed in federal court. Their attempt at a federal court case was laughed out of court virtually instantly.
Bruce Doucette was convicted of 34 counts of all sorts of intimidating government officials by a jury in about two hours. Given that juries tend to take a long time to elect a foreperson and to put in their lunch order, the fact that they were able to reach a verdict so quickly suggests that they didn't believe any of the pretend legal nonsense masterminded by Hamilton for a second.
And then the federal courts struck down the States opinion lol . He relied on federal decisions but let's pull out a lesser authority on the matter ? Hahaha
Please cite a source for your claim that the federal courts struck down the States opinion. As cited in our article, the federal courts have stated several times that highway regulation including driver licensing and vehicle registration falls under the state police power not the federal government, so in the vast majority of cases the federal government won't accept an appeal of state decisions on those matters.
I wasn't referring to any case, it was joke. If there are federal decisions on the topic then coming in with a state opinion won't do. That state opinion might not have been challenged yet or was denied by federal courts does not mean the federal courts believe it to be valid nor does it mean it doesn't violate a protected right.
As cited in our article, reasonable regulations for highways and vehicles are accepted by the federal government as being properly able to be created and enforced by the states. State laws on the matter are not generally viewed as violations of the federal constitution or law. Unless state law on the matter is enforced arbitrarily, i.e. not applied the same under similar circumstances, or is considered cruel or unusual the federal government won't overturn it or waste time hearing it.
I completely agree. VTL is a valid law. And the States have authority to regulate. But still the reason it has been held valid is because of who the laws actually apply to. Every case I've read the one claiming the right to drive a motor vehicle is arguing something that is not a right. They argued the wrong points. The purpose and intent of the law when applied to their argument holds up and therefore they lose. The government has power to regulate commerce, trade transportation and traffic is commerce. That's what they are doing.
No need to do all that. And that Wil not avoid the ignorance of law enforcement. Trace the current statutes back to the original Acts. Look at the definitions for that Act. See who actually it applies to. Person is not most Americans. And I have yet to see any State original Act defined person with the term individual ,nevertheless it would still have a the same effect because an individual would be a member of an entity just as a natural person is within those laws.
The courts, not individuals, have the power to make binding interpretations of law. When has a court confirmed your interpretation that some can appear in law and have lawful rights without a person? Every individual human being, man, woman, is automatically construed as a natural person under law and subject to the federal, state, county and municipal constitutions and legislation. If you try to claim otherwise the court will correct you.
I'm not saying that we do or don't all have persons. The right to be secure in our persons,papers And effects. This does not mean our person is the same as defined within the VTL. A reason why most laws have specific definitions for terms used elsewhere. If persons or individual was used as in common language they wouldn't need to be defined within each law. Or reference given to another law definition within a different section or chapter. Another point to point out is the use of includes and including. As well as how the construction of a law definition works when terms of one class are grouped or referenced along with one term that normally just doesn't fit. Example, person: natural person, firm,copartnership, association, corporation. You can't define a water craft and include in the definition the term plane unless plane is also some form of watercraft within the law. If that makes sense
The argument has certainly been tried before. But everyone is considered a person in law and subject to the police power of the state. Murder laws also apply only to persons. So if you extend your logic you can avoid murder charges, too. That would not lead to ordered society but chaos. The argument doesn't work.
You are seen as a natural person under law which is subject to the VTL. There is no escaping it.
Murder would be completely different. When the term person is defined within the law that is being applied, It most certainly word define who the law applies to. Person is not a general term that has same definition within all laws. Nor do most laws that define person
Have the same meaning as within the constitution.
Again I agree except that the rules to statutory interpretation would disagree on the point that when defining the terms used , natural person would not be separate from the fictional entities. It's never defined as person: natural person OR firm , copartnership ect.
What law are you reading? Try it in court and let us know. Personal interpretations are not binding. You need a court to agree.
What law are you reading? Try it in court and let us know. Personal interpretations are not binding. You need a court to agree.
The rules of statutory interpretation. To many think they can just read a statute and believe they know what it says. Federal appellate courts use statutory interpretation. It's not my personal interpretation . I do believe you even mentioned that the terms used in laws have many different definitions. I believe you said motor vehicle is defined in different sections and only apply to those sections
I mean what specific definition of natural person do you believe you are exempt from? What state is the VTL you talked about in? New York? VAT > Title 1 > Article 1
How could you possibly construe that as somehow exempting you via the state rules of statutory interpretation?
Those entities can not act as they are just paperwork fictitious entities, natural person is a member of one of those entities. All I have with me are screen shots of the laws , 1935 Texas original Act regarding opetartor license makes it clear a person is a person ,firm copartnership who is a member of a firm ,copartnership association. I can't post for some reason. And you and I both know the intent of the law can not be changed through statutory amendments so when it was changed to a person is an individual, firm,association ect. The meaning did not change or include something that was excluded before the amendment
In every law it's different.
You have shown nothing that would exempt you from licensing, registration, insurance, etc. while operating an automobile on the public roads in your state.
I can't post my screen shots here. But it's clear I would not be a person as defined in that particular law. You maybe. When a person must be a member of a firm,copartnership,association. And an operator (now a driver) is any Person ,other than a chauffeur who is in actual physical control. If I'm not a member of a firm……. then I can't possibly be an operator required to license
It says "Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation." You are a considered a natural person. "or" means any one can be true. In what world do they all have to be true when qualified by "or"? If it said "and" you might have a semblance of a point (that a court probably wouldn't agree once it considered legislative intent), but it doesn't.
It says "Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation." You are a considered a natural person. "or" means any one can be true. In what world do they all have to be true when qualified by "or"? If it said "and" you might have a semblance of a point (that a court probably wouldn't agree with once it considered the obvious legislative intent), but it doesn't.
Yes it does say that. But a firm ,association, copartnership or corporations can not physically be in control of a motor vehicle. The natural person is therefore included as there must be a natural person with a nexus to the fictional entities. Like I pointed out prior, off the top of my head Texas makes it clear in their original Act that a person is a person ,firm, association, copartnership or corporation who is a member of a firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.
Sure, a corporation can't be a "driver", per se, so if "person" were used in a definition or law like that the court would simply interpret it to cover only natural persons. Indeed, some states originally only required licenses for commercial activity, but things change. Original acts can be completely replaced and superseded or amended. Check the legislative history all the way up to the current law and you will see exactly when and where it happened.
I've done the history searches, and maybe true the court's would interpret it that way,which would still not be applicable to all natural person no matter what ,they'd still have to have a nexus to one of those entities. According to the laws.
Yes at first it was only chauffeur, then a chauffeur and anyone other then a chauffeur. But for Texas and new York and few others I've checked , the original acts have not been replaced or superseded, And they can't change the intent by statutory amendments. So the purpose is still not applicable to All people.
When a law says a person must have a driver's license, and the definition of person includes natural persons without mentioning any exceptions there is no way to interpret it other than that every natural person is covered. As for some strange implied nexus with other entities that defies the standard construction of the English language, if you have anything from an authoritative source, i.e. the state constitution, legislature or courts, suggesting that I'd be happy to look at it.
For Texas, according to mysanantonio.com, the first Driver's License law was enacted in 1935
Some more early Texas vehicle laws are noted here. The official state statutes can be found here.
The legislature makes the laws and can completely repeal, replace and amend them as they see fit using the procedure clearly outlined in the State constitution. Technology and the people's desires are always changing – it wouldn't make sense and would be a failure of the legislature's purpose as the people's representatives if they couldn't update the laws as things change.
And when you seen who a person is defined as in those Texas laws of 1935 it makes it very clear who an operator is. I completely agree the legislative body can do just that, but they can't act outside of their scope. Therefore the laws may change but can never extend into an area not within their scope . And I mentioned before that signing the license and registration you agree to follow those rules, and also waive certain rights which can not be done to all people regardless if they have a nexus to an entity or not. But can voluntarily be done by someone who wishes to engage in the activity. The activity is not merely using a car for private use, but is exactly what people think.
Why don't you cite the document(s) directly so we can see? Do you honestly believe the legislators, governor and journalists all missed that? The scope of the legislature is found in the state Constitution, and we've already established that the police power has very few limits. No state views a signature as necessary to enforce its constitutional laws – that's just internet rumours. You're wasting everyone's time with this and it's getting tiring.
Reading some of the current VTL sections , and I see , "any person, or his agents ,or employees " . This regards operating a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer in public roads.
Now this surely does read the way I've been saying. Natural person here I assume would be the agents or employees and the person is a firm ,association, copartnership or corporation.
or just any person… Consider that if there were some super easy and obvious way to escape the law everyone would do it then the legislature would simply modify the law to close the loophole and stop the chaos on the highways.
What I'm pointing out would not be a claim the law doesn't apply . That specific law may not apply to all people, according to the law, but that would not exempt the public from their duty and responsibility.
And I'm pointing out that it was definitely the intent to apply driver licensing to all people, and if there were some loophole people would find it and use it and they would simply close it. They can regulate anything, commercial and non-commercial, to maintain public health and safety. Nobody is exempt from state law. I recommend not screwing up your life in order to test these theories but if you insist then I suggest not violating any laws that would be a felony as they have far more significant penalties than misdemeanors.
Another point,a citizen just moving himself from place to place for no particular reason would not have to enter into a contract in order to use his property. Nor would he have to agree in writing to follow a certain set of laws if those laws were General laws, applicable as are penal laws. Nor would he have to waive his rights As in arrest without warrant for Civil infractions, in order to engage in the so called privilege.
It's not a contract, and use of public property and endangering the lives of the community by operating high speed machines in public is able to be regulated. You can be lawfully arrested without a warrant for any minor violation, even a seatbelt fine or a municipal bylaw infraction such as littering, jaywalking or having your dog on a beach outside of the prescribed hours. The precedent for that is Atwater v Lago Vista.
It sure is a contract, you agree to abide by vtl when you get a license and registration. Every time you reregister you must sign and reaffirm your agreement. Where does the authority come from to deprive liberty for a civil infraction? I know you can be summoned to a court for such violations but depriving liberty follows strict guidelines. Normally an unreasonable search or seizure is one without warrant. Only very select activities have allowed deprivation of liberty without warrant . That's not to say there aren't laws that violate this on the books and being enforced.
I can see how it might seem that way but it's not true. We've already gone over the basis of the state police power, but you probably still haven't even googled it or read about it because you're so full of yourself. All of your theories are provably false. I just cited the precedent that proves your warrant ideas are wrong and you ignored it or can't understand it. Go read more and come back.
Its not exempting. It just blatantly does not apply. legal entities can not act physically. Natural persons are needed. There are rules to defining terms in law.
Yeah, men and women are automatically considered natural persons in law.
That still doesn't mean the vtl definition of person means all people regardless. The rules to interpret the definition prove otherwise. Like I mentioned before, if person was defined the way you suggest it could also be defined like this, person: natural person, unicorn, big foot, snowman. Because all except one is fictional this would also work,right? .
Agree to disagree, good luck in court!
If you want to drive an omnibus that carries say 16 people you need an operator license not a chauffeur license, But now either license is considered a driver license. If you want to drive that omnibus now you get instead a driver license with a certain classification. Still technically not a chauffeur. But let's say you only want to carry 3-4 passengers, Then you still need a driver license (operator license ) but because the vehicle is far less weight you only need a basic driver license. It's called a passenger car for a reason. Passenger is defined several times and I have yet to fine one that suggests friends and family . Personal use is also a term of art. I've tried to write this as close to Wikipedia as possible in hopes it sinks in. Even a judge will follow certain rules when confronted with a dilemma with a statutes meaning ,purpose. One way is to look at the history. If you could show where it converted or changed or was rewritten to apply to individual people then maybe . But it doesn't ,never did ,won't ever. The court cases show this but I think you either are a paid disinformation agent or are unclear because you depend on Wikipedia for your answers. Either way. The laws themselves are meant to be read and understood by the citizens. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And there is no doubt ,other then public safety (stop signs,ect.),a license being required regardless of use would never stand in court, the laws dont claim this.
IN LAW, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEMS? YOU ARE SCUM
You can avoid it by not engaging in that activity. Even if we all are natural person in law , that doesn't mean the law applies unless we engage in the activity. As defined in the law.
Yes, if you are not "driving" a "motor vehicle" as those are defined in the state laws or courts (if the legislation doesn't define it) then you won't be charged or held under the statutes those definitions apply to. That goes without saying.
Exactly
A Man can have many "persons," father, dentist, driver, baker, but a "person" is not a Man. A "person" in law is a legal entity. A person is a person is a person. A natural person is still a person, not a Man. Natural person is a legal entity designed to fool the weak minded into thinking it is a Man.
The law views every man as a natural person. A man can't appear in law except as a natural person. If you aren't acting as a natural person, if it were even possible, you can't use law and have no rights.
Statutory law presumes every man is acting in the capacity of a"natural person." It presumes joinder unless that presumption is rebutted. It does not recognize a Man. So, you're correct, a man cannot appear in statutory law. A person has civil rights, a Man has natural rights which do not come from government.
The courts were created under the state constitutions and legislatures for the purpose of enforcing the state constitution and legislation, and legislatures determine the judges salaries. So what's the point of having your own personal law theories with nowhere to enforce them? And if nobody recognizes your law but yourself, does it really exist in any meaningful way?
???
Vengeance is the lord. YOUR TIME IS ALMOST UP
Span
What authority created and enforces the natural rights you claim? Where are they written? They're not written – you just make them up as you go. That's why they're ignored by everyone. Individuals making things up as they please is no way to run an ordered society.
I see. Might makes right. You must be an attorney, one who turns over.
Written? by whom? other men?
You are probably a globalist trying to convince the uninformed that an entity created by Men (government) could possibly be superior to its creators.
Natural law is God's law. It is enforced by the law of reciprocity.
At the very least you are a sniveling statist who believes a legal fiction can grant rights simply because they are "written" down on a piece of paper.
The creators of government are superior, however they are superior as a collective not individuals. If the government stops representing the interests of the wide majority of people it loses its legitimacy and can be reformed lawfully, by force if necessary. This right of revolution is written into many states constitutions and is enshrined in the concept of popular sovereignty and consent of the governed. As a mere individual, though, you don't have the freedom or power to dictate your whims upon everyone, particularly over public property which everyone else contributes to and supports, which is logical, and fair under any law.
Your or my opinion is largely irrelevant, except where we can influence our fellow countrymen and representatives to change things. Federal, state, county and municipal law is applied to everyone by force, yes, and without a superior force you can be held to it. This is just objective analysis of reality.
This is true.
It cannot be rebutted. Every man is automatically assumed to be a natural person. You can't use law any other way. There is no other law the state recognizes.
This is true.
It's not called joinder, but their jurisdiction cannot be rebutted. There is no other law the state recognizes than its own constitutions, legislation and court decisions, and it imposes them by force. Unless you have a bigger military, or unless you can overthrow the government peacefully through lawful rebellion with the support of the majority of your fellow countrymen, you're stuck under it like everyone else.
This is true.
It's not called joinder, and their jurisdiction cannot be rebutted. There is no other law the state recognizes than its own constitutions, legislation and court decisions, and it imposes them by force. Unless you have a bigger military, or unless you can overthrow the government peacefully through lawful rebellion with the support of the majority of your fellow countrymen, you're stuck under it like everyone else.
Please provide references validating your statements
Hillhouse vs. Us. This case law is related to travel now i have is this to its value.
You can drive in california without a license or registration or license plates.. Those are things only needed if you ate involved in commerce on the highway or using your vehicle as a means of employment… Its a proven fact….
It's an internet rumor and it's false. California law starts at the state constitution. The legislature makes laws in accordance with the constitution. In the California vehicle code you will find the license and plate requirements and the definitions used when interpreting them. The definitions clearly capture non-commercial travelers. Case law from the state confirms the requirements. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Let see them. Can you back up the statement you just made with the law and not conjecture? Lets see the California Constitution and the case law!
The police power of the states is well known and easily researched… Check into it.
And that is the problem your sophistry promotes a police STATE! To hell with the police state I want to be free!
BS! You did not answer me! You are a supporter of the Fascist Communist Terrorist organization called the B.A.R!
The legislatures create the various BARs via acts, such as the State Bar Act in California. Legislators don't have to be lawyers, and them being lawyers is on the decline. So to say lawyers made all laws is incorrect. Those that make laws don't have to be lawyers, and those that make laws existed before the Bar.
No law passed in any STATE gets past the B.A.R. Terrorist counsels approval!
And who gave the STATE legislators the authority to create any thing that put a monopoly on the law? That act is UN-constitutional! #Yes you are a communist pig!
State Bar Acts were made by legislators who couldn't possibly yet be members of the State Bar, so your statement doesn't compute. The collective people give state government and its legislators authority. If the collective people are unhappy with their representatives they can replace them. If they aren't provided the methods to replace them peacefully they can replace them by violent revolution. In fact, many states have a written, established right of revolution for just such an occasion.
Yeah it says they have police power as long as its in accordance with the constitution. Marberry vs Madison proves they pass unconstitutional laws. You need to read article 6 para 2
https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Court cases are cited. Actually do diligent research before shitposting to tailor the argument to your personal agenda. Idiots.
Case law from the state means nothing if the Supreme Court deems those rulings unconstitutional based on precedent.
If you read the article on this site you would know the federal Supreme Court views highway regulation including driver licensing, vehicle registration, etc. as a proper exercise of state police power, but ok.
If you read the cases on that site you will find the quotes are either completely wrong or taken out of context.
Marberry vs madison proves states can violate the constitution and still be in their laws. It talks about how unconstitutional laws can still be enforced and you the people are post to declare them unconstitutional. But your dumb as mk ultra lets you be
I've done it in Alabama also. Got cited once, but it was thrown out because they couldn't prove I was getting paid to drive (commercial, for which licensing is required). That is why any ticket you get says "was operating a motor vehicle"… Without contesting it, it is a tacit agreement to abide by government employee rules. And seeing as if any human wants to live these days they must have a way of moving around and can't be forced to one mode of transportation, nor disallowed the common form of locomotion, in the pursuit of daily life (which committing commerce on public roads isn't). The license was issued, as shown in case history, to offset funding for public ways from the wear and tear from those making money using them, which is, and should be, regulated and licensed. Not only to recompense for wear and tear, but also to ensure integrity and competence of commercial drivers.
Please cite the court decisions that confirm your claims or admit it's just made-up BS and wishful thinking. Numerous decisions prove otherwise. I'm not going to let you spam unsubstantiated claims endlessly.
I tried that, you banned me. Roe v Wade (and the sister case Doe v Bolton), it's info, and interpretations are publicly available. Many court decisions cross over to other considerations. International Contract law is also publicly available. I'm trying not to be banned again, but it is nether made up nor wishful thinking. But thank you for the opportunity to disseminate some information, whether disputed by you or not. This is your site, and whether you are right or wrong with your vested interest in the outcome (paychecks from system as-is), it is your page, to run as you see fit (free speech, right of association etc.). No need to reply, as even if you agreed you wouldn't lose you income by saying so. Farewell.
Specifically, your claim that "it was thrown out because they couldn't prove I was getting paid to drive" is unsubstantiated. Other case law is irrelevant unless cited in the court's decision. Sovereign states are the highest law on the planet and are based on a national constitution. International law recognizes that nation-states are sovereign over their territory. Obedience to a national sovereign, and sub-sovereigns i.e internal states, is not optional or contractual. The only way out is violent revolution, and you don't have the support of the general population and can't defeat the military so it's not an option. No government recognizes individual sovereignty. It would not be conducive to ordered society.
Specifically, your claim that "it was thrown out because they couldn't prove I was getting paid to drive" is unsubstantiated. Other case law is irrelevant unless cited in the court's decision. International law recognizes that nation-states are sovereign over their territory. Obedience to a national sovereign, and sub-sovereigns i.e internal states, is not optional or contractual. The only way out is violent revolution, and you don't have the support of the general population and can't defeat the military so it's not an option. No government recognizes individual sovereignty. It would not be conducive to ordered society.
Hey carl miller has a good defence for the right to travel. It includes a Birmingham supreme court case. Birmingham vs shuttlesworth.
You are agreeing that a right can be taxed! Your saying their rules are law! Your right if you signed a contract with them!
What other law is there? Laws start at the federal and state constitutions and extend into legislation and court rulings made by legislatures and courts created by those constitutions. Beyond that there is no law except what you make up in your mind, which is unenforceable, unless you can personally enforce it with more physical power than the federal or state governments..
COMMON LAW MORON! Again more BS! Your sophistry is made up in your mind! Your a B.A.R. Terrorist member from the looks of your replies!
English statutes and common law were imported into the several states subject to their constitutions, legislation and future court rulings. Since then each state's common law has diverged significantly as it has been variously modified by the courts and overridden by the legislature over time. The international community recognizes the federal government as sovereign over its territory, and the states are sovereign over their territory where the federal government was not granted power via the federal Constitution.
Curious how you seem to interpret divergence and modification as total deletion of the original.
"Can be conditionally granted" …. Lmao at 'can'
It was shot down before that one – but I was only referring to the sovereign citizen claim – you don't have to think you're one to bring up the "driving is a right" claim. You people should pay attention to what you read.
So can I get into a car without a license and drive? No. You can ride as a passenger anywhere you want – that is your constitutional right. But operating a motor vehicle still requires a license, because the states have reserved the right to require one.
–so i can sit in my car ready to travel, but without anyone behind the wheel, the car is going nowhere, right? And so I get my other buddy in the car to travel with and the car still goes nowhere until I what? Pay someone to drive for us? So eventually, a common law traveler is forced to pay for the right to travel? Since when did you have to pay for a right?
Interstate commerce is negatively affected by travel permits. No such thing as horse licenses way back when. Pedestrian licenses either. I suppose you can justify them, since you're an anti-freedom statist.
corrections: words HAVE meanings, especially in legal land DRIVE(R) is a commercial term, PASSENGER is a commercial term meaning you are paying someone to take you somewhere, GUEST is not and is TRAVELING at the pleasure of his host, MOTOR VEHICLE is a commercial term, OPERATOR and its variants are commercial terms, all bound by law to mean COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY that you are using the highways and bi-ways to earn gain or profit from the use thereof, any other use is and has been considered a fundamental RIGHT
Privilege is depriving one natural rights, also it was a time when Speed Limit, Driver License wasn't even needed on Road, Toll fee is for hired Motor Vehicle Operators, this dam shit privilege is nothing more than Injust Enrichment, ex post facto after the fact of Self-Government infringement Enterprise RICO, the Residents Taxpayers pays for the Public Road and the Local Government Salaries, We the People formed Government, not the other way around, we're the bill passed by Congress that'd made it a privilege law, any one who says it's a privilege is a pirate working for Self-Government Ponzi scam for Injust Enrichment is Unconstitutional…! States has Limited Powers and no power to enforce unlawful rules that'd depriving Life, Liberty, of the People Natural GOD giving birth Rights…! GOD is govern over all things, never gave Corporation power to infringe another man Rights, All man is created equal, anything other then that is Vast interest of the outcome Municipality to gain Injust Enrichment Contract, We the People's Don't Consent, you have to have two party in agreement, Slavery days is over for these undercover pirates in new uniforms…! Legalizing Injust Enrichment White Collar Criminals
modern day Enslavement, Which a bill was passed in 2015
S.553 – End Modern Slavery Initiative Act of 2015
114th Congress (2015-2016)
Stop you pirate spreading Racketeering Injust Enrichment for Local-Goverment Pirates
States can't reserve any rights. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to the federal government, and other rights to the states, and rights not specifically reserved to the fed gov or the states are reserved for "we the people".
Wrong
I was referring to the sovereign citizen claim – you don't have to
think you're one to bring up the "driving is a right" claim. You people
should pay attention to what you read.
Joseph, The fees collected by the DMV in each state is for the purpose of maintaining the roads, bridges, etc… You do not need a license to drive a vehicle across country but to use the roads you do. Good luck traveling without roads, avoiding private property, protected land and staying on only public unprotected land.
Well said my fellow man. Only if the so called citizens or persons can get with the program
You need to wake up and see what's really going on in the world around you.
As far as "trying to pull this bullshit" is concerned, its called exercising your rights. Licensure is contracting. And contracting is voluntary. Until the actual "owner" of the road comes forward and reveals themselves, nobody has any business telling me that I have to ask the super states permission to use them.
The number of people who are fed up with the police state is GROWING. It's not going to get any smaller.
No government on the planet views its laws as contractual, so claiming that in court will have no effect. Unless you can physically defeat the police and military that enforce state and federal law in accordance with the will of the majority of the people you are bound like everyone else.
No government on the planet views its laws as contractual, so claiming that in court will have no effect. Unless you can physically defeat the police and military that enforce state and federal law in accordance with the will of the majority of the people you are bound like everyone else.
Did you conduct a poll to see how government views its policy (we're not actually talking about law) ? There are more private individuals in the US than what there are military and police by the way. So your rationalization of enforcing policy by violence would only work until the people wake up and see it as being ruled by a gang. I don't live by the will of the majority. That's Democracy. And Democracy is mob rule.
The state accepts that in private you have a fair amount of liberty provided it doesn't adversely affect the liberty of others, but when it comes to public resources those are governed by public rules and regulations.
If only I cared about "The State's" opinion.
And who is the STATE?
In this instance I was referring to either the federal or state governments, as established and maintained via the consent of the collective people through their representatives, i.e. a republic based on popular sovereignty.
And I actually find your promotion of Democracy amusing. A perfect example of Democracy is five men raping a woman. Because hey, they voted.
Licenses, by their very nature, are contractual. Look at all these DMVs calling their captive clientele 'customers', LOL. You are an authoritarian — admit it.
all law is CONTRACTUAL, and because government uses COMMERCIAL PAPER, i.e. FRNs, it is no longer SOVEREIGN and MUST sue and be sued as a private citizen and the plaintiff MUST be the holder-in-due-course to bring suit against you CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363,371 (1942)
Licensure is contracting? Bwahahahahahaha!
It is to an adult living in the real world. hahahahahaha.
Getting a license might help someone's ability to contract (i.e. an Ubr or Lyft driver), but there is no "right to travel" on public rights and operate a vehicle without a driver's license. Those right to travel arguments are easily shot down.
So far I don't see you shooting down anything. Unless the actual owners of the road (I'm one of them) comes out of hiding and complains that I am using the road, I can do whatever I want on them.
Yeah, sure, clearly you can do whatever you want. Nevermind the ample evidence to the contrary.
Show the evidence. I'm sure its funny.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sovereigns+getting+owned+compilation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6ocsvY_iWw 2 sides to every coin. If the policy enforcers want to rule by violence, there's a solution for that, too.
Being charged with assaulting an officer is not going to increase your freedom. Depending on your state if you're found guilty you could get 1-3 years in jail and a few thousand in fines or worse. If you want to test the limits of your freedom I highly recommend you do it with something with less potential punishment. I hate seeing people in the "freedom movement" go to prison for years because of their misguided beliefs. Before I started this site I tried a few things myself, but I won't get into that. 🙂
I really don't worry about it. These commercial courts can't actually charge human beings with anything.
To all governments, every man, woman, living soul, whatever you want to call yourself, is considered a natural person subject to federal, state, county and municipal law. If it weren't this way you could go on a killing spree without any legal repercussions. It's not true. The internet lied.
You will be doing really well when you learn the definitions of the words legal, policy, and law. If the policy enforcement gang continues their policy of murdering people over dumb shit like tin plates and plastic cards, they would be wise to expect retaliation. At one time, corrupt judges and police were lynched. We're probably going to see those days return.
If you go and look at case law you will find the courts use the terms "legal" and "lawful" interchangeably – there's really no difference. Legal things can be lawful, and lawful things can be legal. State and federal legal/law/policy starting from the state and federal constitutions applies to everyone. You can't just switch out words and magically become individually sovereign and untouchable. There is no individual sovereignty in any law. It took me a while to figure all this stuff out, too.
Ron, you apparently didn't read the article and were asleep in civics class. The owners of the (i.e. We the People) got together and formed a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic is a form of government in which the head of the state, as well as other officials, are elected by the country’s citizens to represent them. Those representatives must then follow the rules of that country’s constitution in governing their people. Like the U.S. government, a constitutional republic may consist of three branches – executive, judicial, and legislative – which divide the power of the government so that no one branch becomes too powerful.
In this case, the power to regulate things like rules of the road were delegated the states as confirmed by multiple opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court cited above.
Now if you've swallowed the sov cit Kool Aid, then there's nothing I'll say that will convince you.
Contract law varies depending on the legislation and court decisions in each state. The government doesn't view its laws as contractual. The roads are a public resource funded by those paying taxes and participating in the public. Why would you feel you have the right to use them without following public law?
There's no such thing as "law" that human beings manipulate or shape. You're confusing law with policy. Huge difference. Until the actual owners of the road (I'm one of them) comes out of hiding and complains, I can do whatever I want on them. There is no such thing as a "public" resource. "Public" property is just a ruse to try to hide who the private owners are.
If only it were possible to use that as a successful defense in court… Someone has likely already tried it in your state. I recommend searching case law on Google Scholar to see how such arguments might turn out.
John Ingress shot down a NH courts efforts with little difficulty. He simply moved to collapse the CQV Trust. Something anyone could do and probably will do more in the future. I seriously doubt that John Ingress will ever be hauled into court again.
Why are you so fucking stupid? Which court has to affirm the ability of the states to regulate motor vehicle traffic? How many times can "right to travel" (a rather simple concept) be explained before your dumb ass gets it. Fuckin moron.
you soft ass fuck.. bruh.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law they cannot restrict your rights … lol well only if you let them..
That's covered at the very beginning of the article. The federal right to freedom of movement or travel refers to the right to enter and exit the several states without being arbitrarily taxed. It has nothing to do with regulation of the mode or manner of travel by the federal or state governments. As cited further on in the article, the Supreme Court has supported and not struck down state vehicle codes and sees them as a reasonable use of state police power for the safety and health of their residents.
State statues are not law they are color of law. There is no such thing as "sovereign citizens" that is an oxymoron. Ether you are a citizen or you are a sovereign! The Supreme Court has ruled we are all Sovereigns,KINGS. It is a word game and you did not catch it. Driving v Traveling. Motor Vehicle v Automobile. A license or permit is permission from the state to travel on your roads that you paid for! FREE or SLAVE take your pick!
BS buddy. You have the right to travel without a driver's license the DMV ain't nothing but one big scam I've been driver 18 years without a license I haven't had any issues with the law
If true, just because you haven't had issues doesn't mean it's an enforceable right. If you've ever been charged, there are many reasons it might fail to stick, such as prosecutorial discretion, limited taxpayer funds, lack of evidence, etc., and you can't win damages for false arrest if the state decides to enforce, or act toward enforcing, its laws created by the state legislature, which should tell you something.
I can't believe how many people so willing submit any and all freedoms to a foreign corporation!! YES you do have the RIGHT to use your personal property to travel on public roads without regulations!!! You CAN NOT DRIVE or TRANSPORT things without a license. IT is very clear, your right to travel is spelled out
:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of
which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the
states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction
(license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that
does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by
the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225
F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is
no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do
indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any
manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of
others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses,
and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question —
is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to
travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This
means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and
those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in
determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free
exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms
secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it
is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the
inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are
involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may
very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are
unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way
that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just
a few — on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,
the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right
and common reason are null and void."
The government isn't a foreign corporation.. The federal government is considered a sovereign state under international law. The states are sovereign and have wide-reaching police power except where they have delegated power to the federal government via the federal constitution. The cases you cited, if you actually read them, clearly support regulation of the public roads for safety and a driver's license requirement. e.g. from Thompson v Smith, the easier to find of the two:
So you see, you have the right to travel on the public roads, but the right is not unlimited. It can be regulated reasonably and fairly.
You cant have a say in this cuz you cant speak legalese or enlgish and untill you can distinguish the 2 you are lost@
Ok to those who believe that the laws are here to protect the citizens, I have a couple f questions? 1st one is are you white or black? If you say it doesn't matter then you haven't been to wisconsin. I was in a car accident where I was hit in the rear end of my car. Now by almost any law since I was rear ended I would have been in the right , do most agree? Well this happened in wisconsin and I was hit after I had done the necessary stop at the stop sign, then proceeded into the intersection to cross well halfway across I was hit by a truck from oncoming traffic. The police officers came and at this time I was basically living out of my car and told the officer that and was hoping for some leniency to at east keep my car. Nope!! the female police officer decided that she didn't like my attitude and even wrote the ticket blaming me for the accident saying that I failed to yield. How could i fail to yield at a stop sign? But the guy who hit me was whit the police officer that made claim that it was my fault was white and needless to say I was the one who had to pay for it. Although I had nothing and the driver was exceeding the speed limit which was never brought up. Now does this seem fair to you ? Even though you could tell that the driver who hit me had money and I had none as long as you are black and the police are white and you are not rich you won't win. Even when I went to court the judge told me that she avoided using the street that I had my accident on for just this reason, so if they now that this is a problem, why hasn't it been fixed and why do I get blamed and sued by the guy who evidently hit me and was speeding? Easy and simple Wisconsin has been one of the most racist states I ever lived in it's even more racist than mississippi. yet even in 2019 this goes on and no one says anything or too scared of retaliation to do anything. So for the Law to always break any constitutional right is absurd, which is ran by who/ White people who have money . So think about what you are saying because driving is not a right it's a privledge but I do have the right to travel per the constitution and it doesn't state how I travel just that I can travel if we were still doing the horse and buggy would I have to have a license? If not and man made automobiles for us to travel then why do I have to have license? Some of the best drivers in this world don't have license but the ones that get them always are the ones in accidents think about that? The ones who don't have them barely gets into any accidents and the ones that do have them always gt into accidents. Having a license is not only another way for the government to put a name to the face, but also a way of getting the peoples money to pay for things the government wants not the people and wasn't the constitution written for the people? Or just rich white people who want power? Make me understand why we have a constitution if the so called laws placed here again by man not the people why does no one recognize them unless they want you dead, killed, search your home, or invade your space?
Ok to those who believe that the laws are here to protect the citizens, I have a couple f questions? 1st one is are you white or black? If you say it doesn't matter then you haven't been to wisconsin. I was in a car accident where I was hit in the rear end of my car. Now by almost any law since I was rear ended I would have been in the right , do most agree? Well this happened in wisconsin and I was hit after I had done the necessary stop at the stop sign, then proceeded into the intersection to cross well halfway across I was hit by a truck from oncoming traffic. The police officers came and at this time I was basically living out of my car and told the officer that and was hoping for some leniency to at east keep my car. Nope!! the female police officer decided that she didn't like my attitude and even wrote the ticket blaming me for the accident saying that I failed to yield. How could i fail to yield at a stop sign? But the guy who hit me was whit the police officer that made claim that it was my fault was white and needless to say I was the one who had to pay for it. Although I had nothing and the driver was exceeding the speed limit which was never brought up. Now does this seem fair to you ? Even though you could tell that the driver who hit me had money and I had none as long as you are black and the police are white and you are not rich you won't win. Even when I went to court the judge told me that she avoided using the street that I had my accident on for just this reason, so if they now that this is a problem, why hasn't it been fixed and why do I get blamed and sued by the guy who evidently hit me and was speeding? Easy and simple Wisconsin has been one of the most racist states I ever lived in it's even more racist than mississippi. yet even in 2019 this goes on and no one says anything or too scared of retaliation to do anything. So for the Law to always break any constitutional right is absurd, which is ran by who/ White people who have money . So think about what you are saying because driving is not a right it's a privledge but I do have the right to travel per the constitution and it doesn't state how I travel just that I can travel if we were still doing the horse and buggy would I have to have a license? If not and man made automobiles for us to travel then why do I have to have license? Some of the best drivers in this world don't have license but the ones that get them always are the ones in accidents think about that? The ones who don't have them barely gets into any accidents and the ones that do have them always gt into accidents. Having a license is not only another way for the government to put a name to the face, but also a way of getting the peoples money to pay for things the government wants not the people and wasn't the constitution written for the people? Or just rich white people who want power? Make me understand why we have a constitution if the so called laws placed here again by man not the people why does no one recognize them unless they want you dead, killed, search your home, or invade your space?
You are absolutely right any 'operator' or 'driver' of a 'motor vehicle' are required by law to be licensed. However a 'traveller' driving an 'auto-mobile is not. The legal definitions of these terms are very clear.
State DMV-issued permits do not reduce harm incurred by vehicular transportation. Traffic laws and roadway signage do that. The DMV exists solely to keep track of the citizenry. Some municipalities regulated bicycle travel prior to automobiles. They dropped that when automobiles became popular. You are an authoritarian, plain and simple.
18 usc 31
(6) Motor vehicle. –The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes. –The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Since when are statutes, codes, etc constitutional? Statutes and codes are not common law, with people like yourself they’ll make up codes until it’ll be against the law to breath! Wake tf up dude & stop being a bootlicker!
This whole "movement" cracks me up. Watching you people get tased and arrested has become one of my favorite things…though, it would be better if these "gurus" who are selling seminars and books on this movement/strategy were the ones getting zapped into oblivion, given all the pain, frustration, and waste their "ideas" cause the dimwitted fools who try to follow this stuff. There are so many flaws and ethical rabbitholes to this overall movement, not the least of which is the fact that ultimately all its followers are really just freeloaders and fools looking for handouts and a way of getting the rest of the world to pay their fair share. This stuff never works. If it did, don't you think every lawyer and person in America would be using it to enrich themselves? People much smarter than you would be all over it. We would have "Sovereign Corporations" for Christ's sake. For a group that claims to apply common sense to the law, you sure lack in common sense. It's not an accident that it seems that there are no lawyers or anyone else with real legal training promoting this scam, because that's what it is…a scam. You want the priviledges of US citizenship without any of the obligations, and that's BS. You're a freeloader and should be treated as such. One of the posters here brought up the notion that "Rights don't change or go away just because the laws change." What utter nonsense. That's EXACTLY what happens. Your rights and priviledges, and how they are applied/interpretted change over time as laws are introduced and or ammended. That's why cherry-picking obscure laws, statutes, and decisions doesn't work and you people always get destroyed in court. Its the MOST RECENT law or case decision that holds sway, not some obscure, cherry-picked passage in the Magna Charta or Articles of Confederation. I would say that if you people had even the slightest bit of legal training you would know this, but I understand that this is deliberate and that what you are really trying to do is play Three Card Monty with the law in the hopes of winning a free ride. Ultimately, I wish the legal system would take all this mumbo jumbo to it's limit…which is to say, if you renounce your US citizenship, fine…then you are living in the US illegally (just like all these "illegals" I'm sure you complain about) and can't lawfully make money or (in most cases) own property in the US. So, unless you can produce a visa, you should be arrested and detained pending deportation to your imaginary country. There is NO COUNTRY ON THE PLANET that allows non-citizens to operate outside of the law inside their borders (and before you start talking about diplomatic immunity, remember that this is a status conferred by the country based on strict requirements, you can't simply claim it for yourself), so I imagine you'll be in a cell for a very long time.
How can I address traveling in the State of New Hampshire, not driving
Please advise
New Hampshire law TITLE XXI states:
Therefore whether you call it "traveling" or "driving" an "automobile" or a "motor vehicle" it falls under the definitions given and you require a Driver's License pursuant to 263:1.
So I have to contract with the state to be able to use my personal automoblie on the public road of the state of NH.
"right to travel" means the supposed right to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or property."
Please advise
The state doesn't view the application of its laws as contractual. Everyone is presumed to be subject to the local police power whether they are citizens, foreign nationals, stateless, etc. If it weren't that way people could break state laws, such as those against murder, and not be able to be imprisoned, which would lead to chaos. There is a right to use public property such as the public highways, however the right is not unlimited – it can be regulated for safety such as by requiring license, insurance etc. If you try to argue otherwise, it will likely turn out something like this case.
Thanks ….
As we can see in Texas law ,in the picture, the term PERSON is unique. Must be a member of one of those entities to be a person. Then we look at who an operator is. Oh an operator is a Person. Hmmmm. Who needs to be registered and licensed ,operators who are person's as defined within the law. Now we should know that statutory amendments can NOT change the original meaning of the terms used nor can it change the original intent through statutory amendments. The law review paper you provided, the orphaned right, even states within that there was a right at some point. Court cases claim it to be a common right to which it can be regulated. In this sense the common right is our right to work ,our right to livelihood. These cases don't touch upon the distinct difference between the right of locomotion and doing business. They merely state the regulated activity of trade,transportation or traffic is not just a privilege but a right only because we have a right to work in whatever field we choose . It's not a mere privilege, if it was then being a doctor or lawyer or electrician all being licensed or permited to work would also be a privilege. In a sense it is with the fact that if regulations are not followed we could lose the license.
The fact that pseudolaw doesn't believe the history of the legislative intent is important, or believe the 1900's laws are still in effect just amended and the fact that the statutory laws they are depending on are just amendments to laws 50 years old or older. Those statutory laws are not the original enactments.
The fact you ban everyone and anyone who actually knows the laws is proof you either are 12 years old; a liberal minded individual; and or a paid agent for one of the many disinformation agencies out there. Either way. Learn how to read the laws, the cases. Because it appears you don't understand the meaning of the words . It apears you read them as if they are written in plain English. Have a great day, look forward to you banning me also and then continue to comment on my post as if you trumped me ,hahahahaha. Joker
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5771178b96e7e4ee21efe63795bcc33333210377f90b90d354a051894ed957a.png
Shapiro v Thomson the people have the right to travel under their own power law, the state can not take a right and convert it to a privilege and require license (permission to break the law) and charge a fee.
Driver$ are in legal, regulations/ for profit rules/policy "USDOT corporate" statues, commerce, driving the words have meanings, we are founded on the idea of laws if not why write them down, just make them up to fit your pocket book.
The USDOT has nothing to do with non-commercial driver licensing and vehicle registration.
Whoever wrote this article does not understand some very basic elements of law. First, unless I give someone authority over me, they do not have it. Assumption of authority without consent is being a thug. Second, there is no such thing as state "law". It's called policy, and it has to be contracted into.
I would love to be on a radio podcast with the creator of this site. Because I could mop the floor with them.
—
Saying you are freed by some law you didn't create is oxymoronic – you're admitting subservience by claiming it. Regardless, your consent or contract is not required and the government openly admits it. The government was created and is empowered by the will of the majority of the people and has the physical force to enforce its law. You don't have the force to enforce yours. No amount of arguing on podcasts will change that or how the laws of legislatures and decisions of courts may affect your freedom.
I think you're going to learn the hard way regarding who has enough force to shake off this unlawful government. At least five percent of the population is aware of the criminal nature of this government, which is more than enough to defeat it.
I could honestly care less about what the brainwashed majority thinks.
You do not seem to grasp the difference between policy and law.
If/when governments become wholly corrupt and stop heeding the will of the majority, yeah, the masses can rise up and replace it with something new in a violent revolution. It happens and is sometimes the only way. I don't agree that the people in most so-called western countries, where there is still a good amount of justice and representation, feel the need to do that at this point, or will anytime soon, though.
When are we going to do a radio podcast so I can expose your agenda to a larger audience. Nonmangina@gmail.com. Name the time and place and I'll stick your ass out in the breeze.
I can say with certainty that the law is not applied uniformly and illegals feel just as entitled to drive without a license as they do disregarding the crime they committed crossing our border illegally. But then, there are no consequences. They are given a free education–at the expense of other children's learning. They are given health care, which, like their driving illegally, costs taxpayers more in premiums we are forced to pay. They get food stamps, housing, etc., and are allowed to graduate from our schools without knowing our language (and typically, deficient in their own); and receive taxpayer money for college—-yet no college asks for our approval to abuse funds in such a manner. But, that is the norm for progressive liberals—happy to spend money that comes from the pockets of others.
This article and the as***le who wrote it are intentionally leading you down the wrong path. It's more than likely a 'legal system' paid article, or written by a liar, excuse me, lawyer, who works in traffic court. Unfortunately, many people who realize things are 'not right' don't know what to do, and try resisting a system that 'assumes' you have given 'consent to contract' with them because you did not resist when you were expected to apply for a driver's license, and register your private property with the state. The wrong path?… YES, the issue is not 'freedom (or right) of movement, or travel. That is all bu****it! The issue is whether you have rescinded your 'driver's license, and vehicle registration, in order to make sure you are not contracting with the state. An 'American', or 'American national' is a completely free American man or woman, and is not compromised, or limited in their freedom by ANY state regulation. That goes for property taxes, 'income' taxes, building code, and a myriad of other 'regulations', or 'statutes' that have been unlawfully passed in conflict with State and Federal Constitutions. In regard to the secondary argument about freedom of movement or travel, many states 'Vehicle Codes' are written specifically to apply ONLY to commercial drivers, and plainly DO NOT apply to private Americans operating their private property on the public roads. A great example is California: CVC 260 (a) (b).
No government views the application of its laws as optional or a contract. There is no contract law outside of the government to use. Citable, enforceable contract law is developed within the States, not beyond. If you read the State and Federal constitutions you will find they establish legislatures for the purpose of creating laws and courts for interpreting the constitution and those laws and creating common law where the constitution or legislation are vague or silent. The legislatures set the judge's salaries. So what other than people on the internet suggests you can be exempt from those laws? If it were true you could murder and endanger people with impunity, which would not lead to organized society but chaos. If you read the state vehicle codes you will find definitions that clearly capture non-commercial travelers. Regulation is part of the recognized police power of the states. If a code, law, regulation, etc. is passed in conflict with the state or federal constitutions it is for the courts, not individuals, to decide. When a court finds a law invalid it can render it null and void. No court has found the vehicle codes generally unlawful, despite many people claiming them so. You can find the full California vehicle code here. Section 260 defines "commercial vehicle", but 415 defines "motor vehicle" as "any self-propelled vehicle" and that is the term used with the driver's license provisions, financial responsibility requirements, etc.
THERE IS A PROCESS TO RESCINDING YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE STATE THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AS LONG AS YOU DO IT CORRECTLY. ONCE YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS RESCINDED, WHICH THE FIRST STEP INVOLVES CANCELING YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE AT THE DMV, THEN YOU NO LONGER ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE TO DRIVE, NOR ARE YOU REQUIRED TO REGISTER YOUR VEHICLE OR CARRY INSURANCE. SEVERAL PPL HERE IN ARIZONA HAVE DONE THIS WHICH PROMPTED OUR SECRETARY OF THE STATE TO CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMING THEM THAT THIS IS IN FACT LEGAL BCUZ POLICE WERE HANDLING THESE CITIZENS WRONG AND VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS AND USING FORCE AGAINST THEM WHEN THEY PRODUCED THE PROPER PAPERWORK AND NO LONGER HAD A DRIVERS LICENSE SINCE THEY RESCINDED THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE. SO YES, ONCE AND FOR ALL, YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE, REGISTRATION OR AUTO INSURANCE AS LONG AS THIS PROCESS IS EXECUTED CORRECTLY: HERE IS THAT LETTER WRITTEN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE:
THERE IS A PROCESS TO RESCINDING YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE STATE THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AS LONG AS YOU DO IT CORRECTLY. ONCE YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IS RESCINDED, WHICH THE FIRST STEP INVOLVES CANCELING YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE AT THE DMV, THEN YOU NO LONGER ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE TO DRIVE, NOR ARE YOU REQUIRED TO REGISTER YOUR VEHICLE OR CARRY INSURANCE. SEVERAL PPL HERE IN ARIZONA HAVE DONE THIS WHICH PROMPTED OUR SECRETARY OF THE STATE TO CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMING THEM THAT THIS IS IN FACT LEGAL BCUZ POLICE WERE HANDLING THESE CITIZENS WRONG AND VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS AND USING FORCE AGAINST THEM WHEN THEY PRODUCED THE PROPER PAPERWORK AND NO LONGER HAD A DRIVERS LICENSE SINCE THEY RESCINDED THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE. SO YES, ONCE AND FOR ALL, YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE, REGISTRATION OR AUTO INSURANCE AS LONG AS THIS PROCESS IS EXECUTED CORRECTLY: HERE IS THAT LETTER WRITTEN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a29ae7c8e6d9a8fd92d1aa3aa19bad66e05a1959d1d3497ac82c95dfcdd11140.jpg
It wouldn't be the first time a state official was wrong about how the law works. Pseudolegal theories can convince even them. Please note it appears to be written by a State Senator not the Secretary of State. Thank you for sharing.
I created a diagram breaking down the Arizona Revised statutes for trabsportation. You’ll notice all the terms they use such as vehicle, motor vehicle, driver, driver license, operator, all mean partaking in a business activity, not all people use their automobiles for business activity. I recommend anyone obtain or check out a blacks law dictionary tenth edition from their library, and first get the states definitions within the statute, then terms not defined in the statute you’d use blacks law dictionary. You’ll find that you have to look up one word, then look up all words to define the term you are looking up.
The Arizona Transportation code is here. The initial / primary definitions that apply to the code are at the beginning of Chapter 1 in 28-101. We find:
Next look at Chapter 8 for Driver's License requirements. 28-3151 says:
For terms not defined in statute the court decides, not Black's which is made by a Canadian corporation…
Again they only use the terms vehicle, and driver when stating who it applies to. On my post I outlined what the law dictionry defines those two terms to be. Unless you have court cases that state the supreme courts of either a state or the United States apply thise terms to all cars whether they are partaking in commerce or not, then I do not believe there is any precedent to argue your point. Every court case I find, they use the terms vehicle and driver, and I do believe that’s not bu coincidence. If someone walks into the DMV and signs the forms to acknowledge they have a vehicle, and are a driver, then they must abide by those statutes. If someone does not use their car for commerce, then they are free to travel based on the way the statutes are defined. Please post a supreme court case where they state the terms vehicle, and driver apply to anyone who travels in theur car and do not partake in commerce. There are supreme court cases where the courts define those terms to mean conducting commerce, but not the other wat around.
On a state vehicle code charge state courts are bound to use the definitions from the vehicle code. I posted a number of decisions from Arizona in another comment where the courts talk about the state's right and interest in maintaining highway safety through regulations, licenses, etc. under the state police power. There is no lawful right for anyone to ignore state legislation, whether they consent or not, are citizens or not, etc. The application of state law is not contractual. Courts, presidents, founders all understand and admit your consent is not required. Others in Arizona have tried to deny court and police authority and have been unsuccessful…
Maybe do some research on the foundations and limits of state police power.
The states have the right to regulate commerce, and create regulations such as speed limits, traffic rules etc., but in their own statutes like I showed above they aim to license, title, and register commercial vehicles, because ultimately that is what they have power over, unless someone harms another person or their property. Due to the term the State of, state statutes are regulating those who live in federal conclaves, or break their statutes in those conclaves. If you live in the Republic of Arizona, then you aren’t in the State of Arizona, which is a federally incorporated state. I did find some case law in the State of Arizona supreme court stating that if someone signs their child up for public school, and doesn’t pay out of state tuition, or signs up to vote then they are subject to the federal states statutes. Also, if people use social security numbers, birth certificates, drivers licenses or anything government then they are subject to the states statutes.
Yeah, the government has never actually been restricted to commercial regulation only. Also, there is no actual way to talk yourself out of federal, state, county or municipal jurisdiction – it's based on geography and applies to everyone the same. These things are just internet rumors with no actual basis in reality. I learned the semi-hard way. Hope you don't have to… or at least when you experiment you do it with minor things, not major ones that can end up with prison time, like liening state officers. Best try to avoid felonies in general as they can affect your rights and privileges for a lot longer than misdemeanors, sometimes permanently.
I’ve never talked about anything UCC, so I’m not sure what you mean by liening officers, although I know you directed me to a link that I may or may not agree with. When I’m talking about the State of, I’m talking about the statutes actually stating in them that those who live in the State of must follow the licensing, titling, registration statutes. Most people don’t live in the State of, as that entails areas of the state belonging to the federal government. If you have private property, or a home, and you don’t openly take allegience to the State of, then your residence is in the actual state, not the federal conclave that includes things pike court houses, government buildings etc. Being that you don’t actually live in “the State of”, when the statute says that this statute applies to those who live in the State of (you’ll even see the statute define what it means, and it obviouly is stating the federal United States), then the statute flat out doesn’t apply to you. Statutes are meant for federal citizens (most people are not subject to them unless they live in the 10 mile area of Washington D.C., guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, or areas of each state ceded to the feds such as national forest and court houses) who have no rights, other than what is given to them by Congress, compared to citizens of the States (non federal conclaves within the states, constitutional citizens, citizens of the several states, citizens if the state republics etc.). All our state governments are corporations of the federal government acting as state governments, and when we contract with the State of, then we are allowing the feds to legally enslave us. If the State of (all states in the United States currently) are all federal corporations, then they have no real authority over us, because the constitution limits federal power, but the feds are free to trick us into contracting with them, that’s the power they have. We need to decipher theur statutes to point out that they don’t apply to us/people who are constitutional state citizens.
Pseudolaw.com, look up the supreme court cslase where they confirm that the United states has several or more meanings. You’ll learn that the United States we always see in most if not all government documents, is talking about the federal government, the abreviation US is definitely talking about the federal government. The term United States of America is referring to the several states, or the states minus the federal government that most people believe the normal term US or United States refers to. I’m not saying that we don’t have to abide by traffic regulations, but I’m saying licensing, is something that can’t be don’t to citizens of the republic, of course if we hurt another or their property we are subject to laws.
I’ll add that US or United States on government documents is meaning the federal government and all areas they control, but not the actual United States of America or areas withins states that the federal government doesn’t own.
The several States signed onto the federal Constitution and granted the federal government control over things outlined in the Constitution, nothing more or less.
The "United States of America", "United States", "US", "USA", etc. is based on its one and only Constitution and is recognized internationally as a sovereign state. In some federal laws "United States" is defined specifically for certain chapters or sub-chapters, but those definitions don't apply outside of the specific scope mentioned. In a republic the people's representatives make the laws. The States have separate governments where laws are similarly created by the people's representatives that can cover anything not delegated to the federal government, in accordance with the federal 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note that people is always the collective majority, not individuals, and in this instance where State law is silent.
You make a lot of assumptions, so I believe just in doing that your way of thinking and entire site is questionable. To assume I got my info from some conspiracy blogs is inaccurate. You truly haven't proven me wrong on anything, you've only put me down, and cited things that you haven't proven. You are welcome to visit sedm.org, or famguardian.org, they cite all information that they use. Just because things aren't as they seem doesn't mean you should ignore it, keep an open mind.
Here's some citations from famguardian to consider. Notice how all law was received subject to the state legislature and constitution?
Everyone in the geographical area of the "State" or "State of" or whatever you want to call it is expected to follow the State constitution, legislation and court decisions. If it wasn't that way you could murder people and not be held to state laws against murder. The federal government is ultimately superior (see: federal supremacy clause), however the states manage the vast majority of laws for health and safety internally separately under their constitution and state police power. The states have the majority of power, the federal government only has the powers outlined in the federal constitution. There is no law other than statutes and common law made in state courts which is subject to the legislature. English statutes and common law were received by the states (except Louisiana) by reception statutes. You need to do actual research and start thinking for yourself not just believe random quotations on conspiracy blogs.
What your talking about is already covered by Common Law!
Common law was received subject to the state constitutions and legislatures. Over time, the common law in each state has diverged significantly from when it was first received – it has been restricted by state legislatures and modified by state courts.
You see how stupid you are? You have bought into the big lie!
You can not regulate Common Law! It is the law set in stone!
STATES can not do away with common law because it is the law!
This is why your B.A.R. Terrorist Law sucks! You ignore the truth and ignore what this country was founded on.
So where is this stone that contains your immutable common law? Can we read it? No, you just make it up as you go. That's not how law works.
Legislators don't have to be lawyers.
I created a diagram breaking down the Arizona Revised statutes for trabsportation. You’ll notice all the terms they use such as vehicle, motor vehicle, driver, driver license, operator, all mean partaking in a business activity, not all people use their automobiles for business activity. I recommend anyone obtain or check out a blacks law dictionary tenth edition from their library, and first get the states definitions within the statute, then terms not defined in the statute you’d use blacks law dictionary. You’ll find that you have to look up one word, then look up all words to define the term you are looking up.
Don’t forget everyone that attorneys use words of art to write their statutes. Any term not defined in their definitions section of each statute is supposed to have the common meaning, but they use law dictionaries for their common meanings, which are not even close to what we think the common meaning is. For instance: in az revised statutes for transportation, they define drive, which defines driver to means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, so you jump to their definition of motor vehicle, and the main definition is a self-propelled vehicle. So to get the definition of vehicle you jump to vehicle, which most of their statute language is based on, and it reads a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway. So to really understand the meaning of vehicle, none of the terms are defined in the statutes, so you have to jump into a blacks law dictionary. Looking at blacks law dictionary tenth edition, which is the most updated version, it reads for a device: a device may be an apparatus or an article of manufacture *see machine. You look at the definition of an apparatus and it says to see machine. You look at machine, and it states a devuce or apparatus consisting of fixed and moving parts that work together to perform some functions. It’s not until you get to the definition of function until you find out the true definition of a vehicle, because a function= an that is appropriate to a particular business or profession. Also, if you jump back and research the term transportation in blacks law dictionary, you find it means moving anything for a fee by individuals or organizations. All stautes will be similar in each state, and we find that most people do not fall under the intended definition of conducting commerce. The state can regulate commerce, but not a human beings rights. Essentially when you go into the dmv and fill out paperwork for a license you are telling the dmv that the vehicle you are titling, licensing, and registering is a commercial vehicle. I hope that whoever reads this keeps an open mind, and studies this. You honestly don’t even have to argue the constitution if you go into court and read them the true definitions of the statute, and testify that you don’t use your nissan xterra for commercial purposes. It’s best to tell the court and police that you use your honda/nissan or whatever for traveling, as calling it the make and model doesn’t ensnare you into their words of art. You’ll find that all supreme court cases, and anything else uses the term vehicle over and iver again, because they are telling the person that they have no rights when in commerce, and they aren’t obeying the commercial laws.
When legislation is vague or silent the court has the power to make a binding interpretation at common law for use within the state. They don't have to use plain English. They can choose from any dictionary they want as influence, but it's the courts decision that binds, not the dictionary. Consider for example the definition of marriage which was decided not long ago.
Every state does have legislated definitions that capture non-commercial use of the highways under the licensing laws. State laws made under the state police power have never been restricted to commerce. The internet lied.
Please post a law or statute in az that does not have commercial use of the highways under the licensing laws. The thing is, I’ve found no case where someone in AZ or anywhere else told the court they knew what the broken down definitions meant, and then the court ruled against them. I do plan on soon canceling all my driver license paperwork, titles, and registration to get a day in court to argue this, and I’ll take one for the team if what you say is true.
I cited the definitions from 28-101 of the AZ Transportation code in another comment. They clearly capture non-commercial travel for use when interpreting the license requirement of 28-3151.
I went ahead and looked up a few right to travel and licensing cases so you can see how AZ courts might respond to some of your arguments…
I cited the definitions from 28-101 of the AZ Transportation code in another comment. They clearly capture non-commercial travel for use when interpreting the license requirement of 28-3151.
I went ahead and looked up a few right to travel and licensing cases so you can see how AZ courts might respond to some of your arguments…
So, on your word, we are to disregard the federal Supreme court definition of words? Motor vehicle, as describe by case law, in US Supreme Court, is any conveyance used in the pursuit of commerce> Now, you stated we can't "simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility". Does this not SPECIFICALLY denote a state "changing the meaning of a word", that is accepted by a higher court, to suit it's purpose? Are they not playing the same word game you accuse others of playing? You do know the original intention of driver's license laws was to regulate commerce ONLY, on public roads, etc. and to charge a fee for COMMERCIAL use ONLY of said roads? But, then states started CHANGING THE MEANING OF WORDS to include any travel on those roads. So, who is playing the word game? Even their OWN legal definitions back up these terms and words that have been used and why they get you to agree that you were "Operating a motor vehicle" (committing commerce on public roads, which is regulated and needs licensing) on all your tickets. As you stated: "You can't change words to escape responsibility", yet that is EXACTLY what all the states have done to suit their purpose, to the detriment of those who fall under common law. States are to abide by the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, and protect those in their locales, NOT change the meaning to words so they can generate income. State laws do NOT supersede US Constitutional law, by their own admission. We do NOT live in a democracy, but a Republic. A Democracy is mob rule (even when done by "representatives"), a Republic is protection of the INDIVIDUAL, and that INDIVIDUAL'S rights.
State codes aren't subject to federal definitions. The state can define things how it wants. You have a lot to learn…
It's not clear what the Supreme Court was interpreting at the time, but definitions vary depending on the specific code and section being interpreted. "Motor vehicle" is defined multiple times throughout the USC, for use with sections in different chapters. Federal definitions don't bind the states. The states have a certain degree of independence from the federal government. This is true for practically all of the internal legislation for regulating health and safety within the state, including vehicle codes. Some states started with commercial licenses before they extended them to non-commercial travelers, some didn't. It varies by each state. Look up the history and progression of the vehicle code(s) in your state and you will know what you are expected to follow.
Courts have to follow the supreme courts, supreme courts are the only courts that can decide law, but obviously if you don’t bring it to them, or they deny the appeal there’s nothing you can do.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety.
It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or
less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180
Wash 133, 147.
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the
welfare of all other citizens.
The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by
horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law,
Sect.329, p.1135
and further …
"Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's
Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone's Commentary
134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777
Thompson v Smith is a very good example of how people on the internet cherry-pick quotations that don't mean what they think they mean. If you actually read the case you also find:
The case tells us that yes, there is a right to travel, but also that the right can be limited provided it is not done so arbitrarily.
I can't find the alleged quotation in Caneisha Mills v DC here, here or here, so I don't think it's accurate.
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) in fact states:
It also says:
In Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, Tolman is a dissenting opinion, and I do see the colorful quote cited, but still in his decision he states there are definite limits on the right to use the highways:
I wasn't able to find a copy of II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law online, but assuming it says what is alleged, I think it's worth noting that it says the right may not be "permitted or prohibited at will". Consider that this could be interpreted similar to the decision in Thomson v Smith and Robertson v Department of Public Works.
Dictionaries don't bind the courts, only constitutions, legislation and (where legislation is vague or silent) past rulings in the same jurisdiction do, so they are pointless to consider or argue.
In the future I recommend reading the cases in full for yourself before believing they mean what the blog author says…
Because you couldn't argue against a case, you say that it can't be accurate, agenda anyone. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/187432/mills-v-district-of-columbia/?q=Caneisha+Mills+v.+D.C.+2009
Saying that the quote cited does not appear in the case is a valid rebuttal, and you are being willfully ignorant. The case doesn't say what was claimed. You were misled.
You'll find hundreds of comments on here that provide proof, but then you won't find one time where pseudolaw.com agrees, so you'll find that there is an agenda here. The agenda is to keep the populace dumbed downed, and believing that they must be sheep, but in reality the people have rights, and the people control this country based on contracting or not contracting with our government. If all people stopped contracting with the governments, then we'd be free, and the government would dissolve. The government pays sites like this, and trolls to throw the people off. See this article I read just yesterday:
https://www.corbettreport.com/socialmedia/
And they are paid to keep us out of Common Law/Constitutional Law which is the Supreme Law of the land. Got it they are so obvious.
Common law was received by the states subject to the state constitution and legislature. The state constitutions and legislatures are the highest laws in the state. The state courts can't ignore them. The states granted the federal government the power to regulate what is outlined in the federal Constitution, nothing more.
No the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the STATE! This is why the law at the STATE level is ignored by B.A.R. Terrorist lawyer judges. Your sophistry is proof you support the B.A.R. Terrorist Law that has been shoved down our throats.
Yes, the Constitution and federal laws protect people within the states too, but the federal government doesn't agree that state regulation of the highways is a violation of the federal Constitution or laws. This article cites a few federal decisions saying so. That's why the state highway codes haven't been struck down generally and you can't win damages when they're enforced properly.
What contract law can you cite outside of the government? It doesn't exist. Contract law begins within the states and is subject to the state constitution, legislature and modification by the courts. You're putting the cart before the horse. There is no contract law you can use to contract into or out of the government, and the government and all its force doesn't view its laws as optional or contractual.
Tell me why you have to sign your license (PERMISSION)if it is not a contract? Your signature is the evidence that you are agreeing to the terms! Your sophistry sucks!
It's a good question, but many state laws are enforced without anyone signing anything, so signing is clearly not required to enforce state laws. So the answer is you are required or asked to sign because state legislation or regulations declare it so. To my knowledge a state government has never used the signature as a lawful basis for enforcing its highway laws. Typically they simply point to the police power of the state and interest in maintaining health and safety. Can you cite any examples from case law? Has the signature ever been used to justify the government enforcing its licensing laws? Also consider that a single signature does not form a contract. Contracts depend on the agreement of more than one party. When you sign a credit card application, for example, it's not used for enforcement – the bank actually cites other actions such as payments on the account in return for use of funds as proof of the contract.
Law is by consent by the people! And you are so full of crap. The first thing the lawyer judge ask is did you sign the agreement for a CC?
I know because I have done debt elimination and I have been the illegal court system. If you sign a trust deed and the bank does not is that a contract? If not why can they foreclose on your house when they do not own it? The police state backs up the bankers 100% even if they are wrong!
Yes, law is by consent of the collective people, i.e. popular sovereignty. In a republic it's through the people's representatives in legislature. Judges don't have to be lawyers in all states. We're getting off topic, but on any of your debt elimination cases did the bank claim the contract was established by your application? And did a court ever find a contract existing merely based on your signature, or were other actions such as payments and reception of funds also required?
Yes, law is by consent of the collective people, i.e. popular sovereignty. In a republic it's through the people's representatives in legislature. Judges don't have to be lawyers in all states. We're getting off topic, but on any of your debt elimination cases did the bank claim the contract was established by your application? And did a court ever find a contract existing merely based on your signature, or were other actions such as payments and reception of funds also required? Also state laws requiring license have never been contractual, so this is a pointless argument.
pseudolaw, please do NOT ban someone (me or anyone) for citing case law again. It makes your case seem FAR weaker, and as you know is grounds to have cases overturned in higher courts for negligence (whether intentional or not). I can tell you from personal experience that I was arrested for an unrelated offense while travelling, and the "Operating a motor vehicle without a license" and "No proof of insurance" was thrown out on the grounds of insufficient evidence: They couldn't prove I was getting paid to drive. The other charge stuck, but that one didn't, and it was NOT a plea deal to drop it.
Don't spam dozens of posts in a row with ill-interpreted decisions and you'll be less likely to be banned, but if you act like obnoxious bully don't expect it to be allowed to continue.
What does insufficient evidence have to do with being paid to drive? I'm sure you can't show where the court or prosecutor decided or said that. There are many ways the police and prosecutor can screw up and fail to have sufficient evidence. No state requires you to be earning a profit on the highway for its license or financial responsibility laws to apply to you. You can see that the definitions in the state highway code for use when interpreting the laws clearly capture non-commercial travelers.
I never try to bully, because that breeds division. I always do try to back up with proof what I say. And you speak correctly when you say "State Highway Code", and it's application to non-commercial drivers who accept the driver's licenses, even if without informed consent, does stand. Until it is contested, then that contract can and should be invalidated. It is code. Corporate law. We both know words have specific definitions in a court of law. Codes are a part of an agreement between 2 or more parties in pursuit of commerce. Locomotion in the pursuit of daily life (non-commercial) is not contractual, and the use of common conveyance is not a right that can't be legally denied, without due process (a victim from a crime, able to personally be cross-examined – except in the case of murder), though lawfully is permissible by contractual agreement. I personally know of no human that would knowingly give up freedom to become a slave, none that would knowingly commit to paying to do something that is a life necessity and natural right, when that action was already allowed. Note I said "knowingly".
The state constitution and legislation made thereunder are superior to all other forms of law in the state. There is literally no other law available. You can pretend otherwise but it's not true. English law was received subject to these. Natural law or so-called God's law are subjective and therefore have no force behind them. Some states go so-far as to explicitly require all criminal offenses be codified, such as NJ:
How then would order be maintained in those states without statutes applying to everyone? And why do you think you can't win damages for false arrest or other when charges against you are dismissed?
Person defined in the vehicle and traffic laws is clear. And operator/driver is defined as any Person in physical control. ……
Motor vehicle is not the question that needs answering.
It would seem that if the court's are filled weekly with people violating VTLS, and those violations consist of non injuries to other people or property, then it seems it would be financially sound to eliminate those violations, as they cost the very people it's claiming it protects. The prosecution of the violation and the fine both come from the people. Whenever it's said the state paid for it or the federal government paid for it , in reality the people paid for it. The government derives it's power from the consent of the governed.
The governed are the collective people, not individuals, and the collective people speak through their elected representatives in legislature. If the collective people decide their representatives aren't doing their job they can reform the government by any means they see fit, yes, but not before then, and not at the whim of any individual.
Frost v. Railroad Commission
In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the state of California could deny the
use of public highways to a private company that had a contract for the transportation of citrus
fruit, unless the private company was licensed as a common carrier. The Court held that California
could not impose such conditions on the private company.
There is involved in the inquiry not a single power, but two distinct powers. One of
these, the power to prohibit the use of the public highways in proper cases, the state
possesses; and the other, the power to compel a private carrier to assume against his will the
duties and burdens of a common carrier, the state does not possess. It is clear that any attempt
to exert the latter, separately and substantively, must fall before the paramount authority of the
Constitution. May it stand in the conditional form in which it is here made? If so,
constitutional guaranties, so carefully safeguarded against direct assault, are open to
destruction by the indirect, but no less effective, process of requiring a surrender, which,
though in form voluntary, in fact lacks none of the elements of compulsion. Having regard to
form alone, the act here is an offer to the private carrier of a privilege, which the state may
grant or deny, upon a condition which the carrier is free to accept or reject. In reality, the
carrier is given no choice, except a choice between the rock and the whirlpool — an option to
forego a privilege which may be vital to his livelihood or submit to a requirement which may
constitute an intolerable burden.
It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by
words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal
Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of
a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise
to withhold. It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state,
having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to
impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations
is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.
If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it
may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded
in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.
The basic driver's license, vehicle registration and insurance requirements don't have anything to do with being licensed as a common carrier.
I was just reading above in your article. You mentioned, The power falls to the States to regulate traffic since it's not mentioned in the federal constitution, As long as the States don't violate the federal constitutional provisions.
If a citizen buys a car is it his property to use safely but as he sees fit? His personal liberty and right to locomotion would suggest he can go where he pleases how he pleases. With a duty to not cause harm.
Within the VTL police can arrest (deprive liberty ) without a warrant for a civil infraction which would violate the federal constitution. Again it's agreed to with the signature on the license and registration.
When you use private property on public roads and/or with a risk to other people the government can establish reasonable regulations to protect the road and people. You don't need to sign anything for the federal, state, county or municipal laws that protect the public to apply to you.
An interesting decision I recently stumbled on when investigating state police power:
I'm sure there are many more we can find.
What is your thoughts on deprived liberty for civil infractions? Would you say police can arrest (deprive liberty ) without warrant for a civil infraction and not be in violation of the federal or state constitutions? And if it is, would that not be outside the police power of the state? And if so ,could not be required to be waived in order to operate on public roads?
There are few to no defined limits on state police power when it comes to reasonable regulation for protecting the public, which you would know if you simply googled "state police power" and did some reading.
What about several-thousand-pound metal machines traveling around people at high speeds to you think is unreasonable do regulate?
There are few to no defined limits on state police power when it comes to reasonable regulation for protecting the public, which you would know if you simply googled "state police power" and did some reading.
What part of several-thousand-pound metal machines traveling around people at high speeds do you think is unreasonable to regulate?
So for a criminal act like murder we have a right to remain silent and not self incriminate, be secure in our papers and effects, but you are saying for vehicle and traffic laws which many States have deemed civil, you must waive those rights? Please explain what civil offense allows arrest without warrant and is a justified deprivation of liberty? You can not have one law that covers commerce on the roads (trade,transportation or traffic ) and then statutory amend it to include something not engaged in commerce. Laws are bound by one subject matter.
I've cited the laws themselves. Anyone's time I'm wasting sure needs to learn how to stop reading things that waste their time then. The very fact the government has power to regulate in the name of public safety does not give them unlimited power, and must not violate the peoples rights such as the right to locomotion within our right to liberty. Much like the case I posted yesterday where a private carrier could not be forced to license as a common carrier. The law applies to who the laws says and the original acts that are still in force since they are the basis for the current statutory amendments and those Acts say who a person is and who an operator is. And it's not me. How can someone come back here when you ban them ? You asked for cases and proof ,when I posted that before you banned me but then you have no problem posting Wikipedia. Ok it's your page, so be it. But for giggles go to the Texas laws of 1935 for operator license and read who a person is, and if an operator is any PERSON , explain that
There are many crimes and infractions, including murder, where you are required to identify yourself for purposes of the state contemplating charges, fines, etc. What matters is if the intrusion is reasonable considering the circumstances and the state's interest in public safety. Why don't you google "limits on the right to remain silent?"
Unless legislation dictates otherwise, you can be arrested without a warrant if you are suspected of any violation of municipal, county, state or federal law. The precedent for that can be found in Atwater v. Lago Vista which I've mentioned to you in the past.
Laws have never been restricted to commercial activity alone – what makes you think that other than random people on the internet? There are many non-commercial activities that are undesirable in an ordered society and therefore able to be regulated by the government, depending on the will and perceived needs of the people through their representatives. If you want to be taken seriously by the courts you're going to have to cite some current precedent or legislation that hasn't been superseded.
You have a right to use the public roads, but you don't have the right to operate machines weighing thousands of pounds in public without reasonable regulation that prevents injury to others. It takes a certain degree of skill to operate vehicles safely, and adherence to a myriad of rules to keep things flowing efficiently when there are a lot of people sharing the roads.
Wikipedia is useful when it points to current binding precedent and legislation, it is not a useful authority in itself per se, but a good place to get ideas for research. It often cites the current precedent and legislation that the courts follow much better than any random conspiracy blog.
The laws in 1935, particularly in a quickly evolving field such as vehicle and traffic law, have certainly been superseded by future decisions and legislation. The only perhaps useful endeavor with regards to the vehicle and traffic law in 1935 is finding where a future ruling or legislation made it obsolete. There's a reason nobody is citing those laws from 1935 in current case law, you know.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/777bf7cf8882e436831132553f0cd46b004816da7f7fc15cd1360c9c5c5c9b4c.png
Having a Constitutional right doesn't mean that right may not be imposed upon at all, it just means there are additional protections and a higher standard must be met before it can be.
Explain how they would get around the forth and fifth amendment and arrest without warrant for a civil infraction (traffic infraction), and demand papers? Any deprivation of liberty constitutes an arrest.
Here's person in Texas law . 1935, still in force. Had been amended. As I pointed out in another case a corporation, firm blah blah blah can not act on Its own and needs a natural person or individual. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5771178b96e7e4ee21efe63795bcc33333210377f90b90d354a051894ed957a.png
Check out the cases. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/018bf02860d82a8cedd0c39783f6e3eadc50e9789c872d401802572c7565129d.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0121c2d5098e873711a8a549e29ff5262d6fb028711236af75b69312e3cf3043.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24a9c0282cc255cbdf946a109d668cc868c123e54a3fc368ee179b4cfaf27e63.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6504a9b6ab3c0047573f2c41c05784ea63120111cef3fc47b927c92b3508d7a5.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da2c2de0e093ba64d427afd3fdecee589b1c1b7521d65ec3597585872c0e7de9.png
Check them out. Just because a law is enforced doesn't mean it doesn't violate
English statutes and common law were imported by the states subject to the constitution and future legislation and court rulings. The Supreme Court in Atwater v Lago Vista, etc. has clearly accepted states and municipalities overriding any such old policies.
Sounds like the Atwater case had someone who never argued the seatbelt regulation, or the not engaged in the activity to which was subjected to those laws. It was a case where the laws regarding motor vehicles was applied to an operator of a motor vehicle. I highly doubt if it was applied to someone making the right arguments that it would have ruled @ he same. I was reading a case where an officer had the power to go into the motor vehicle to move papers blocking the VIN. . And when he did he found a gun. Court said he had the right . Again another case dealing with someone operating a motor vehicle.
Men and women are natural persons. The "or" means it applies to both individual men and women and men and women acting as members of a corporation. I don't think arguing that is going to work for you, but give it a shot and let us know.
If you want to find the actual current laws of Texas visit here and start at the latest restatement book of 1984 as it contains a compilation of all the laws in force at that time. Current laws can be said to amend the restatement of 1984.
Men and women are natural persons. The "or" means it applies to both individual men and women and men and women acting as members of a corporation.
If you want to find the actual current laws of Texas visit here and start at the latest restatement book of 1984 as it contains a compilation of all the laws in force at that time. Current laws can be said to amend the restatement of 1984.
In some states traffic violations are considered criminal, not civil, it varies. "The classification of the charge depends on the violation itself as well as the jurisdiction, with infractions, civil charges and criminal charges relating to different standards of proof, trial rules and punishments."
For the fourth amendment I recommend reading:
Basically, it's lawful for you to be arrested for any violation of municipal, county, state or federal law as it would be unreasonable for police to have to consider which violations are arrestable or not in the heat of the moment. From that case:
For the fifth, merely identifying yourself wouldn't be incriminating, and I believe there's a custody requirement before you can invoke it. See e.g. this
I'll have to read these cases, because it would seem that if the fourth applies to criminal then a lesser offense of any kind would not constitute enough to violate someones liberty. From what I understand you can't get a warrant issued for something civil. A summons is used. And if you fail to appear then a warrant for failure to appear is issued but no warrant for the actual civil infraction. If common law says something civil is not significant enough to deprive liberty, it's not a direct harm to public or a felony, some statutory amended, or some ordinances can't change that. It maybe being enforced but doesn't mean it doesn't violate the rights of people. I will read that case later.
Common law is subservient to and can certainly be modified by the state constitution, legislation and future court rulings. It was imported by the states under those conditions. It wouldn't make sense for unelected judges to be all-powerful forever. Consider this other post I made on blogspot some years ago which has a number of citations about the superiority of the legislature.
Common law is subservient to and can certainly be modified by the state constitution, legislation and future court rulings. It was imported by the states under those conditions. It wouldn't make sense for unelected judges to be all-powerful forever. Consider this other post I made on blogspot some years ago which has a number of citations from around the world about the superiority of the legislature aka parliamentary supremacy.
Yeah I'm half way through the case and even three of the judges disagree with the opinion given. I can see this case being overturned soon if someone puts the right arguments forward. Besides that ,in that state it's a misdemeanor so different rules . In new York it's civil. Either way regardless of if they enforce it or not it's a violation of liberty. So many people nowadays don't grasp what liberty is and then sit on a panel or in a jury box and give opinions. I'll come back when done reading
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4450364db917bfc476f565451df0caa196aa63c9997009e3f012874fc051c595.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5771178b96e7e4ee21efe63795bcc33333210377f90b90d354a051894ed957a.png
Let me guess, this is the 1935 law you mentioned that was definitely superseded by future legislation. So what? You can't cite it or argue against it in court because it's not in force. Also, men and women are considered natural persons in law so according to that statute they're clearly covered. The "or" means they can be natural persons individually OR members of a corporation, etc.
Let me guess, this is the 1935 law you mentioned that was definitely superseded by future legislation. So what? You can't cite it or argue against it in court because it's not in force. Also, men and women are considered natural persons in law so according to that statute they're clearly covered. The "or" means they can be natural persons individually OR members of a corporation, etc. Also the fact that there is an "operator" distinct from a "chauffeur" that earns a profit should tell you something.
Why not use the excuse of the NRA and gun owners why there shouldn't be gun laws? People are going to break laws (like "gun-free zones") so why have them? THANKS NRA, people are going to drive drunk, people will speed and run stoplights, so why have those laws. OR, because there is gun violence, the NRA's response is for more people to own guns. Right… auto accidents kill a lot of people each year, and the way to combat auto accidents is for more people to crash their cars. lol https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c371f8620193c506b281bbb13ee7127460b6c9abd8a8a8f280479353bee3408.jpg
Lets clear up the law and "Right to travel". The American people have the RIGHT to travel the public highways, its NOT a privilege. Here are some tidbits to perhaps put a spark in the ignorant that they may find the gumption to educate and free themselves:
O.C.G.A. §48-9-2. Definitions: (by the way, every state has this verbiage).
(11) "Public highway" means every way
or place of whatever nature generally open to the use of the public as a
matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel even though such way
or place may never have been so open or may be temporarily closed for the
purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or repair.
What about HB7 & HB 875, which clarifies the right to travel without a license, registration, etc. (Georgia Senator Bobby Franklin, 43rd District)?
Americans have "unalienable rights" that are granted by their "Creator" and not bestowed at the whim of some government.
Educate yourself people so you may not "perish for lack of knowledge".
If not, be happy in your enslavement and refrain from pushing your ignorance off on others and deeming it fact.
Godspeed.
Access to public property is a right, but it is not an unlimited right – it's still subject to state police power for purposes of maintaining the health and safety of the people.
Natural law, God's law, etc. are just theories that people make up as they go. Governments cite them sometimes as inspiration but countries and states are ultimately based on constitutions, legislation and court decisions. You can't actually enforce your choice of the many natural law theories in a court, only the government's law.
How Can a Statute be “Enlarged” by Adding Something not Written and Still Avoid Being Unconstitutionally Vague, Ambiguous, and Over-broad?
In relation to law, the term “enlargement,” when used in relation to “includes” and “including,” means that a statutory definition is not to be considered “fixed or limited” to only the exact things specifically listed. However, you must also understand that a statute that is non-specific runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a law must be understandable by men of reasonable intelligence so as to properly understand what is being prohibited. Which means, the terms “includes” and “including” are able to be “enlarged” only in a certain way, and that way requires that the definition be read only as “enlarging” to encompass those things that are naturally within the same specific class of persons, things, or legal entities actually listed in the original “includes” or “including” declaration. This will remain true even when the definition contains the provision “includes, but is not limited to” as a part of its declaration.
What this basically means is that all of the items following “includes” or “including” must have an identifiable class relationship in order to be considered a viable addition to the “enlargement” intent and functionality of the statute. If there is any kind of oddball item listed in that same definition that does not appear to fit in with the classification represented by the majority of the other things listed, then that oddball thing must be subjected and limited to an interpretation that actually harmonizes it with all the other listed items following it after the “includes/including.”
An example of this of this kind of definition would be something like, “Person includes a natural person, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity,” or “Person includes an individual, corporation, association, limited liability corporation, or other legal entity.” These definitions contain the terms “natural person” or “individual” preceding an entire list that “includes” or is “including” only “legal entities.” The terms “natural person” and “individual” are normally construed to be part of a completely different natural classification than all the other fictional entities specifically listed, right? But how can that be? In cases like this, the only acceptable interpretation is one that can logically harmonize everything listed into a singular classification without culminating in a “ridiculous result/outcome.” Otherwise, if this simply isn’t possible, then the rule of statutory construction relating to the proper use of “includes” and “including” has been violated, making the resulting interpretation legally unsound and inherently incorrect.
But how would one go about harmonizing such totally dissimilar terms into a single harmonious classification that is not ridiculous to conclude? Well, in this case, the one that makes the most logical sense is to try and harmonize the term(s) that are in the minority and whose normal classification is different than the other things listed (“natural person/individual”), into the classification associated with the majority of the things listed (“legal entities”). So, ask yourself, how would a “natural person/individual” be capable of fitting into the same classification as a “legal entity,” so that the rules of statutory construction relating to the use of the terms “includes” and “including” in law are not violated? That is actually easier than you might think.
You first have to understand that “legal entities” have no physical existence, they are entirely fictional and incapable of acting of their own volition, and therefore, can act only through one or more “natural persons/individuals” acting as its agent(s). This is the only form in which such an agent can exist and function for the benefit the legal entity. Isn’t every officer, agent, employee, or trustee of a “legal entity” actually a “natural person/individual?” Can they be anything else? Can one “legal entity” act as the agent for another “legal entity” sua sponte without a “natural person/individual” making the decisions and then acting on its behalf as well? Of course not, as that would be a “ridiculous result.”
On top of this, looking into CFR 23 looks as though the states are forced into compliance with federal regulations or be denied federal funding. Now that's just for title 23. But if we look into the original department that was created and charged with regulating trade, transportation or traffic, we will see the subject the department was in charge of and the intent of the traffic regulations. The Secretary of transportation is the Secretary of commerce.
If they comply to gain funds then they accepted an offer voluntarily and it's not force.
No it's either fall in line or don't get funding. Nothing voluntary about it.
The states can make their own funds. The federal government doesn't owe them anything. If the states became dependent on a gift that's their fault. It's not force.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eff3a1fd95959be23b6bb42b127e82ede7b42fd7b5e89b0fa5ab029b91d80a13.png
United States Senate bill S. 25. 1939. This is after new York's 1924 driver license.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e27a1b910496ed450f4507f87de036ce9012a0735d2547732eb733ea523f9cd.png
What's your thoughts
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/535478ae2d31b8f3b8ead91d8554ebf3d16a39e05bf82111f3ff2e7f0c219e9c.png
What court in what jurisdiction made the interpretation you're citing? Why should state legislators care? As long as they don't breach the state constitution they can write any definitions and laws that they want. They aren't bound by any third party rules. And if they want to amend the constitution there's a method for doing that too, it's just a bit harder than making regular legislation. Read your state constitution.
Yes they can amend the constitution but they must follow rules put in place to do so, they can't just do whatever they want. And the rules on statutory construction and definitions are not third-party rules. The legislation must follow rules, they don't have the power to do whatever they want. Everything they do is empowered by some law. The purpose of the whole traffic system is commerce. The Secretary of state originally handled license and registration, then the commission of taxation ect. Ect. Its completely wrong to say otherwise, especially when all the cases this article has provided has been about the instruments used in commerce. I'm not sure if this site is paid to disinform or maybe admin is just ignoring the facts and unable to comprehend the facts
Read your state constitution and you will know the exact rules for amending it. There are no limits per se, but if the constitution ends up violating federal law (very rare considering the limitations of the federal government) the federal courts can strike parts of it down, or if it violates the spirit of consent of the governed and the representatives don't amend it when the majority of the people clearly support doing so (i.e. there are public polls showing the people's wishes are not being respected) the people may gain moral justification for overthrowing and reforming the government. That's about it. The several states have all instituted vehicle codes that clearly cover non-commercial activity, and the people are not generally in an uproar about it. You can't lawfully ignore that.
I can't speak for the ignorance of the public. I don't disagree with you on the facts that the state has certain powers. But as of yet the VT laws do not apply to the average American. There is not a law as of yet that hasn't been applied to the people. If they engage in the licensing process willingly that's their own ignorance. Not many people in public read or understand law . Another point to make is to check the department that is in charge of the license and registration, find the original enactment that created that department and see what their sole purpose is for. Transportation! !!! Commerce! !!.
Your thought process is so far out you're practically on Mars. You don't understand the law. You think you're smarter than the Supreme Court and everyone. I expect if you haven't already you're going to lose your property and your liberty, lawfully.
Show me a case that doesn't have a subject matter of commerce? Show me how the registration and license plate gives presumptive evidence that the car is acting in commerce within federal laws but doesn't mean that in state laws? You cant, can you? I'm very well aware of the truth of the matter . And I see how you are desperately trying to hang on. What you seem to be saying is ,within the state the driver license is just for public safety, nothing to do with commerce intrastate commerce, But as soon as I cross from one State to another the federal definition applies for interstate commerce and their definition is conflicting with the States definition. ? Is that what you are trying to maintain here?
Search your state laws on Google Scholar – it's not hard. Just because the federal government regulates some commerce doesn't mean the states can't regulate both commercial and non-commercial activity. There's no conflict of definitions. Different federal and state laws use different definitions. For example the federal USC defines "motor vehicle" probably 5 or more times for application to different chapters. The States often have multiple definitions too – for example the definition for the insurance requirement chapter isn't always the same as the licensing chapter. The different laws aren't exclusive – they all apply all the time. An act can be unlawful at both the state and federal level, and could be prosecuted by both the state and federal governments under their respective laws.
I have a membership to wexlaw
Here's another guy from Texas who tried a lot of your types of arguments. Lo and behold, he wasted a ton of time and the courts ruled against him.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eff3a1fd95959be23b6bb42b127e82ede7b42fd7b5e89b0fa5ab029b91d80a13.png
Senate bill introduced by senator Truman in 1939.
The federal government has laws, and the states have laws. Vehicle regulation is primarily at the state level. Federal activities and laws don't change that. The federal government is empowered by the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce and certain other things defined in the federal constitution. The states don't require such a delegation of authority, and reserve a vast amount of power for regulating people and property for health and safety, whether acting in commerce or not, within their borders.
That doesn't change the fact of what a driver license is for. And that the registration and license plate gives presumptive evidence that the car is acting in commerce
They're for regulating the use of the public highways to protect the people, as the federal Supreme Court says in my article, and as numerous state court decisions also agree, but for some reason you're too blind to acknowledge. You think you can overrule the Supreme Court. It's not true.
No ,I believe you are misreading those cases and might not understand what they are truely saying. Usually they go through decade of laws to see the full issue at hand and you have yet to provide a case that clearly says anything that remotely says the people are regulated . Non commercial does not mean what you think. Nor does personal use. When the laws subject matter is dealing with commerce.
I know, you think you've stumbled on some magic words that make you free from any regulation and know everything about the law because you read a few internet blog articles. You need to go get yourself arrested so you can start to figure out that you're completely mistaken. That and study the law properly, like from university-level lectures freely available on the internet.
Hahaha. Now now. I have a wexlaw membership. I've read your comment to why you use Wikipedia, if it's true, it's true according to you. The states regulate intrastate commerce to ensure the public safety. The public has a Right to the road the ones engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce have a privilege to the road, they pay dues (taxes) , license fee ,registration fee,all taxes . Not a direct tax but an indirect excise tax . Those taxes are meant to be passed to the consumer.
If you tell that to a judge, they'll say:
I read the court case . Sounds as though the court stuck with the transportation code because the appellant did not make his arguments properly. He claimed rights and then didn't form his arguments inline with them. Transportation has always been known as commerce. My town judge friend argues with me all the time that we are always engaged in commerce. Going to the pizza shop to buy pizza is commerce, he says. Not to mention Texas has a unbelievable income just in Austin Texas for traffic tickets. Everyone gets a percentage of the income, why in the world would they give the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The very wording used in that case is identical to the Senate bill I posted excluding the commerce part. Seems like Texas also changed their truck definition a few times to exclude the commerce aspect of the definition.
State legislators and courts can define "transportation" to mean whatever they want. It doesn't "always" mean anything. That's the whole purpose of legal definitions, to define things outside of the usual English or other meaning. Just because they name a code the Transportation Code doesn't restrict the legislation within to only commerce.
And you think you would fare better? Not likely. Your arguments similarly don't cite any relevant authority as required. State legislators and courts can define "transportation" to mean whatever they want. It doesn't "always" mean anything. That's the whole purpose of legal definitions, to define things outside of the usual English or other meaning. Just because they name a code the Transportation Code doesn't restrict the legislation within to only commerce. And yeah, states can change their definitions. They're not restricted to regulating only commerce. You can't prove they are. Nobody can. It's been tried many times. It's not a valid, lawful argument.
The states are not rule less, they have statutory construction rules, rules and laws for everything. And yes they define words specific to the law that doesn't mean they defined transportation or commerce as something different then it's always been. Here's a few more examples that the public safety was exactly why they pushed S.25. S.25 was not to infringe upon states right to regulate their own traffic, but as it shows it was a guide taken from other states already enforcing strict license laws, meaning those states were already regulating intrastate commerce. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/77b3aeb12c158aaccd7af9fcc443adb4136a6793576311dd9a2ef9d6d7f93a01.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bb321905ca99e9d891787fa5e557d92227030826cc2e69a3cd5c106037df898f.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/697ba63a5b539b541ec5e22e95ed70c90236e32b38284f55d0f7236091876f3d.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87f02293cb034edff140407474808de9cf804b9273b921ee85860bfee08d4648.png
For someone who claims not to be a part of the government you sure claim to know a lot about it. Some might say that's a demonstration of being a member and subject. Who cares about federal law or "S.25"? Have you ever been held under it? Ever seen it used as successful argument in court? If not, why act like it means anything? State law regulates the highways generally. You're just wasting time. Read your state constitution and the current legislation made under it and you will know the law of your state that you are most likely to be affected by. The federal government doesn't get too involved in internal state law, such as the regulation of vehicles on the public roads..
I dont work in government but nevertheless never maid the claim you suggest to begin with. S.25 is taken from state laws that were in effect. It was not some new idea created by the federal government. And that's a great point the federal government doesn't involve itself in registration and license of vehicles on public roads. Yet that's exactly what s.25 is talking about,the registration and drivers license. Clearly they don't issue those documents. Clearly they states would. Clearly they requirements listed are damn near exactly as the state laws . Hmmm.
No, they're not the same at all. The States don't regulate "interstate commerce" – that falls under the purview of the federal government. The States are forbidden from regulating it because that is one of the few powers delegated to the federal government.
The type of commerce is different, The law is laid out the very same. Truman says it's the laws from the states that already have those laws in place. None of my arguments or evidence have been used in any of the cases you have provided. I've already agreed the laws are valid and the cases back it up. The people that make arguments in court about their right to drive or blah blah blah, don't put forward the correct arguments or objections or rebuttals. They don't learn the rules of evidence and court procedures to control the outcome.
The federal government regulating interstate commerce or saying anything does not displace the state code which applies to everyone. The state courts will simply dismiss it and read the letter of the local state code and the existing state interpretations of it. 50+ states all regulate non-commercial travelers and their laws have withstood every argument you can imagine and you simply think "everyone did it wrong?" Your massive ego knows no rational bounds.
Non commercial does not mean not engaged in commerce lol. I've worked with Dot for awhile as I am a professional driver.commercial motor vehicles are deemed that by their weight. Non commercial are usually under 10000pounds. Nothing to do with being in commerce or not. Hundreds of years? I haven't read a case yet that anyone made a valid case with factual evidence that could be entered into the record. Not one has made valid claim. Even Thomson v Smith backs up my point. The case is about commerce and then says the way cities can regulate private automobiles is by license . The topic of the case is commerce, Corporations and any other businesses who would be engaged in commerce own private automobiles.
Just because a case is about commerce doesn't mean the court can't comment on other things. When it's cited later for non-commercial matters it becomes binding precedent for non-commercial activity. Governments have regulated non-commercial activity for as far back as they have existed. Other than armchair lawyers on the internet, I don't know where you get the idea that they can only regulate commerce. Where are your clear and unambiguous citations for that? Without any cited authority your argument clearly has no chance of succeeding.
It's strange when senator Truman talks about all the deaths from motor vehicles on public roads he's talking about intrastate and interstate commerce. When he suggests all states follow the laws already in place in other states , he's talking about laws regulating commerce in motor vehicles. But I guess because Wikipedia doesn't come spell it out in plain English you won't understand those facts. By the way , happy Easter! This could go round and round, like I said I'm waiting on a few state documents through a foil request . When they come in I'll repost . I'm not sure what you'll say then . We'll see.
Of course the federal government talks about commerce – that's all they're supposed to be regulating based on their mandate. Spamming random documents everywhere doesn't do anything to prove anything. You need a court to agree. So start a case based on some charge you have or for a declaratory judgment.
Of course the federal government talks about commerce – that's what they're supposed to be regulating based on their mandate. Spamming random documents everywhere with your personal interpretation doesn't accomplish anything or prove anything. Neither you or I have the authority to make binding interpretations of the law. You need a court to agree. So start a case based on some charge you have or for a declaratory judgment.
The very laws consider a bus driver for school kids as an operator. Hence the need for an operator license. I know everyone did it wrong. The passenger car is a term used in one of the elements for determining the type of license, you'd have to read the full document to understand why that is significant. Again the court cases have either the wrong arguments or the one arguing is ignorant and the court's know this . https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad738f388afc714c46e760f1e6eb14c91c20772bbb4a0acc1fd9c4518a3660ac.png
You need to look at the current licensing laws for your state, the definitions that apply to them (usually found at the top of the subchapter, chapter and/or title), and the court cases (common law) interpreting them. Your citation indicates there are laws that consider two classifications by vehicle use, but that doesn't mean there aren't also laws that apply regardless of use.
There are no laws that apply regardless of use. They originally used 3 "tests" to determine the type of license. And it all has to do with an activity that most do not engage in. I've looked at the whole history of the laws not just the current ones. There is no amendment in the history of the laws that changed it to apply to anything other then carrying property or passengers, school buses, or chauffeurs . One needed a chauffeur license ,the others needed an operator license, 1968 they changed it and most states adopted it so both licenses were now the driver license. Mainly because the requirements for either were roughly the same. Nowhere in law can you show where a private individual who's not using a motor vehicle in a certain way needs a license. The laws don't say it because it's not valid. Within this law a driver can only be a person. And a person is not everyone regardless.
The UVC clearly suggests various classifications of non-commercial licenses not based on use and many states have adopted similar official laws, so your statements can only logically be considered misleading, deluded, wishful thinking. Every man is considered a natural person in the eyes of the law despite any claims otherwise.
Just like a school bus driver is not considered to be a chauffeur, someone who's operating a motor vehicle for hire or compensation. Obviously the bus operator is not doing it for free. When the motor vehicle is under a certain weight its considered non commercial , this doesnt mean what you suggest. As a professional driver i am well aware of commerial and non. But you can't comprehend this ?
Many states issue "Commercial Driver's Licenses" based solely on size and weight that have nothing to do with commercial use, per se. People acting non-commercially would need the same CDL. For those definitions "commercial" merely relates to the vehicle properties. I can see how that would be confusing. Why are you talking about bus drivers? Most people required to have a license aren't bus drivers.
Because theschool bus was considered an operator license which is argued is the licence that is required by everyone no matter what. And chauffeur was for hire. But in reality the operator license is just a license for anyone else that doesn't fit the chauffeur license requirement. That could be a school bus ,truck . … I don't think school bus operators are volunteering. So operator license that applies to everyone apparently wouldn't also be the special license a school bus driver needed. Also in 1968 they started the classification system. And got rid of the employment element. Only in an attempt to issue one license. One license with different classifications. 1,2,3 or now A,B,C,D,ect. . The chauffeur classification concept was applied to all drivers licenses. operator license covered one kind of activity and chauffeur was for another. The distinction between the two was deleted from the code .
So you're saying the laws changed? Yeah, happens all the time.
So you're saying the laws changed? Yeah, happens all the time. If you're talking about Texas non-commercial license requirements it apparently began in 1935.
You are wrong there, the states do regulate interstate and intrastate. The federal government gave them the authority to . Classification of the driver license shows in 1968 chauffeur and operators license were merged into a driver license with different classifications. They also stopped using the employment element, so this is why the current definition and laws don't suggest driving for hire is a requirement. in this same document it clearly tells that "passenger car" is a term used to describe a motor vehicle that can only carry so many passengers compared to a bus or omnibus.
The documents are very clear. I assume that not many on here arguing different has actually researched the history of the laws. The purpose and intent is still the same and have yet to change even with the current VTL you keep promoting. If any of the cases you have provided argued the right arguments and provided the right admissible evidence and stopped trying to argue the right to drive ,they might have won, but most of the cases suggest they were never intended to argue those points either by ignorance or just because they believed they really did have the right to drive for a living. How many laws are passed every year, that most people don't agree with but never get changed ,and then 40 years go by and people claim the laws are legitimate and true without any questions. Here's the documents. Scans from original so little fuzzy. Enjoy https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b9eed48d0c2bde66b7b60b1996dfb2c0caa0bb6dfe282c759c2c491605c8141.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad738f388afc714c46e760f1e6eb14c91c20772bbb4a0acc1fd9c4518a3660ac.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3904bc8ec9505b78ed3dceaebbaafcd088c0630a4dc2b1af9f114fa0e4ff1e6.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3f1c0a131625d279edf594b44a4282c7741a2860b9481a3227bcb907302a4c6.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a0bf51d68a36a50d3eb1ff7fa6c1c4f8683a20bd873a5a7f43480b6766845d93.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d9d534f08e2a9d8e1acdd2fdc53b114323254d625d26b3abb91c134367eaa42.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d394b5394ed91833a6d48a14761c4d744e179a745c8ab10f05a92cfd39ce361.png
And there's more. But no time. The highway safety act, the uniform vehicle codes. Ect. All have to do with regulating but none have any authority to regulate the people . It is very clear that no entity can act without a natural person. It is very clear the states or federal government can only regulate what they create, i.e. firms,corporate entities, co-partnership, associations,ect. The statutes do require statutory interpretations and do follow a set of rules to do just that,the states do not have unlimited powers as YOU suggest, they can claim a motor vehicle is something completely different than what it really is ,is hogwash. The court's have rules the states have rules. When making a law they follow rules. So your arguments are false to say the least. There is so much more to the picture than what you portray.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/33ccf1117cc73b0de88099e8b3181a41ebf6502442a74a4ddec4177ed066c813.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3e89a443e40510346ef607bb96bd99784f4d4d653747dbbf966de787c19ad5e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/53ab2cb05b79d5bd7adfcad25841cd94ee6b0bc534fda2bef0e6d29342f70377.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d93f028a9eee64bbe4a4abf53830d0b2d4e9eff93ad5b4ae8262ee3090aba258.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/53ab2cb05b79d5bd7adfcad25841cd94ee6b0bc534fda2bef0e6d29342f70377.png
Again when the term person is defined as, natural person, association, copartnership, firm,corporation. , the natural person is included with the entities, not something completely separate
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e8332173ecd17232dde991f31578d60775ea53c6340586b1aef8ef9fa78dc202.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aed833818a7dbffb97eed75eb44b82589f3b38bf76ceca59901e8a86c018c744.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/317b6ec415bf332e18a5c3343c4ee2ff327a8e14d7181bd828b8a8b533700085.png
Those latin terms all came from a State court government website regarding motions
Why don't you read all the cases that were cited as authorities for that case, too? There were many, and they may all be cited against you if you try your arguments in court. Nobody has won with your arguments before, but you think you're special. Hopefully reality is kind when it's put to you.
They purposely amended the current laws to leave the commerce aspect out because it's so well known in law that the purpose is for regulating commerce. The case law you provide backs this up if you read it. Corporations own private motor vehicles. Legal entities can not act without natural persons. The registration and license plate is presumptive evidence that the motor vehicle is engaged in commerce. The original department that was in charge of license and registration (who may have transferred it's power to a newly formed department ) has one purpose, to regulate transportation. Commerce. The public safety aspects were the main reason to implement Senate bill S. 25 which was modeled after existing state laws ,to regulate commerce.
Have you considered they just amended the laws because they felt it necessary to regulate non-commercial activity? What authority makes you think they can't do that? There isn't any. No the case law doesn't back it up, and neither does the legislation. By state law you are a person driving a motor vehicle on the public highways, whether acting in commerce or not. The legislation is very clear. Transportation isn't limited to commerce. You have very creative personal interpretations but no court agrees so it's useless and ineffective in actuality. Go read some more Marzett cases – that'll be you, wasting hours of your time just to get shut down by the courts if you continue down this path. Again, federal law has nothing to do with the states regulating the highways. You don't understand the complete separation of jurisdiction in the US federation. The states have far more regulatory powers than the federal government.
Considering you're such a believer in private property, why do you feel you have the right to force Texas and its citizens to share their property with you? Wouldn't that be trespassing, the same as if Texas tried to use your property without your permission? If they do all the work and pay all the taxes, what right would someone who doesn't do any work and pays no taxes have to use the property? Why don't you treat others as you wish to be treated?
???. Explain more. I'm not sure where I said I was a proponent of private property. Not that I'm not , but not sure what you were getting at
If you're separate from the state why do you think you have the right to use state property? You want the state and citizens not to use your property, but think you have the right to use theirs. That's not very fair, is it?
I still don't understand what you mean by I don't want the state or citizens to use my property? What property?
Your car? You don't want your property subject to the rules of the owners of the road while using their road. You want respect but don't want to give any. You want to take and use without providing any compensation. Seems selfish and hypocritical to me.
Your car? You don't want to follow the rules of the owners of the road while using their road. You want respect without giving any. You want to take and use the products of the members of society without providing any compensation in the form of taxes. How is that fair or reasonable? Seems selfish and hypocritical to me.
There is usually a gas tax which is an excise tax. I would be one of those owners wouldn't i, having a Right to use the road. And of course I would be subject to rules on the road for public safety. Common respect for others. In one of the pictures it talks about why s.25 would be good ,people at the time did not obey traffic signs, speed limits ,turn signals ect., sound familiar? People don't do that now with the license. Anyhow I'm not using that Senate bill as anything but an example. It was modeled after State laws on same subject. The federal government does Not issue registration or licenses, so it's certainly showing what they stated were doing. Long after new york issued operator licenses. I know this is disappointing to you. As soon as my foil requests come in for several documents to show on a state level the same things ,which are really already clear but just to get more proof. But like I said the laws are not unconstitutional . And honestly the people I see everyday on the roads with registration and i assume have a license, are f'ing horrible at signalling, cutting others off, road rage, not letting others over when signalling, ect, ect.. so I would think what is needed is more education to the people driving, the laws do nothing but punish or give a remedy after the fact .
If you disagree with the laws your representatives make the correct course of action is to vote someone in who will represent you or run for office yourself. Don't expect the courts to be swayed by pseudolegal arguments. They know the law better than you. This person made some interesting arguments:
Voting does nothing to preserve rights. The court's are where that's done. That case again uses the exact terminology as in the laws regarding intrastate commerce. That's what you keep posting. That and the people are crazy. Split God's sovereignty? ??. No wonder she lost. The cases do back up what the laws are for ,they say it everytime in the wording they use. I don't have to prove it to anyone. My friends a town judge and even he laughed at me until I showed him several documents. So I guess you might get a few cases that desperately sound like it backs up your theory of laws applying to everyone when the judges haven't a clue themselves and grew up believing as you do. But I'm not using some jargon of the conspiracy sites about gold fringe flags and other nonsense. I'm using legal documents and lawful history of the very laws in question. When the government creates a department it leaves a paper trail, when they create a department that department is created for one purpose. That paper trail shows this. You can ignore it and see what you want within your cases . Truman even stated that the laws in most states at the time required license and registration for solely revenue purposes . Nothing to do with safety. The registration tax should tell you something about what it is.
And you'll be ignored until you prove it on the record. Why aren't you working on your case of the century that completely destroys everything hundreds of millions of people have been mistaken about for 100's of years right now?
Exactly why I do document searches . And the history of the law. Again I'm a professional driver I have no desire to give up my license. That doesn't negate the fact the laws are not written to be applied to any Person Not engaged in intrastate or interstate commerce. The cases say it ,the laws say it , Truman as a senator says it. The department handling motor vehicles, only purpose is commerce. Very reason the tax commission was in charge in new york over motor vehicle registration and license until they created a new department to handle the over load of drivers.
Separate from the state? I'm missing something. Are you commenting on the right thread?
Yep, you claim you're not a member subject to state law. You want all the benefits of members, such as using public property, but don't want any of the duties. It's a maxim of law that he who enjoys the benefit bears the burden. That's why when you're found on the public roads you can be affected by the state rules of the road.
Wow assuming a lot . Nothing you said is factual. When you enter into society of course you are subject to certain laws if you violate them. Or if you engage in a specific activity that is regulated.
Yeah, and every argument you've made has been shut down in the courts, so I don't know how you can expect to succeed. It's just a lot of hot air you blow around the internet but don't have the balls to try in court in real life because you know it will fail. And if you know it will fail, well, maybe you did learn something after all.
Read this document and then get back to me. Goes through all the states laws and federal. Shows the changes in definitions. Shows how they stopped using the employment element. Shows the other elements used to determine the type of license. Shows that the chauffeur license was for person's for hire or compensation and operators license is for bus drivers and others of the same . Never at any point in history was the driver license laws or registration applied to the people . Never
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b9eed48d0c2bde66b7b60b1996dfb2c0caa0bb6dfe282c759c2c491605c8141.png
I found the publication here.
As it states on the first page, "driver's license classification is simply a recognition that certain kinds of driving call for special skills, knowledge and other qualifications beyond what is necessary for performance of the basic driving task."
Based on my analysis of state, county and municipal laws, that's accurate. Special classifications are often created to consider vehicle size and weight and sometimes for certain matters of commerce.
This doesn't mean at all that non-commercial activity can't be, hasn't been and isn't regulated, though.
Show me this definition of non commercial in the history of the laws or in thecurrent laws. As we know, a school bus driver did not fit the definition of a chauffeur. Hence the need of an operator license. If a chauffeur is any Person for hire or compensation, is the school bus driver not being paid? If course he is. But again driving a bus or a truck or even a passenger car BUT not a chauffeur by definition, needed an operator license. The type of use for the motor vehicle by an operator might not be the same as a chauffeur but still needs a license because of how it's used. Not just because it's being moved on public roads. Every document I've studied on the history up to the current statutes have showed this very fact. Read the whole document. I have several more other acts. Highway safety act and traffic something or other act . All dealing with one subject matter
I already have. In most or all state codes driver's licenses are required for drivers of motor vehicles, driver is defined as anyone in physical control of a motor vehicle, and motor vehicles are defined as any self-propelled vehicle using the public roads. A judge will tell you the same if you try to use that as a defense to state vehicle laws.
I already have multiple times. In most or all state codes driver's licenses are required for drivers of motor vehicles, driver is defined as anyone in physical control of a motor vehicle, and motor vehicles are defined as any self-propelled vehicle using the public roads. A judge will tell you the same if you try to use that as a defense to state vehicle laws.
Of course if they just parrot the statute as you see it now. I think you attorneys are trained to do just that and only that, and maybe your law school even deprived you of valuable knowledge to keep you arguing this nonsense. The law throughout the history of it says a different story. And I'd at least get it on the record so I could appeal. Maybe motion to get a more definite statement or get the judge to put out an official ruling on the law ,having a brain fart on what it's called . But I definitely wouldn't be arguing the merits of the VTL charged
Claims without evidence might serve you when bullying people on the internet but won't help you in court. Let us know your case number when you grow a pair and do something in real life.
No ones bullying. The evidence is the purpose and intent of the law. They will do exactly what you do ,parrot the law . I've said before the cases back the point that the laws are applied correctly, this is because every case is on the subject being regulated. Mainly because the ones arguing have passenger plates on their car, their presumptions are never rebutted or rebutted properly. Again what is the definition in any law for passenger? They are termed passenger plates for a reason. Pickup trucksmostly have commercial plates for a reason. There's a reason it's worded this way. And it's not forced on anyone, people just assume they must or else. And yes police back this assumption with force and ignorance. Or maybe it's not ignorance, maybe they are well aware.
You ignore and twist facts as you please, such as the Supreme Court in Hendrick v Maryland.
And no, "motor vehicle" isn't a commercial vehicle by any state or that ruling's definition.
What is the definition in any state law for passenger? Like I said early, the laws dont show the states ever did. Like I pointed out before , an operator license was for any person other then a chauffeur, well a school bus driver needed an operator license because it didn't fit the chauffeur license. They also added that for someone to be a chauffeur they had to be hired by someone else not self employed. Therefore the operator license was for any person like a school bus driver, dump truck ect. Then most states merged the two licenses into one. They got rid of the employment element and instead used the better classification, what type of vehicle , they kept the chauffeur requirements and applied those requirements to all driver licenses .even though it was now a driver license the laws were never amended or a new bill passed that changed the purpose and intent of those laws or made a new law applying to anyone no matter what. Just doesn't say it
Let's stick to the driver's license requirement and not go off on unrelated tangents or irrelevant history. Most or all state laws requiring driver's licenses don't mention passengers so the term has zero relevance.
e.g. Texas 521.021
Homework: Where are "person", "motor vehicle" and "highway" defined as applies to this law? Hint: It will be either in this chapter, a parent chapter or title or a court decision interpreting the section.
Like I said they don't use the employment element they repealed that requirement for all driver licenses in most states. I ask what is the definition for passenger (which is not irrelevant ) because most people are driving a passenger car. Most of the public have cars registered as passenger motor vehicles. What is a passenger? Not to mention the federal laws in history state the registration and plate on passenger cars gives the presumption of interstate commerce when traveling across state lines. .
Actually, self employed would need an operator license not a chauffeur license even if doing what a chauffeur does ,if not employed by a person other then himself
What section of your state's current Transportation Code are you taking issue with, exactly? Seems you're off somewhere irrelevant again.
No again I'm right on point. Both the chauffeur license and operators license were for person's engaging in certain activity. Chauffeurs had to be employed by someone other than themselves to meet the requirement to be a chauffeur. Others ,as in self employed persons,school bus operators, trucks not fitting the chauffeur requirement needed operator licenses. Then they merged the chauffeur and operators license and formed one ,the driver license. It still only applied to that class of person.
Well Max, I've given you ample leeway in airing your opinions, and I think we understand most of your theories, so as the owner of this private web site I'm now asking you to stop commenting on this article. If you continue it will definitely be evidence of bullying, and a trespass. Thanks for stopping by. I wish you the best.
No problem sir/mam. I would have appreciated a response as it seems I've come to something you can not rebut. But no worries, again,this is no court and your opinion just like mine mean nothing.
No problem sir/mam. I would have appreciated a response as it seems I've come across something you can not rebut. But again, No worries as I said this is no court and your opinion just as mine ,mean nothing.
There are rules to follow when reading legal definitions. Again person is defined exactly how it should be . They don't just define something with several odd ball objects. Fruit means: potatoes, fruit, figs,Apple's and banana. Doesn't work that way. Person is defined, they don't list several things that don't fit, instead everything in the definition is a legal entity or a natural person to act for the entities. It can't be anything different
Living, breathing, men and women are defined as natural persons, and natural persons require licenses. Cool story, though.
Again that doesn't mean anything. Let's say all men are natural persons in law, that still wouldnt mean all natural persons other then the ones associated with the legal entities.
The "or" in the definition of person means the natural person and legal entities are separate from each other, not associated. There's no reading of it that could possibly suggest otherwise. If this is a basis of any of your arguments I don't expect you will succeed.
Wouldn't it be worded ,person: natural person OR firm ,ect.. think you are stretching for anything now. All may be possible but has yet to be done. Laws could be applied but have not been . If you took away the natural person from the definition, not one of those entities could drive. So better luck next time
It is proper to say "Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation" for a series of individual, separate items. Using "or" between every single item like "Every natural person or firm or copartnership or association or corporation." is improper and not required. If you say "at breakfast, lunch or dinner" it doesn't mean breakfast and lunch are associated any differently than lunch and dinner. The statement is true if any individual item is matched.
You've mentioned the entities not being able to drive before, and my response is the same: the courts would simply exclude irrelevant entities from its interpretation and the requirements. The law can't require an impossibility.
Expand on the court's would exclude irrelevant entities. ….., it would be impossible for a creation of government to physically drive, so who drives if the person is a firm? Or what if the person is a copartnership, who's driving? How is a corporation or association in actual physical control of a motor vehicle?
Answering those questions might be fun but wouldn't be a defense for a natural person against a driver's license charge. The entities are clearly included in the definition for purposes of the hundreds of other sections of the vehicle code.
I would love to hear about those sections. But I would more like to hear about it applying for the license or registration section. They define terms used in several sections, but they couldn't define person for the sections you say relates more to the entities And a different definition for who is required to be licensed? ? If the entities are incapable of driving it's seems impractical to even define them .
They most likely would have defined it just for entities for the section it was meant for if that was the case. Just like they do elsewhere in other laws. I have never seen the term person defined as just legal entities. Every current law regarding VTL that I have read have referred the average car under a certain weight to be a passenger car. Most people I know "drive" "passenger cars" . What is the legal definition for passenger? The document I provided discussed this ,mentioning that motor vehicles carrying less than a certain amount of passenger's is commonly termed passenger car. The laws regulate commerce in motor vehicles. Yes maybe the states could regulate others with a license but the laws dont show this. But the states police power regarding public safety and welfare is not unlimited or does it afford them the power to restrict outside their limits. If they could then firearms would be banned in the name of public safety and their welfare. Or free speach because it may offend someone. Or why require warrants at all for searches if most searches legal or not are found to find at least something that's illegal, in the name of public safety. They mentioned in the Truman bill S.25 regarding driver's license requirement for every state, The bill was just a guideline, The purpose was to regulate interstate commerce with motor vehicles for the public safety. I have yet to ever see in any of the history of the laws in any of the states I've looked have ever suggested any of the laws were to regulate the people for the public safety. But what I do see is they did convince everyone to register and license as if they are operating a passenger car or driving in a capacity the laws Do regulate.
You're arguing with the simple grammatical rules of the English language at this point. Anyway your state doesn't appear to define person generally in the Transportation Code or the driver licensing chapter, so what definition, exactly would you even be arguing? What section of the current code is it? The definition of words on a state vehicle code charge are either found in the code itself or the court decides. You can't bring in documents from other states or the federal government – they don't have jurisdiction over the state vehicle code.
Actually if there's not specific definition in the law the general definition is usually used unless otherwise stated or rules on. You were just claim "or" means this and that. I know what they mean in the definition because I'm also looking at the law it applies to
If you are defining who a person is and you intent to include two different objects ,one being living and one a fiction it would seem more logical to separate with a semicolon or (Or ) .
Lists of words in most laws simply follow regular English usage, i.e. "A, B or C" refers to any one of separate, individual elements.
Yeah maybe for example, fruit:Apple's ,banana, orange. .. but if you are going to define something with two opposite objects you would not define fruit as, Apple's ,banana, orange, lettuce. Unless you were saying lettuce is a fruit. If the majority of objects have similar characteristics then the odd ball would have to be considered to be associated with the majority.
Can you cite an example from case law in your state saying that? If not, it would be unwise to assume a state court would agree.
I could ask you the same thing when you claimed they just grouped a bunch of entities together in a definition with natural person and claim natural person has no association with the entities
It cannot, but it does. Wow. BURN IN HELL SCUM
It would be something if you could define legal terms that way, Person: natural person, animals, legal entities, buildings, anything that this law applies to is a person. Lol but that's not how it works. Pushing this definitely keeps the scam and revenue going.
There's nothing prohibiting the states from including buildings in its definition of person. They have the power to create and interpret laws.
There's nothing prohibiting the states from including animals or buildings in its definition of person. In some places animals have in fact been granted personhood. They have the power to create and interpret laws. When you fit the definition the law can be applied to you.
There's nothing prohibiting the states from including animals or buildings in their definition of person. In some places for some laws animals have in fact been granted personhood and rights. The states have the power to create and interpret laws. When you fit the definition the law can be applied to you.
Within the rules. They don't have unlimited ability to create whatever.
They can create whatever, but if they violate some higher law it can be challenged, struck down and damages may be awarded, then they'd change the law to limit liability. Up until the point a bad law is struck down, though, it's technically valid.
Yeah a statute is presumed constitutional right off the bat. But with that fact, it's also a fact the law being a law in force doesn't mean it doesn't violate. It just hasn't been argued yet.
When it comes to state vehicle codes affecting "those in commerce and others" they've been argued to death and found to be a proper application of state police power for protecting health and safety. I've cited 3 federal supreme court cases in my article saying as much, and linked many more sources, too. You're not the first person to consider challenging them.
But it's presumed constitutional because it's supposed to be made within the guidelines of the constitution
The UVC suggests the definition of person should be:
There is no other way to read that than natural persons are covered severally. If you think otherwise then I suggest you look up the English definition and grammatical rules of the word "OR"
So completely ignore the rules for interpreting the law as well as the definitions, that's what you suggest?
What rules do you think mean the extremely clear definition doesn't apply?
There is another way, the legal way lol
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aed833818a7dbffb97eed75eb44b82589f3b38bf76ceca59901e8a86c018c744.png
There's nothing ambiguous about the definition, though.
Wrong pic. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e8332173ecd17232dde991f31578d60775ea53c6340586b1aef8ef9fa78dc202.png
Does the definition for person in your state use the term "includes" or "including"? I don't think it does. Anyway, it's not a hard rule – it can vary based on the legislature's intent. The legislature ultimately holds the power, not legal maxims.
Does the definition for person in your state use the term "includes" or "including"? I don't think it does. Also natural persons would be included, not excluded, so I don't know why you think it's relevant. Anyway, it's not a hard rule – it can vary based on the legislature's intent. The legislature ultimately holds the power, not legal maxims. Edit: In fact "person" doesn't seem defined at all in the Texas Transportation Code Driver's Licensing chapter. Since it's not defined you may have to look to case law to find the meaning the courts applied.
From the cover of the publication, "The Commentary series covers, on a selective basis, the development and status of state motor vehicle and traffic laws, particularly as they relate to provisions in the Uniform Vehicle Code."
And we find, "The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) is a privately prepared set of United States traffic laws prepared by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, a private non-profit organization. Most of the members are state governments, in addition to some related organizations. The extent to which the code is used varies by each state, the District of Columbia, territory, and Native American tribe. It was last updated in 2000." on Wikipedia
Here's a link to the 2000 UVC
Reading that, we find the suggested definitions:
From what I've seen, most states employ these or similar definitions. Notice there is no mention of commerce to make one a "driver of a motor vehicle."
In Chapter 6 we find suggested driver licensing laws.
Notice it specifically mentions classes of non-commercial licenses. Chapter 6 begins on page 63 (PDF page 82). 6-101 suggests the states employ the following text:
and 6-104 suggests various classes of non-commercial licenses.
Nevertheless, it would be far more useful to read the text and analysis of the actual laws of each state created by the constitutional state legislature and not mere suggestions by a private organization.
You clearly didn't read the whole document. I'm not sure why you love Wikipedia so much but the document covers all states . Wikipedia is not valid documentation. When you consider person is still the same it's always been within this law. When a passenger car is a term used to describe the use of a motor vehicle. When all official documents relating to the history of the vtl not only suggest but prove it was never meant to regulate the individual man privately traveling. When all the court cases back this up . When the adim uses Wikipedia and I'm using official documents. There's not much more to say here . Signing off. Read the whole document
I directly cited the UVC which was cited by your document. Wikipedia merely helped me find it. Arguments about not being a "person" covered by state vehicle laws have never succeeded in a court with the authority to interpret state laws, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise, so I don't know why you think claiming that will ever help you fight a state vehicle code charge. Why are you arguing online and not in court right now?
I directly cited the UVC which was cited by your document. Wikipedia merely helped me find it. Are you able to rebut the statement that the UVC was made by a private organization? Arguments about not being a "person" covered by state vehicle laws have never succeeded in a court with the authority to interpret state laws, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise, so I don't know why you think claiming that will ever help you fight a state vehicle code charge. Why are you arguing online and not in court right now?
"Reading the document" tells us that states classify vehicles for different purposes – so what? It's not speaking about the validity of non-commercial licenses, which are clearly recommended by the UVC.
Non commercial license is for motor vehicles in a certain weight class. Has nothing to do with for hire or not for hire . Yes it's a private organization, can you rebut anything it says within it about anything, anything regarding the individual state laws ??
Often the states claiming a commercial license is required is also based on weight class and not use. I'm not trying to rebut the UVC – it clearly supports the states implementing driver licensing for everyone in chapter 6.
Yes I seen that in the last paragraph? For a few states . And still applies to all drivers within the purpose of the law
The government regulations to keep the public safe are applied to person's engaging in commerce because those person's are making a profit they tend to shortcut their vehicle maintenance, Or try to overload the vehicle, ect. Causing a danger to the public that uses the road by Right. The simple fact is the law is for one subject.
So you think you can drive a tank on the public roads, or a dangerous homemade car, and you can be drunk or whatever, and there's nothing the police can do. That would be insane. Get your head out of your ass.
Who said that? I didnt. Lol
I said the law says what it says and the laws are legitimate and the court's have upheld that fact. The department handling motor vehicles registration and license in every state varies but nevertheless the Act that created that department is clear. The purpose is for commerce. Now prior to Senate bill S.25 , 11 States already had strict license laws on their own. All having to do with intrastate commerce.
What you suggest is ,I could register my car in Virginia. Drive with license plates into New York and the federal presumption that I'm engaged in interstate commerce because I have registration and license plate And also be considered just personal use not in commerce because it's just a state public safety requirement???
Forget about the federal government. It's the State and its police that will most likely be seizing your property, revoking your license, etc. The federal government only rarely enforces anything to do with the public roads, and they don't have any jurisdiction to decide any of the details of creation or enforcement of State law. They can only find things unconstitutional or contrary to federal law where the federal government has clearly assumed power over it. The federal government has not assumed jurisdiction over the operation of vehicles on the highways generally. The state police power based on public safety is very different than the basis of federal law, which is far more limited.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/535478ae2d31b8f3b8ead91d8554ebf3d16a39e05bf82111f3ff2e7f0c219e9c.png
Senate bill introduced by senator Truman in 1939
S.25
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e27a1b910496ed450f4507f87de036ce9012a0735d2547732eb733ea523f9cd.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3a57e9a6ae4597abe171e5f20cf7cc5b54dbde2d825f081679ede80175eb50c.png
whoever wrote this article in as much as I can tell has a very limited view of jurisdiction, comprehension or just call yourself a tyrant. You need to be more thorough which you weren't and you likely have very little legal and lawful knowledge.
I will maintain you are a Communist as is apparent by your language and lack of study of law.
So, I will say this. The state is a fiction, the people do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.
A Republic form of government (with the Consent of the Governed) is guaranteed.
So, in essence congress under the commerce clause has in fact usurped that consent by licensing a right.
Not paying for it either. You need to learn the law of agency. Confiscating private property forcing it to be registered with the state (fiction) and applying a tax (tort-Bill of attainder) perhaps in the future you can do an article describing that to the low I.Q's of your constituency what really is going on.
Congress or the government can only regulate it's own property. ( a man is not property ) but a person can be.
A word to the wise, I give your article a D-
Here's a more informed link for those in google land. http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/travelcites.htm
a motor vehicle is a commercial word so defined 18 usc 31 (google it) it's all about jurisdiction.
They are converting people's rights (unalienable) for profit and gain under the guise of security and safety.
That's how tyrants (democrats and communist, use stealth legislation via their law degrees) overthrow freedom and private property rights. I will license (be a surety) when they (the state ) pay me to be their whore. Otherwise, my private auto-mobile will be plate less and un-registered. If they want my private property (earned by my labor) they can use eminent domain and pay me for it.
It's always about the money. That's why government actors get paid better than everyone else. They create a new law and viola!!! new revenue.
The majority of vehicle codes are at the state level under the state police power, so I don't know why you're talking about the federal government. There are numerous definitions for "motor vehicle" throughout the USC that apply in different chapters, but most people aren't charged under the USC, but state vehicle codes. When charged under a state vehicle code the definitions from that code apply, not from the USC.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/535478ae2d31b8f3b8ead91d8554ebf3d16a39e05bf82111f3ff2e7f0c219e9c.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eff3a1fd95959be23b6bb42b127e82ede7b42fd7b5e89b0fa5ab029b91d80a13.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e27a1b910496ed450f4507f87de036ce9012a0735d2547732eb733ea523f9cd.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3a57e9a6ae4597abe171e5f20cf7cc5b54dbde2d825f081679ede80175eb50c.png
Senate Bill S.25 introduced by senator Truman in 1939. Read to see
Yes, the federal government regulates some things through its power granted by the commerce clause, so you often hear of them discussing and making laws regarding matters of commerce.
In every statement the term driver and motor vehicle is used. Those terms refer to someone conducting commerce, not simply using a personal automobile. If you are simply traveling there is no license required!! It is the Transportation Agency that is changing the verbiage to force people to pay their fees. I read where you said your looked very diligently to pick out these specific cases, makes me wonder how many supportive case were bypassed because they did not fit the agenda of this article!
Read your state vehicle code where the definitions for these terms are usually clearly defined. "Driving a motor vehicle" is typically defined as operating any self-propelled vehicle on the public roads, with no mention of commerce. By your actions, you are captured by the state definition. You can't simply declare your own meaning.
Are you still here, Rob? I want to talk to you?
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on
the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to
a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a
permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted
the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that
there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a
privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a
license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of
which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the
states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction
(license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that
does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by
the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225
F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is
no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do
indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any
manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of
others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses,
and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question —
is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to
travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This
means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and
those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in
determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free
exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms
secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it
is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the
inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are
involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may
very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are
unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way
that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just
a few — on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,
the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right
and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point
— that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or
limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more
straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is
not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v.
Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the
Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put
restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any
reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word
withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound
by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for
such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we
are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such
unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and
federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally
protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to
legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many
millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and
volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly
given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must
acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups
of people in this category:
More-
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
Unfortunately these case citations, if they're even accurate (it's not uncommon to find some fabricated quotes), are cherry-picked and taken out of context. I suggest you look the cases up and read them in full and see if you still agree with the claim. There is a right to travel but it is not unlimited. It is subject to the state police power like everything else that wasn't delegated to the federal government through the federal constitution. My article cites the supreme court stating it is proper for the states to regulate the highways. These decisions were not overturned. Perhaps when I have some time I will debunk each case individually (again) and maybe make an article about it.
I suggest that you read and reread the Constitution until you realise that no right can be converted into a privilege. Licenses are acquired by privilege. The States law enforcement cannot require a privilege to travel when travel is a necessity in the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My personal interpretation is irrelevant. The federal Supreme Court ultimately has the power to interpret the federal Constitution, and they agree travel can be regulated for health and safety, which is typically done by the States under their police power. Rights can certainly be limited. There is a right to free speech, but there are exceptions for defamation, copyright, direct calls for violence, etc. There is a right to bear arms, but there are exceptions such as strict rules for possessing nuclear and automatic weapons. Likewise there's a right to use public property such as public roads, but there are exceptions.
Big jump to nuclear weapons here. They obviously can cause great harm to citizens and are far beyond the purpose of protection of the individual (life and property) and against government (who has bigger guns), which was the main purpose of the milita. The right to travel is far more basic and necessary for normal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I think you are ignoring his point above I think in that there must be good cause to take away a right, (even a priviledge) and I see no "good cause" to restrict driving to only those that pay state fees except to generate state fees and power/control.
I can see the state requiring driver training for the safety of others, as a car is a weapon and can be dangerous driven by a novice. However, a license with fees and so many other strings and restrictions is a stretch. Eye test? Maybe? But again a few to all for the few that would be limited by this? This is really "nanny state" stuff, power creep and design to keep people on a string for many other purposes like ID, child support, state jobs, fees, and control of citizens.
all lies
You know when sheep follow sheep off a cliff it's because they don't think for themselves. You sound like you are from the zombie following culture not a courageous American citizen that helped found this country. I'm not going to be brainwashed and you can't force me to. Those exceptions that you speak of are for you because you accept them and choose not to direct your own path
Police power is limited to situations where a crime has been committed. Traffic violations are not criminal offenses which is why there is Traffic court separate from criminal or Civil courts. If a crime can be shown to have been committed a state can restrict the offenders right under Police Power. You obviously have extensive knowledge of the laws themselves. However you either do not understand or are purposefully leaving out the most important aspect of these legal definitions. JURISDICTION.
Do you agree that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and rules on whether something is Constitutional or not? If so, then here you go – Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution, but interpretation leads to inaccuracy. Hence why the Constitution remains the reference point. I think it's fair to say that everyone's interpretation is either irrelevant or possibly more important than any court transcript or legislative statute itself. But just because you can do anything you want doesn't mean you should. If values were equally shared ("…we hold these truths to be self-evident…"), then there would be no need for regulation beyond what started it all.
Yes hale v. Hinkel 201 us 43 at 89 (1906) cited over 1600 times and miranda v. Arizona 384 us 436,491 and simmons v. United States, 390 us 377 (1968)
Where does the Constitution say you have the right to travel by automobile? I missed that – those founding fathers were looking way into the future! The Supreme Court ruled the states have the authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles – that means, the rest is left up to the state – definitions, traffic codes, etc. I guess if you believe in the Constitutional right – then, only drive on FEDERAL HIGHWAYS without your license – but, I would keep off those state highways and roadways. : )
The Constitution states right to travel by ordinary means of the day. The founding fathers were looking into the future. They might not have known it would be cars but they knew horse and buggies wouldn't always be used. Your arguments are well stated but very weak. I applaud your ability to make people believe you by appearing/sounding confident and intelligent. Use that ability in some other way than denying Constitutional Rights.
https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
I challenge you to read the cases cited, starting with the first one Thompson v. Smith, in full and tell me if you still think that site is honestly interpreting the decisions. Here's a link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366
The supreme Court also stated that if a state requires a citizen to be licenced in order ensure competence. They are then underwriting said competence would be liable for any damages caused by a license holder. Furthermore one can be tested,d competent, given a license and as long as they renew before expiration they never have to prove competence again. The laws are upheld in states often because people voluntarily sign a document agreeing to convert your right to a privilege. However if this document does not clearly advise and require acknowledgement that you understand you are giving up a Constitutional Right it is unlawful.
what now haters . very well said rodney
State police power doe NOT take precedence over an individual's right. Just because it was not delegated in the Constitution doesn't mean the state can regulate it, if that were the case they could tell you what to wear, how to walk, and millions of other actions that are not enumerated in the Constitution.
Just when I think people can't possibly be more stupid…..
The only problem is that you forget to read the state laws THAT WERE UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT. Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
You people seem to think it is ok to read the parts you like, and ignore the Supreme Court Rulings, which ARE Constitutional, in case you haven't heard.
Actually you are very wrong. You seem to conveniently ignore the legal definitions that are used in those decisions. The terms "driver", Motor vehicle", and "operator" are NOT at the discretion of the courts as you claim, they are established definitions that specifically pertain to commerce, for hire, or employed! It is you who insists on ignoring WHAT the supreme court rulings actually SAY!
You are correct that definitions are not (always) up to the courts. Courts can only define things where the legislature is vague or silent. The federal government has no authority to directly modify state law. When a federal court is interpreting a state law it has no discretion to override the definitions dictated by the state legislature within the law being interpreted or the state courts with authority to create a state definition where the state legislature is silent.
Wrong!
Federal courts have superiority, states can not overturn federal law.
In this case I'm talking about state law, not federal law. The federal government cannot directly modify state law, e.g. by redefining, or forcing a state to redefine, "motor vehicle" within a state vehicle code where "motor vehicle" is defined. All the federal court can do is say whether the section at issue violates some federal law or right. It doesn't have jurisdiction to actually change the state law itself. The state always has discretion about whether to update its laws or enforcement practices to avoid future federal liability.
But you said states cannot overturn federal laws?!?!
The federal government has no power to dictate state law. It's not an overturning of federal law. No matter what state law says federal agents can enforce federal law within the state.
The states making something legal that is illegal by federal law isn't an overturning of federal law. Federal agents can still enforce federal law within the state. State agents are not required to help them do that.
States derive their power to make state law through the US Constitution . Without it states don't exist in their current lawful form. There is a bigger picture here.
Technically the states created the federal government by delegating some, but not all, power to it via ratifying the federal constitution. The states came first and reserved much of their power. This is reflected in the 10th amendment and state police power.
How have certain states legalized marijuana while it is still Illegal under federal law?
The states are free to make any laws they wish independent of the federal government. Federal agents can still enforce federal law within the state. State legislators, police, etc. aren't required to help them do that.
There is no federal law regarding driving.
Constitutional Right to travel by "ordinary means of the day". In ourday driving is the ordinary means
You are correct that definitions are not (always) up to the courts. Courts can only define things where the legislature is vague or silent. The federal government cannot dictate state law. When a federal court is interpreting a state law it has no discretion to override the definitions dictated by the state legislature within the law being interpreted or the state courts with authority to create a state definition where the state legislature is silent.
Arguing this level of semantics is why there are so many and long laws. Consider the spirit of the law. Arguing and digging for loop holes is trash.
They should not have to make a law that says Compound X that kills someone is illegal to sale when they have Compound Y illegal and the effects are virtually identical. Say any Compound, regardless of method of manufacture or chemical formulation, that is primarily manufactured and sold for human internal use and has a direct causal relationship from use to death is illegal.
Or in this case, just have a law that states something like "Operation for the purpose of travel, beyond a range of 100 feet within a 48 hour period, by transport using any manufactured device, will require certification of the qualifications of he operator of such device on knowledge, ability, and safety. Operators will be required to carry their a current certification (license) at all times while operating the vehicle."
There Timmy can ride his Tiny Tyke car in the front yard and even go on the side walk as far as the neighbors' houses and not need a certification. I believe it closes all your loop holes. It does interestingly open certification/licensing to include walking (if wearing shoes), skiing, skating, even pulling your brother in a wagon if you go outside a specific range.
If you are going to make it a war of semantics, the law can be made completely generic. State traffic laws are laws born of need to consider public safety. Squirming and fighting over semantics just requires more and more laws to be created.
Questions:
1.Do citizens of the USA have an inherent, natural right of locomotion, moving from place to place as they please, using the highways and byways (that the citizens pay/paid for, by the way) in the ordinary course of life, in any of the common means of travel of the day?
2. Is it common for laws to have sections that define the words or terms used in them and aren’t some of those words or terms defined already in general use dictionaries? Have you ever heard of “words of art”? They are words with a definition specific to the context in which they are used. In other words, the only reason an otherwise recognizable word would be defined in a piece of legislation is because it had different meaning than its general definition elsewhere. Therefore the words “motor vehicle”, “drive/driver”, “operate/operator”, and “traffic” are defined as used in the context of “transportation”, which itself is a word of art meaning engaged in commerce on the roads.
3. If the “state” can determine who and by what means a citizen of the USA can travel and subsequently take away that “privilege”, isn’t that a usurpation of the right to travel?
4. Wouldn’t it be considered “reasonable regulation” by the states to control travel by instituting guidelines, i.e. lanes, signals, stop signs, etc. and licensing, registration, etc. for those engaged in the privilege of commerce on the highways?
All of the above fits into the meaning of those legal citings listed above. It’s important to understand the words/terms of art used in the citings to get to the real meaning.
"Is it common for laws to have sections that define the words or terms used in them "
Absolutely.
"aren’t some of those words or terms defined already in general use dictionaries?"
That's exactly why the definition sections in laws exist – so there's no confusion.
"If the “state” can determine who and by what means a citizen of the USA can travel and subsequently take away that “privilege”, isn’t that a usurpation of the right to travel?"
Nope.
Regulating your right to travel doesn't take it away.
ALL of your constitutional rights are regulated to some degree.
A better and actually interesting argument would be a person walking on a US highway which is a violation of most ever State and Fed statue I can recall. You must be in a motor vehicle. But yet the constitution clearly states you can not be forbidden from travel on such roadways. But I can not drive unless I get a DL yet that then is regulating which I am not supposedly forced to do. So I can only be a passenger? Yet now you have to show id to even get a bus ticket I think so it has to be a private vehicle?
Maybe its just me but I think that fundamentally interferes and restricts my right to travel does it not?
Think about how screwed up it is. I have a fundamental right to travel. Yet I can not drive a car because its dangerous. But I can not travel any other way by law on these roads because the cars are dangerous and I traveling by other means would create dangers for those dangerous cars and myself. But I can not use the car because its dangerous. BTW how many people in % where injured and or killed by horses and wagons prior to autos vs today with autos? Hmmm yet I do not think I ever heard of someone having there horse riding privileges revokes or needing a permit?
just 20 yrs ago you did not have to and in fact by law could not be require to have or give a SS number for employement outside federal gov job. Today you must; interesting how things can change yet people act like it always was.
Again you don't need a car to travel. The constitution only means between states. No one can prevent you from leaving or entering a state by force or taxation. You can walk. There are other roads besides highways that you can travel on. Amish use horse and carriage. There was a story about a guy that used a lawnmower. I'm sure you could use a powered cart or wheelchair. Not on the highway because maybe someone could get hurt or die. Maybe that's why they made it illegal to walk on highways. I bet you could even ride a bike if you wanted. Driving is a privilege. Driving is done in a motor vehicles and yes it's also called traveling. But "traveling" as you're trying to define it isn't covered by the constitution. For God's sake they didn't even have cars or know they would ever exist so how could it be?
Truck drivers are engaged in commerce. That's why they have commercial license. People that operate motor vehicles have a license. In order to obtain that licence they are required to prove they understand traffic signage, rules of the road like pedestrians have the right of way, or what to do when an emergency vehicle approaches. That's why its called a driving test. No one is limiting anyone's right to travel. Read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
You don't need a vehicle to travel. You can walk, you can ride a horse, you can use a horse and carriage like the Amish, you can use a powered cart or wheelchair, of course not on the highways, you can even use a lawnmower, but the highway isn't the only means of travel between states. There are other roads. Traffic laws were passed the same way they pass all laws like murder, rape, assualt, dealing drugs, and so on. The constitution simply states that no one can prevent anyone from crossing between states by force or taxation. I'm sure if they knew it was going to become such a problem or they could see into the future they would have clarified it a bit more. But they thought it was common sense. But I guess some people just need something to complain about.
You are right they should not have to do such complicated things but that was all caused by those that wanted law professionals. IE lawyers are to blame. They are IMO scum that wanted to niche out control and power and did so very very effectively. Think how many gov officals both elected or not are lawyers same with CEO that really no nothing about the buisness trade they are running but they know the law which is so twisted and contrived. It use to not be this way. But when just looking at criminal code there are what 50000+ regs!!!!! How could anyone know the laws so they could be sure they are not breaking one or 100. After all ignorance the law says is not a defense. Yet it takes how many different types of lawyers just to know all the various laws? Its a total racket its laughable.
"The terms "driver", Motor vehicle", and "operator" are NOT at the discretion of the courts as you claim"
Yes, actually they are.
In fact most courts have defined "operate" in regards to a motor vehicle as simply sitting behind the wheel with the key in the ignition.
An example can be found in Enriquez v. Commonwealth:
"When an intoxicated person is seated behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle on a public highway and the key is in the ignition switch, he is in actual physical control of the vehicle and, therefore, is guilty of operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol within the meaning of Code § 18.2-266.”
This change was made after several DUI convictions were overturned because the occupant was passed out when the police arrived on the scene and therefore not operating the vehicle under the previous definition.
Play all the silly semantic games you like,… the judge will sort things out for you.
Driving a motor vehicle is an activity used for commerce. A driver is the person behind the wheel. Passengers and cargo are what you haul for that commercial venture.
When I travel, it is in a car, automobile or conveyance, I am a traveler not a driver. I travel with friends and family and my own personal effects.
It is all legal definitional BS and all "judges" are nothing more than administrators.
Things are not as they seem.
Keep that belief – we enjoy watching you people get your windows smashed and dragged off to jail crying about being tazed,lol.
You enjoy watching people get tazed and dragged away? It all makes sense now. No amount of proof will convince you of anything. Especially when you can just delete people who prove you wrong. You show more than one sign of text book sociopathic behavior. You should see therapist or psychiatrist
Please don’t take it – well personally – those who are ignorant about freedoms – well they are just ignorant! Some are worse! They knowingly believe lies!! I have studied this area for decades – Don’t bother reacting to ignorance! Some people think rights don’t matter! And they like those with copious amounts of unconstitutional violent dominance! They even like Trump! Or other lawless persons! It’s not about parties anymore. It’s about principal and rule of law! It appears you know your case law of the Supreme Court of the United States that’s all that really matters because the constitution and the caselaw are the law of the land. Godspeed
The only ignorance I see displayed is that enough people don't fight back for our rights in society. Such as taking the Bible out of school. Well I'm sorry but I have freedom of religion and if I feel taking my Bible and carrying it wherever I go is my God given right and something this country was founded on then I'll take my Bible or send my kids to school with one and there is not a damn thing anyone can say about it…such as with the right to travel. The only problem with the right to travel is the fact it's to regulate the use..as long as you don't cause harm so where in all this bullshit does it say you have to pay child support or your license is suspended or you have to renew or they will suspend suspend them. How is that an elect of the supreme Court or we will yank your hunting and fishing permits if you don't pay child support where is that a supreme Court ruling. The fact our government has amended our rights time after time is where the ignorance begins because we have allowed this shit to go on for years.its high time America takes America back and we put us back to ONE NATION UNDER GOD FOR LIBERTY ND JUSTICE FOR ALL. Take back our constitutional rights and start standing up for what used to be a country worth fighting for..we are no longer a country concieved in liberty for we are all prisoners and I'm thinking about moving to Canada or mexico atleast they have common sense.
Last I checked the constitution doesn't give anyone the right to be a dead beat father. You helped make them you need to help care for them. The tenth amendment in the constitution was the bill of rights. If you read the constitution and the Bill of rights you'll see that the federal and state governments have the right to pass laws as long as they coincide with the constitution.
and where in the constitution give federal government to make child support laws oh wait child support laws was the brain child of lawyers and attorneys and BILL CLINTON!!
I bet you voted Trump because you're literally too dumb to understand the law, lol, like Clinton was responsible for child support laws, Jesus Christ what mental gymnastics.
To be responsible for a child you must first have Liberty and responsibility. Since Citizens, persons, Individuals, or Corporations. All are dead entities owned by the Corporate UNITED STATES.( Yes, there are two different ones) If you are a debt slave and a slave can own nothing, The STATE owns the children through you not educating yourself and changing your political status placing you in servitude being under their jurisdiction from buying into the marriage and other " Licensing " scams they profit from. So, does a farmer that owns the cattle make the breeding bull responsible for the cows and calf or does the owner farmer assume that responsibility once conception takes place? But Hey ! If a farmer can get that uneducated breeder drone to slave away and pay for his cost's, the farmer is under no obligation to educate the idiot. But you exclaim " I'm Not a drone and breeder stock I'm the Husband ! " really?
Well … Go to most any location in the U.S. Set up a home then establish operating rules. One or more of those is sure to piss off the woman or child or both. They then pick up the phone and call their REAL Father/ husband the STATE. You will be removed under 30 minutes and find indeed you are not who you thought you were. Whomever is the ultimate authority in that woman or child's life IS the true husband and buddy it's not you.
thank you he gets it, you have always been a corporate entitiy in debt to the people of the united states
Not to be argumentative in the least but my comprehension is that the Debt is owed to primarily to foreign creditors and share holders of the Fed. Reserve fraudsters.
The so called Income Tax is the surety for the debt for the people pledged to slavery for payment.
The problem being 90 percent of the laws padded through the Senate have way too much retroactivity with the constitution. The commercial term driver is actually one employed utilizing their vehicle and or automobile for commerce. (blacks law 2nd edition)All licensing is an excise tax. Which is a tax on a business. So unless you have an intended recipient for the goods im travelling with that is buying my goods, Then you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that im a driver. If the state is claiming that im an employee, then i we'll claim for wages i haven't been paid as an employee of the state. However they re appropriated the definition of a driver after henry black died. If you look at the cost of blacks law second vs the cost of blacks law 9th…you will notice that the older edition is substantially more expensive. They changed the legal definition of driver unlawfully to generate more revenue. This was all illegal and unlawful because re appropriation is misappropriation. So the newer definitions are actually fraudulent definitions..we did not vote on changing the legal definition of a driver in the first place. And we don't need to.
which of the three constitutions are you referring to, as there are three within the district of Columbia? The only one i really focus on is the one that is between American State nationals and the British owned governmental services corporation, which is the contract between the two that allowed British subjects to stay on our land to do 19 governmental services for us. The District of Columbia was methodically named United States Inc, simply to fool everyone to perceive that its the continental united States, but its not. The constitution here, is a contract that the governmental services corporation named United States is UNDER, not OVER. The constitution doesn't give us any rights, so if it didn't exist then it wouldn't affect our natural unalienable rights. Rights are not self excuting, meaning if you don't know them or how to invoke them, then its as if you don't have them. U.S. citizens are NOT Americans, they are recorded as British territorial subjects. To be an American one must do the paperwork Declaring their birthright nationality and record it and publish it and unindoctrinate yourself and study history and learn how to stay out of their jurisdiction. Yes the "so called' governments located at the District of Columbia are incorporated entities which are privately owned corporations, which prevents them from being governments, because corporations are for making profits, not for protecting "we the people" or the indentured servants, U.S. citizens. FREE RANGE SLAVES, as long as the slaves do as they're told and pay the corporations debt, which they call the national debt. All U.S. citizens are responsible for that "so called" debt, not American State nationals. read the 13th ,14th amendments and the Clearfield doctrine, which is a supreme court case. Any license is permission to do something in particular, like marriage, driver, business etc. "Its impossible to prove jurisdiction over us without a substantial nexus, such as a voluntary subscription to a license." Learn the facts at annavonreitz.com, and correct your nationality and become a factual recorded American, or stay in the evil, Babylonian, maritime/ admiralty jurisdiction of the sea, and deal with these foreign courts. Recorded Americans are foreign sovereigns, with respect to them. Their foreign courts operate on corporate rules/ regulations, policies, ordinances, codes, statutes, acts, which is color of law, not law, but by-laws. There is a lot to learn and unlearn, thanks to the Rothchilds infiltrating our educational system and converting them into indoctrination institutions.
you don't understand the people are subject to those laws as members of the US government Corp. ANY document that you signed from a federal or state government was in fact a receipt, a contract, or acceptance of the laws by joining into contract with the government.. Your Birth Certification record is in fact a contract signed by your parents and governments officials, claiming, naming and taking certified record of a new product of the government, your SSN is a bank account number.. you were born into debt as an entity who's existence was already borrowed against using you as collateral. if you get a tax return, then you are a government employee who has ben paid and received his official government corp. pay and affirmed your the entity that bears the name and as such are subject to all laws, codes, statutes and other dumb fucking rules i had no say in and shouldn't be illegal in the first place the constitution was meant to protect citizens from government but it has been protecting the corporate entity and destabilizing the integrity of the PEOPLE of the Republic United States of the Americas..whats worse is the debt you were born into our government made up, printed papers swearing to pay interest for period x at rate z and in turn the bankers, printed money they traded for those debts that they printed and distribute it to you people to give you in exchange for your human energy output at severely reduced value, for which they have devised ways to steal back most of this energy taking system, the rest of which you use just to keep your body with the energy it will need to obtain more printouts…they made it all up, they buy bonds that are made up from themselves to give money they made up to people they take it back from all to keep the slaves producing and consuming at ever growing rates to keep up with the demand of the economy which can never truly be sustained without major caps and rules on corporations taking back that money in massive amounts to give back to the people using it, otherwise it's all a carefully devised system of keep up that is literally impossible to do.
But if you really want to get down on that level, before any birth certification is issued or any SSN issued every persons soul has already been spoken for and a certificate of ownership of said soul is issued in the Vatican city giving good ownership of every soul, and face it without having a soul we are basically just zombies, and since the body is temporary "holding cell" of the soul it's owned by the soul or the owner of said soul and therefore the government can't lay claim to anyone because there is prior documentation of ownership, and no sale has been made and no one can legally (or otherwise) transfer their ownership or the ownership of another without written consent from the current owner, so any signing away of ones ownership to the government is not therefore legal as they don't have written permission from from God to transfer ownership from Him to anyone or anything. So anyone besides god that tries to claim you, tell them to take it up with God, if they think they are higher authority than He, well the last one that thought that was cast into a lake of fire for eternity.
Mexico?
I disagree with your last point, that politics is about principles and rule of law. Not political parties. That seems to be the exact opposite of what is happening today. We are stuck in a post-truth society. It's not so much that democrats and republicans are in their own ideological bubbles. It's like we are all in the same movie theater, all watching the same screen and somehow democrats and republicans are seeing 2 completely different movies.
thos eofficers are VERY VERY wrong for so many reasons including excessive force and brutality and illegal imprisonment and we let them get away with it cause people are to scared to stand up for the people, and actually read and understand the definitions of words and the context of their use and the elements of the burden of proof..
pig
Delete people who prove me wrong? Not sure what that claim is, but, your idea of proving me wrong and my idea of being proven wrong are two different things. I usually admit I am wrong if there are facts that contradict mine.
Yes, I do enjoy watching the same people get tased and dragged off to jail when they have been repeatedly told they are wrong, and just keep doing the same thing.
I love watching those window smashing videos.
Coward
what a good person uu are , traitor . enjoy ur eternity with ur maker .
Lol, I'm a traitor because I understand how our court system works and what a Supreme Court decision means? You're an idiot, lol.
All current courts are defacto commerce and contracting for profit off of ignorant Debt Slaves pledged to the bankruptcy debt of this nation. Many are not educated to know enough to file and change you're political status and the profiting system is under no obligation or will want to inform you of this. You referred to kharmaToe posts and them being an 'IDIOT ". Look up the LEGAL English definition of idiot as it's an eye opener. Perhaps like a clock, you are right at least twice a 24 hr. period.
lemme guess ur a govt employed welfare recipient. leaching off free nd hard working people. be honest .
If I was a welfare recipient, wouldn't that make me unemployed? Not the brightest little rebel, are ya?
A sheepozoid Tory of the Boobus Americanus crowd. what a useless eater you are?
Because I can read a Supreme Court decision? Where are all of the videos on Youtube showing the smiling faces of imbeciles as they leave the courtrooms across this country after being found not guilty because they were right? Lol, all I see is people getting upset when their windows get smashed and they get dragged out of their cars,, lol.
Those video's are in the same place as those where law abiding (not Statute, Codes, and Policy slaves of Boobus Americanus) Men & Women have prevented or protected themselves, homes , and families by being armed? There's reams available but you seldom see them as they don't fit the narrative. I would appear your post photo sums up where you're at with such an I.Q. display? I would like to be wrong about that.
Not at all Joe? The videos of successes end up in the same place as lawfully armed people thwarting serious lethal situations nationwide with private firearms. Glossed over, Scrubbed, and buried from view from an ignorant population. Anyone close to the flame of the elephant in the room of truth on the net are marked, harassed , and pushed off of the medium or worse. They leave the garbage alone as it does more harm to people than helps. Don't get trained, get educated.
I have personally witnessed many instances on the street and in the courts. So much so now that many courts are working hard to ban all video & voice recordings where people are successfully conquering the Land of Commerce & Contracting Statutory fiction ( Defacto ) legal system.
Yeah, that's a crock. There are plenty of videos online of people defending themselves successfully with firearms, and anytime a pregnant woman shoots a home intruder, they are happy to put it on the news. NOT ONE video of anyone successfully using the right to travel defense has ever been posted. A few make the claim, but they are dismissed for other reasons, not because of the right to travel. The reason? The Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional to allow the states to require driver's licenses, and the language states that travelling and driving, whatever you want to call it, are all people operating motor vehicles.PERIOD.
No Joe the only Crock here is your appalling ignorance in something you are so sure about to the point of arrogance. Just go back to playing with your toys and credit leaving those of us who DO know something to discuss matters of importance.
Happy arrogant debt slaves have no standing in this.
So sad idiots like you have done what you have done. It you how bent over and gave everything to the state. Instead of existing as a living breathing man or woman you handed your rights away freely to now contract for your rights. Its you people who are the walking dead and deserve nothing. And i mean fucking nothing. You are the men who dont have any idea who you are. You claim to know the law only there is no LAW! There are contracts. YOu enjoy being dead lost at sea and you will be treated as such. Dont you ever smite a real living man because what he didnt contract with someone to move freely to travel and drive a car??? You want to be dead and taken care of?? No problem but you keep your dead mouth shut and let the living live.
The Constitution of the United States is the law of the land. Period. i handed nothing to the states – the Supreme Court made a decision that the states were within their rights to require a driver's license – I wasn't even alive at the time. I am also bright enough to know that getting my window smashed, being tazed and pulled through said window, does nothing to change any law. What it does do, is provide entertainment for those who understand what they read, aren't surprised when a LEO repeatedly tells you that he will smash your window, taze you and pull you through it, then smashes your window, tazes you and pulls you through it.
Doesn't violation of the law require 'intent'?
What should happen if the citizens are mentally incapable of understanding the law?
Either by being too stupid, or – more likely – the laws eventually reaching a level of interconnection, exceptions, unlinked interpretive caselaw, legalese, or other intrinsic complexity beyond an increasingly larger group of people's ability to mentally follow to a conclusion of an appropriate interpretation.
Or perhaps, even more laws than one can possibly learn in the years from birth to adulthood.
The law, at that point, no longer protects those people, but instead endangers them.
It certainly terrifies them.
What now of freedom, safety, comfort, happiness?
What happens when we reach the 'metaphysical equivalent' of citizens who lacking the years, resources, aptitude, or high intelligence needed to acquire a law degree, when anyone who does not, will inevitably be criminalized and harmed by the laws purporting to protect?
No, violation ofthe law does not require intent. "Ignoranceof the law is no excuse" – How can you say someone intended to break the law if they didn't even know it existed? There are also other crimes such as DUI that require no intent. That means if you took a sleeping pill that caused you to have a drink and go drive, even if they discovered this to be true and pulled the pills from the market, your DUI still stands.
As far as people being mentally incapable of understanding the law, we already have those showing their ignorance when they bring up the "driving vs traveling" horsesh**. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Regardless of the complexities of a law, most are pretty easy to understand the final draft and if you don't understand a law that you believe you will be encountering, I would suggest you hire a lawyer to explain it to you.
Just because a cop does what he was taught to do doesn't mean that it was legal. I suppose we should just accept if the courts decide that Jews can be arrested for no reason and carted off to be killed. "It's ok. The court decided it was ok."
Uummm………did you mean to say that just because it is the law doesn't mean it is ok? Because I could half ass agree with that. If a cop is taught to do it, it's more than likely legal.
No, it wouldn't be "ok" if the courts decided that killing Jews was legal, in my opinion, but, it would be legal in that country at that time. That's how the law works.
Your attempt at an association fallacy, by associating the murder of Jews with driving without a license is a fail, and quite ignorant, as they have no similarity to one another in any way, shape or form. They have no place in the same argument, except to entertain the ignorant and make them think they have made some kind of point. The only thing they have in common is that if that country's Supreme Court said it was legal – then it would be legal in that country. So, the answer to your confusingly worded question would be NO, if you mean it was "ok" and "YES" if you mean legal. You used both words in your association fallacy, so try to be consistent next time, as you should know, wording is very important when interpreting the law.
All Americans are SOVEREIGN, I refer you to the Federalist Papers as well as the Statement made by President James K. Polk who stated to the Press of that day, plus noted in his diary notes of 1849, “I am heartily rejoiced that my term is so near its close. I will soon cease to be a servant and will become a sovereign.”
Now that we have established the TRUTH about SOVEREIGNS let us take note of the Supremacy Clause which clarifies that ALL State Laws must be in adherence to the United States Constitution which is inclusive of the Bill of Rights as that of the first 10 Amendments.
IT should be noted that both President Madison and Monroe vetoed legislation on the creation of the 1st Road in America herein noted as the Cumberland Road as they stated clearly the creation and legislation of said road was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as their Duties and Functions as stipulated in Article I Section VIII was only in regards to Post Roads.
Likewise their only Power or Authority is Limited to only that of Commerce. Neither the Federal Government nor the State can convert the RIGHT of LIBERTY (Freedom of Movement) into a Privilege that a State may LICENSE as this converts a RIGHT into that of a CRIME!
Now let us use some common sense as well ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES are SERVANTS of "We the People" therefore it is ridiculous to assert that SERVANTS are bestowed ANY Power or Authority over that of their MASTERS and their RIGHTS bestowed upon them by God!
Uh-huh. Quite the interpretation you have there. Did you happen to read the part where the Supreme Court decides matters of Constitutional law if interpretation is required? Then the part where the Constitution is the law of the land, and NOTHING usurps the authority of the Constitution?
A president making a comment during a speech isn't law. The Supreme Court making the decision that the states are within their rights to require a driver's license is – you're like one of the people who learn English as their second language, can read it, and say the words – but don't understand any of them.
Joseph Romano
Hey coward, he’s right; you should read the Declaration of Independence before crawling on this comment board showing you have no backbone….. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed…….. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…….servants!!!
In case you've never completely read the parts in our Constitution that deal with the Justice portion of our government – the Supreme Court decides all cases where there is a question of Constitutionality, and their decision is the law of the land. So, when they interpret a section differently than you do – guess which interpretation the country is obliged to follow?
You also pay the same taxes that I do, have grown up in the same country, and follow the same laws that I do, and are punished when you get caught breaking them, the same as me. The only difference between myself and people like you is that you run around calling everyone servants and other nonsense to make you feel like you're not doing the same thing.
You are a brainwashed boot licking fool. You would watch that happen to your grandmother and pry the ring off her finger before they smashed her cookie baking head in, right? Naz! Cuck.
No, I can simply read a Supreme Court decision. Being able to read doesn't make you a Nazi – My grandmother could also read, and understood that she needed a driver's license to drive a car.
Sorry your grandmother didn't know how to bake, too. mine made some pretty awesome chocolate chip cookies. We used to eat them while watching videos of dumbasses getting tazed, beaten, and pulled through their car windows.
narcissist fuck .
I'm a narcissist because I, like many others, enjoy watching ignorant people get their windows smashed, etc. even though video after video shows what is going to happen when they behave like that? I'd love to hear how you got from point A to point B on that conclusion, genius.
Joseph Romano
That’s what cowards AKA boot lickers do while giving up all their rights because they’re scared of the communist dictators!
I'll repeat it again for you.
"In case you've never completely read the parts in our Constitution that deal with the Justice portion of our government – the Supreme Court decides all cases where there is a question of Constitutionality, and their decision is the law of the land. So, when they interpret a section differently than you do – guess which interpretation the country is obliged to follow?
You also pay the same taxes that I do, have grown up in the same country, and follow the same laws that I do, and are punished when you get caught breaking them, the same as me. The only difference between myself and people like you is that you run around calling everyone servants and other nonsense to make you feel like you're not doing the same thing."
I did forget to add that another difference is that I don't pay for broken windows every time I get pulled over, and look like an a**hole.
"Driving a motor vehicle is an activity used for commerce. "
No it isn't.
Wow great argument. So I would be equally as supported by stating Yes it is!?! Maybe try putting some support and effort into a post if you are going to take the time to post. Not standing on either side of this but if people would actually take the time to research and support there supposed statements of fact which 99% are really ignorant opinions based on their own knowledge based logic threads and discussions like this would be so much more productive and posters and readings alike would come away learning something.
Fact is the Federal government has down many times that violate the US Constitution and countless common laws. How did this happen. Very simple. A Right you do not exercise will be lost. If you are ignorant to a right you will loose it. The smartest thing the Fed ever did was to make its people ignorant of the law and then to control how law was taught and what was taught to those that are suppose to fight for us Lawyers. They are unfortunately today a necessarily yet vile evil plague.
Tim, you can't talk any sense to an un-exercised brain that has been trained not educated. All they can do is parrot what they hear and have stunted critical thinking skills. Only by experiencing hunger and harsh reality gets through to this type. I would hope it is before they are kneeling at the edge of a burial trench hearing a hammer being cocked muttering but ! But ! But!
It is really disgusting how much people love, embrace, defend, assist and enforce slavery on themselves and OTHERS! Ignorance is certainly not bliss but facilitation of Crimes Against Humanity! The Majority of Mob Rule are absolutely Culpable of ongoing Criminal Insanity of the noble kind!
not true, we the people can change whatever we the people see fit, it's through there many ways of division they have rendered us helpless acceptors of the broken system of extortion and death
One of the problems we have today is the news media, back in the day they were the watch dogs to help keep the government inline to inform we the people what is really going on now it is backasswards. This day and age it is very difficult to know the truth when you have companies controlling what people say on media sites that are supposed to be free speech.
Why those evil bastards
YES IT IS!!! IF YOU'RE GETTING PAID TO DO IT!!! HENCE THE NEED FOR A LICENCE!!! OMG CANNOT BELIEVE HOW IGNORANT U ARE!!…ARE YOU INBRED??….LOL
See response to Matt by Disgusted.
Who told you that. Using the public roads for profit or gain is commerce.
It's because our courts are NOT courts of law, they are run by maritime law instead of common law. The governments (federal and state) get away with it because of all of the "conformists" in our society who believe anything that government dictates. It's all about indoctrination and government has perfected the art of indoctrination. Bob Bleach just mentioned about "Titles of Nobility", which just shows how government is ignoring the Constitution –
TITLES OF NOBILITY http://freedom-school.com/citizenship/titles-of-nobility-jurisdiction.html)
A "title" is a mark or designation, i.e., name by which anything is known. In English law "nobility" is a division of the people.
In America, Titles of Nobility generally refer to government created designators such as citizen, driver, taxpayer and the like. While they may not appear to be "noble" they are created, never the less, to divide the populace
Contracts are enforceable.
When gold and silver was taken from the hands of the American people, by Executive Order in 1933, with complete disregard of the laws and limitations of the u. S. Constitution, it "became necessary" for the corporate United States to "create" a new system of law. They threw out common Law and Equity Law and switched it for Admiralty/Maritime Law (Negotiable Law) (now called Statutory Jurisdiction.)
Today, the courts we have are not courts of law; they are courts of Commercial Contract.
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 10 gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable.
Family Court Judges (Admiralty courts owned/managed by TheCrownInc) contract with DCF/CPS to kidnap/sextraffic children nationwide, in exchange for CestuiQueVie Trust worth $multi-millions per child. I see this fraud every day on "Fight CPS corruption" facebook page (sickening).
http://medicalkidnap.com/2017/12/15/massachusetts-state-auditor-finds-widespread-rape-and-sexual-abuse-in-foster-care-but-dcf-officials-wont-report-it/
Whaaaat!?!? Family court has to do with custody of kids, divorce, child support, visitation, and the best interest of the childeren, unless one of the parents are rich or their lawyer plays golf with the judge then it may be a little biased. But I don't think they let known criminals have custody. I've never heard of a judge ordering someone to sell their kids. Now do babies get sold, yes, by moms that can't take care of them. Should this be allowed? No, just because you have money doesn't mean you're good people. But drug addicts and psychos can have kids for free soooo!?! Anyway I think I the topics about "TRAVELING"
research it
They do not, look up the statues, they clearly say that the best interest of the mother, father, or children is second to the interests of the corporations interests
If you believe that "Family Court" has ANYTHING to do with custody of kids, divorce, child support, visitation, and the best interest of the children, you are sadly ill informed. Almost every family court in the world uses the Duluth Model as guidelines.
For those not in the know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
the Duluth Model is the most common "batterer" intervention program used in the United States. The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that ALL men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control. This is illustrated by the "Power and Control Wheel," a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations. According to the Duluth Model, "women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society." Treatment of abusive men is focused on re-education, as "we do not see men’s violence against women as stemming from individual pathology, but rather from a socially reinforced sense of entitlement."
BUT. Even the creator of the program. Ellen Pence herself has written,
"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with. It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."
And In 2011 a study was published on The Helpseeking Experiences of Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence. One such study exposed that more than 70% of domestic violence was initiated by the female.
You can read the full thing here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/
For the sake of brevity I will only be quoting two chunks of text from the creator of the Duluth Model for Family Court response to allegations of domestic violence and response by Family Courts.
"When calling domestic violence hotlines, for instance, men who sustained all types of IPV report, ( intimate partner violence report) that the hotline workers say that they only help women, infer or explicitly state that the men must be the actual instigators of the violence, or ridicule them. Male helpseekers also report that hotlines will sometimes refer them to batterers’ programs. Some men have reported that when they call the police during an incident in which their female partners are violent, the police sometimes fail to respond. Other men reported being ridiculed by the police or being incorrectly arrested as the primary aggressor. Within the judicial system, some men who sustained IPV reported experiencing gender-stereotyped treatment. Even with apparent corroborating evidence that their female partners were violent and that the helpseekers were not, they reportedly lost custody of their children, were blocked from seeing their children, and were falsely accused by their partners of IPV and abusing their children. According to some, the burden of proof for male IPV victims may be especially high
And.
Family and friends were overwhelmingly reported as being the most helpful resource, and mental health and medical professionals were rated as being among the most helpful of the formal resources. These professionals were reported to have taken the male victims seriously and to inquire about the origin of the men’s injuries. The resources providing the least support to men seeking help for IPV victimization are those that are the core of the DV service system: DV agencies, DV hotlines, and the police. On the one hand, about 25% of men who sought help from DV hotlines were connected with resources that were helpful. On the other hand, nearly 67% of men reported that these DV agencies and hotline were not at all helpful. Many reported being turned away.
When the most used domestic violence program in the U.S postulates that men are the perpetrators, who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense.
Family Court Judges are trained to create institutional discrimination against men who simply aren't patriarchal oppressors.
This is what happens when you treat men as the enemy.
Under the duluth model, a woman can allege domestic violence in a civil proceeding that the man is not even aware of, get a judgment in her favor without the man ever being notified of the proceeding and whatever the family court judge decrees, including confiscation of his house, car, bank account, etc., is held to be legal.
CORRECT 100 ON POINT
THESE FOLKS DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WHATS GOING ON ACCEPT THE SAME OLD LIES THATS BEEN GOING AROUND FOR CENTURIES.THE HARSH TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLES FACE.AND THEY STILL DEFFENDING THESE CENTURIES OF LEGAL FICTIONAL LIES.OF THE 14TH ADMEND SLAVE LIVELY HOOD THERE STUCK IN.PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND REAL LAW IS ORGANIC.NOT THESE POLITICAL CROOKS FAIRY TALE STORIES.LEGISLATIONAL LAW IS ALL FRAUDULENT,TO DECIEVE THE PEOPLE.FROM THERE OWN COMMON SENSE,AND NATURAL BIRTH RIGHTS.AND PEOPLE NEED TO REMEMBER YOUR DEALING WITH A SYSTEMATIC FORM OF DICTATORSHIP. NOT NATURAL LAWS.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And
no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince
or foreign State."
Are sovereign idiots really involking this clause?
The idiots are the ones that don't!
I guess you think the SUPREME COURT are idiots too, considering THEY verified it as true!
Ok so by the looks of it I assume most people in the comments have a driver's license correct? I only ask because for all most 9 years I haven't. 2 owis when I was 21. Glad I was cought tho because myself and possibly others are not dead today due to drinking and driving. That being said my life is still fully in shambles thanks to not being able to drive. Also with current laws I get another year "license free" every time I get pulled over. (At best.. Jail typically follows too). So…. Back to state and federal laws. It's pretty easy really. No state law can impede a federal law…. If it does it's null and void. Meaning tie goes to the Fed law. Even tho everyone still follows the state laws. Don't forget tho that the Supreme Court is the only court that picks it trial. So facts are the state licensing absolutely interferes with my right to travel, my ability to make money, kept me in their system, all while having no federal law to enforce this. Again federal law trumps all. Because the state's licensing law impedes my right to travel. Meaning… The state law that is effectivly holding me down is "according to the bill of rights" null and void. When referring to state and federal law the constitution puts "state law".. Right next to king or Prince. Meaning I don't have to listen to them any more than I do the queen of England. Yet it hasn't saved me from the jail cells yet. But catch a cop off guard, make him question himself and what he knows, then who knows lol. Maybe they'll just let you off with a warning
That's because the SUPREME COURT has ruled that the state laws ARE Constitutional. Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915) – Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927) – Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941) Just to name a few.
Joseph. If you look into the difference between a State vs. STATE and from whom the STATE is Licensed from as well as what is LAW vs.Statutes, Codes, and Policy enforced under "Color" of LAW, it will for sure change some of your views as it did mine. UNITED STATES vs.The United States of America are two different operations going on here. The current Congress members are UNITED STATES Corporate officers made up primarily of Attorn-neys, Judges, & Esquires that are non-citizen foreign agents by oath and all including the Public & Legal, and enforcement systems are For Profit Corporations. Look up your local courts alone on Dun & Bradstreet's listing of national for profit corporations. They are listed there under one EIN number for each court. How they are profiting off of the plantation occupants is a study for you're own self education. Hope this helps as I've said too much already.
Somehow, I think Joseph doesn't want to be bothered with their forked tongue legal language. At least that's what I'm gathering when he is writing.
When your operating in the Public your in legal fiction. When you have claimed your birthright political status you remove yourself from legal fiction Statutes, Codes, and policy into the Private realm operating in Common law as we were intended to be.
If one's primary concern is being " Legal " then you are not a live man with the feet on the land but rather Citizen, Person, Individual or Corporation.
Therefor a dead fictional entity ignorantly being used through fraud as a slave with no rights of protection and ownership.
I declare my status everywhere I go. I have NEVER been challenged. A Person is a legal fiction.
So is a natural Person (director of a one person company. An individual is someone who comes here from another country and wants to live in the us permanently and legally. That's why there is a statue in STATE law that says "if you are a legal resident in YOUR STATE." YOU NEED A DL. If you are a natural man or woman not in commerce – not using the streets and highways for gainful purpose, are not a common carrier (class C license) you don't need DL and registration. Look up definition of resident; person; individual USC title 5 section 552; And then decide if you are subject to commercial statutes.
Excellent ! Thank you. It is indeed time to dispel the cloak of ignorance Boobus Americanus.
USC title 5 section 552 is the The Freedom of Information Act and it is VERY long.
5 U.S. Code § 552 – Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings.
Woe… can yyou collect and add the references and sources for this information???? I would love to read what writers you have. send to me at weirdvideos2008@yahoo.com
WORD
First of all DRIVER is a commercial term in legal definition. If you are conducting commercial activities on the highways and by ways in a vehicle then you must be licensed by the the local or state CORPORATIONs to be a registered user according to the Uniform Commercial Code UCC guide lines of that jurisdiction of commerce. You can clarify who or what is a company or corporation doing business as by going to the Dun & Bradstreet website listing of corporations for profit and looking up your county, state, or municipal company. It is a pay site but it does give a free trial membership so you can obtain more in depth info on the corporation/company you may be looking into. When a business is required to by the state or agency to obtain a DUNS number to operate this site is where this required number is obtained from. You can see the principle owners info and much more. 90 % of what we have been trained ( not educated ) to call government are factually for profit corps and their sub agencies. Yes your state and local courts are there as their business is contracting and commerce for profit and have little to do with law. lawful and legal are two different meanings . Law never changes but statutes, codes, rules, regs, ect.. change daily according to the dictates of company policy enforced under color of law and perceived authority.
The over use in the article of REGULATION of this is accomplished by municipal and state corporate policy by statute, codes, regulations, etc… not LAW.
No different than Walmart giving you a license to sell something in their corporate domain as you are asking permission in agreement that Walmart has jurisdiction to do so. If Walmart sent their hired goons with Walmart patches, suits, and guns to your home to enforce company policy on you would you and your family submit to it? After all they do have badges, guns, reading from a policy manual yelling It's the LAW ! Btw, words do have meaning. The following titles are not the same. Peace Officer, Police, Cop, enforcement. You don't need a foreign registered BAR attorney ( two words here Attorn and ey know who your friends are) to break theses down to their roots.
You have enough to get started in truth here to uncover the fraud committed daily against you and yours instead of using an ambiguous legal law sight propagating little in knowledge of the truth. I'll leave this thought with you. A man that doesn't have an informed and ordered system of thought will always be at the mercy of a man that has one and who knows if that man has moral convictions or compassion in regard to his fellow man. Are we to take these chances ? I'm not.
First of all DRIVER is a commercial term in legal definition. If you are conducting commercial activities on the highways and by ways in a vehicle then you must be licensed by the the local or state CORPORATIONs to be a registered user according to the Uniform Commercial Code UCC guide lines of that jurisdiction of commerce. You can clarify who or what is a company or corporation doing business as by going to the Dun & Bradstreet website listing of corporations for profit and looking up your county, state, or municipal company. It is a pay site but it does give a free trial membership so you can obtain more in depth info on the corporation/company you may be looking into. When a business is required to by the state or agency to obtain a DUNS number to operate this site is where this required number is obtained from. You can see the principle owners info and much more. 90 % of what we have been trained ( not educated ) to call government are factually for profit corps and their sub agencies. Yes your state and local courts are there as their business is contracting and commerce for profit and have little to do with law. lawful and legal are two different meanings . Law never changes but statutes, codes, rules, regs, ect.. change daily according to the dictates of company policy enforced under color of law and perceived authority.
The over use in the article of REGULATION of this is accomplished by municipal and state corporate policy by statute, codes, regulations, etc… not LAW.
No different than Walmart giving you a license to sell something in their corporate domain as you are asking permission in agreement that Walmart has jurisdiction to do so. If Walmart sent their hired goons with Walmart patches, suits, and guns to your home to enforce company policy on you would you and your family submit to it? After all they do have badges, guns, reading from a policy manual yelling It's the LAW ! Btw, words do have meaning. The following titles are not the same. Peace Officer, Police, Cop, enforcement. You don't need a foreign registered BAR attorney ( two words here Attorn and ey know who your friends are) to break theses down to their roots.
You have enough to get started in truth here to uncover the fraud committed daily against you and yours instead of using an ambiguous legal law sight propagating little in knowledge of the truth. I'll leave this thought with you. A man that doesn't have an informed and ordered system of thought will always be at the mercy of a man that has one and who knows if that man has moral convictions or compassion in regard to his fellow man. Are we to take these chances ? I'm not.
listen folks how Can A STATE LAW BE CONSTITIONAL WHEN THEY ARE LEGISLATIVE.WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM,SOME OF YOU GUYS ON HERE DO NOT NO ONE DAMN THING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF 2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE'S..THE COURTS DO NOT SPEAK THE SAME MEANING OF ENGLISH,THAT YOU THINK IT MEANS,AND FATHER MORE.YOUR FORGETTEING THERE IS 2 DIFFERENT CONSTITIONS,AND THE ONE THAT ALL OF YOU THINKING A AUTOMOBILE IS A MOTOR VEHICLE IS YOUR BIGGEST PROBLEM YOU GOT, NOT BEING EDUCATED ON HOW THE CORPORATIONAL CROOKS SPEAK SO THEY CAN STEAL YOUR MONEY,AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU LOVE GIVING YOUR MONEY TO U.S, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER DE FACTO FORMS OF LAWS.BECAUSE A MOTOR VEHICLE YOU CAN NOT BUY AT A AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SELL MOTOR VEHICLES.BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH MORE HEAVIER THAN A AUTOMOBILE.BUT I WILL SAY THIS IF THERE IS A CAR USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, WITH GRAPHIC'S ON IT FOR ADVERTISEMENT OF A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEN SOMEBODY IS GETTING PAID FOR HIRE,SEE THIS TAKES THINGS OUT OF PRIVATE USE INTO THE PUBLIC COMMERCE, BECAUSE THE COMPANY THAT PERSON WORKS FOR, OR OWNS, IS FOR HIRE IN COMMERCE AS A BUSINESS.SEE ALL THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRAVELING IN YOUR OWN AUTOMOBILE AS A UNALIENABLE RIGHT. YOU USE TO GO TO THE STORE OR ANYPLACE YOU PLEASE.IF THE POLICE MESS WITH YOU, THAT IS A INFRINGEMENT OF YOUR RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACT WHICH IS THE ……[CONSTITION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]… .AND IF THERE IS NO CRASH THE POLICE HAS NO DUE PROCESS TO BE STOPPING YOU FOR NOTHING.AND YOU CAN SUE THEM AND ANY ADMINSTRATOR.YES THE FAKE ASS JUDGE,BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE REAL.THERE BANKRUPTCY COURTS STEALING YOUR SHIT AND TALKING TO YOU IN THERE LATIN AND TRICKY ENGLISH BLACKLAWS BOOKS WORDS…ANOTHER THING I SEE IS FOLKS TALKING ABOUT ON HERE AND DO NOT KNOW WHAT COLOR OF LAW IS.AND ALSO DO NOT KNOW LEGISLATIVE LAW IS NO LAW AT ALL YOUR TALKING ALL NONE SENSE COLOR OF LAWS PUBLIC POLICY ONE IN ACCORD BS.; IS WHAT THERE ENFORCING.AND THERE CAN BE NO CONTRACT WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY THATS IS UN-LAWFUL,AND ALL THESE COURTS HERE ARE ADMINISTRATOR FOREIGNERS IMPOSING A CRIME ON YOU RIGHT BEFORE YOUR FACE.WITH WORDS YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT THATS HOW THEY GET CONSENT FROM YOU TREASONAL VIOLATION OF COLOR OF LAW UNDER 42 U.S.C 242. AND SO ON….ANOTHER THING YOUR RIGHTS COME FROM THE CREATOR NOT NO DAMN MAN, OR COURTHOUSE. AND THERE CAN BE NO CONTRACT WITH THESE POLICY COLOR OF LAW COURTS WITHOUT MEETINGS OF THE MINDS.AND THE LAWS OF THE LAND IS FROM THE BIBLE AND THATS WHAT THE CONSTITION WAS BASED UPON…SO ANYTHING,OR ANYONE THAT IS KEEPING YOU SUPRESSED AND OPPRESSED AND IS RESTICTING YOUR LIBERITIES,PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS,..ON THE LAND THAT OUR CREATOR TOLD YOU IN YOUR BIBLE..MAN SHALL INHERITED THE EARTH.. [ THE EARTH IS OUR INHERITANCE.MAN HAS DOMINION OVER THE EARTH,BUT NO MAN HAS DOMINION OVER EACH OTHER,AND MAN SHALL HAVE DOMINION OVER THE CREEPY CRAWLIES ON THE EARTH AND FISH OF THE SEA AND ALL THE ANIMALS ON EARTH] THIS IS A GREAT NO NONESENSE POINT YOU ALL SEE CLEARLY NOW THAT BE THINKING THESE BS.POLICY MAKERS HAVE DOMINION OVER YOU GO READ THIS QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE THEN LOOK AT THE ROADS EVERYWHERE,AFTER YOU SEE WHERE THE ROADS ARE LAYING AT DONT BE STUPID TO THINK THAT THE CREATOR GAVE THESE ROADS TO THESE SO CALLED POLICE'S AND THESE OTHER STATE AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES..THE CREATOR GAVE YOU ALL THE ROADS BECAUSE ITS SITTING ON YOUR NATURAL ORGANIC INHERITANCE THE EARTH YOUR CREATOR HAS GIVEN TO YOU ITS YOUR BIRTH RIGHT .AND WHY DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO ASK THESE CROOKED BASTARDS FOR A LICENSE TO USE ANY THATS YOURS. ITS A DAMN SCHEME,FOR MONEY, AND THE BEST WAY THEY HIDE THESE FROM A STUPID PERSON WHO THINKS THAT TRAVELING IN YOUR CAR IS A PRIVILEGE.IS TO PUT ALL THESE RIGHT INFRONT OF YOUR FACE,WHICH IS THE REAL TRUTH AND YOU STILL WON'T SEE THE DECIET BEHIND THE VEIL' THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE AND HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR TRUE RIGHTS.REMEMBER A MAN / WOMAN IS OF THE SAME EQUAL BORN NATURAL IMAGE.DON'T LET THESE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE OR STATE SELF PROCLAIM OFFICALS FOOL YOU WITH THERE ILLUSIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS.AND THE POLICE CAN NOT BE A WITNESS WHEN THERE IS NO INJURED PART BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE LICENSE OR INSURANCE.YOU ARE NOT IN COMMERCE NOR ARE YOU UNDER ANY MEETINGS OF THE MIND BY ANY KNOW CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN YOU AT THE DRIVERS LICENSE DEPT,SHOWING YOU IN FULLY DETAIL WHAT THE PENALTY ARE.SO GUESS WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THIS UNION NOT THE U.S WHICH IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON D.C. THEY HAVE FRAUD US BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO REAL JURISDICTION OVER HERE IN AMERICA.AND I SEE MANY OF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR NOT A U.S. CITIZEN.IF YOU THINK SO YOU BETTER LISTEN AND LEARN AND LOOK IT UP EVERTHING IM TELLING YOU ITS BULLEYE ON TARGET.YOU ARE ONLY AS EXAMPLE ILLINOISIAN THATS YOUR CITIZEN SHIP OR ANY OTHER STATE OVER HERE IN NORTHERN AMERICA,IN THIS UNION OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON D.C.ONLY PEOPLE THATS BORN IN WASHINGTON IS A …[U.S. CITIZEN].NOT YOU OVER IN AMERCA ITS 2 SEPARATE PLACES…NOW YOU HAVE IT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS.THE CREATOR GAVE NO AUTHORITY TO A CORPORATION OF LEGAL FICTION ENTITIES. THERE DEAD IN LAW.AND LAWFUL IS COMMON LAW COMMON SENSE. AND LEGAL IS FICTIONAL RULES UNDER A CONTRACT.WHICH YOU UNKNOWLY WAS TRICKED INTO BY THESE STATE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT
listen folks how Can A STATE LAW BE CONSTITIONAL WHEN THEY ARE LEGISLATIVE.WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM,SOME OF YOU GUYS ON HERE DO NOT NO ONE DAMN THING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF 2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE'S..THE COURTS DO NOT SPEAK THE SAME MEANING OF ENGLISH,THAT YOU THINK IT MEANS,AND FATHER MORE.YOUR FORGETTEING THERE IS 2 DIFFERENT CONSTITIONS,AND THE ONE THAT ALL OF YOU THINKING A AUTOMOBILE IS A MOTOR VEHICLE IS YOUR BIGGEST PROBLEM YOU GOT, NOT BEING EDUCATED ON HOW THE CORPORATIONAL CROOKS SPEAK SO THEY CAN STEAL YOUR MONEY,AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU LOVE GIVING YOUR MONEY TO U.S, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER DE FACTO FORMS OF LAWS.BECAUSE A MOTOR VEHICLE YOU CAN NOT BUY AT A AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SELL MOTOR VEHICLES.BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH MORE HEAVIER THAN A AUTOMOBILE.BUT I WILL SAY THIS IF THERE IS A CAR USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, WITH GRAPHIC'S ON IT FOR ADVERTISEMENT OF A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEN SOMEBODY IS GETTING PAID FOR HIRE,SEE THIS TAKES THINGS OUT OF PRIVATE USE INTO THE PUBLIC COMMERCE, BECAUSE THE COMPANY THAT PERSON WORKS FOR, OR OWNS, IS FOR HIRE IN COMMERCE AS A BUSINESS.SEE ALL THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRAVELING IN YOUR OWN AUTOMOBILE AS A UNALIENABLE RIGHT. YOU USE TO GO TO THE STORE OR ANYPLACE YOU PLEASE.IF THE POLICE MESS WITH YOU, THAT IS A INFRINGEMENT OF YOUR RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACT WHICH IS THE ……[CONSTITION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]… .AND IF THERE IS NO CRASH THE POLICE HAS NO DUE PROCESS TO BE STOPPING YOU FOR NOTHING.AND YOU CAN SUE THEM AND ANY ADMINSTRATOR.YES THE FAKE ASS JUDGE,BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE REAL.THERE BANKRUPTCY COURTS STEALING YOUR SHIT AND TALKING TO YOU IN THERE LATIN AND TRICKY ENGLISH BLACKLAWS BOOKS WORDS…ANOTHER THING I SEE IS FOLKS TALKING ABOUT ON HERE AND DO NOT KNOW WHAT COLOR OF LAW IS.AND ALSO DO NOT KNOW LEGISLATIVE LAW IS NO LAW AT ALL YOUR TALKING ALL NONE SENSE COLOR OF LAWS PUBLIC POLICY ONE IN ACCORD BS.; IS WHAT THERE ENFORCING.AND THERE CAN BE NO CONTRACT WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY THATS IS UN-LAWFUL,AND ALL THESE COURTS HERE ARE ADMINISTRATOR FOREIGNERS IMPOSING A CRIME ON YOU RIGHT BEFORE YOUR FACE.WITH WORDS YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT THATS HOW THEY GET CONSENT FROM YOU TREASONAL VIOLATION OF COLOR OF LAW UNDER 42 U.S.C 242. AND SO ON….ANOTHER THING YOUR RIGHTS COME FROM THE CREATOR NOT NO DAMN MAN, OR COURTHOUSE. AND THERE CAN BE NO CONTRACT WITH THESE POLICY COLOR OF LAW COURTS WITHOUT MEETINGS OF THE MINDS.AND THE LAWS OF THE LAND IS FROM THE BIBLE AND THATS WHAT THE CONSTITION WAS BASED UPON…SO ANYTHING,OR ANYONE THAT IS KEEPING YOU SUPRESSED AND OPPRESSED AND IS RESTICTING YOUR LIBERITIES,PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS,..ON THE LAND THAT OUR CREATOR TOLD YOU IN YOUR BIBLE..MAN SHALL INHERITED THE EARTH.. [ THE EARTH IS OUR INHERITANCE.MAN HAS DOMINION OVER THE EARTH,BUT NO MAN HAS DOMINION OVER EACH OTHER,AND MAN SHALL HAVE DOMINION OVER THE CREEPY CRAWLIES ON THE EARTH AND FISH OF THE SEA AND ALL THE ANIMALS ON EARTH] THIS IS A GREAT NO NONESENSE POINT YOU ALL SEE CLEARLY NOW THAT BE THINKING THESE BS.POLICY MAKERS HAVE DOMINION OVER YOU GO READ THIS QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE THEN LOOK AT THE ROADS EVERYWHERE,AFTER YOU SEE WHERE THE ROADS ARE LAYING AT DONT BE STUPID TO THINK THAT THE CREATOR GAVE THESE ROADS TO THESE SO CALLED POLICE'S AND THESE OTHER STATE AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES..THE CREATOR GAVE YOU ALL THE ROADS BECAUSE ITS SITTING ON YOUR NATURAL ORGANIC INHERITANCE THE EARTH YOUR CREATOR HAS GIVEN TO YOU ITS YOUR BIRTH RIGHT .AND WHY DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO ASK THESE CROOKED BASTARDS FOR A LICENSE TO USE ANY THATS YOURS. ITS A DAMN SCHEME,FOR MONEY, AND THE BEST WAY THEY HIDE THESE FROM A STUPID PERSON WHO THINKS THAT TRAVELING IN YOUR CAR IS A PRIVILEGE.IS TO PUT ALL THESE RIGHT INFRONT OF YOUR FACE,WHICH IS THE REAL TRUTH AND YOU STILL WON'T SEE THE DECIET BEHIND THE VEIL' THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE AND HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR TRUE RIGHTS.REMEMBER A MAN / WOMAN IS OF THE SAME EQUAL BORN NATURAL IMAGE.DON'T LET THESE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE OR STATE SELF PROCLAIM OFFICALS FOOL YOU WITH THERE ILLUSIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS.AND THE POLICE CAN NOT BE A WITNESS WHEN THERE IS NO INJURED PART BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE LICENSE OR INSURANCE.YOU ARE NOT IN COMMERCE NOR ARE YOU UNDER ANY MEETINGS OF THE MIND BY ANY KNOW CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN YOU AT THE DRIVERS LICENSE DEPT,SHOWING YOU IN FULLY DETAIL WHAT THE PENALTY ARE.SO GUESS WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THIS UNION NOT THE U.S WHICH IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON D.C. THEY HAVE FRAUD US BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO REAL JURISDICTION OVER HERE IN AMERICA.AND I SEE MANY OF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR NOT A U.S. CITIZEN.IF YOU THINK SO YOU BETTER LISTEN AND LEARN AND LOOK IT UP EVERTHING IM TELLING YOU ITS BULLEYE ON TARGET.YOU ARE ONLY AS EXAMPLE ILLINOISIAN THATS YOUR CITIZEN SHIP OR ANY OTHER STATE OVER HERE IN NORTHERN AMERICA,IN THIS UNION OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON D.C.ONLY PEOPLE THATS BORN IN WASHINGTON IS A …[U.S. CITIZEN].NOT YOU OVER IN AMERCA ITS 2 SEPARATE PLACES…NOW YOU HAVE IT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS.THE CREATOR GAVE NO AUTHORITY TO A CORPORATION OF LEGAL FICTION ENTITIES. THERE DEAD IN LAW.AND LAWFUL IS COMMON LAW COMMON SENSE. AND LEGAL IS FICTIONAL RULES UNDER A CONTRACT.WHICH YOU UNKNOWLY WAS TRICKED INTO BY THESE STATE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT
The STATE laws are no longer constitutional.
Since when? I didn't notice any Supreme Court decisions reversing their position. You do understand that the SUPREME COURT ruling that the STATE LAWS are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL means that they are CONSTITUTIONAL, right? I hope you're not trying to say that since they are a state law, they do not usurp the Constitution – BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THEY DO NOT! The Supreme Court has the final say in any Constitutional challenges – you know that too, right?
YOUR VERY WRONG!
Other cases are even more straight forward:
". . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]
". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
[Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)]
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.
These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…"
[State v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 240, 243 P. 1073 (1926)]
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling –discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
Check out the Supreme Court ruling that states that since the states have decided to incorporate themselves they are now held to same standards as private corporations in that their statutes are nothing more than corporate by-laws
I heard from the Supreme Court itself say that they ignore your state law for it doesn't not conform to the Constitution.
Many state laws have been struct down because they are NOT constitutional.
Lucky for me, we're talking about the ones that have not been struck down.
Baloney! Supreme Court rulings ALWAYS deal with specifics. Each of these ruling deals with a specific law or instance, not a blanket generic ruling. State laws are constitutional ONLY WHEN they meet the limitations and allowances set for in the Constitution. A law, no matter how seemingly good it sounds, is not constitutional if it violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927)- Pertains to use of the state's highways by a nonresident motorist – NOT on whether a Driver’s License is Constitutional!
Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)- Pertains to who can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke the jurisdiction of the Court in respect thereto.
Where a state statute provides, as a prerequisite to the use of the highways of a state without cost by residents of other states, compliance with the highway laws of their respective states, one who does not show such compliance cannot set up a claim for discrimination in this particular. – NOT on whether a Driver’s License is constitutional!
Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941)- pertains to one against whom a judgment is rendered for injury resulting from the operation of a motor car and who fails to pay it within a time designated, shall have his license and registration suspended – NOT on whether a Driver’s License is Constitutional!
Think you missed something in Hendrick v. Maryland
"In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers "
Pretty sure that says it's ok for the states to require driver's licenses..
"
operation upon its highways of all motor vehicle" OPERATION IS TO ACT IN COMMERCE FOR BUSINESS GAINS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE, HAS ZERO TO DO WITH PRIVATE CONVEYANCE IN AN AUTO MOBILE. LEARN THE MEANING OF WORDS SO THEY CAN'T NO LONGER TRICK YOU IN THEIR MISLEADING STATEMENTS.
How about you learn that Black's Law Dictionary is not law, it's not the final say in law definition – it was simply a tool to help and the one youpeople use is from 1910, lol. Each state has the ability to define the use of their own words in their legislation, and they do, so you might wanna read up. By the way, I have a hint for you for my previous question:
"The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal of the United States for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring equal justice under law and functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution"
See? It's not a coin toss.
Actually there is case law that states that once a word is defined that government cannot change the definition of the word to suit themselves. This page is lagging and not allowing me to properly respond or I would add more.
WRONG! Licensing and especially registration have NOTHING to do with public safety. If licensing was so important to safety then you should be tested annually as well as having your sight tested. Now, that doesn't prevent businesses that require the use of vehicles from requiring licensing to operate their vehicles. Explain why it is that most states do NOT require farm workers, even teen-aged family members, who drive tractor-trailers, to have a CDL to deliver the harvest to the plants.
This is where you are wrong, You can't add words into court cases that are not there. If they are not there then you can't add them. So don't infer they can do something that is not written in the case law. If the case law is vague then the law doesn't stand mustard.
The legislators of any state can not write laws to control the Private People but only when one is engrossed in commerce. When Man is "Traveling" he is acting in the Private side and when you do business you are particapating in commerance.
Registration has NOTHING to do with public safety or order. It is designed to do two things – 1) create revenue through unconstitutional taxation, and 2) create a "control" and intimidation mechanism. Why does the state hold/control title to your vehicle, yet not to any other piece of your personal property? And once registered, WHY must it be renewed annually? It's truly amazing how gullible fools like you are.
I asked ChatGPT to summarize and explain these cases more or less to determine its accuracy:
Me-Summarize and explain Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927)
ChatGPT-Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. In this case, the plaintiff, Pawloski, was a resident of Massachusetts, and the defendant, Hess, was a resident of Pennsylvania.
Pawloski filed a lawsuit against Hess in a Massachusetts court, alleging that he had been injured in an automobile accident caused by Hess while driving through Massachusetts. Hess argued that the Massachusetts court did not have jurisdiction over him because he was not present in Massachusetts at the time of the accident and had no contacts with the state.
The Massachusetts court agreed with Hess and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision and held that Hess's act of driving into Massachusetts and causing an accident was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him.
Hess appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Court held that a nonresident defendant who drives a vehicle into a state and causes an accident there can be subject to personal jurisdiction in that state, even if the defendant had no other contacts with the state.
The Court reasoned that driving on the state's highways is a privilege that comes with the obligation to follow the state's laws and regulations. Therefore, a nonresident who drives into a state and causes an accident there can be subject to the state's jurisdiction, even if the defendant had no intention of causing harm in that state.
The decision in Hess v. Pawloski established the "minimum contacts" test, which is still used today to determine whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Under this test, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state to make it fair and reasonable to require the defendant to defend the lawsuit there.
All you did was expand on what I said for that specific case.
Hmmm! That's funny, why is it written in all states and counties and towns that the public roads are open as a matter of "Right" not privilege?
State laws ARE Constitutional, provided they are not at odds with a guaranteed Constitutional Right. Any laws that are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution are null and void because the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land.
Correct. AND, any conflicts are to be settled by the United States Supreme Court who has the final say!!!! And they say that the state's laws are Constitutional – WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOT AT ODDS WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!
It's not the people's interpretation of the law that matters, it's the SCOTUS.
WRONG. THE US CONSTITUTION HAS THE FINAL SAY AND ANY LAW THAT ABROGATES THE CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID.
Other cases are even more straight forward:
". . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]
". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
[Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)]
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…"
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.
These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…"
[State v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 240, 243 P. 1073 (1926)]
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling –discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
And when conflicts arise as to the Constitutionality of a law – who decides it, Genius? You think you get to decide it? If you and I interpret a law a different way, do we do a coin toss?
Yes, you can ignore any statute that proports itself to be law if it is in violation of the constitution of the united states of America. Murbery v Madison Any attempt to enforce such a policy would criminalize those who enforce it via 18 US Code 242. You don't need the supreme court to step in for you once you've actually researched the matter. Definitions are clearly layed out for you to look into. Rights are clearly established. You just need to do your own homework instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you.
Wrong, because states have turned themselves into corporations they have to follow corporate laws which are statutes and are not law. they apply only to the corporation and those that contract with them.
Wrong! They have shot down many state laws what they are saying is if they are concurrent with the constitutioin then they are Constitutional.
Yep. And who decides on whether or not a law is unconstitutional, and at odds with our Constitution? I'll give you a hint – it's the Supreme Court of the United States. THEY have the final word on the constitutionality of any law – and if they see it's ok, then it's ok. You guys conveniently leave out that part. Nowhere does it say that the constitutionality of a law depends on YOUR interpetation of it, lol.
Joseph you are completely wrong. You have missed the multiple SCOTUS decisions stating driving is a right in the form of a Liberty. Likewise in a more recent decision, United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Caneisha MILLS, et al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.No. 08-7127.
Decided: July 10, 2009, the court stated, " It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access. " Very clearly the court stated there is a RIGHT to drive upon the public streets. Also I wish to add that if you read the Motor Vehicle laws of any state there is a clear exemption for those not engaged in commerce. Here in NC it is N.C.G.S. 20-51 Which says the following are exempt from registration and certificate of title, (no license needed if they are not registered as Motor Vehicles), at section (2) it states:(2) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway only for the purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. Now before you assume something ignorant like crossing from one side of the road to the other see section (8) which covers that and requires you own the land or a lease in both sides at the pace or crossing. Each state has a similar exemption. you are just not aware of them. So again you are absolutely wrong and have no clue what you are arguing about.
UUmmmmm……sounds like you're comparing a farmer being able to cross a highway from one piece of his land to another piece of his land on his tractor to driving on any road at any time without a license, or registration.
Our court system has a pretty easy way of doing things. If there is a law that allows you to do something, and the Supreme Court has upheld it – you do it, get arrested or ticketed for it, you cite the case – you are innocent. Pretty simple. I know exactly what I am talking about.
All you have to do is go win a case and prove me wrong.
STATE POLICYS YOUR CALLING LAWS ARE NO LAWS AT ALL WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.AND 2 CONSTITUTIONS WHERE DO YOU THINK LAWS COME FROM.THAT THESE LEGISLATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL CROOKS USE COME FROM,ITS NOT THE BIBLE.WHICH IS THE ONLY LAWS THERE IS.AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE WHERE IT SAYS MAN KIND NEED A LICENSE TO MOVE AROUND ON HIS INHERITANCES THE CREATOR GAVE YOU.LOOK THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE RIGHT HERE THE BRITISH CAME OVER HERE WITH A BUNCH OF RULES.AND GOT THERE LITTLE BS. CHURCHES TOGETHER FULL OF DEMONS. AND GOT THERE SECURTY GUARDS TOGETHER TO BRAINWASH ANY DUMB PERSON WHO DO NOT KNOW THERE TRUE COMMON SENSE AND THE PEOPLE.JUST LET THESE FOOLS RUN THEM OVER AND THEN PUT THEM AND JAIL AND TAKE THERE MONEY.WHILE THE PUBLIC CHURCHES SET BEHIND THE WALLS OF A CHURCH SAYING WHATEVER GOD GIVES YOU LET NO MAN TAKE IT AWAY…SEE HOW THEY DO NOW IF THESE PREACHER WERE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE THEY WOULD GET A COVANENT STARTED WITH ALL THESE CHURCH MEMBERS ALL OVER AND STAND AGAINST THESE BULLSHITTER.INSTEAD OF LETTING THESE PRIEST GET AWAY WITH MOLESTING THESE LITTLE KIDS,WERE THERE ASS ALWAYS GETTING AWAY WITH REAL CRIMES..I BET IF THESE CHURCHES WAS REALLY ABOUT WHAT THE CREATOR MENT THEY WOULD PUT A STOP TO THESE DAMN ROBBING HOOD ASS BASTARDS JAILING PEOPLE FOR JUST TRYING TO GO FROM ONE PLACE TO THE NEXT.AND A CAR IS PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION.FOR ANYONE WHO CAN AFFORD IT TO GO SHOPPING OR ACROSS THE COUNTRY THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND THIS LAND IS MY LAND THIS LAND WAS MADE FOR YOU AND ME!!!!!.FROM WHO ARE CREATOR HIMSELF FOR YOU AND ME AS A CREATION OF OUR CREATOR.THE RIGHTS TO TRAVEL IS A FREE RIGHT.BUT PEOPLE NEED TO GET THERE ASS'S AWAY FROM UP UNDER THAT U.S. CITIZENSHIP BS. WHICH IS A 14TH AMEND SLAVE AS PROPERTY AND GET BACK IN THERE RIGHTFUL STATUS AS A AMERICA STATE CITIZEN OF THIS UNION..THEN THESE BASTARDS CAN BOTHER YOU.BECAUSE YOUR NO LONGER A 14TH AMEND ENSLAVED CATTLE ANIMAL DEALING WITH THIS PRIVILEDGE BS, WITH LITTLE RIGHTS! THATS THE REAL DEAL.AND START USING PASSPORTS.AS SOURCE OF ID. TO THE SEVERAL STATES OVER HERE IN AMERICA. YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT U.S. UNLESS YOUR FROM WASHINGTON D.C. IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA…THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT UNION YOUR IN OR WHO YOU ARE FAR AS YOUR NATIONALITY OF STATUS AND THATS WHATS GOT YOU INTO SLAVERY..AND NOBODY EVER TOLD YOU SO IM TELLING YOU CORRECT YOUR STATUS ON THE RECORD TO LET THESE AGENCYS KNOW YOUR NOT A [U.S.] BUT YOUR A CITIZEN OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION.WHICH MEANS THE STATE YOU LIVE IN.EXAMPLE [ILLINOISIAN] WHEN YOU DO THE DS 11.FILE IT IN THE COUNTY.THEN SEND IT TO THE YOUR STATE DEPARTMENT TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT YOU ARE NOT A U.S. CITIZEN..AND YOU ARE A AMERICAN STATE CITIZEN BUT NOT A U.S. CITIZEN WHOM HAVE ONLY 14TH AMEND RIGHTS.AND YOU WILL BE INVOLKING ALL OF YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AS A TRAVELER IN YOUR PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE AND LET IT BE KNOW TO ALL YOUR OTHER CONTRACTS FOR THE RECORD.THEN PUT LIENS ON YOUR CARS TRUCKS FOR $50.000 OR WHAT EVER YOU FEEL THEN THEY WILL NOT BOTHER YOU BECAUSE WITH THE DS11 BEING FILED THEM RECORDS GO OUT THREW ALL THE GOVERNMENT AND STATE OFFICES DATA BASE.GET THE PASSPORT CARD AND THE BOOK AS AMERICAN NATION STATE CITIZEN. STAY AWAY FROM ANYTHING SAYING STATE CITIZEN THIS WILL WORK BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU ARE IN THIS COUNTRY.I CAN GO ON TO OTHER STUFF BUT THIS IS HOW YOU USE YOUR CARS,WITHOUT ARGUING WITH THESE CROOKS THATS TAKING YOUR MONEY.I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE KEEP TRYING TO HIDE THIS SHIT INSTEAD OF DOING THERE FELLA MAN A GOOD SERVICE UNDER THE TRUTH.THESE GOVERNMENT FOLKS DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER OVER REAL PEOPLE,WHEN YOU KNOW HOW TO GOVERNOR YOUR OWN AFFAIRS
STATE POLICYS YOUR CALLING LAWS ARE NO LAWS AT ALL WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.AND 2 CONSTITUTIONS WHERE DO YOU THINK LAWS COME FROM.THAT THESE LEGISLATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL CROOKS USE COME FROM,ITS NOT THE BIBLE.WHICH IS THE ONLY LAWS THERE IS.AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE WHERE IT SAYS MAN KIND NEED A LICENSE TO MOVE AROUND ON HIS INHERITANCES THE CREATOR GAVE YOU.LOOK THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE RIGHT HERE THE BRITISH CAME OVER HERE WITH A BUNCH OF RULES.AND GOT THERE LITTLE BS. CHURCHES TOGETHER FULL OF DEMONS. AND GOT THERE SECURTY GUARDS TOGETHER TO BRAINWASH ANY DUMB PERSON WHO DO NOT KNOW THERE TRUE COMMON SENSE AND THE PEOPLE.JUST LET THESE FOOLS RUN THEM OVER AND THEN PUT THEM AND JAIL AND TAKE THERE MONEY.WHILE THE PUBLIC CHURCHES SET BEHIND THE WALLS OF A CHURCH SAYING WHATEVER GOD GIVES YOU LET NO MAN TAKE IT AWAY…SEE HOW THEY DO NOW IF THESE PREACHER WERE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE THEY WOULD GET A COVANENT STARTED WITH ALL THESE CHURCH MEMBERS ALL OVER AND STAND AGAINST THESE BULLSHITTER.INSTEAD OF LETTING THESE PRIEST GET AWAY WITH MOLESTING THESE LITTLE KIDS,WERE THERE ASS ALWAYS GETTING AWAY WITH REAL CRIMES..I BET IF THESE CHURCHES WAS REALLY ABOUT WHAT THE CREATOR MENT THEY WOULD PUT A STOP TO THESE DAMN ROBBING HOOD ASS BASTARDS JAILING PEOPLE FOR JUST TRYING TO GO FROM ONE PLACE TO THE NEXT.AND A CAR IS PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION.FOR ANYONE WHO CAN AFFORD IT TO GO SHOPPING OR ACROSS THE COUNTRY THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND THIS LAND IS MY LAND THIS LAND WAS MADE FOR YOU AND ME!!!!!.FROM WHO ARE CREATOR HIMSELF FOR YOU AND ME AS A CREATION OF OUR CREATOR.THE RIGHTS TO TRAVEL IS A FREE RIGHT.BUT PEOPLE NEED TO GET THERE ASS'S AWAY FROM UP UNDER THAT U.S. CITIZENSHIP BS. WHICH IS A 14TH ADMEND SLAVE AS PROPERTY AND GET BACK IN THERE RIGHTFUL STATUS AS A AMERICA STATE CITIZEN OF THIS UNION..THEN THESE BASTARDS CAN BOTHER YOU.BECAUSE YOUR NO LONGER A 14TH ADMEND ENSLAVED CATTLE ANIMAL DEALING WITH THIS PRIVILEDGE BS, WITH LITTLE RIGHTS! THATS THE REAL DEAL.AND START USING PASSPORTS.AS SOURCE OF ID. TO THE SEVERAL STATES OVER HERE IN AMERICA. YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT U.S. UNLESS YOUR FROM WASHINGTON D.C. IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA…THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT UNION YOUR IN OR WHO YOU ARE FAR AS YOUR NATIONALITY OF STATUS AND THATS WHATS GOT YOU INTO SLAVERY..AND NOBODY EVER TOLD YOU SO IM TELLING YOU CORRECT YOUR STATUS ON THE RECORD TO LET THESE AGENCYS KNOW YOUR NOT A [U.S.] BUT YOUR A CITIZEN OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION.WHICH MEANS THE STATE YOU LIVE IN.EXAMPLE [ILLINOISIAN] WHEN YOU DO THE DS 11.FILE IT IN THE COUNTY.THEN SEND IT TO THE YOUR STATE DEPARTMENT TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT YOU ARE NOT A U.S. CITIZEN..AND YOU ARE A AMERICAN STATE CITIZEN BUT NOT A U.S. CITIZEN WHOM HAVE ONLY 14TH ADMEND RIGHTS.AND YOU WILL BE INVOLKING ALL OF YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AS A TRAVELER IN YOUR PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE AND LET IT BE KNOW TO ALL YOUR OTHER CONTRACTS FOR THE RECORD.THEN PUT LIENS ON YOUR CARS TRUCKS FOR $50.000 OR WHAT EVER YOU FEEL THEN THEY WILL NOT BOTHER YOU BECAUSE WITH THE DS11 BEING FILED THEM RECORDS GO OUT THREW ALL THE GOVERNMENT AND STATE OFFICES DATA BASE.GET THE PASSPORT CARD AND THE BOOK AS AMERICAN NATION STATE CITIZEN. STAY AWAY FROM ANYTHING SAYING STATE CITIZEN THIS WILL WORK BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU ARE IN THIS COUNTRY.I CAN GO ON TO OTHER STUFF BUT THIS IS HOW YOU USE YOUR CARS,WITHOUT ARGUING WITH THESE CROOKS THATS TAKING YOUR MONEY.I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE KEEP TRYING TO HIDE THIS SHITINSTEAD OF DIUNG THERE FELLA MAN A GOOD SERVICE UNDER THE TRUTH.
The problem is the courts and lawyers are all part of this fraud. You lost your cases because you had inadequate representation and/or you didn't have the knowledge of the law to defend yourself effectively. Research is required BEFORE you are stopped, you must be proactive in your knowledge of the facts. There is no doubt that most of the courts are stacked against the people.
nah sovereign idiots wear badges , obviously fool .
YOU IDIOT…THAT'S THE "ORIG." 13TH AMENDMENT!! WHICH WAS RATIFIED!!!…BUT LATER REPLACED BY THESE MARITIME JURISDICTIONAL LEGAL USURPERS THE CURRENT 13TH AMENDMENT…WHY BECAUSE IT STATED: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, SUCH PERSONS, SHALL CEASE TO BE A CITIZEN of the United States, and shall be INCAPABLE OF HOLDING ANY OFFICE OF TRUST OR PROFIT under them, or either of them." FUNNY HOW YOU OMIT THE KEY POINTS!!! ALL LAWYERS, AND JUDGES, AND ESQUIRES ARE TRAITORS AND PUPPETS FOR A CORRUPT CORPORATE MARITIME JUDICIAL SYSTEM!…THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS…ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT AND HAVEN'T DONE THE RESEARCH!!!
I HAD TO POST THIS NEWER COMMENT ON AN "OLD" REPLY BECAUSE MY NEW COMMENT TODAY 12/20/19 WAS DELETED BY THE ADMIN. SHORTLY AFTER POSTING!! TALK ABOUT CENSORING THE TRUTH!!!
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS BULLSHIT, BIASED, AND WHOLLY MISLEADING!!!!!! BECAUSE IT LEAVES OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES: WHICH ARE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL VS. "DRIVING" FOR "COMMERCIAL" PURPOSES, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A "LICENSE"!! IT THE USUAL THING THEY DO WHEN THESE FKTARDS CREATE THESE "NAMELESS ARTICLES" AND "BOGUS WEB PAGES", WITH THESE LINKS TO LAWS WHICH "DO NOT APPLY" TO THE "PARTICULAR ISSUE AND TOPIC, WHICH THEY EXPECT THE IGNORANT TO BELIEVE!!! THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT IT IS A RIGHT TO TRAVEL, VERSES THE "PRIVILEGE" TO CONDUCT COMMERCE "WHILE" IN A VEHICLE (NEED LICENSE)!!! THEY SHOULD NAME THIS PAGE PSEUDO-TRUTH!!!! FK OTTA HEAR WITH THIS B.S.!!!!
The U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR "NORMAL" USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
TITLE 49–TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER III–FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 395_HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS–Table of Contents
Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.
(j) Travel time–(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at east 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
[[Page 461]]
(2) When a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming anyother responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 8 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
Person, Individual means Subject, corporations, ALL CAPS NAME…state/State means District of
Columbia [ONLY]
If a CDL is for a driver [occupation] of a motor vehicle, and that CDL is ONLY for commercial use, and he gets in his private automobile [UCC 9-109 household goods, exempt from registration and tax] he is said to be traveling without a licence. If he gets a citation while traveling in his automobile, It does not go on his CDL. The same with a DUI. He must be on duty Driving a motor vehicle. Mechanic's who service motor vehicle's, have to have a CDL, in order test drive a motor vehicle on the highway. My friend got a DUI 4 moths ago. I told him not to worry, the is a commercial crim. They will bring it a civil court. Since it's a civil, that's easy to win. First, his not a person or individual [means subject] No jurisdiction. 2nd The officer who pulled him over is not injured. Must have an injured party to be a claim. 3rd The officer, what is he going to say, prima facie evidence. He only can testify to what he seen at that moment. He doesn't know where he was coming from and he surely can't predict the future. If i called the cops and said, my friend said he's going to kill his wife, they're response, did he kill her? I said no. Well call us when he does.
When a property-carrying "commercial motor vehicle driver" AGAIN B.S.!! IF ITS "COMMERCIAL" YOU NEED A LICENSE IF YOUR "TRAVELING" YOU DON'T!! THE WORDING AGAIN IS VERY MISLEADING INTENTIONALLY!! THE CODES AND STATUTES DO NOT OVER RIDE THE SUPEREME COURT OR THE CONSTITUTION!! NO MATTER WHAT "YOUR" UNDERSTANDING IS!!! PERIOD!!! THE USE OF THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE IS FRAULENT! LEGALESE IS THE REASON PEOPLE GET CONFUSED! WHY DO YOU THINK "LATIN" IS USED BY THESE FKTARDS IN COURT? BECAUSE COMMON FOLK DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!! WAKE THE FK UP
I have run many of these citations through ChatGPT. It gives a commonsense synopsis of these cases especially what the case was initially about.
Example:
Provide the authority which stated: “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.
This statement was made by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 (Va. 1930).
Summarize and explain Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 (Va. 1930).
Thompson v. Smith was a 1930 case heard by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a tract of land that was sold at a tax sale. The plaintiff, Thompson, argued that the sale was invalid due to a lack of notice, while the defendant, Smith, argued that he had acquired title to the land through the tax sale.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, Smith, holding that the sale was valid despite the lack of notice. The court cited a provision in Virginia law that stated that a tax sale would be valid as long as the property was properly advertised and sold at a public auction. The court found that even though notice was not given to the plaintiff, the property had been properly advertised and sold at a public auction, which met the requirements of the law.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had engaged in fraud by failing to disclose certain information about the property. The court found that the defendant had no duty to disclose such information and that the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that the defendant had engaged in fraudulent conduct.
Overall, Thompson v. Smith established that tax sales could be valid even if notice was not given to interested parties, as long as the property was properly advertised and sold at a public auction. The case also emphasized that there is no duty to disclose information about a property during a tax sale, and that allegations of fraud must be supported by evidence.
Explain the reasoning of the court's ruling of “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 (Va. 1930) and the relation between that quote and the issues of the case.
The ruling in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 (Va. 1930) pertains to the issue of a citizen's right to travel upon public highways and transport their property thereon. The case involved a challenge to a Virginia state law that required motor vehicle operators to obtain a license and pay a fee to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. The plaintiff, Thompson, argued that the law violated his right to travel freely on public highways without interference from the state.
The court held that the right to travel freely on public highways and to transport property thereon is not a mere privilege that can be granted or taken away by the state at will, but a common right that is protected under the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the preservation of individual liberty and the pursuit of one's personal and economic interests.
The court further held that while the state may impose reasonable regulations on the use of public highways, such regulations must not unduly interfere with the exercise of this fundamental right. The court found that the state's requirement for operators of motor vehicles to obtain a license and pay a fee was a reasonable regulation aimed at promoting public safety and was not an undue burden on the exercise of the right to travel.
Thus, the court upheld the constitutionality of the state's requirement for motor vehicle operators to obtain a license and pay a fee while affirming the principle that the right to travel freely on public highways is a fundamental right protected under the constitution.
In summary, the quote from the ruling emphasizes that the right to travel on public highways is a common right protected under the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The court held that this right is fundamental and cannot be unduly restricted by the state, but reasonable regulations may be imposed to promote public safety. The quote was central to the court's reasoning in upholding the constitutionality of the state's requirement for motor vehicle operators to obtain a license and pay a fee while affirming the principle that the right to travel freely on public highways is a fundamental right protected under the constitution.
Send me more information on this!!! weirdvideos2008@yahoo.com
I'm now representing myself. Need help ericprice6969@gmail.com. no crime, I haven't ticket or accident in 26 years. no license because my truck stolen thieves hurt I recreceived a judgment on the hospital bills from insurance companies..couldn't afford suspended my license..please help any constitutional attorneys…TY GOD BLESS YOU AND AMERICA ky 502 6670333.
help
His “information “ is total crap. Driving is driving. The state regulates it. Don’t like it? Tough. Obey the damned law, or face the consequences. Following this clown’s advice is a good way to get your ass hauled into court, and rightly so.
Hey, go ahead and try this SovClown garbage. I’ll enjoy watching your arrest on Schrodinger’s Cat’s channel, or Dave’s, or Mike’s, or Ragical’s, or any of the Watchdogger channels that make fun of these dimwits
Regardless of what the law says, there's never a guarantee that an ignorant officer won't arrest or cite you with a violation, no matter how right you are. If it does happen, you have the opportunity to win in court, and sue for very large sums of money.
THEY CANT SITE YOU IF THEY DONT HAVE CONTRACT JURISDICTION IE. DRIVER LICENSE WITH YOUR NAME ON IT. WE NEED TO STOP USING THEIR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO SURRENDER JURISDICTION TO THEM. RATHER STAND ON YOUR 5TH AMENDMENT TO REMAIN SILENT. TRUE THEY CAN KIDNAP YOU FOR 72 HOURS BUT IF THEY CAN GET NO NAME TO CONTRACT WITH, THE REGULATION Z SAYS THEY MUST RELEASE YOU, BUT IF YOU SPEAK UP AND TELL THEM THAT YOU ARE EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND ARE NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE FOR HIRE, AND THAT YOU REBUT ANY AND ALL PRESUMPTIONS THAT YOU WAVE ANY RIGHT OR WISH TO CONTRACT WITH THEM AND THEN KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, THEY WILL USUALLY FIND A REASON TO GIVE YOU A VERBAL WARNING. THEY NEVER ADMIT DEFEAT. ITS IN THEIR PRACTICAL.
yes but someone needs to actually learn the definition of 'driving'. Cause it's not what you think it is.
please start at 6:00 and understand what he said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKInAMNrXRA
Someone has to? The Boobus Americanus debt slave sure as heck can't/won't.
It's a sovereign country
YES AGREED THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY SOVEREIGN BY OUR CREATOR AT BIRTH.GOVERNMENT AND ITS CONTRACTORS ,AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS ARE NOT SOVEREIGN. AND HAVE NO PROTECTION FROM THE 11TH AMENDMENT
I agree! The Supreme Court has said, The Sovereign does not have to conform to institutions of his fellow man. So how can they make us do things without our consent? They can't that's why it is all a fraud. Why we should all band together and straighten things out, kick them to the curb.
Very good!
THE ACT OF 1871 congress made a new government without the people consent.
You're correct. It is when the US government became a corporation and the state and many cities soon followed. The majority of laws that have been created are nothing but corporate laws, not legal federal or state laws.
Which act are you talking about? The one where they created DC as the federal capital? Or the Klux Klan act where they passed a law to protect the former slaves? I'm sure there are more acts that were passed in 1871 than these two. They were just the first to pop up in my search. You need to be a little more specific.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DTUbQ0mmI
YELP AND PEOPLE' NEED TO WISE UP,AND LISTEN AND READ AND WATCH THESE VIDEO AND STOP GETTING ON THESE POST TRYING TO USE SENSELESS ARGUMENT TOWARDS FOLKS THAT HAS A OVER STANDING OF WHAT LEGAL MEANINGS ARE FROM COMMONSENSE WHICH IS OBVIOUS,THAT LAWFUL IS ORGANIC NATURAL LAWFUL RIGHTS.AND MAN CAN NOT MAKE LAWS.WHEN THESE AGENCIES START SAYING THEY MADE A LAW.TRUST THAT IT IS A LEGAL POLICY.ONLY THE CREATOR MADE LAWS.AND THEM LAWS WERE PUT IN PLACE WAY BEFORE ANY OF OUR ASS'S WERE BORN.AND THEY ARE AS NATURAL AS THE TREES AND GRASS,BUSHES, DIRT,RAIN DAYLIGHT, OR SUNSHINE,NIGHTIME AND GRAVITY..NOW WHAT MAN CAN CHANGE THAT NONE.. WHEN THESE GOVERNMENT FOLKS START SAYING THIS LEGAL STUFF THEY LYING.ITS ALL PRESUMPTIONAL NULLY AND VOID FLAT ON ITS FACE.STOP LETTING THEM USE FEAR ON YOU,I DID'NT LET THEM BASTARDS SCARE ME FOR USING MY CAR, TO TRAVEL THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.THE CREATOR DID NOT GRANT THEM ANY DECLARATION OF REAL AUTHORITY.THIS IS WAY THE SAYING GOES THE CHURCH IS TO BE SEPARATED FORM THE CHURCH AND THATS ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE CHURCHES.
Know the fact and truth so your not taken advantage if my big government. ITS ACTUALLY A SIN TO REJECT TRUTH.
Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: BECAUSE THOU HAST REJECTED KNOWLEDGE, I WILL ALSO REJECT TEE, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.".
ON POINT!!!!
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner………..
CORRECT
What's worse is that now they wait if you are like 16-17 ND commit a crime now they wait till your 18 to charge you so you can be charged as an adult .that ain't right if a kid screws up he or she should be reprimanded as a minor child not an adult. When you commit a crime you grandfathered by that law..so if Steve age 12 kills Perry 27 for raping his mother in 1930 but he isn't found out until 1980 then his crime has to be punished by the grandfathered laws of 1930 and his sentence to be what it would have been in 1930 so how can they charge a kid as n adult when they were clearly a minor at time of offense..this is where our country is going…HELL…STRAIGHT TO HELL. kids back talk anymore like it's a game..drugs are our of control and more and more kids are wanting to commit suicide…I work with kids who are suicidal on a particular web page.. and some of the kids on her that are suicidal are 9 I mean 9 years old..DO ANY OF YOU KNOW SICK THAT IS.? we argue driving privilages when there is a hell of a lot more at stake then a piece of paper stating your legal to drive.. stand up for your actual rights as a U.S citizen but first America needs to pay attention to the future leaders of this piss poor nation. And let them know we love them and if they are having problems then we need to figure them out..instead of me trying to talk 500 kids out of ending their life while hang traffic predators lie within the web page waiting for one of them to talk to them..it's sad sick and a very big deal. These kids are our future and we are letting them down..hell who knows for any of you it might be your kid/kids that I'm talking to giving hope to..Jesus people find something better to do if your not gonna make a petition n stand up against our government like we should..
Maybe you should READ THE ARTICLE! It happens to be about driver's licenses, not about suicidal kids. Try taking your self-righteous rant to a site that is dealing with suicidal kids!
Agreed. I'm crying about my license. But For the sake of argument… Do you think what I just had to say would fly in a chat for millennials looking for a safe space? Lol and the same fucking thing that made him a judge in our country. I also assume besides television you probably don't know very many judges? They put their robe on 1 foot at a time just like myself. Sit around hating life just like us… I've never met a judge who was so all knowing that he totally changed the way I look at the world. It's a business above all. A very lucrative one. So quit crying like millennials, quit looking for places to talk about nuts fucking kids lol. And if you get that butt hurt talking about this shit you need a safe zone and you are 20. More entitled than a judge lmao?
Little off topic, but I don't think this would happen unless they hid the body. And in many cases of murder, depending on how heinous it was, even 12 year olds have been tried as adults. We don't have time travel, murder has no limitations of time. So we can't go back and try the child, so the adult gets tried. You can't put an adult in juvie, so they put them in prison. If what you suggest happened, then it's self defence so how would someone be charged 30 years later, unless they tried to hide the body.
Maritime law has to do with laws of the sea. Also covers territorial borders and international waters. Maritime law and constitution law are 2 different things. The government paid the people for their gold that was no longer legal for them to have. This was in 1879. In 1933 they stopped the good standard. Also the order only forbid people from hoarding gold. Also 1933 was at the beginning of the great depression. The order was repealed in 1974. Maybe you should complain about the 2008 fiasco created by the mortgage corporations and not a single person was charged with a crime. Our economy as well as the rest of the world is still trying to recover from this. Oh but you can still own good now. As I mentioned above, titles of nobility are king, queen, prince, princess, duke, duchess, count, countess, viscount, baron, baroness, etc… A licence is identification and proof of knowledge to operate a motor vehicle. See you have to take a test that proves you understand traffic signs, crosswalks, etc… Also what to do when you see red and blue lights and hear the siren. You pull over to the RIGHT AND STOP!!!! Just in case you didn't know. So is it just traffic laws in general you people have problems with or is rape and murder part of your gripe too? I mean if traffic laws are unconstitutional, then I guess so is murder and rape. Because all laws are passed exactly the same.
Maybe before you open you piehole you should actually READ the supreme court decision that says that licenses are "titles of nobility". It has nothing to do with being a king, queen… you IDIOT! Secondly, what is a good standard and what is "you can still own good now"? Considering you poor grammar/spelling it's no wonder you can't understand basic law. By the way, if you can't understand maritime law and how our courts are being run under it, then STFU. You also need to take some basic courses in the difference between a "crime" and violating corporate rules that are created to control the population and produce revenue for the state. HINT: A crime produces a victim! Also, nowhere in the Constitution is government, whether city, state, or federal, given the authority to prohibit ANYTHING – doing so is punishing people for something by assuming they will do it! Laws are designed to punish an individual when they actually commit a crime, and the Constitution establishes that only CONGRESS (state or federal) can write laws. Cities like NYC, for example, continue to write law after law to infringe on the constitutional rights of the people because they want complete control over everything you do. Just because YOU have been indoctrinated to think that you must prove that you know road signs or how to drive a vehicle, doesn't mean it is right. Why do you graduate from school and receive a diploma, but you must renew a driver's license every 5 to ** years. Graduating a driving course should be enough for life – but it is about the revenue! Why do you have to pay to reregister a vehicle every year – because it is about MONEY! If it wasn't for idiots like you who accept anything and everything that "governments" pass, we would actually have liberty/freedom in this country.
PREACH THE FACTS!!!! LOLOL
Also I have to agree by disagreeing. My two owis had no victims. Just a LP light. It's all about revenue. That's why the U.S. allows for mandatory minimums. If they wanted people to learn from being arrested they'd give you full sentences. Jailing and traffic violations are this country's back none lol. That's why we have the highest percentage of citizens in jail/prison in the world. It's all bullshit, of course fed law will hold up state. They are on the same side lol. And they only take like 2 trials a year. So fight them. Odds are the state will drop charges before you make it to they supreme Court. In Michigan I know they enforced state law with marijuana while ignoring federal. Weed isn't legal anywhere in the U.S. I been trimming for weeks lol. Because our state law enforces it but federal law can sweep in any time. You should approach it like if I don't have the right travel then no one has the right to own, smoke, buy or posses marijuana. If they can choose a side so can you. I can smell weed everywhere I go now. Remember with that type of enforcement if the experiment fails they can use federal law as an excuse to come and arrest you for something the state says is perfectly fine. War on drugs Reagan called it. Putting people in jail for 20 years for a zip. So if you don't want them to pick and choose which laws to enforce… You have to give them something to think about. The Supreme Court (when they do take on cases) it is typically like this. A part of an amendment or rule that they can't just write off. Oh my last point is that they wrote off drivers responsibility fees last year. Yet I'm still getting driving while license is suspended charges because I didn't have a license 3 years ago. (From laws that at this point don't exist) anymore. I can't lose my license the way I did yet I'm still being punished for something that used to be state law. And another two years before tickets are gone.
Thank GOD someone has brains, Rattlejake! Ya know, this country is flooded now with complacent jar headed idiot morons – commie pigs and don't know it. They all most of them think freedom is Fractional Banking? I hope it all goes to shit so they ALL lose their asses. Maybe AFTER the USA BOAT sinks, they might wake up?
No, they will never wake up because they do not have the ability to reason or think critically. It is a scientific fact that the majority of the general population, globally, has a lower than average IQ; that is why the majority is so easily manipulated and indoctrinated. This also makes it extremely difficult for those who are intelligent and fight against this tyranny; when you have 12 numbskulls on a jury that haven't a clue about any of this, they will side with what they have been indoctrinated with.
Just for those that are interrested, What is law?
L.A.W. in Genisis 16 through 29 I think, when God gave man diminion over the land, air and waters.
Land is Jurisdiction of land and common law
Air is the law of eclastical religion
Water is Jurisdiction of the seas like Maritime and Admiralty
what is legal is from the Jurisdiction of Maritime Law called the uniform Commercial code.
Common law is unwritten but we all know the basics, do no harm, to thy neighbor,
Maritime Law is Contractional
DID YOU KNOW THAT BY RECEIVING YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE "CONTRACT"…YOU FORFEIT YOUR GOD GIVEN NATURAL LEGAL RIGHTS AND PUTS YOU INTO THEIR JURISDICTION? NO…I KNOW YOU DON'T….UNDISCLOSED "CONTRACTS" ARE NULL AND VOID IN THIS NATION!!
Only while you are participating in that activity of commerce.
The license is permission to do something that would otherwise be a tort or against the law. I you Travel and are not participating in commerce then the license does not apply just like a fishing license doesn not apply when you're not fishing.
You forgot Esquire…..And unbeknownst to MOST is that…a "drivers" license under the motor vehicle Manual…Denotes an "act" affiliated with "commerce" hence the need for a license! …Yet … If you are not involved in commerce while conducting your personal automobile eg. traveling to church, work, supermarket, etc. YOU ARE NOT IN FACT "DRIVING"…YOU ARE TRAVELING…A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, YET TRAVELING IS A RIGHT!!! Further more a license is also an "undisclosed" reaffirmation of your 14th amendment "CITIZENSHIP STATUS"….AS WELL AS VOTER REGISTRATIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS! Its amazing to me that most citizens GLADLY pay their auto loans and let the gov. officially OWN their vehicle!! LOOK UP "REGISTRATION" IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY!!!
Like
Just because you have a license or ssi card does not mean you have agreed to a contract. there are eight elements of a contract anyone of them that are missing voids the contract.
When you got your license did you have the opportunity to change any of the wording in the contract? No so that is proof it is not a contract. When you got your ssi card were you given full disclosure of everything? No Fraud eviscerates everything. Don't beleive all that you are told until you reat the truth yourself.
The American People are Sovereignty and don't let anyone tell you different, you can't give or sign your Sovereignty away they don't have the authority.
God gave you the Sovereignty and no one else.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND IF HALF OF WHAT YOUR SAYING IS RIGHT AS YOU STARTED OFF THEN THE REST OF IT TOWARD THE BOTTOM IS WRONG THEN ALL OF WHAT YOUR SAYING IS WRONG.THE LAWS IS STRAIGHT AND DIRECT.BECAUSE OUR GRANDPARENT MANY OF US ON HERE GRANDPARENTS WERE TAUGHT HOW TO USE A CAR SPECIALLY KIDS BACK THEN THAT WERE AT THE MATURITY AGE AS EARLY TEENAGER THAT WAS TAUGHT HOW TO USE CARS AND FARM EQUIPMENT..BUT YOU MENTION TRAFFIC LAWS.THERE IS NO TRAFFIC LAWS THESE ARE RULES UNDER COMMERCE.AND RAPING PEOPLE OF YOUR OWN IMAGE THEN SOMEONE IS COMMITING A REAL CRIME WHICH IS VERY INFRINGING BECAUSE YOUR IMPOSING ON ANOTHER NATURAL PERSON WILL.CAUSING THEM TO BE PHYSICALLY VIOLATED SEE THE DIFFERENCES.BUT COMMON SENSE TELLS A PERSON THAT IS NOT INSANE THAT THE ROADS BELONG TO EVERYBODY.AND WHY YOUR CREATOR TELL US ALL THE EARTH IS MAN INHERITANCE.THE BIBLE IS THE REAL LAWS OF THE LAND.AND RONALD REAGAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT AND FROM HIS PUBLIC
ANNOUNCEMENT HE RECONIZED THE CONSTITION GETS IT POWER FROM THE BIBLE,BY THE WE THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.SOMETIMES I SEE ON THESE BLOCKS WERE PEOPLE ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT STUFF AND VENTING NOT UNDERSTAND FULL WHATS GOING ON,IN ANY CASE.REMEBER DUE PROCESS.RAPE,MURDER IS DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THERE IS A DISCOVERY MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE IN THESE CASE…AND THERE IS NONE BECAUSE SOMEONE IS TRAVELING TO THE STORE OR WHATEVER ELSE WHERE THERE IS PERSONAL OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.TO A NATURAL PERSON.AND TO HOLD PEOPLE IN JAIL WITHOUT A DISCOVERY MOTION.IS ANOTHER THING BECAUSE THERE IS NONE IN TRAVELING BECAUSE ITS A SCAM AGAINST SOVEREIGNTY PRIVATE PEOPLE,THATS NOT WORKING IN COMMERCE.OR GOVERNMENT.
PREACH ON!!!!
whats worse is there the laws of the crown…we all are under the queens rule …hence the megan markle stories, the reason they have the courts designed as they do and why they carefully ask you do you read and write the ENGLISH language and understand it and our rights, we say yes they do corrupt shit cause no you don't really understand read and write the english language or you would understand that when they called your name and you stood up you affirmed to the state you are the entity they are contractually filing case against. it's major corrupt, we need to change the people of the system to people who are of true service to others and to change they way the system is run or expect more of the same
It's funny, the article you posted in retort to the muppet that wrote this article is what I just pulled up also. He is exactly the type of indoctrinated and dumbed down person who will just fall into line and act accordingly. Words are what are used against us as to"operate", "drive" not travel and freeing yourself from the contract or license with the state is important when it comes to defending oneself against a police state no ? My question to you is how if at all ,would this affect parking rules and state tickets ?
I don't have the court case to site but I read that just because one gets a license does not mean the individual will engage in commerce. So just because you get a license doesn't meant you have to follow the code unless you are engaged in commerce,
BINGO!!! GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR!!!
This is yet another of the many untruths mindless parroted by those who don't bother to read the friggin' laws. I'll be that you think that flag with a fringe is indicative of maritime law too, huh? I've been hearing this same crap since 1993 and not one of the people tossing it out could cite a source other than other sovcidiots telling them that. But hey, I've only bee n a certificated paralegal since 1996 (Chapman university) with a focus on Constitutional law, as well s both a state & Federal peace officer, so I'm sure that you guys know more than I.
The only thing you have proven is that you entire belief system is based on your indoctrination at a University. You're no different than the fools that accept everything the government "experts" tell the because they are your accepted authority, no matter how often they are proven wrong.
What does the gold fringe flag mean?
The gold fringe flag is historically used during times of war in
maritime admiralty law(which we are in right now as well). So in other
words, the gold fringe flag symbolizes maritime law.
The gold fringe flag is not the same flag that is approved for our
Constitutional Republic in USA code Title 4 Ch 1 & Ch 2 – THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE SOURCE. The fourth color (yellow) is not approved in the code. You’ll notice the tassels hanging from the flag. These are also symbolic of admiralty law, which is the law of the sea.
So, the flags that are hanging in our government buildings and court
rooms are actually representative of war-time in the law of the
sea/admiralty law?? Yes. We are in fact, functioning in maritime
admiralty law, and our court system is actually upholding a corporation
that goes by the name of UNITED STATES. In other words, we are not in a
republic, and we are not dealing with the constitutional United States
of America. Well, actually, the UNITED STATES does have a constitution
but it is not the same as the original Constitution that was drafted for
the republic. This is why the gold fringed flag controversy is such a
big deal, because it symbolizes war.
Only fools fall for the claim that the gold trim is purely decorative or ceremonial!
You can travel freely. Take a bus, plane, taxi, heck you can even walk. Enjoy your travels!
If you're behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are DRIVING. That is a fact, not "legal definition BS".
This reality IS as it seems unless your IQ is below 90 or you suffer from schizophrenia
YOU ARE IGNORANT AND 100% WRONG!…PERIOD. LEARN THE TRUTH B4 YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF…OOPS… TOO LATE!
I HAD TO POST THIS NEWER COMMENT ON AN OLDER REPLY BECAUSE IT WAS DELETED SHORTLY AFTER POSTING THIS NEWER UPDATED POST TODAY 12/THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS BULLSHIT, BIASED, AND WHOLLY MISLEADING!!!!!! BECAUSE IT LEAVES OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES: WHICH ARE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL VS. "DRIVING" FOR "COMMERCIAL" PURPOSES, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A "LICENSE"!! IT THE USUAL THING THEY DO WHEN THESE FKTARDS CREATE THESE "NAMELESS ARTICLES" AND "BOGUS WEB PAGES", WITH THESE LINKS TO LAWS WHICH "DO NOT APPLY" TO THE "PARTICULAR ISSUE AND TOPIC, WHICH THEY EXPECT THE IGNORANT TO BELIEVE!!! THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT IT IS A RIGHT TO TRAVEL, VERSES THE "PRIVILEGE" TO CONDUCT COMMERCE "WHILE" IN A VEHICLE (NEED LICENSE)!!! THEY SHOULD NAME THIS PAGE PSEUDO-TRUTH!!!! FK OTTA HEAR WITH THIS B.S.!!!!
The U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR "NORMAL" USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
dont make comments you know nothing about
You should perhaps look up the definition and etymology of the word " Driver "?
There are three types of the English language used here in America and one of them is Legal English. Unless you are aware of what definition of a word or phrase is being used by you and the other party to communicate with, the door is open wide for confusion, deception, and fraud.
The deceivers and those who defraud are under no obligation to educate you.
Please do not induce me to speculate on your I.Q.
I bet you work for the STATE and or some other government agency.
They are trying desparately to keep the whole drivers license scam going, but lots of people are waking up to your scams.
Thanks internet!
ON POINT!!!! 100%!!!!
Mhh… so what exactly entitles you more than a judge to define what "Driving" means. Hint: Self-entitlement doesn't count.
Then why do your arguments always fail in court?
They are called along with the other for profit employees in there Court Actors in the land of fiction contracting & Commerce. listed on Dun & Bradstreet as for profit Corps and boy do they with our uneducated people.
So your evidence that you are right is that every single definition and law under all relevant forms of jurisprudence completely contradicts the opinion that exists solely in your mind and this means in truth, the law is squarely on your side… If all law admittedly contradicts your claim, where is the law that corroborates your claim
Many thanks Sheri..I had to study law, & the Matrix for years to find out the Truth.
I am now a SecuredPartyCreditor, a Private, ND State citizen,American National.. No longer a U.S. corporate slave… I have control of the strawman, have my Trust, and will soon receive my DOT Exempt Status (non commercial driver, no reg.or insurance needed). If i cause bodily harm or property damage, i must pay restitution.
To learn more:
See StopthePiratesBlogspot.
com…
Most important: See http://Www.securedservicesco.
com.. Reasonable Donations are required, but i am breathing more calmly now.. Knowledge is most definitely Power…
AMEN SHARI !!! YOU ARE 1000% CORRECT!
this is absolutely incorrect and is one of the many points parroted by people have have ZERO idea what they're talking about. know anybody like that? (Yeah, you do…) https://web.archive.org/web/20150429021050/http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss10.html#ucc
He better sort it out correctly otherwise he risks the full force of the 2nd Amendment! We are way past "government being destructive to those ends"!
Ok, you talk about silly semantics Tracy? Do you realize that people using their car for HEAT IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER because they're too drunk to drive home are being arrested for DUI? Innocent, responsible people are being punished for the irresponsible ones' actions. No, I'm not signing into that bullshit, ever. I would rather hang myself with a turkey neck filled with stink beetles than be forced to comply with regulations that I believe are unjust and unrealistic.
Do any of you really know ALL the laws they have imposed upon us? I sure as hell don't remember reading anything regarding licensing laws being voted in by the general populous. In fact, schools mention nothing about that, except for the fact that it is "required." Does that not shout "indoctrination?"
Give me the straight, unadulterated text of the laws regarding the subject, and give me a full quote from a judge interpreting those laws, and only those laws. Then, and ONLY then, can we finally put this topic at rest.
I don't want cases, I don't want opinions. I want the full section of all state laws that states that all citizens of the State must posess a valid Drivers License, presented before a judge and interpreted, and that interpretation presented here.
Oh, and by the way, they had better get this licensing shit figured out fast, because I am sick of people really not taking their "license" seriously. Every day, I see people neglecting their duty as high speed heavy machinery operators to operate that machinery in the safest, most predictable manner possible. Every day, I see people taking their daily driving test, and FAILING MISERABLY! Five times a day, in one 30 minute period, I see people TEXTING AND DRIVING! Clearly, licenses no longer work to keep the public safe, which means the laws are no longer effective, and need to be abolished or rewritten. I admit, I take my risk when I go out on my bike, but it is YOUR duty as a driver to make sure that YOU are NOT A THREAT!
If you're just trying to be warm you can sit in the passenger seat. You can't operate the vehicle from there. Most states just need to prove intent. Car running, behind the wheel, you can drive. I don't drink and drive, but I have been drunk and warm in the passenger seat. I've also been drunk and cool in the passenger seat. Also both in the backseat. I used to keep a blanket in the car. Now I just let my better half drive. If you live in a state where texting and driving is illegal, all you need to do is get the license plate number and call the cops. You can make a citizens arrest as well. Best to do that with the police present though. The possibility of being shot these days are too high.
Your right driver in a motor vehical not traveler in automobile
YOU ARE OFF TOPIC!!! APPLES VS ORANGES: THE TOPIC IS DRIVING VS TRAVELING….NOT DRIVING VS OPERATING/DRIVING A VEHICLE WHILE DUI!!!! DUHHH
Definitions used in courts come from something called "stare decisis" and from the legislature. Furthermore, when definitions from federal sources and state sources overlap, the federal definition takes precedent.
The words Motor Vehicle, Vehicle and Operate have all been defined by United States Code as commercial in nature.
But Automobile hasn't.
Don't forget when you meet the next to have them flip up their robe so you can get another smooch?
I think you are both mistaken. Rattlerjake are you relying on legal dictionaries for your definitions? If so, can you show me any legal dictionary published after 1905 when cars became commonly owned for private use that gives the definitions you want. Sov Cits always use Bouvier's 1865 edition legal dictionary and Black's Law 2nd Edition from 1905 as their sole evidence. Even if the right way to interpret legal terms was to default to legal dictionaries, rather than the specific definitions found at the beginning of every statute. Then the right definition would be the current edition of the legal dictionary you use. Because from Black's 3rd edition to the current 10th edition all give those terms definitions relevant to private ownership…
Tracy Ripple you are much closer to being right. But the definition used isn't the court's prerogative. One uses the statutory definition for the specific charge being leveled against the defendant
The Judge will sort it out? BULL SHIT! $$$$$$$
the judges your talking about are not even Real judges,and the only real judges are in the supreme Court,and lot of the people who don't think people d not have the rights to travel are slaves,we all have been told that lie most of our lives.your rights come from the Creator man.not from some other Damn administrator Calling his self a judge,all the BS. there doing in these little courts is under the house joint Resolution of 1933,this is AMERICA'S MOST PRESSING PROBLEM.THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY. President Roosevelt in the federal reserve started all this violation type of BS…and listen to this good the state can not come up off the ground and go to the dam courthouse making a claim against NO MAN..so where is the injured party..its a legal fiction your talking about.because no STATE ENTITY HAS POWER OVER A MAN.THE CREATOR GAVE ALL POWER TO MEN KIND.SO WHEN AND WHY IN THE HELL WOULD THE CREATOR OF THE LIVING MAKE UP A IMAGINARY FAIR TALE STORY LIKE WHAT SOME OF YOU ARE SAYING! listen and Learn the Earth is mens kind inheritance.it is our to use the way we see fit but it is forebidden to damage the earth that nurture us.And the police is part of the security under the uniform commercial code did you guys get that.your talking all this legal contract BS..and where and what are these decietful contracts they are the marks of the beast DRIVERS LICENSE,BIRTHCERTIFICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY #…YOU ARE TOLD TO GET ALL THIS STUFF FOR YOUR KIDS AND TOLD YOUR KIDS TO DO THE SAME WITH THERE KIDS.INSTEAD OF PUTTING ALL YOUR STUFF AND KIDS IN A PRIVATE TRUST,AND THATS HOW THESE FAKE COURTS ARE SCREWING YOUR LIVELY HOOD OVER.REMEMBER NO MAN HAS DOMINION OVER ANY OTHER MAN.SO WHAT MAKES SOME OF YOU THINK THAT A LEGAL FICTION STATE WHICH IS NO LIVING PERSON BY THAT NAME HAVE POWER OVER A REAL MAN BY THE CREATOR OF THE LIVING WHEN YOU HAVE DAMAGED NO ONE.WHERE IS THE DISCOVERY MOTION AT. THERE IS NONE.AND A POLICE ,OR STATES ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE A WITNESS WHEN THERE IS NO ACCIDENT.BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THERE.SO WHAT GIVES THE POLICE THE POWER TO STOP YOU LAAWWWFFFUUULLLYY..THEY DO NOT LAWFULLY HAVE IT.ITS ALL ON PRESSUMPTION, AND ASSUMED.AND CAR ARE AUTOMOBILES PURCHASED AT AUTO DEALERSHIPS.AND ARE FOR PRIVATE USAGE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC,JUST LIKE YOUR FRIG IS AT HOME EVERYONE HAS.LOOK AT THE DIFFERENTS BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL FRIG,AND A CONVIENTIONAL ONE IN YOUR HOUSE,THERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT LOOKING.AND A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR DEALERSHIP BOUGHT CAR OR TRUCK.UNDER THE COMMERCIAL CLAUSE FOR HIRE A LICENSE IS ONLY REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS NOT IN THE PRIVATE.THATS ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIES EVER TOLD.AND CARS ARE NOT INHERITEDLY DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE,NO LICENSE FOR A HORSE RIGHT,NOW JUST THINK IF THE HORSE DECIDES TO THROW YOU OFF AND STUMP YOU.WILL THERE BE A COURT CASE FOR THAT FOR NOT HAVING A LICENSE. REMEMBER PEOPLE THESE COURTS ARE ONLY ADMINISTRATORS THE JUDGE IS BAR MEMBER FEEDING OFF YOUR IGNORANCES,AND STEALING YOUR MONEY,KEY EXAMPLE ONE OF THESE NAMES ARE A LEGAL FICTION AND ALL OF YOU HAVE A LEGAL FICTION NAME.YOU BEEN SCAMMED ALL YOUR LIFE. .John Henry is the real natural person, but… this.. JOHN HENRY is the fake dead legal fiction they are assuming you are. and trying to get you to claim that name spelled in capital letters.then they got silent consent because you answered to that name instead of telling them administrative crooks that capital spelling JOHN HENRY on that paper of there tell you to appear is not in this court and who's stealing off the decedents dead person trust that sounds like me that not me.JOHN HENRY. IS NOT ME John Henry..the living man.
the judges your talking about are not even Real judges,and the only real judges are in the supreme Court,and lot of the people who don't think people d not have the rights to travel are slaves,we all have been told that lie most of our lives.your rights come from the Creator man.not from some other Damn administrator Calling his self a judge,all the BS. there doing in these little courts is under the house joint Resolution of 1933,this is AMERICA'S MOST PRESSING PROBLEM.THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY. President Roosevelt in the federal reserve started all this violation type of BS…and listen to this good the state can not come up off the ground and go to the dam courthouse making a claim against NO MAN..so where is the injured party..its a legal fiction your talking about.because no STATE ENTITY HAS POWER OVER A MAN.THE CREATOR GAVE ALL POWER TO MEN KIND.SO WHEN AND WHY IN THE HELL WOULD THE CREATOR OF THE LIVING MAKE UP A IMAGINARY FAIR TALE STORY LIKE WHAT SOME OF YOU ARE SAYING! listen and Learn the Earth is mens kind inheritance.it is our to use the way we see fit but it is forebidden to damage the earth that nurture us.And the police is part of the security under the uniform commercial code did you guys get that.your talking all this legal contract BS..and where and what are these decietful contracts they are the marks of the beast DRIVERS LICENSE,BIRTHCERTIFICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY #…YOU ARE TOLD TO GET ALL THIS STUFF FOR YOUR KIDS AND TOLD YOUR KIDS TO DO THE SAME WITH THERE KIDS.INSTEAD OF PUTTING ALL YOUR STUFF AND KIDS IN A PRIVATE TRUST,AND THATS HOW THESE FAKE COURTS ARE SCREWING YOUR LIVELY HOOD OVER.REMEMBER NO MAN HAS DOMINION OVER ANY OTHER MAN.SO WHAT MAKES SOME OF YOU THINK THAT A LEGAL FICTION STATE WHICH IS NO LIVING PERSON BY THAT NAME HAVE POWER OVER A REAL MAN BY THE CREATOR OF THE LIVING WHEN YOU HAVE DAMAGED NO ONE.WHERE IS THE DISCOVERY MOTION AT. THERE IS NONE.AND A POLICE ,OR STATES ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE A WITNESS WHEN THERE IS NO ACCIDENT.BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THERE.SO WHAT GIVES THE POLICE THE POWER TO STOP YOU LAAWWWFFFUUULLLYY..THEY DO NOT LAWFULLY HAVE IT.ITS ALL ON PRESSUMPTION, AND ASSUMED.AND CAR ARE AUTOMOBILES PURCHASED AT AUTO DEALERSHIPS.AND ARE FOR PRIVATE USAGE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC,JUST LIKE YOUR FRIG IS AT HOME EVERYONE HAS.LOOK AT THE DIFFERENTS BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL FRIG,AND A CONVIENTIONAL ONE IN YOUR HOUSE,THERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT LOOKING.AND A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR DEALERSHIP BOUGHT CAR OR TRUCK.UNDER THE COMMERCIAL CLAUSE FOR HIRE A LICENSE IS ONLY REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS NOT IN THE PRIVATE.THATS ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIES EVER TOLD.AND CARS ARE NOT INHERITEDLY DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE,NO LICENSE FOR A HORSE RIGHT,NOW JUST THINK IF THE HORSE DECIDES TO THROW YOU OFF AND STUMP YOU.WILL THERE BE A COURT CASE FOR THAT FOR NOT HAVING A LICENSE. REMEMBER PEOPLE THESE COURTS ARE ONLY ADMINISTRATORS THE JUDGE IS BAR MEMBER FEEDING OFF YOUR IGNORANCES,AND STEALING YOUR MONEY,KEY EXAMPLE ONE OF THESE NAMES ARE A LEGAL FICTION AND ALL OF YOU HAVE A LEGAL FICTION NAME.YOU BEEN SCAMMED ALL YOUR LIFE. .John Henry is the real natural person, but… this.. JOHN HENRY is the fake dead legal fiction they are assuming you are. and trying to get you to claim that name spelled in capital letters.then they got silent consent because you answered to that name instead of telling them administrative crooks that capital spelling JOHN HENRY on that paper of there tell you to appear is not in this court and who's stealing off the decedents dead person trust that sounds like me that not me.JOHN HENRY. IS NOT ME John Henry..the living man.
the judges your talking about are not even Real judges,and the only real judges are in the supreme Court,and lot of the people who don't think people do not have the rights to travel are slaves. we all have been told that lie most of our lives. your rights come from the Creator, not man.or from some other Damn administrator policy makers Calling his self a judge he is BS you.he really is a Attorney supporting the banking entities these little courts,ARE NOT PART OF ANY JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT PERIOD! THEY ARE UNDER LEGISLATIVE POLITICAL POLICYS.AND NOT UNDER ANY JUDICIAL REAL LAWFUL POWER. THESE AMID! are under the house joint Resolution of 1933,this is AMERICA'S MOST PRESSING PROBLEM.THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY. President Roosevelt in the federal reserve started all this violation type of BS…and listen to this good!!! the state can not come up off the ground and go to the dam courthouse making a claim against NO MAN..BECAUSE NOBODY NAMED THERE CHILD THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.AND SOME OTHER NATURE PERSON RUN THE GROUND OVER WHICH IS NOT A LIVING NATURAL PERSON.AND THE ROADS ARE PUBLIC,NOW WHO IS THE PUBLIC,LOL' IT SURE IN THE HELL IS NOT THE STATE!! YOU ARE THE PUBLIC,THEN THAT TELLS YOU THE ANSWER IT IS TRUELY LAWFUL THAT YOU USE IT BY RIGHT! BUT SEE A PRIVATE FOREIGNERS FROM THE UNITED STATES…WHICH IS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS TRYING TO USE FOREIGN POWERS OVER HERE IN THE U.S.A.. WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THERE FOREIGN JURICDICTION OF ENITITY POWERS.IT IS A INFRINGEMENT TO TRY TO MIX PUBLIC LAW COMMON LAW WITH THERE PERSONAL PRIVATE CORPORATIONAL GAINS.OUTSIDE WASHINGTON D.C. YOU CAN LIEN THERE SURETY BONDS AND PROFORMANCE BONDS FOR DOING THIS THEN THAT ADMINISTRATOR OR COP THAT ARRESTED YOU IS ON THE HOOK FOR THE FRAUDULENT MATTER,FOR 30 YRS UNTIL THE DEBT TO YOU IS PAID.THESE COPS LOT OF THEM ARE TO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEY PUTTING THERE ASS'S ON THE LINE FOR 30 YRS DOING THESE AND IF YOUR MARRIED YOUR WIFE IS ALSO ON THE HOOK.AND THE FOLK I KNOW THATS DOING THESE STARTING AT $100,000 MOST OF THEM.SO TO YOU COPS YOU BETTER START LOOKING AT THESE BOND AND LEARN THE RISK YOU COULD BE FACING.ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR COMMERCIAL VIOLATIONS WHEN THERES NO PROPERTY OR PERSONAL DAMAGES.THESE COULD COME AS A BID SUPRISE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 OR 1984..WHEN THEY SUE YOU OR LIEN YOU,BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE INSURANCE TO KEEP WORKING AS A COP.OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL DOING THIS SENDING FOLKS TO JAIL FOR THIS.THE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO SET YOUR ASS'S UP NOW DAYS.AND NO ATTORNEY IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO HELP YOU,BECAUSE GUESS WHAT.MORE THEN LIKELY HE DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT SAME PERSON WHO SCREWED YOU UP WITH A LIEN ON HIM /HER/ BOND.THREW RISK MANAGEMENT ONES THEY FILE THAT CLAIM YOUR DONE.AND THERE IS NO STATUTORY BLACK LAW BS. THATS GOING TO SAVE YOU.THE PEOPLE CAN GO BACK AND CHARGE ANY AND EVERY OFFICIAL THAT CAME AGAINST IF IT WAS EVEN 50 PLUS YRS LATER.SO JUST WHEN YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS GREAT HERE COMES THE LIEN ON YOUR RETIREMENT OR HOUSE CARS INSURANCE OR YOU NAME IT…THE EARTH IS THE PEOPLE INHERITANCE.THE CREATOR GAVE NO STATE POWER TO DO NOTHING.ONLY MAN.TO GOVERNOR HIS OWN AFFAIR TO GO FROM BRETHERN TO WHER EVER HE PLEASE'S AS LONG AS HE DO NOT TRESPASS ON ANOTHER MANS. UNALIENABLE BIRTH RIGHT.AND THATS ALL THESE AGENCIES ARE DOING IS TRESPASSING ON THESE RIGHTS I MENTIONED HERE IT COMMON SENSE TO SEE THIS IS THE TRUTH.
Did those cases involve people who already waived their rights and had drivers licenses?
Thats driving while intoxicated which is completely different from traveling in a safe and responsible manner
WRONG BOOTLICKER, 1000% WRONG!!! THIS BULLSHIT WEBPAGE SHOWS ONE-SIDE OF THE FACTS ONLY, THE CORPORATE MARITME JURISPRUDENCE SIDE, WHICH IS NOT THE TRUE LAW OF THE LAND! ALL FEDERAL CODES AND STATUTES ARE NOT MEANT FOR "ALL" CITIZENS!! THEY ARE MEANT ONLY FOR 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENS, AKA CITIZENS OF "THE CORPORATION" AKA THE U.S. CORPORATION AKA ALL FED. EMPLOYEES!! 4 THE RECORD THEIR ARE "TWO TYPES OF CITIZENS 2 DIFFERENT STATUS'S!! AND THAT THEY DON'T TEACH YOU IN SCHOOL INTENTIONALLY!! IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AMERICA IS A CORPORATION AND NOT A COUNTRY… THATS THE MAIN PROBLEM!! LOOK IT UP!! ‘United States’ is a Federal corporation, says U.S. Code, Title 28 United States. This term has several meanings.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations,
[2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or
[3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
One reason congress may have created a corporation is to gain power or jurisdiction over the people who actually sit above the congress. We don’t have a king, so the people are sovereign. To circumvent this, congress created a corporation called United States, then creates franchises or sub-corporations using the ‘FIRST LAST’/’JOHN DOE’ name combination, and the parent corporation has jurisdiction over the subs. As stated in the Articles of Confederation, which is still law, the confederacy is called, “The United States of America.” https://www.educatedinlaw.org/2019/02/united-states-is-a-federal-corporation-says-u-s-code-title-28/
CORRECT BUT READ WHAT YOU SAID. IT APPLIES TO (motor vehicle)WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL vehicle USED IN COMMERCE. BUT WHEN A CAR IS USED FOR PRIVATE NON COMMERCIAL USE ITS NOT CONSIDERED AN(motor vehicle) BUT CLASSIFIED AS AN AUTOMOBILE! GET IT RIGHT. YOUR ARTICLE IS FLAWED WITH MISTAKES BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE. EVER HERE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AUTOMOBILE? NO BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DONT REGULATE PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THUS THEY ONLY HAVE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE WITH IS TO OPERATE A CONVEYANCE DEVICE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS FOR GAINS IN COMMERCE FOR BUSINESS. HOWEVER IF ONE ASSERTS THEIR GOD GIVEN ( NOT STATE GIVEN) RIGHT TO TRAVEL NOT FOR HIRE, ACCORDING TO THE United States Constitution, ITS DEFINED AS TRAVELING AND IS NOT GOVERNED BY STATUTES, BUT RATHER COMMON LAW. AND YOUR WRONG AGAIN. ITS NOT UP TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE. ITS UP TO THE WAY YOU OPERATE OT DONT OPERATE IN COMMERCE THAT DECIDES ANS SUPREME COURT HAVE UPHELD THIS FACT DOZENS OF TIMES IN CASE LAW. BOY THE SYSTEM HAD DONE AN AWESOME JOB HOODWINKING YOU LOL
I have traveled in my private unregistered automobiles fir many years with my private tags and have been pulled over at least 15 times in the past 5 years and in every case they cite me for a none contractual license signed under duress, no proof of ins. no state recognized tag or registration, and in every case they will never write me a warning, let alone a ticket. Ive even ask them to They insist on a verbal warning and 2 of them told me their car printers all sudden stopped working all sudden lol So Im guessing according to your article above, that they either they had to take a piss, it was end of shift, they had a date or just a rookie not wanting to deal with me right? WHAT EVER!! LOL
Continue to stand on your rights guys. We are winning!!
It's defined in Title 49 of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Transportation (49 CFR 390.5 Definitions). Courts can't change what is legally bound to the meanings of words.
The Courts use Blacks Law dictionary for all legal definitions.
Traveling is private, Driving is commercial. Anything in commerce can be regulated. The private cannot be regulated.
We live in a Republic, not a democracy. In a Republic the rights of the minority or the one are protected.
Republic= Private
Democracy= Corporate
Please don't provide misinformation.
I'm guessing you missed these portions of the article:
The three decisions made by the Supreme Court in 1915, 1927, and 1941, where the court upholds the state's right to regulate the operation of motor vehicles – the entire foundation of the article. Once the court has upheld those rights, like it says below – THE STATE COURTS DICTATE HOW THINGS ARE VIEWED UNDER IT'S LAWS.
"But I don't "drive" or use a "motor vehicle"! Those are legal terms used to enslave me and I'm smarter than that!
I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse (see Law Basics).
This gets deeper still. I have used this in court and walked away. I was pulled over and cited for driving without a license. However every state constitution as well as federal in some form or other state that "No title of nobility can be granted." A license is just that. Do your own research further on this if your serious about this. But I firsthand have had success in this situation because of it. Look at your state's constitution and find where it states that no state have the power to grant titles of nobility.
And you are making the assertion that a temporary (and required renewals,) is actually granting a title of nobility? That is absolutely absurd on it's face. The mere fact that you would mention it to push this ridiculous narrative shows extreme cognitive dissonance, or just plain stupidity.
Can you provide the court documents so we can verify what happened?
You need to understand what "titles of nobility" actually are. A license is NOT a title of nobility.
Sure it is a title of nobility. If you don't know the difference between YOUR NAME and Your Name then you may not understand the nature of the linguistic trick. YOUR NAME=a fictional title derived from a government creating a falsified document through the DMV. If a birth certificate cannot be used for identification then how can that document be used to generate a valid ID. It can't!
Your Name is the name you were given by your parents yet the government changed your identifyer and it's both an illegal and an unlawful action.
Please provide proof, court minutes, order dismissing charges on grounds of "traveling"
Well they want let you win the court well dismiss the charges.
Here is why they don't want you to know that you do mot need a driving licence and to let you know you at all because they have to come out and say they aka the state and the federal gov lied to us all about this.
.
TITLE 49–TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER III–FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 395_HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS–Table of Contents
Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.
(j) Travel time–(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at east 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
(2) When a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 8 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.1
What is your name? Are you a fiction or a human being? Person, Individuals are subjects, corporations,
Proper name, noun. Take your gas, electric pre-payed invoice to the postmaster General and ask him if you open that piece of mail. That is not your name. [NOUN] You can not open someone else's mail.
So then doctors shouldn't have to be licensed under your interpretation? Maybe I could just decide to be a surgeon one day and practice medicine. Or maybe I could be a lawyer without being licensed or taking the bar. I could also start writing prescriptions for everyone who wants controlled medicines without licensure, that would really be beneficial. It seems like every traveler is a perfect driver who has never had an accident and never injured anyone. Some statutes actually protect others. It seems as if many travelers were licensed at one time and due to their own mistakes lost their licenses and want to make excuses for their poor judgement.
first of all tray lawyers do not have license they are barr members.and do not have license to practice law,they practice legislation thats the only power they have and are allowed to practice or contracts. you are talking a de facto form of legislative bullshit.the laws come from the creator for man to follow.laws are of nature and as natural as you are a man, or the sunshine or darkness of the night.the creator made man born free, and with also freedom of movement..and the creator did say.no man has dominion over another man. and man is only endowed by there creator himself.and about license's when in the hell did god give a bunch of crooks in a man made organization the power to Rule over other free sovereignty people.when did the police or some ref, calling his ass a judge get any true power over a natural born man like he's god himself lol" his ass is only here on borrowed time just like you and me.that god the creator has made.men has did nothing but screwed up the world robbing the world for everything they can even robbing you, and you don't seem to see it, many of you on here don't get it, do you..also last but not all.Did the bible say that man shall inherited thee earth. so if the earth is ours inherited to use given to us all by the creator.who in the hell do we need to asked to use these dam roads.that suppose to be public roads used for our cars that people use at the conveyancy today are these people in these courts with dress's on telling us to stay off our on dam inheritance.trying to keep us from going to the store or across the country,to the hospital or shopping.or to work. on this ground.by the way who did you think own the dam! ground,and who made it and gave it to the state.and matter of fact who is the dam state in the flesh and blood that is accusing you for running over it,which is the dam ground,is the dam ground a injured party.i do not know no dam body with the name called state and illinois is there last name reading anything into the record,did the ground come in to the court room saying they were ran over by you. with real damages bloody and bleeding.and nor will it ever,or was the prosecutor a injured party,or the police.no!!! because they are legal fictions under the deadman act statute at large in illinois 601,602,603.meaning no public official can make a valid claim against real people without real damages to themselves as victim.because there would be no due process of a real crime committed you see,that perjury committed everytime they speak you see the fraud and they do it all the time because there is no accident with someone statement speaking into the record.a attorney is either a attorney.or a injured party he can't be a injured part and a witness at the same time,same thing goes for the police and farther more these clown thinking they know what law is. there sadly mistaken, a form of de facto legislation system which is no law at all, flat on its face.see this is the problem the people have gotten way to far away from the creator.these courts are ran by a group of heartless insane zoo animals for commerce,meaning your money under a bankruptcy clause since 1933 under the UCC. another thing administration is there jobs thats all!!! and that means theres a policy,rule, not a laws these people are not working in a real judical compacity for the WE THE PEOPLE CAN EVERYONE SEE IT NOW THAT READS THIS.. .they hide all natural freeborn real persons inalienable born right from them to make commerce$$$$$ stealing from the people,because the people were brought up and raised to believe something thats not real because your parents 95% of them did'nt know and was in the dark on this info.but the harsh truth is what the people do not know,and no one in there right mind will elect someone and put them in place and consent knowing!!! and would agreeing to have any elected official to jail them or fine them for some bs. by made up by a political rulemaker .to arborgate a man/woman rights in exchange that right for a privilege by getting a license to do a natural thing god said they have in there natural nature and thats the freedom of movement..TRAY i use to think like that until i found out that Rights come from the creator not man and his Bs. rules anyone can form. and change at any given time.
as they wish and impose his will on another sovereignty man/ woman.i don't care how many people say no.if you think so your a slave to the system and when they start taking your pension and retirement away.maybe they will tell you thats a law to that your family and you suppose to starve to dam death.watch they nature god gave you come out of your ass to know.and do whats natural.GOD GRANTED NO POWER TO ORGANIZATION BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REAL,THEY OUR MAN MADE LEGAL FICTIONS WITH NO BORN LIVING INTEREST TO A LIVING HUMAN GOD MADE… EXAMPLE FOLK DO YOU YOURSELF A FAVOR LOOK AT YOUR CREDIT CARDS OR ANY BILLS THAT COME IN THE MAIL,LOOK AT THE NAME THE WAY ITS WROTE.EXAMPLE( JOHN ROSS) CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH IS THE REAL LIVING JOHN ROSS..EXAMPLE 1.> (John Ross) or example 2.(JOHN ROSS).POST A REPLY WHEN YOU SEE WHICH ONES THE SYSTEM CLAIM IS YOU AND POST ME THE ANSWER.YOU PICKED
Yes you could but if you were not good at it you would close very soon
Look at the etymology of license. It is derived from licentious meaning an evil doer.
these laws apply to people of America , not persons of US like laws above . clearly states you are correct
The problem with this all is that since the act of 1871, the UNITES STATES, and the states have all become CORPORATIONS… We are under a CORPORATE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and not the republican form we have been given. WAGONS did a LOT of damage to roadways. Roads had to be maintained then.. But sudden bikes and cars are destructive enough to regulate? Come on. this is a matter of contract through the corporatocracy KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES WHICH HAS usurped THE CONSTITUTIONS REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE ARE SUPPOSE TO HAVE.. we are under corporations… Don't believe e.. Here are the DUNS and Bradstreet numbers which you can only get as a CORPORATION… Are we to have a CORPORATE GOVERNMENT? Or the LAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT promised to us in the constitution? After seeing USC 28 3002 (15) and othr laws making STATES CORPORATIONS you cannot convince me that we are not under a CORPORATOCRACY rather than a REPUBLIC..
TN DUN # State of Tennessee-04143882
http://www.citizensofidaho….
There were several acts passed in 1871, one was making DC the U.S. Capitol for federal government. Another was Klu Klux Klan act that was passed to protect freed slaves from violence. Which one are you referring too? Once motor vehicles became common place pedestrians were being ran over, there was property damage from inexperienced drivers, from drunks. There were accidents due to the lack of traffic signage. Never heard of two horse and carriages running into each other. They did have trouble with pedestrians. Wagons and vehicles both tore up unpaved roads. Also if a state or fed is a corporation, then why can't they file bankruptcy? All laws are passed the exact same way. Doesn't matter if it's traffic, family, corporate, or criminal. As long as the laws coincide with the constitution the Fed and states can pass any laws they want. If you don't like it run for President or the Senate and change it. Or simply vote for the people that believe as you do.
For Drivers License, I can see the point because it proves some (albeit likely very little) level of aptitude. But for vehicle registration, as long as you have the title, what if you were sick of the state you live in and decided to not renew registration
until moving to another state.
Really somewhat of a conundrum, because it would make
me very unmotivated to move my vehicle registration at all. I mean
really, why should I even care? These regulations are only as good as the greedy minds that wrote them on stripclub bar napkins.
Yes, they all mean the same thing.
Thanks for that …perfect !
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 Transportation. Someone has some reading to catch up on. He is entirely correct, about the misuse of the term 'driver'. and the freedom to travel.
The only person reading the parts they like and ignoring other parts would be YOU Joseph Romano. Your so quick to jump on the legislative bandwagon to feel as if you have importance to the topic you actually make yourself look ignorant by doing so in your comment alone.
Obviously you didn't pay attention in Civics class when the United States constitutional rights were reviewed. Do yourself a favor and do so before commenting any further
Lol, you're right – I don't rely on something a teacher said in high school, I'd rather listen to the Supreme Court. I am pretty sure their opinion means a little more.
@disqus_MlmZRC3AOx:disqus
I think you missed the overall point that some people were trying to make, and that is: due to the potential for conflicting data/legislation/information/rulings, some just don't concern themselves with the consequences of civil disobedience. I suppose some people find that fascinatingly absurd, just like others find blindly following what someone else says they have to do equally absurd. Maybe it's about freedom or maybe it's just about asking for forgiveness instead of permission, or something else, but whatever it is, I would bet money on it being the way the country's founders envisioned things.
It's absurd when there is no conflict. The dates of the Supreme Court Decisions stating that the states are well within their rights to require driver's license's are well after the nonsense these people are spewing. The Constitution leaves it up to the Supreme Court to make these decisions, and decide conflicts. They decided, clear as day.
Oh, and I guess I missed where the Constitution says you have a right to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. I did see where the Supreme Court ruled that the states have a right to regulate their roadways by requiring licenses and registrations, and, when the state is allowed to do so, it is the STATE who dictates what a motor vehicle is, what a driver is, etc. The Supreme Court does have the final say if the Constitution does not clearly spell it out, right?
Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1914) says that the state can license its drivers on page 622. That case was from 1914… what was the definition of a driver, or what was a driver commonly known to be back then? I wasn't born then, so I have to use old definitions. Black's law dictionary 2nd Edition (1910) and 3rd Edition (1933) both define driver the same way. DRIVER. one employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. I'm pretty sure that court case is being misapplied today. I mean, those were the definitions used back then, and they all talk about being employed. The case never talks about the right to travel by car, at all. It talks a lot about commerce though, and how licenses and fees do not interfere with commerce in an unconstitutional way. I know everyone hates those dictionaries, but 1914 was a long time ago, and I think it's important to define the terms using the definitions of those times.
Now a Supreme Court case that does specifically talk about the right to travel is Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 (1968). Now I know it mostly talks about freedom to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but an important part is on pages 630 and 631, well there are plenty of important parts, but the one I'd like to point out are on those pages.
It says, "The right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
It specifically said, "In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution". Very clear and concise.
So if freedom to travel is a basic right, can a state convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license, plate, and fee for it?
I would like to explain my position further, and may return later to do so, but, in the meantime, this is a pretty close facsimile of my argument. https://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states
You make a very good argument, but, that is the problem when the "human factor" figures into anything and we interpret things our own way. I see your point, and understand how it could easily be interpreted that way, unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not see the requirement by states of licenses and registrations as a violation of your right to travel – The Constitution says nothing about motor vehicles, so, the court believes you have the right to travel – just better not do it driving a vehicle if you don't have a license. The problem with the "driving vs traveling" stuff is that once the Supreme Court ruled the states could require licenses and registrations, it then becomes THE STATE'S definition of what operating a motor vehicle/driving/traveling is to support their individual traffic codes and laws.The Supreme Court only rules on whether or not there are Constitutional violations – they can not dictate the state's laws – they do so only as far as those laws being applied evenly, fairly, etc. https://pseudolaw.com/right-to-travel-united-states
A major problem in our country is that most politicians have law degrees, if you check, and things that seem pretty clear to us can be changed by one word and have completely different meanings in court – the fact we have so many "lawyers" in positions of power is why this country is so sue happy, and bogged down by lawsuits and legislation.
I don't really agree or disagree with any of the decisions, they all have some merit somewhere, but, as far as I can see, it has been decided until someone fights it up to the Supreme Court and overturns the current rulings.
As far as things being clear and concise in their meaning – I have always thought the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was pretty clear – but, the right politician putting the right people in the right places seems to be able to make a case out of that! The bottom line is that as long as there are human beings, there will always be different interpretations, often fueled by confirmation bias.
Who gives a f**k what the man-made laws say about the right to travel unmolested? The right to life is inalienable and in order to sustain life, one needs the necessities of food, water, clothes, and shelter. I find it immoral to impose a license and fee and the potential threat of force if one deems not to obey said immoral laws. This has nothing to do about safety and having everything to with control and we are the slaves. The sad thing. Most of the slaves will say I am crazy for saying such things.
Who gives a f**k what the man-made laws say about the right to travel unmolested? The right to life is inalienable and in order to sustain life, one needs the necessities of food, water, clothes, and shelter. I find it immoral to impose a license and fee and the potential threat of force if one deems not to obey said immoral laws. This has nothing to do about safety and having everything to with control and we are the slaves. The sad thing. Most of the slaves will say I am crazy for saying such things.
You are an idiot and a child.
There is no such thing as an inalienable right.
The right to live your life the way you see fit without encroaching on the rights of others is an inalienable right tracy. The right to say what you wish is an inalienable right. An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away without immediate and justified retaliation.
Tracy, please refrain from retort unless you know what your talking about. Your comment shows you are uneducated. Maybe have a neighborhood kid say a 6-year old read you the United States Declaration of Independence, it signifies rights that are granted by the Creator and cannot be taken away from the people. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Ever hear of …..life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.life? Didn't think so.
Declaration of independence was written to separate the colony from the kings territory and tyranny. It says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But it has nothing to do with our laws or rights. The constitution and bill of rights does that.
tracy is a satan worshipper ..
Inalienable = unalianable. Same definition. Get a dictionary or google it.
So you think it someone murdered or raped someone it's ok? Without laws there is anarchy, chaos. Everyone doing what they want without rules or regulation. If you want that then you can move to Mexico and live in a cartel controlled region.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the right to travel unmolested without paying fees and obtaining a license. At no time did I mention anything about murder and rape. That said, learn what anarchy is before you use the word. The MSM and the public education system brainwashed you to think anarchy = chaos. When in fact it simply means no ruling class. Anarchy has rules and laws based on the Natural Rights of man.
Cherán, a city in Mexico threw out it's police and cartel via a revolution. It is the closet thing to a city with over 30,000 people that practice the principles of Natural Law and anarchy. Since the purging of the ruling class, there has not been a violent crime in Cherán in over 30 years.
Look up definitions verry distinct difference between driver and a moter vehicle. v .Traveler and his car
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land
The Constitution
ARTICLE IV: STATES
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Bill Attainder ex post facto
Your State is either a Constitution Dillon's Rule State, Home Rule State, our Both….!
The Constitution is the Bylaws for which each Law Enforcement Public Servants sworn Oath to Protect it's State Constitution and protect the Public from Deceptive Business Practices….! and who formed Government Inc? The People's, their no law saying the People's is government's property…!
those laws only apply to persons it clearly states when you read …
I don't think you have read.,or if you did read, don't understand, what these court rulings say.
Look them up and read them again.
The Constitution is not applicable nor it is enforced in "ANY" of our courts read 11th Amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or Equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State"
Joseph you need to read Title18 part1 ch2 sec31 "definitions'
Any time someone starts a discussion with " You people" I've already made up my mind about you.
You mean that you lump a group of people together based on a particular belief or choice of words? That's a helluva coincidence, because I do the same with the words "Sovereign Citizens" and people who choose to believe in only the parts of the Constitution that they like, so, I know exactly how you feel.
Date 2020 MOTOR CARRIER – CFR / US CODE SUMMARY
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Compact
§390.5 Definitions.
Highway”* means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, “open” to “public travel”. “Open to public travel” means; that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or “regulations ” other than “restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration”. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates. [WITHOUT REGULATIONS] [Because everything is commerce]
§395.2 Definitions.
Driving time means all time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation.
PART 395_HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS–Table of Contents
Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.
(j) Travel time–(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at east 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
Unless one is a person he cannot be a driver. At the exact instant in time a particular person “is in actual physical control of a vehicle” that person is a driver—and not so until such time. There is no statute that provides for any type of driver other than a person
Persons are subjects—and in matters political there are only two species of actor: sovereign and subject. The former has supreme political authority (sovereignty) and governs the latter with absolute, uncontrollable power. Subjects have rights and duties (privileges and obligations), owe allegiance to, and are under the dominion, control, and influence, and enjoy the protection of, a sovereign; to wit:
person. . . . Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. . . .” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., s.v. “Person”]
[T]he term “person” does not include the sovereign . . . [Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)]
SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed ; supreme political authority Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Sovereignty.”
Union-state statutes define “person” as either a natural person or an individual. Examples of the former are as follows
“Person” means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. [Emphasis added.] [Utah Code, Title 41 Motor Vehicles Chapter 6a Traffic Code § 41-6a-102 Subsection 44]
The Supreme Courts has ruled in favor of the Constitution. The People who know but continue in the D.C. Jurisdiction, have done so out of coercion and harassment by policy (police) enforcers.
quick note. Reitz v. Mealey was about trying "to restrain the appellee from enforcing a suspension of the appellant's driver's license". Reitz already had a license and therefore his rights were waived. You seem to think it is ok to read the parts you like and ignore the relevance…
Maybe you missed this part of it – it's pretty relevant to whether you have to have a license or not:
"The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process."
In case you're not sure what that means, the Supreme Court is saying any means the state adopts to insure competence and care are ok.
1000% WRONG!! THIS BULLSHIT WEBPAGE SHOWS ONE-SIDE OF THE FACTS ONLY, THE CORPORATE MARITME JURISPRUDENCE SIDE, WHICH IS NOT THE TRUE LAW OF THE LAND! ALL FEDERAL CODES AND STATUTES ARE NOT MEANT FOR "ALL" CITIZENS!! THEY ARE MEANT ONLY FOR 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENS, AKA CITIZENS OF "THE CORPORATION" AKA THE U.S. CORPORATION AKA ALL FED. EMPLOYEES!! 4 THE RECORD THEIR ARE "TWO TYPES OF CITIZENS 2 DIFFERENT STATUS'S!! AND THAT THEY DON'T TEACH YOU IN SCHOOL INTENTIONALLY!! IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AMERICA IS A CORPORATION AND NOT A COUNTRY… THATS THE MAIN PROBLEM!! LOOK IT UP!! ‘United States’ is a Federal corporation, says U.S. Code, Title 28 United States. This term has several meanings.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations,
[2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or
[3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
One reason congress may have created a corporation is to gain power or jurisdiction over the people who actually sit above the congress. We don’t have a king, so the people are sovereign. To circumvent this, congress created a corporation called United States, then creates franchises or sub-corporations using the ‘FIRST LAST’/’JOHN DOE’ name combination, and the parent corporation has jurisdiction over the subs. As stated in the Articles of Confederation, which is still law, the confederacy is called, “The United States of America.” https://www.educatedinlaw.org/2019/02/united-states-is-a-federal-corporation-says-u-s-code-title-28/
Lol. The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that states are within their rights to require driver's licenses and car registrations. When the Constitution of the United States was ratified by the colonies, it became the law of the land, nullifying any previous law. Any conflicting interpretations of the Constitution are decided by the Supreme Court – Period. Not sure why that is so hard to figure out or understand. To put it bluntly – here's the definition.
"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America"
No, actually, the articles of Confederation are NOT still law.
" However, as more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention. It was quickly agreed that changes would not work, and instead the entire Articles needed to be replaced.[3] On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution."
It defies common sense to think that they would ratify a new Constitution and keep the old one, so that they had two conflicting documents. That's completely ridiculous.
Even in posting the definition, you people seem to ignore the fact that it could be any one of the three:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
The congress of the U.S.ofA created a corporation and gave it the name ‘United States’ to fool everyone, as far as I am concerned.
And that last sentence there well, that just screams absolute law – nothing says SCOTUS decision like "As far as I am concerned" and I also recall all of those things our founding fathers did "just to fool everyone". Depending on the usage, the United States COULD mean any one of the three. Your misinterpretation of the law, and the basis for which you people cite "because we said so" is nothing short of ignorance at it's finest. Go fight it in court, and then post the SCOTUS decision showing you won.
No, actually, the articles of Confederation are NOT still law.
" However, as more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention. It was quickly agreed that changes would not work, and instead the entire Articles needed to be replaced.[3] On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution."
It defies common sense to think that they would ratify a new Constitution and keep the old one, so that they had two conflicting documents. That's completely ridiculous.
Even in posting the definition, you people seem to ignore the fact that it could be any one of the three:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
The congress of the U.S.ofA created a corporation and gave it the name ‘United States’ to fool everyone, as far as I am concerned.
And that last sentence there well, that just screams absolute law – nothing says SCOTUS decision like "As far as I am concerned" and I also recall all of those things our founding fathers did "just to fool everyone". Depending on the usage, the United States COULD mean any one of the three. Your misinterpretation of the law, and the basis for which you people cite "because we said so" is nothing short of ignorance at it's finest. Go fight it in court, and then post the SCOTUS decision showing you won.
I forgot to add that the blog information you posted is horse sh**, by the way. Like I said, the Articles of Confederation are NOT still law, especially because some guy who wrote a blog said so, and the SCOTUS certainly does not rely on the Articles of Confederation for any of it's rulings. The Constitution is the law of the land. Period.
I wish people like you that hate America would just move to another country and leave us alone. We've been screwed out of our unalienable rights for way too long. So either be part of the solution or get out.
This is a free country. All you supposed "patriots" seem to forget that it's not YOUR country and that a free country consists of all people of all opinions and beliefs. Me, personally? I would love it if every idiot that doesn't understand the Constitution of the United States replaced the Articles of Confederation and every other document that you people cite as examples for your gibberish, would STFU. Even the ones who misinterpret the actual Constitution completely ignore that the Supreme Court has decided more than once since your circa 1910 court decisions, that it is completely Constitutional for the states to require driver's licenses and registrations.
It's not a difficult process we have and not too hard to follow.
I am part of the solution – I can read. I know what SCOTUS decisions are and what they mean. I know that the Constitution replaced the documents you folks are getting your "unalienable rights" fom.
The real problem is the lack of knowledge of the words used to form the sentences of the cases.
2000 years of legal language defines ONLY what those words can mean. Then there is 49USC the power of Congress to regulate commerce in the COMMERCE clause which makes State law Subserviant to Congressional power. No state can enforce a code high that that of the Federal Transportation code amd must get permission to enforce those laws on the public “Drivers/ operators” of Motor Vehicle; 18 USC 31(6)” and vehicles ; Blacks law dictionary ( SCOTUS source document of language of the law)
Miranda vs Arizona is a case you are using to support your bullshit?
Laughable… At best. All Miranda did was ensure that officers read the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments before they question an arrestee or arrest a suspect.
If you would read the amendments in question the biggest "right to remain silent" only involveps protections to remain silent when being questioned about a commission of a crime, or if answering the question may incriminate you "unless arraigned before a grand jury"
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." — Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S 436 (1966)
Perhaps your argument is that there is no constitutional protected 'right to travel?'
Sorry, had to stop reading after the quote from your VERY FIRST case does not exist.
First have you actually read the cases you have sited.
For your cases sited:
THE CHICAGO MOTOR COACH COMPANY et al. Appellants, vs. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. Appellees, commonly called Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago was argued before the Supreme Court of ILLINOIS, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Jun 19, 1929. I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The issue in this case was whether a municipality in Illinois had the authority to could ban or require a special permit from the city in order to operate an omnibus not pulled by horses but rather running off an internal combustion engine. The city of Chicago passed an ordinance requiring a bus company to be approved by the local government and had 3 times refused to authorize the Chicago Coach Co. the necessary permit even though the previous administrations had done so and the bus something like 250 buses ran daily prior to the ordinance. The argument was that the state retained such authority and had vested in municipalities only 110 powers, of which restricting a particular type of vehicle from the roads was not one of the powers. The state supreme court agreed the city could not restrict a type of vehicle from the road. They could require it to be maintained and properly operated but not state all municipal buses are illegal within the municipal limits on municipal streets. All streets were directly under the control of the state legislature not the municipalities. Municipalities may build, expand, maintain, … roads, alleys, … Municipalities may establish regulations for safe use of roads, alleys, … but not ban a particular type of vehicle.
W. L. Thompson v. D. C. Smith, Chief of Police, commonly called Thompson v. Smith, was argued before the Supreme Court of VIRGINIA, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Sep 12, 1930. I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The case involved the question of whether Smith had the right to revoke the certification of Thompson as a safe driver, not whether such certification was required. The case effectively recognizes the right of the state (Virginia) or communities within the state to require certification. Such certification we now call a drivers license.
Kent, et al. v. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, commonly called Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was argued April 10, 1958 and decided June 16, 1958. The issue was the US State Department was refusing to issue passports to individuals that were known or suspected members of the Communist Party or supports of the idea of communism. The US Supreme Court ordered the State Department must issue the passports as citizens had the right to travel as they have no authority to curtail or restrict travel based on beliefs or associations. The case did not deal with travel within the United States at all. Of the decision, the following is the closest one may take to the issue at hand, "If a citizen's liberty to travel is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of Congress, any delegation of the power must be subject to adequate standards, and such delegated authority will be narrowly construed." Please note using this case, does not support the idea travel may not be limited in the United States as the decision clearly states Congress may regulate travel but within narrow limits. Therefore states also have the authority also within narrow limits. States allow travel. States restrict travel via certain modes of transportation on certain roads and highways, such restrictions meant to prevent harm to travellers and insure the normal flow of traffic. States restrict certain forms of travel requiring certification and licensing. These do not violate any section of the decision in Kent v. Dulles.
Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938, was argued before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, District of Columbia Circuit, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Jun 23, 1955. Again I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The case was very similar to Kent v. Dulles above with only minor differences. Again the issue was US passport, international travel, and a member of Communist Party. It had nothing to do with driving and made no mention of operating or riding in any vehicle (unlike Kent v. Dulles) but it did mention their was a right to travel by foot. The decision was members of the Communist Party could not be denied passports. The case, if you check the dates, antedates Kent v. Dulles which makes since as it was in a lower court.
If you are going to cite case law, might I suggest you read the cases you are citing. It weakens the credibility of your arguments immeasurably.
It looks like you someone just did a computer search on court cases with the phrase "right to travel" in the deciding opinion and pounced on them. If you can come up with cases that actually deal with the subject you might consider presenting them. Please make sure in the process the decisions were not overturned subsequently either by a higher court or a later court of the same jurisdiction and level.
First have you actually read the cases you have sited.
For your cases sited:
THE CHICAGO MOTOR COACH COMPANY et al. Appellants, vs. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. Appellees, commonly called Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago was argued before the Supreme Court of ILLINOIS, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Jun 19, 1929. I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The issue in this case was whether a municipality in Illinois had the authority to could ban or require a special permit from the city in order to operate an omnibus not pulled by horses but rather running off an internal combustion engine. The city of Chicago passed an ordinance requiring a bus company to be approved by the local government and had 3 times refused to authorize the Chicago Coach Co. the necessary permit even though the previous administrations had done so and the bus something like 250 buses ran daily prior to the ordinance. The argument was that the state retained such authority and had vested in municipalities only 110 powers, of which restricting a particular type of vehicle from the roads was not one of the powers. The state supreme court agreed the city could not restrict a type of vehicle from the road. They could require it to be maintained and properly operated but not state all municipal buses are illegal within the municipal limits on municipal streets. All streets were directly under the control of the state legislature not the municipalities. Municipalities may build, expand, maintain, … roads, alleys, … Municipalities may establish regulations for safe use of roads, alleys, … but not ban a particular type of vehicle.
W. L. Thompson v. D. C. Smith, Chief of Police, commonly called Thompson v. Smith, was argued before the Supreme Court of VIRGINIA, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Sep 12, 1930. I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The case involved the question of whether Smith had the right to revoke the certification of Thompson as a safe driver, not whether such certification was required. The case effectively recognizes the right of the state (Virginia) or communities within the state to require certification. Such certification we now call a drivers license.
Kent, et al. v. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, commonly called Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was argued April 10, 1958 and decided June 16, 1958. The issue was the US State Department was refusing to issue passports to individuals that were known or suspected members of the Communist Party or supports of the idea of communism. The US Supreme Court ordered the State Department must issue the passports as citizens had the right to travel as they have no authority to curtail or restrict travel based on beliefs or associations. The case did not deal with travel within the United States at all. Of the decision, the following is the closest one may take to the issue at hand, "If a citizen's liberty to travel is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of Congress, any delegation of the power must be subject to adequate standards, and such delegated authority will be narrowly construed." Please note using this case, does not support the idea travel may not be limited in the United States as the decision clearly states Congress may regulate travel but within narrow limits. Therefore states also have the authority also within narrow limits. States allow travel. States restrict travel via certain modes of transportation on certain roads and highways, such restrictions meant to prevent harm to travellers and insure the normal flow of traffic. States restrict certain forms of travel requiring certification and licensing. These do not violate any section of the decision in Kent v. Dulles.
Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938, was argued before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, District of Columbia Circuit, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Jun 23, 1955. Again I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The case was very similar to Kent v. Dulles above with only minor differences. Again the issue was US passport, international travel, and a member of Communist Party. It had nothing to do with driving and made no mention of operating or riding in any vehicle (unlike Kent v. Dulles) but it did mention their was a right to travel by foot. The decision was members of the Communist Party could not be denied passports. The case, if you check the dates, antedates Kent v. Dulles which makes since as it was in a lower court.
If you are going to cite case law, might I suggest you read the cases you are citing. It weakens the credibility of your arguments immeasurably.
It looks like you someone just did a computer search on court cases with the phrase "right to travel" in the deciding opinion and pounced on them. If you can come up with cases that actually deal with the subject you might consider presenting them. Please make sure in the process the decisions were not overturned subsequently either by a higher court or a later court of the same jurisdiction and level.
First have you actually read the cases you have sited.
For your cases sited:
THE CHICAGO MOTOR COACH COMPANY et al. Appellants, vs. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. Appellees, commonly called Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago was argued before the Supreme Court of ILLINOIS, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Jun 19, 1929. I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The issue in this case was whether a municipality in Illinois had the authority to could ban or require a special permit from the city in order to operate an omnibus not pulled by horses but rather running off an internal combustion engine. The city of Chicago passed an ordinance requiring a bus company to be approved by the local government and had 3 times refused to authorize the Chicago Coach Co. the necessary permit even though the previous administrations had done so and the bus something like 250 buses ran daily prior to the ordinance. The argument was that the state retained such authority and had vested in municipalities only 110 powers, of which restricting a particular type of vehicle from the roads was not one of the powers. The state supreme court agreed the city could not restrict a type of vehicle from the road. They could require it to be maintained and properly operated but not state all municipal buses are illegal within the municipal limits on municipal streets. All streets were directly under the control of the state legislature not the municipalities. Municipalities may build, expand, maintain, … roads, alleys, … Municipalities may establish regulations for safe use of roads, alleys, … but not ban a particular type of vehicle.
W. L. Thompson v. D. C. Smith, Chief of Police, commonly called Thompson v. Smith, was argued before the Supreme Court of VIRGINIA, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Sep 12, 1930. I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The case involved the question of whether Smith had the right to revoke the certification of Thompson as a safe driver, not whether such certification was required. The case effectively recognizes the right of the state (Virginia) or communities within the state to require certification. Such certification we now call a drivers license.
Kent, et al. v. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, commonly called Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was argued April 10, 1958 and decided June 16, 1958. The issue was the US State Department was refusing to issue passports to individuals that were known or suspected members of the Communist Party or supports of the idea of communism. The US Supreme Court ordered the State Department must issue the passports as citizens had the right to travel as they have no authority to curtail or restrict travel based on beliefs or associations. The case did not deal with travel within the United States at all. Of the decision, the following is the closest one may take to the issue at hand, "If a citizen's liberty to travel is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of Congress, any delegation of the power must be subject to adequate standards, and such delegated authority will be narrowly construed." Please note using this case, does not support the idea travel may not be limited in the United States as the decision clearly states Congress may regulate travel but within narrow limits. Therefore states also have the authority also within narrow limits. States allow travel. States restrict travel via certain modes of transportation on certain roads and highways, such restrictions meant to prevent harm to travellers and insure the normal flow of traffic. States restrict certain forms of travel requiring certification and licensing. These do not violate any section of the decision in Kent v. Dulles.
Shachtman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938, was argued before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, District of Columbia Circuit, not the US Supreme Court. The case took place Jun 23, 1955. Again I do not know if that was date argued, date decided, or both. The case was very similar to Kent v. Dulles above with only minor differences. Again the issue was US passport, international travel, and a member of Communist Party. It had nothing to do with driving and made no mention of operating or riding in any vehicle (unlike Kent v. Dulles) but it did mention their was a right to travel by foot. The decision was members of the Communist Party could not be denied passports. The case, if you check the dates, antedates Kent v. Dulles which makes since as it was in a lower court.
If you are going to cite case law, might I suggest you read the cases you are citing. It weakens the credibility of your arguments immeasurably.
It looks like you someone just did a computer search on court cases with the phrase "right to travel" in the deciding opinion and pounced on them. If you can come up with cases that actually deal with the subject you might consider presenting them. Please make sure in the process the decisions were not overturned subsequently either by a higher court or a later court of the same jurisdiction and level.
What everyone fail to see is these so called judges in these courtrooms are frauds …article 1 section 10 states only gold or silver coin to be used for payment of debts & instead we use the imf of The United Nations see 22 usc 286……
1. The United States went "Bankrupt" in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, (See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the "Trading With The Enemy Act" (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.
2. The several States of the Union then pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous committees, such as the "Council of State Governments", "Social Security Administration", etc., to purportedly deal with the contrived economic "Emergency" caused by the bankruptcy. These Organizations operated under the "Declaration of Interdependence" of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in " Book Of The States."
NOTE: The Council of State Governments has now been absorbed into such things as the "National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws", whose Headquarters Office is located at 676 North St. Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and "all" being "members of the Bar", and operating under a different "Constitution and by-laws" has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported statutory provisions, to "help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable." (See: 1990/1991 Reference Book, National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, pg. 2)
This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote "we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130)
3. In view of Robert H. Bork's statement, it is more than worthy of note that there is an "Original" 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Title of Nobility" Amendment that reads:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
4. In January, 1810, Senator Philip Reed of Maryland proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid move for ratification.
On May 13, 1813, the State of Connecticut failed to ratify this original 13th Amendment, leaving it to Virginia to be the required 13th state to ratify. Virginia ratified with the March 12, 1819 publication of the Laws of Virginia. Connecticut then published it in four separate editions of "The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S. Constitution in 1821, 1824, 1835 and 1839. Then, without record or explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution by many of the other states until after the Civil War and into the Reconstruction period – when it mysteriously disappeared from all subsequent printings, the last official publication found being the 1876 Laws of the Territory of Wyoming Frontis Page, Amendment 13.
5. The Reorganization of the bankruptcy is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The "Explanation" at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The "Secretary of Treasury" was appointed as the "Receiver" in Bankruptcy. (See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967) Since a bankrupt loses control over his business, this appointment to the "Office of Receiver" in bankruptcy had to have been made by the "creditors" who are "foreign powers or principals".
6. The United States as Corporator, (22 U.S.C.A. 286E, et seq.) and "State" (C.R.S. 24-36- 104, C.R.S. 24-60-1301(h)) had declared "Insolvency." (See: 26 I.R.C. 165(g)(1), U.C.C. 1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22–103.5, Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W. 2d 911; Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall. 447) A permanent state of "Emergency" was instituted, formed and erected within the Union through the contrivance, fraud and avarice of the International Financial Institutions, Organizations, Corporations and Associations, including the Federal Reserve, their "fiscal and depository agent" — whose member banks are "privately owned corporations". 22 U.S.C.A. 286d
7. The government, by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242) The real party in interest is not the de jure "United States of America" or "State", but "The Bank" and "The Fund." (22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103) The acts committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" i.e. "recapture." (See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323)
THE BANKRUPTCY HAS NEVER ENDED!
8. On March 17, 1993, on page 1303 of Volume 33 of the Congressional Record, Congressman Traficant stated:
"Mr. Speaker, We are now here in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government."
9. This is an amazing confession as it applies, not only to "Members of Congress," but also to the Secretary of the Treasury as the "Receiver in bankruptcy" and to all state and federal "officials" who act under the de facto authority of that bankrupt Foreign Corporation known as the United States as trustees (foreign agents) for foreign principals. Trustees work for the creditors of a bankruptcy and are agents for foreign principals. In this case the creditors are the Federal Reserve Banks, the International Monetary Fund (the Fund) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the Bank). (see: Who Is Running America?)
10. It is worthy of note that an Attorney/Representative is required to file a "Foreign Agents Registration Statement" pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611c(1)(iv), 612 & 613), when representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. (See: Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951)
11. It is said that the economic Crash of '29 and the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve withholding currency from circulation and raising interest rates after an inflationary easy money policy in the early 1920s. The Federal Reserve's fear of excessive speculation led it into a far too deflationary policy in the late 1920s: "destroying the village in order to save it."
The U.S. economy was already past the peak of the business cycle when the stock market crashed in October of 1929. So it looks as though the Federal Reserve did "overdo it"–did raise interest rates too much, and bring on the recession that they had hoped to avoid.
This contrived "emergency" created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgments of Constitutionally delegated Powers and Authority as clearly stated in Senate Report 93-549 (1973):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, [-1814 years now in 119] freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by statutes of national emergency."
12. According to American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, NO "emergency" justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. Arguendo, "Supremacy Clause" and "Separation of Powers." It is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549 that abridgment has occurred.
FRAUD
13. On March 6, 1933 the federal government got the Conference of Governors to pledge the faith and credit of the several States of the Union and their citizenry to the aid of the National Government, (see pp. 18 – 24 of The Public Papers And Addresses of Franklin Roosevelt, Volume II, The Year Of Crisis, March 6, 1933) for what they openly admitted to doing. They encouraged the President to ask for and use extra-constitutional powers during the "emergency" that continues to this day.
"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted IN a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are NOT altered by emergency." – Home Building & Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words, that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority. -– Supreme Court (1866) Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2
14. This property, the faith and credit of the citizenry of the several States, was the collateral accepted by the creditors (foreign principals) so the federal government could borrow more Federal Reserve Notes (private bank credit) and keep operating under reorganization. Roosevelt issued Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 within days of his inauguration Mar 4, 1933.
6073 issued on March 10, 1933, called the "bank holiday" which closed the doors of the bankrupt government chartered banks (they were bankrupt as a whole).
6102 issued on April 5, 1933, prohibited "hoarding" gold and required people to turn it (their property) in to the Federal Reserve Banks (the creditors).
6111 issued on April 20, 1933, prohibited people from exporting gold (because now it wasn't theirs anymore).
6260 issued on August 20, 1933, combined 6102 and 6111.
All this is totally unlawful unless someone other than the people owned the people's possessions. Yet, they are still being pledged as collateral, secured by UCC commercial liens, which are still being monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve, to be surrendered if they needed to be under the orders of the bankruptcy, and thereby have deprived the people of clear title to their property under color of a contrived emergency."
15. These proclamations gave force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of unconstitutional powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process. Continued…….
Continued from above…..
16. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. The several States were seduced into the new policy in 1939, with Roosevelt's promise of federal grants-in-aid. Federal Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. ( 6700 et seq.) is the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In return for these grants, the states would agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debt obligations of the Federal government. The politicians of these respective states gladly complied, because they viewed this as an opportunity to increase their own political power, letting the next generation of office holders worry over the long term consequences of their acts.
17. On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon. (See: the Congressional Record, May 23, 1933, pp. 4055-4058.)
18. Such persons fraudulently swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and the several Republican States of the Union, and breached the Duty to protect the People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and stealthy encroachment. (See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074, The Tempting Of America, supra, pgs. 155 – 159, also see, 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69 – 71, C.R.S. 24-75-101)
19. Such principles as "Fraud and Justice never dwell together" (Wingate's Maxims 680), and "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." (Broom's maxims 297, 729; Cowper's Reports 343; 5 Scott's New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800) These basic principles may be too high a thought concept for our judges, legislators, and public servants, as are "Due Process", "Just Compensation" and "Justice" itself. Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not by or under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color of the cloth one wears will not cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery and deceptions.
20. In 1938, the whole country was bankrupted! The creditors (foreign powers) seized ownership of the flag, State governments, their laws and constitutions, including every last comma and period, and the whole country and its citizens! It placed us in peonage. The 1937 Edition of the Book of the States openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Agro Related Industry had already been reduced to mere feudal "Tenants" on their Land, see the Book Of The States, Book II, Volume II, 1937, p 155. It is the most humungous fraud ever perpetrated in human history. But "government officials", both State and federal, went along with it, and continue to keep it all secret from the American people.
21. In 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act", (4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113). In Section 110(e), the Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act" of 1939. This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay.
22. Thus the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. (See Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.)) This "Federal area" purportedly attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the purported authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal constitution.
Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as "property", as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". (See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
23. Under the "Buck Act" the federal government has created "Federal areas" within the boundaries of all the several States. These areas are similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in these "federal areas". Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's yellow fringed U.S. flag displayed in schools, public buildings and most courtrooms.
A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag, and under the Law of the Flag implies an Admiralty Merchant Equity Law, Military Law, or Martial Law Jurisdiction, thereby suspending Constitutional Law. It is NOT a Title 4 U.S.C. 1 United States Flag. Within a courtroom, the bar is emblematic of the rail of a ship, the court judge(s) the captain(s) of said ship, interpreting the laws according to the jurisdiction decreed by the displayed flag. BE AWARE!
A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." — Thomas Paine
24. In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the "Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. "Essential Engine" (See: Federalist Papers No. 31) was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. (See: Public Law 89-719, Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see, C.R.S. 5-1- 106).
25. The Uniform Commercial Code was, of course, promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with the American Law Institute for the "banking and business interests." (See: Handbook Of The National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, (1966) Ed. pgs. 152 & 153).
26. Things steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970, President Nixon issued Proclamation No. 3972, declaring an "emergency" because the Postal Employees struck against the de facto government for higher pay, due to inflation of the paper "Bills of Credit." (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 596) Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under the control of the "Department of Defense." (See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 (1969))
27. The contrived "emergency" has created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgements of delegated Powers and Authority as stated in Senate Report 93-549:
28. The statements heard in the Federal and State Tribunals, on numerous occasions, that Constitutional arguments are "immaterial", "frivolous" etc., is based upon concealment, furtherance and compounding of the frauds and "Emergency" created and sustained by the "Expatriated", ALIENS of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and Associations. (See: Letter, Insight Magazine, February 18, 1991, pg. 7, Lowell L. Flanders, President, U.N. Staff Union, New York) 8 U.S.C.A. 1481 is one of the controlling statutes on expatriation as is 22 U.S.C.A. 611 – 613 and 50 U.S.C.A. 781.
29. This of course complies with "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars", Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people. (See: pg. 3 & 7). The Internal Revenue Service entered into a "service agreement" with the U.S. Treasury Department (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5987, Reorganization Plan No. 26) and the Agency for International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For International Development is an International paramilitary operation (See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1- -10(7)(c)(1), 22 U.S.C.A. 284), and includes such activities as "Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area." (See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)) also see, Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of The United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A. 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that the "Agreement" regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record – Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.
Continued from above…..
30. The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41 10 further describes the International "Civil Affairs" operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the Agency for International Development is autonomous and under direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at page 3-8, that the operation is "paramilitary." The International Organization(s) intents and purposes was to promote, implement and enforce a "DICTATORSHIP OVER FINANCE IN THE UNITED STATES." (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186)
It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service Agents etc., are "Agents of a Foreign Principal" within the meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938." They are directed and controlled by the corporate "Governor" of The Fund" a/k/a "Secretary of Treasury" (See: Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480 & 481, 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11), Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10), and the corporate "Governor" of "The Bank" 22 U.S.C.A. 286 & 286a, acting as "information service employees 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(ii), and have been and do now "solicit, collect, disburse or dispense contribution (Tax – pecuniary contribution, Black's Law Dict. 5th ed.), loans, money or other things of value for or in interest of such foreign principal 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements with a Foreign Principal pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91 i.e. the "Agency For International Development." (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(2))
31. Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign Agents Registration Statement, 22 U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951, military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. (See: Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100- 70, Military Law Review, Vol. 70)
32. An unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable oligarchy of expatriates and aliens, who fraudulently claim that they intend to establish "rational and equitable international economic relations", yet openly declared that they no longer "stabilize the value of the dollar" nor "assure the value of the coin and currency of the United States" is purely misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. (See: Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227, at pg. 1229)
This was augmented by Public Law 101-167, 103 Stat. 1195, which discloses massive appropriations of rehypothecated debt credit for the general welfare and common defense of other Foreign Powers, including "Communist" countries or satellites, International control of natural and human resources, etc. etc.. A "Resource" is a claim of "property" and when related to people constitutes "slavery."
33. ,The covert procedure used to implement and enforce these Foreign Constitutions, Laws, Procedures, Rules, Regulations, etc., has not yet been fully collected and assimilated nor presented as evidence to establish seditious collusion and conspiracy. Our patience and tolerance for those who pervert the very necessary and basic foundations of society has been pushed to insufferable levels. They have "fundamentally" changed the form and substance of the de jure Republican form of Government guaranteed to each State under Article 4, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, exhibited a willful and wanton disregard for the Rights, Safety and Property of others, evinced a despotic design to reduce the people to slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude, under a fraudulent, tyrannical, seditious foreign oligarchy, with intent and purpose to institute, erect and form a "Dictatorship" over all Citizens and their Posterity.
34. Pactions, Confederations, and Alliances, and under pretense of "emergency", which they themselves created, promoted and furthered, formed a multitude of offices and retained those of alien allegiance to perpetuate their frauds and to eat out the substance of the good and productive people of this Land. They have trespassed on our Lives, Liberties, Properties and Families and endangered our Peace, Safety, Welfare and Dignity.
LAWBREAKING
35. In the field of law we got removal of federal common law with the Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins case, 304 US 64; and the hodgepodging of the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known as "One Form Of Action"; as two of the main insanities dictated by the new owners. Law and Equity does not mix any better than oil and water.
36. Sometime between 1958 and 1970 admiralty was mixed in with the "One Form of Action" "civil actions". (See Rule 1 in the 1958 and 1970 Editions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Title 28 United States Code.)
37. In Federalist Paper No. 83 Hamilton expressed, "My convictions are equally strong that great advantages result from the separation of the equity and the law jurisdiction …" The Constitution establishes the three jurisdictions as separate in Article III.
38. There is no Constitutional authority for operating in bankruptcy under Martial Law/Rule. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches no longer exist, as the de jure government has fraudulently been dissolved and the entire country has been received in bankruptcy by the Fund (IMF) and World Bank through a series of "emergency war powers" acts.
39. The intent and objective of the bankruptcy was not to resolve any "emergency"; it was to create one for the express purpose of changing the governmental, social, economic and industrial character of the de jure society, to infringe and abrogate inalienable Rights, steal and alienate the birth Rights of the People, impair the obligations of honest contracts, to defraud and obtain a benefit therefrom, create turbulence and contention, overthrow, and to establish a corrupt totalitarian oligarchy and combination, in direct contravention to the Law of the Land, and against the Peace, Dignity and Security of We The People (the real State).
40. Because the States also are now bankrupt entities means that now not even the (de facto) State courts have any sovereignty; no enforceable jurisdiction, and can only invite participants into court! State courts are now only courts of mediation. Fines collected by these courts go to the Federal Reserve Banks, the depository agents for the Fund and the Bank. Thus, administrative agents in this State are also acting as trustees and agents for foreign principals, and are required to register as such.
DE FACTO OPERATIONS
41. IF "public officials" represent the people under the Constitution, they can only collect, use, and be paid in Constitutional money, gold and silver. And they can only operate at common law in all criminal matters except for Maritime contracts.
42. Federal Reserve Banks are private banks; check the government and private pages of the telephone book to see where they are listed. IF "public officials" use Federal Reserve "Notes," or funds reducible only to Federal Reserve "Notes" in public business, they are using non-redeemable, dishonored, impaired, depreciated, rehypothecated, interagency, international bills of debt/credit, and have to be operating only a de facto government, which is treason to their oaths of office and violations of their agency obligations to the sovereign people, and in this case, for foreign principals. See: Who Is Running America? for a listing of the major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Staff Report of the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976, titled "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence" which delineates the interlocking directorships of the shareholders.
AGAIN – "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." — Thomas Paine
43. It is a clearly established principle of law that a corporation being incorporeal and a creature of the law must be represented by an attorney. An attorney representing an artificial entity, such as the (de facto) "State of (pick one of the states)" must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand. A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 USC Section 612 et seq.). See Victor Rabinowitz et. al. v Robert F. Kennedy 376 US 605.
44. Failure to file said "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement" goes directly to the jurisdiction, and lack of standing to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to 18 USC þþ 219, & 951. The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious. "NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS." See Bible, Luke 16:13, Jeffery v Pounds, 67 Cal.App.3d 6, Cinema 5 v Cinerama 528 F 2d 1384, Easly v Brookline Trust 256 SW 2d 983.
45. In US v Woodly 726 F 2d 1328 and 751 F 2d 1008, it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another Department or others, is not an Article III de jure judge. And in US v Ferreira 13 How 42 it is ruled that a judge who can be influenced by another (not independent), is only a commissioner under a treaty. There is no authority under the Constitution for Statutory Administrative courts.
"We (Courts) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." — Cohen v Virginia 6 Wheat 264
"In all Cases … in which a State shall be a Party … the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction …" Article 3, Section 2, U.S. Constitution.
46. Judges who pretend judicial power without really having it, and when they act for foreign principals, violate 18 USC þþ 219 and 951.
UNSECURED DEBT
47. This Affiant did not give permission to ANYONE to pledge his life, liberty, body, property, and labor for someone else's benefit, i.e., the federal government's debt. By federal government is meant that totally bankrupt, functionally dead at law, foreign municipal corporation domiciled in Washington, D.C. called the "United States"
"… the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. … It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. … The United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a State." in re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.
That the pledge was made anyway is fraud, because no one asked this Affiant his permission or even told him about it. Security for a debt can never be lawfully obtained by fraud. "Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts. documents and even judgments" U.S. v Throckmorton, 98 US 61
FOREIGN AGENTS IN CHARGE!
48. The de facto "State" engages in activities forbidden to the de jure State by collusion with the Internationals pursuant to 26 IRC 6103(k)(5) under the pretense of the "Intergovernmental Personnel Act", acting as the "FedState Team." The FedState Team is under the direction and control of the Assistant Commissioner (INTERNATIONAL). See Internal Revenue Manual Section 1132.61 Pages 1100-40.1 through 1100-40.2 (1992 Edition) and FedState Bulletins -Commissioner's Advisory Group Meeting September 24 & 25 Minutes.
49. The State government is supposed to protect it's citizens from excesses by federal government personnel, and likewise the federal government is supposed to protect us from excesses by State government personnel. But the internationalist's aim IS excesses and subjugation, so this "FedState Team" establishes cooperation between all government personnel working not for the people, but for foreign principals.
50. A municipal court is no more than a collection agent for the creditors of what used to be OUR governments. The institutions now functioning as the government are merely the alter ego of the Fund and the Bank. These foreign entities are operating illegally in this country by pretending to be the government for the people, and is what the U.S. Supreme Court tacitly describes as "cooperative federalism".
51. "Public officials" who under false and fraudulent pretenses and colors of authority engage in soliciting and collecting information, contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of their foreign principals, and being directly or indirectly subsidized, directed, controlled, or financed by said foreign powers, and while deceitfully and secretly agreeing to conceal their true character and true principal were and are engaged in promoting and furthering the principles and doctrines of One World Government, and the dissolution of the several States united. Such promotion constitutes the revival of the ancient pagan and evil Roman Civil Law under which Jesus was crucified, and under which Christians were thrown to the lions.
52. All "public officials" in this "State", acting as trustees for foreign principals, at all times heretofore and herein were agents for foreign principals as defined in 22 USC 611, namely The Fund (IMF), and The Bank. As such they are required to file a foreign agents registration statement form and supplements thereto, pursuant to 22 USC 612, and are not exempt pursuant to 22 USC 613, see Rabinowitz v Robert Kennedy 376 US 605.
53. Acting under false and fraudulent pretenses as officers and officials of the de jure government of the United States of America is a violation of the Penal Code if the "official" intends to induce another to submit to his pretended official authority. This would also be a violation of the victim's civil rights under Title 42 USC 1983.
TREASON
54. By continuing to administer this perfidy, "public officials" are committing treason against not only the Constitution, but against truth, rightness, and the real Sovereigns of the nation — We the People.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principle than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Federalist Paper No. 78 Alexander Hamilton
WAR & EMERGENCY POWERS
55. Research is pouring in at an accellerating rate. The cat is out of the bag. All across America people are becoming aware of this fraud being perpetrated upon them by de facto "public officials" who continue to administer this perfidy — typical examples are:
From a Resolution Adopted by unanimous vote on June 17, 1995, by the Republican Party of Texas State Executive Committee: "Whereas there has occurred continuous breach of trust, duty and obligation imposed under authority of the Constitution of the United States of America, resulting in a continued abridgement of the Rights, Privileges, Immunities, and Liberties of Citizens and others, all committed under pretense of a continuing national crisis and furtherance of emergency conditions; and
"Whereas, our forefathers recognizing these same conditions wrote to the British Parliament and King of Great Britain in the Declaration of Rights of 1774:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a country …
"Today under pretence of emergency and reorganization the mischief has been recreated and reinstituted within the Nation and several States of the Union, and has once again left the people without any plain, speedy or adequate remedy, and is wholly contrary to the true original extent and end of the Union and civil Government as ordained and established by the people; …"
From a Resolution of the California Republican Assembly adopted on March 26, 1995 Number 395.1
"Resolved: The California Republican Assembly at the Annual Convention in San Diego, March 26, 1995 does hereby determine to inform members of State and federal elected and appointed offices that the United States of America is presently under War and Emergency Powers and has been for 62 [now -1814 ] years; be it further
"Resolved: That the California Republican Assembly will support only men and women who are willing to become aware of the usurpation of the power of the United States Constitution and who are committed to restoring our Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the Land." There are numerous other examples that could be cited here. But, it is enough to say that this Affiant is far from being alone in his concern for the State of affairs that has developed under the fraudulent and contrived national "emergency" and the Martial Law/Rule that has been secretly imposed upon them without their knowledge or informed consent.
And, as Will Rogers once said,
"We have people in government who should not be allowed to play with matches."
18 usc 31
(6) Motor vehicle. –The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10) Used for commercial purposes. –The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Traffic citations whether tried under criminal or civil action, lack of a sworn complaint by an injured party = no case/case dismissed UNLESS you are tried under the unconstitutional admiralty law which is the law of the sea! If you think they don’t do so use google earth or google maps and type in “Miami federal courthouse” & tell me if that courthouse is not a ship! Here’s a script in case you ever get a citation…..
Do you understand the charges against you? How do you plea?
———————-
You must say I don’t understand and I can’t enter a plea until you get some questions answered.
——————
Is this going to be a civil action, or criminal action?
Civil:
Thank you your honor, let the record reflect that this is a civil action.
Your honor, I make a motion to dismiss for lack of a sworn complaint by an injured party, and no injured party is present.
Criminal:
Thank you your honor, let the record reflect that this case against me is a criminal action.
——————-
I have another question, your honor the constitution grants this court 2 different criminal jurisdiction.
One is a criminal jurisdiction under Common law, and the other is a criminal jurisdiction under the Admiralty or military tribunal law from article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution.
In which of these two criminal jurisdictions does the court intent to try me?
—————-
He can’t say Admiralty law, because that is the law of the sea.
If he says Common law, say again that you would like to motion to dismiss, because there is no injured party.
They’re acting under a military tribunal, which they have no right to use with you.
If he says the state is the injured party, say again “Your honor, I make a motion that this case be dismissed, we are in the wrong court. If the state is a party to the case, they can not also be the judge and prosecutor. This case needs to be transferred to federal court, or be dismissed.
——————-
If he suggests your get a lawyer, say your honor, I don’t think you would be violating your oath of office if you did your duty under the constitution. I am not seeking legal advice, what I want to know is legal intent. I have the right to appear as myself without a licensed attorney, and in order to intelligently defend myself, I have to know the jurisdiction that this court is operating under. Because the rules of procedure under a common law jurisdiction, are very different then rules of criminal procedure under an admiralty or military tribunal. I need to know under which jurisdiction you intend to try me, in order for me to proceed with this case. The sixth amendment grants me the right to know the jurisdiction being applied, and it grants you the duty to inform me, and I don’t think you’d be violating your oath of office for doing your duty. Therefore, will you please answer the question so this court is properly identified.
—————-
If the judge still responds by telling you to get an attorney, say thank you your honor, let the record of this court then show that I, the accused in this criminal action, has asked the court the divulge the nature and cause of the accusation upon the authority of the sixth amendment, and that this court has failed in it’s duty to inform me of the nature and cause of the action.
Furthermore let the record also show, that this court intends to bring action against me under a secret jurisdiction, known only to licensed attorneys.
—————-
If he then claims it’s a statutory jurisdiction. If he does, respond
Thank you your honor, let the record of this court then show that it intends to conduct a criminal against me under a statutory jurisdiction. But your honor that raises another question. I have never heard of such a thing as a criminal action under statutory jurisdiction, and there is no such jurisdiction in the constitution. I would be happy to accept this your honor if you could please tell me where I can find the published rules of criminal procedure under statutory jurisdiction, and where this nature cause and jurisdiction exist. It is imperative that I have the published rules of procedure so that I may conduct a fair defense in a fair trail.
———————-
If he threatens contempt of court, respond “Your honor I do not wish to be held in contempt. I am simply trying to exercise my 6th amendment right that you disclose the nature and cause of the charges against me. I can provide court citation that show that the exercise of any constitutional right can not be converted into a crime. please either identify the properly established jurisdiction or I make a motion that you dismiss the case against me.
————-
If the judge tells the truth and says the jurisdiction is Admiralty, respond,
“thank you your honor, let the record of this court then show that this court intends to proceed with a criminal action against me ____<— (your name) as a condition of contract under an admiralty jurisdiction and as a military tribunal under article 1, section 8, clause 17. However your honor, you must realize, that you have no such jurisdiction without also having a valid international contract in dispute. I am not aware of having entered in to any intentional contracts, so I deny that such contracts exist. Will you please instruct the prosecuting attorney to inform this court if there is such a contract, and if so, to place it into evidence, and explain how I am party to it, and am compelled to preform under it. If the prosecution can not do so your honor I make a motion that this case against me be dismissed.
——————-
If at any point in the whole process that he dismisses the case, say thank you your honor, let the record of this court show that case number (state your number) against (your name) has been dismissed. Leave quietly, don’t act arrogant. And if at any point you feel the opportunity to make a motion for dismissal, make it.
————————
If at any point the judge decides to make a plea for you, and writes not guilty… say “Your honor I object. For you to enter a plea on my behalf is practicing law from the bench. Because entering a plea is my job, has the court made a judicial determination that I am not guilty?” If he says yes, say “thank you your honor, let the record of this court show that the judge has made a judicial determination that I am not guilty of the charges against me. Therefor I make a motion to dismiss because I am not guilty”
If he says no, he has not made a judicial determination, make a motion that the plea be withdrawn, and you be allowed to enter your own plea once you know the nature and the cause of the case pending against you.
If the judge enters a plea of no contest, say “Your honor I object. or you to enter a plea on my behalf is practicing law from the bench. Because entering a plea is my job, I make a motion that the plea be withdrawn. For you to make a judicial determination that I am entering a plea of no contest would result in the court treating me as though I had plead not guilty. The court is trying to constrain me to an unfair plea choice, in the absence of me understanding the nature and cause of the charges against me.
"right to travel" is distinct from "right to operate a motor vehicle upon public roads, streets, highways, etc"
"right to travel" is distinct from "right to operate a motor vehicle upon public roads, streets, highways, etc"
ON MY GOD!! REALLY. If you need clarification of the law go to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
If you actually won a court case using traveling then please provide proof. Court minutes, the judges order dismissing charges under traveling or constitution law.
The constitution only guarantees that you can travel between states without hindrance or taxation. The government, federal and state, has a right to make laws to protect citizens. You can't walk on the hiway because you can be killed or cause an accident. But there are other roads you can walk on to move freely between states. The above mentioned cases have NOTHING to do with your arguement. Titles of nobility are Duke, knight, lord, king , queen, baron count, duches, countess, etc. Not a license. A licence is used for identification, proof of knowledge to operate a vehicle. Without a license you could be a terrorist for anyone knows. Before cars there wasn't a big problem with traffic. After cars there were accidents, drunk driving, vehicle theft, damage to property, all due to the lack of any traffic laws, no traffic signs etc. So the government, federal and state created laws to deal with this. By your account you're saying the government doesn't even have the right to charge someone with murder, or the right to charge someone with rape. The traffic laws were passed the same way laws against murder, rape, assaults, theft were all passed. Along with the constitution was the bill of rights. The federal and state governments have a right to pass laws that coincide with the constitution. A licence does not have anything to do with the right to travel. You have 2 feet you can walk, you can ride a lawnmower, not on the highway of course, you can ride a horse, or a horse drawn carriage. Quakers drive them all over. YOU DO NOT REQUIRE A VEHICLE TO TRAVEL!!! I'm not a lawyer but I have enough common sense to understand the constitution. The cases you sight have nothing to do with the operation of a vehicle on highways and byways of America.
FANTASTIC !!! THE TRUTH & FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH & FACTS!!! THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM IS THAT MOTOR VEHICLE AGENCIES (NON-GOVERNMENT FOR PROFIT AGENCIES OPERATING UNDER THE "COLOR OF LAW") REFUSE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOMEONE INVOLVED IN "COMMERCE" (AKA DRIVING) AKA GETTING PAID FOR "DRIVING" EG. TAXI'S, LIMO'S, TRUCK DRIVERS, BUS DRIVERS ETC. AND SOMEONE TRAVELING IN HIS PERSONALLY OWNED PROPERTY (AKA TRAVELING) BECAUSE OF THE HUGE YEARLY FINANCIAL WINDFALLS THEY RECEIVE FROM THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES, REGISTRATIONS,…AND THE IGNORANCE OF AMERICANS TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!! THERE SHOULD BE A BILL INTRODUCED THAT THESE GOV. SUBCONTRACTED "FOR PROFIT AGENCIES" MUST PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR "TRAVELING" PLATES FOR THOSE "NOT" INVOLVED IN DRIVING FOR COMMERCE!!!…
Your evidence is greatly flawed. CASE#1 The words you quote are nowhere to be found in that decision where a bus company is suing the city.
CASE#2 Your quote is correct however just below is this paragraph: (emphasis mine)
The right of a citizen to travel and transport property and to use the
ordinary and usual conveyances of the day may, under the police power,
be regulated by the city in the interest of public safety and welfare;
but the city may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict
it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of
like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to
exercise it.
Which means they can require you to get a license to prove you can drive safely in the interest of public safety.
CASES #3 Are in regard to Issuance of Passports and have nothing to do with automobiles, motor vehicles etc.
I believe the spelling "Hertado" to be incorrect and it is Hurtado v. California. The quote you attribute to that case is nowhere in the text of that case.
The Miranda case has nothing to do with driver's licenses, travel, vehicles etc. Although he was driving when stopped by police, it is more to do with rights while being questioned by police hence the term "Miranda Rights."
All of the cases I read allow for states to regulate drivers and vehicles for the safety of its citizens.
You cant be charged I one jurisdiction and defend in another. The reason you can use it is because you arent charged under constitutional matter of law, matter of policy.
The congressional stratagem of June 30, 1864, results in inversion of the American paradigm through redefinition of a single word, “state*,” i.e., a Union-state, into a term of art with a constitutionally and statutorily opposite meaning, which equates, ultimately, to the District of Columbia*. Congress has no personal legislative power or jurisdiction in the former, exclusive in the latter; and now;
Nearly every American Falsely believes that he/she Resides in a particular “state”/“State” of the “United States” and is a “citizen of the United States.”
Date 2020 MOTOR CARRIER – CFR / US CODE SUMMARY
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Compact
§390.5 Definitions.
Highway”* means any road, street, or way, whether on public or private property, “open” to “public travel”. “Open to public travel” means; that the road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or “regulations ” other than “restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration”. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates. [WITHOUT REGULATIONS] [Because everything is commerce]
§395.2 Definitions.
Driving time means all time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation.
PART 395_HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS–Table of Contents
Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.
(j) Travel time–(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at east 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
(2) When a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 8 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.
“Drivers,” “persons,” and “individuals”.
Besides the Federal terms “State” and “individual” in the subject brief to the Supreme Court, Ms. Reno uses a Union-state term, “driver.” Union-state statutes define “driver” as follows:
DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. [Emphasis added.] [Code of Alabama, Title 32 Motor Vehicles and Traffic Chapter 1 General Provisions § 32-1-1.1(14)]
A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle [Emphasis added.]
[California Code Vehicle Code Division 1 Words and phrases defined § 305]
“Driver” means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. [Emphasis added.] [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169 Traffic Regulations § 169.011 Definitions Subd. 24 Driver]
Unless one is a person he cannot be a driver. At the exact instant in time a particular person “is in actual physical control of a vehicle” that person is a driver—and not so until such time. There is no statute that provides for any type of driver other than a person
Persons are subjects—and in matters political there are only two species of actor: sovereign and subject. The former has supreme political authority (sovereignty) and governs the latter with absolute, uncontrollable power. Subjects have rights and duties (privileges and obligations), owe allegiance to, and are under the dominion, control, and influence, and enjoy the protection of, a sovereign; to wit:
person. . . . Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. . . .” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., s.v. “Person”]
[T]he term “person” does not include the sovereign . . . [Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)]
SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed ; supreme political authority Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Sovereignty.”
Union-state statutes define “person” as either a natural person or an individual. Examples of the former are as follows
“Person” means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. [Emphasis added.] [Utah Code, Title 41 Motor Vehicles Chapter 6a Traffic Code § 41-6a-102 Subsection 44]
”Person” means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. [Emphasis added.] [Arkansas Code, Title 27 Transportation Subtitle 2 Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing Chapter 16 Driver's Licenses Generally Subchapter 2 Definitions § 27-16-204 Subsection c]
Person. Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. [Emphasis added.] [New York Code, VAT Vehicle & Traffic Title 1 Words and Phrases Defined Article 1 Words and phrases defined § 131]
There are two species of “person”: natural and artificial. Whereas, “natural person” is neither a Federal nor Union-state term, we must look to the dictionary for clarification:
pẽr′sŏn (or -sn), n. [L persona, lit., a face mask used by actors on the stage, hence a character, a person, from personare, to sound through; per through, and sonare, to sound.]
state/State means District of Columbia [ONLY]
Wherefore, as Union-state statutes define the term “state,” and Title 18 USC, “State”:
The states/States of the United States are the 20 territories over which Congress have power of exclusive legislation;
No Union-state is a state/State of the United States;
The only state/State of the United States that is a party to the Driver License Compact is the District of Columbia;
The statutes of Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin relating to the licensing of drivers are substantially the same as those of the 45 Union-state members of the Driver License Compact, and likewise provide no Union-state with the power to issue, suspend, or revoke a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle;
The sole authority with power to issue, suspend, or revoke a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in America is the District of Columbia;
Every Social Security franchisee is a person and individual and the subject of all legislation in the District of Columbia;
Every Social Security franchisee is a person and individual and the subject of all legislation in the District of Columbia;
The only type of license issued by the District of Columbia or one of the 50 States (political subdivisions), whether by way of governmental regulation or municipal- corporation legislation, is an occupational license59 in the form of a certificate;
A person who wishes to use a motor vehicle “for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo” must pay a certain sum, called a license fee, to a Department/Division of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) in the District of Columbia or one of the 50 political subdivisions thereof, for the privilege of pursuing his profession/calling as a driver60 and obtain official permission in the nature of a contract and in the form of an occupational license, a driving certificate called a driver’s or operator’s license;
“The activity [profession] licensed by . . . DMVs . . . the operation of motor vehicles” (Janet Reno, supra n. 1), i.e., the activity/profession of driving, is a harmful activity/ profession and subject to police regulation;
◦ As regards residents of the District of Columbia, such as Social Security franchisees, the controlling definition of the term “motor vehicle” is 18 USC § 31(a)(6);
◦ Any “description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power” whose identifying information is in a motor vehicle record61 is a motor vehicle;
◦ Motor vehicles are used exclusively “for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo”; and
◦ Any and all expenses relating to a person’s profession/occupation in the operation of motor vehicles as a driver are business expenses for income-tax purposes.62
Whereas, it is indisputable that the supreme organic instrument of creation of the United States of America has all essential elements of what is defined in law as a trust,51 the trustees named therein, Congress, are contractually obligated to manage/administer in behalf of the beneficiaries thereof, i.e., the People, the trust property, i.e., the Confederation, in good faith and in accordance with and fidelity to the letter and spirit of said trust agreement/declaration of trust, namely The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4, 1776.
As of the Act of February 21, 1871, Congress depart the de jure operation of government as contemplated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and incorporate the District of Columbia for political purposes (infra, n. 56). The Social Security political movement is their primary device for the usurpation/seizure of the life, liberty, and property of the trust beneficiaries, the American People, in behalf of the goldsmith-banker owners of the private Federal Reserve.52
Prior to Social Security, Supreme Court Justices refer to the American People as sovereigns 53 and non taxpayers 54 and America has only peace officers,55 whose job is to keep the peace under the common law. Upon arrival of the Social Security political movement in 1935, Americans begin “volunteering” en masse at an increasing rate to assume the status of taxpayer, and soon thereafter registering as a type of latent criminal known as a driver, and paying a fee for the “privilege” of using a car, “voluntarily” placing themselves in constant danger of fines or arrest at the hands of law enforcement officers for alleged violation of driving regulations.
The authority to pursue one’s profession (occupation) in the activity of the operation of motor vehicles is a privilege evidenced by a driving certificate, called a “driver’s license”; to wit:
driver’s license. The state-issued certificate authorizing a person to operate a motor vehicle. [Ibid, s.v. “Driver’s license”]
A driver’s license is in the nature a contract and agreement,
(1) on the part of the person, to observe, as a driver, the state/State statutes relating to the operation of motor vehicles, and
(2) on the part of “this state” (District of Columbia), to allow the said person the privilege of pursuing his profession or calling (occupation) in the operation of motor vehicles as a driver without undue interruption or molestation so long as the person observes the statutes of “this state” (District of Columbia) relating to the operation of motor vehicles: to wit:
A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. [California Code Civil Code Division 3
Obligations Part 2 Contracts Title 1 Nature of a Contract Chapter 1 Definition § 1549]
A person who wishes to drive any “description of carriage or contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power” must obtain a driver’s license to enjoy the privilege of doing so.
Any American who submits, under mistake (erroneous belief) that he/she is a person, an application for the privilege of pursuing his/her profession (occupation) in the operation of motor vehicles as a driver (driving privilege) and consents to terms and obtains the driving certificate (occupational license) authorizing such “activity” (occupation), may extinguish the said contract by rescission and terminate his/her relation with the District of Columbia (DMV) through voluntary surrender of the said certificate so obtained; to wit, in pertinent part:
It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be Parties capable of contracting Their consent . . .[Ibid § 1550]
The consent of the parties to a contract must be Free .[Ibid, Chapter 3 Consent § 1565] An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through . . . Mistake. [Ibid, § 1567]
Mistake of fact is a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in:
1. An unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract; or,
2. Belief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not existed. [Emphasis added.] [Ibid § 1577]
A contract is extinguished by its rescission. [Ibid, Title 5 Extinction of Contracts Chapter 2 Rescission
§ 1688]
A party to a contract may rescind the contract in the following cases:
(1) If the consent of the party rescinding, or of any party jointly contracting with him, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party. [Emphasis added.] [Ibid, § 1689(b)]
rescission . . .
A party’s unilateral unmaking of a contract for a legally sufficient reason Rescission is generally available as a remedy or defense for a non-defaulting party and restores the parties to their pre-contractual positions. . . . [Emphasis added.] [Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., s.v. “Rescission”]
rescission . . . an act of rescinding, annulling, or vacating or of canceling or abrogating (as by restoring to another party to a contract or transaction what one has received from him). [Emphasis added.] [Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, inc. version 2.5, s.v. “Rescission”]
Cancellation of license may be made only when specifically authorized in this code, when application is made for a license to operate vehicles of a higher class, or when a license has been issued through error or voluntarily surrendered to the department.
[Emphasis added.] [California Code Vehicle Code Division 6 Drivers’ Licenses Chapter 2 Suspension or Revocation of Licenses Article 1 General Provisions § 13100]
:
Good job well done. These disinfo sites are rather funny. It's sad though, people who don't want to read and learn the law will fall for this as every good slave aka us citizen should. Stay asleep sheep it hurts less that way…for a while.
Case two, Thompson V Smith also says in the ruling:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
Yes, permits may be granted, refused, revoked when it comes to a private automobile. Courts have also consistently held that if you are behind the wheel and it's being operated in order for you to "travel" then you are driving it. You can call it whatever you want, the courts have the final say. For all the mental gymnastics in the world, you'll never beat a judge's gavel.
So… in other words you decided to totally ignore the court rulings and the fact they do not agree with you.
OK.
You clearly have not read the cases that you just cited. People like you are comical!!! https://web.archive.org/web/20150429021050/http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss10.html#ucc
Just because courts opine something does not make it correct, right or true and it certainly does NOT make it "law". Nowhere are the courts enumerated any lawful power to make "law".
The courts can make binding interpretations that have the force of law where the constitution and legislature are vague or silent. Some areas of law, such as contract, tort and property law in most states, are left almost exclusively to the courts, with only a few overriding exceptions outlined in legislation. This is one of the primary differences between common law and civil law jurisdictions.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
Here's another important legal fact that most people are unaware of. A citation (ticket) is technically & legally, an actual arrest. It's the charge for a criminal offense. You sign it for your release or remain in custody and go to jail. In California, all criminal offenses require prosecution by a district attorney. Neither Officer nor Judge can sit as the prosecution.
I've seen Judges try to avoid that fact by claiming a citation is merely in Lieu of an arrest. bu!!$hit. A Citation in Lieu of Arrest, means you were legally detained and in custody, but instead of going to jail you promised to appear in court by signing the ticket, which only then are you released. ITS AN ARREST!
A representative (prosecutor) for the State must attend the Court whenever the People are plaintiff in a case. I have yet to see a Prosecutor in Traffic Court. They never show. The Courts operate everyday in violation of the law. Anyone can dismiss on the spot on those grounds alone. Courts will sometime try to claim the violation is just an infraction. That's an attempt to hybrate court process & skirt their own legal requirements. That can't be done. .
Each process serves its own function. Civil, Criminal and Administrative. The hybrating
of process is a way for them to pick & use certain parts of each that work to restrain& deprive a defendant of rights and due process, to gain an unfair advantage for easy convictions. They don't care about guilt or innocence, just revenue.
But a ticket is an arrest. An infraction is not an arrest-able offense. A fine by legal definition, is money paid as punishment for a crime. You can't be arrested and fined for an infraction.
The crimes committed by Traffic Courts under color of law, are far more severe than any traffic violation. Some are even felonies. Once you know what's going on, you'll always have the upper hand. They don't even like seeing me. It's all about trickery & deceit with them. You can also vacate a bad judgment. Declare it void at any time. But it has to be legitimate.
(PS. Don't mention Constitutional rights. They don't apply to (Citizens), just the People. Unless you want to expose your ignorance. "We The People" are the same "The People vs Your Name" in court).
Whether a vehicle infraction is criminal or civil depends on the state and severity of the offense, but according to the precedent in Atwater v Lago Vista it is lawful to arrest people based on any violation of state, county or municipal law, even one that only results in a fine. It's considered unreasonable to expect police to know exactly which offenses are arrestable or not in the heat of the moment. Many states, however, make it unlawful to arrest for minor traffic tickets.
Many constitutional rights may be claimed by any individual affected by the actions of the government, whether they are citizens, foreign nationals, stateless, etc.
Whether a vehicle infraction is criminal or civil depends on the state and severity of the offense, but according to the precedent in Atwater v Lago Vista it is lawful to arrest people based on any violation of state, county or municipal law, even one that only results in a fine. It's considered unreasonable to expect police to know exactly which offenses are arrestable or not in the heat of the moment. Many states, however, make it unlawful to arrest for minor traffic tickets.
Many constitutional rights may be claimed by any individual affected by the actions of the government, whether they are citizens, foreign nationals, stateless, etc. If it weren't that way the government could act arbitrarily and with impunity toward them.
The things I mentioned are true. But always research for yourself anyway. The DMV and Courts won't like it, but the law is the law, whether they like it or not. Until legislation amends them, there's nothing to argue.
If the DMV is unhappy with the registration exemption laws, tell them to take it up with the legislation. It's not your problem. And they have no right to prevent or obstruct anyone from following the law. if they refuse, go after the board & shareholders for damages. Any risk of piercing the corporate vial will make them fold like lawn chairs.
Which registration exemption laws would those be? In all states most everyone has to register whether acting in commerce or not. If you read your state vehicle code you will find the section dealing with registration and the definitions used in that section clearly defined in that chapter or a parent chapter. Definitions from other states or federal law are irrelevant to those requirements. The government isn't considered a corporation, it's one of a couple hundred sovereign states under international law, with sub-states that in fact have more general police power because not everything was delegated to the federal government.
Fact the wording defining an object, or class is defined by specific definition.
That also means there's a distinction in wording, in which clearly identifies a persons class in which they belong too.
Example let's take into consideration the following.
All licenses are issued under the Constitutional commands of the commerce clause.
The Commerce clause has been well defined by the courts as being a means to regulate business, period end of argument, that's a matter of record.
The reason is, a person or entity applies for a license, which basically means they ask for permission to do something under the specific licensing structure, of commerce.
Asking permission means they classify themselves into the class of commerce, and therefor are subject to all of the requirements of the licensing structure.
Since commerce itself under licensing is not a Right, it is a privilege subject to the licensing structure.
A person traveling to and from work, falls under commerce, a person merely traveling does not.
If this was not the case, then why would one suppose the licensing entity was very careful in their wording of licensing under the commerce clause?
Example the licensing entity for the States define the objects of use to travel as being "motor Vehicles", they define one using the motor vehicle as an "operator", under the commerce clause.
However a person in the exercise of a Right via "Liberty", from their knowledge cannot be required to surrender a Right in order to take on the restriction of a privilege, in which would otherwise be a Right, it would amount to a conversion of Right.
The argument of a dangerous object as being supportive to the licensing structure of a privilege over a Right is easily defeated by several arguments.
The first is no such licensing requirements were made for horse drawn carriages, or coaches, many of which had teams of horses.
An average horse can gallop between 25 and 30 mph, while a sprint distance of a horse could reach 55mph.
Amazingly the same speeds usually posted within city limits 20-35 , and higher highways 55.
Next let's take a close look at the regulatory licensing structure in regards to safety.
It's statistically clear that a licensed driver provides no more safety to the public, nor for the safety of private or public property over those whom drive an automobile via liberty.
Surely one must agree, that liberties are protected by a Right.
And while the vast majority of people whom commit a violation is licensed, would naturally have a higher amount of negative reporting, the estimated amount of non licensed persons, is significant enough that shows the unlicensed driver, is less likely to violate safety codes, over licensed drivers.
Remember licensed drivers have a points system, in which they get free passes for public trespass, while unlicensed drivers are immediately brought forth to public scrutiny, in order to prove they were not at fault for the specific occurrence.
The bottom line is class, that's what everyone keeps missing.
Hell how many drunk drivers that are licensed on the U.S. roads every day?
How many are killed by licensed drivers, or persons whom were licensed prior to losing their license?
The argument for the Right of free travel exist for those in a class without violations of the public or private persons or property, that's what it means to be a Republic.
Standing upon your own grounds.
Bottom line, if you wish to submit yourself to be licensed have at it, if I choose to exercise a liberty protected by a Right, leave me the hell alone, unless I commit a trespass. (victim).
The States know my argument to be true, otherwise why would they provide for a number of way's for persons to have insurance coverage?
I mean one has the option to self insure, by securing min liability amounts in a secured account, or to be insured via the State.
That shows the original poster has no clue as to what they are posting about. Or lacks both self critical, and logical thinking.
Licenses are required by the states via their police power. The federal government doesn't get involved unless the states violate some federal right. The federal Supreme Court has said it is a proper exercise of state police power "consonant with due process" to require licenses and registration for "those moving in interstate commerce as well as others", as cited in my article.
"motor vehicle", "driver", etc. are defined in the state vehicle code in the chapter or parent chapter where the license requirement is stated. If a definition is not found there a state court with jurisdiction to interpret the legislation decides the definition.
Vehicle license, registration and financial responsibility laws may not be perfect but they do deter a lot of harmful behavior on the public roads and protect the people using them, which is why you can't get them overthrown.
In a republic the people are bound by the laws made by their federal, state, county and municipal representatives.
Licenses are required by the states via their police power. The federal government doesn't get involved unless the states violate some federal right. The federal Supreme Court has said it is a proper exercise of state police power "consonant with due process" to require licenses and registration for "those moving in interstate commerce as well as others", as cited in my article.
"motor vehicle", "driver", etc. are defined in the state vehicle code in the chapter or parent chapter where the license requirement is stated. If a definition is not found there a state court with jurisdiction to interpret the legislation decides the definition.
Vehicle license, registration and financial responsibility laws may not be perfect but they do deter a lot of harmful behavior on the public roads and protect the people using them, which is why you can't get them overthrown.
In a republic the people are bound by the laws made by their federal, state, county and municipal representatives.
https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
The US Supreme Court ruled on this. https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/
I cited the Supreme Court three times in the article.
Considering the first case cited in your link, if you actually read it, clearly says licenses can be required you may want to reconsider your sources…
Actually that is a State Supreme Court decision. The definitive US Supreme Court case is Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915).
citing lower court rulings that aren't upheld in a higher court is the utmost is deception and proving you are just another liar with a corrupt agenda, but hey treason pays well so continue to sell out your country and we the people for a buck.
as always you misrepresent what the actual legal definition of words are, licenses are always commercial, constitutional government(s) work for the people and have zero constitutional authority to deprive the people of creator given rights.
Now can the writer explain the difference between color of law/civil law and common law/biblical law…..citizens Don't have the same rights as people. Barron vs Baltimore clearly tells you the difference between citizens and people. Im one of the people and the writer is a citizen. The right to travel can only be excersize by people
The legal definition of “Driver” is “One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.” -Black’s Law Dictionary. Since the legal definition of “Driver” is one who is paid or employed by a company to drive, those who are not drivers do not have a driver’s license. If you are not a driver, then you are a “traveler” and therefore have what’s called an “operators” license. The government regulates your right and ability to “operate” a vehicle on the public roads. We do have a "freedom of movement", but this freedom also has restrictions. Thus, we have successfully agreed to redefine the term “freedom” to mean “not freedom”. Hooray for cognitive dissonance! Law and Freedom are two separate concepts and merging them together will always create contradictions. When there is Law, there is no Free. Plain and simple.
States aren't bound by a dictionary made by a Canadian corporation. You can find the definition of "driver" used on a state driver's license charge in the state highway / vehicle code, which is made by the state legislature formed by the state constitution. If driver isn't defined in the code the state courts with the authority to interpret the code decide the definition.
since it was created black's law dictionary has been used in courts in the usa as an authority on legal meanings of words, furthermore you are beyond mere ignorance with your misguided and deceitful arguments. you unfairly impugn a "Canadian corporation" without listing even 1 just cause, yet you refuse to see the obvious truth of lies and crimes committed by repeatedly proven liars and criminals working for corporations falsely masquerading as government and/or law enforcement.
there are creator given rights that only an ignorant moron or scumbag liar (usually fake lawyer – they all are fake) that no one has jurisdiction or authority over. also legal definitions of words have to be consistent or how can higher courts review appeals from lessor courts. u.s. code has always listed motor vehicle as only applying to commerce as has many court decisions. your obstinacy and continued repeating of proven lies exposes your agenda and truth is no part of said agenda.
since it was created black's law dictionary has been used in courts in the usa as an authority on legal meanings of words, furthermore you are beyond mere ignorance with your misguided and deceitful arguments. you unfairly impugn a "Canadian corporation" without listing even 1 just cause, yet you refuse to see the obvious truth of lies and crimes committed by repeatedly proven liars and criminals working for corporations falsely masquerading as government and/or law enforcement.
there are creator given rights that only an ignorant moron or scumbag liar (usually fake lawyer – they all are fake) that no one has jurisdiction or authority over. also legal definitions of words have to be consistent or how can higher courts review appeals from lessor courts. u.s. code has always listed motor vehicle as only applying to commerce as has many court decisions. your obstinacy and continued repeating of proven lies exposes your agenda and truth is no part of said agenda.
You talk of the right to travel freely, then, you post quotes regarding the right to drive. Why do you think these two terms are exchangeable? They are not, as, traveling and driving are not the same activities. Driving is a commercial activity, where one, transports people, or property, for a fee. Traveling, is not commercial, and, it is a most basic fundamental right, as upheld by the Supreme Court of the USA, numerous district and appellate courts, as well as State Supreme Courts.
On a charge under state vehicle codes you can find the applicable definitions right in the code. Many states define "drive", "driver", "motor vehicle", etc. specifically, and they're very clearly not restricted to commercial activity. If the state code doesn't define a word the court with jurisdiction to interpret the statute decides. There is a right to travel on the public highways, but like every right it can be reasonably regulated for health and safety. You will find federal and state court decisions reflect this if you read them in full and not just cherry-picked, sometimes outright fabricated quotes from random bloggers.
you are mistaken about the right to travel without a license…
https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1778/2018
It takes more than just introducing a bill for it to become law. Here is how a bill becomes a law in NH.
Here's the official status of the bill in the NH legislature. It appears the House has found it "inexpedient to legislate" and the Senate hasn't considered it. It would seem very unlikely to pass both houses and be signed by the governor, but one can dream…
It takes more than just introducing a bill for it to become law. Here is how a bill becomes a law in NH
Here's the official status of the bill in the NH legislature. It appears the House has found it "inexpedient to legislate" and the Senate hasn't considered it.
In considering the matter, the House majority stated:
At this point it would seem very unlikely to pass both houses and be signed by the governor, but one can dream…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI_rfx0Gd_s
Fully submitting to the court's jurisdiction and questioning the evidence that an officer is certified, licensed or otherwise lawfully employed really has nothing to do with typical sovereign citizen right to travel arguments. No determination was made about traveling commercially vs. non-commercially, etc., and there are no guarantees it will go the same way if you use the same argument.
Looking through the thread, I didn't find a reference to what a "motor vehicle" actually is, as defined by Federal Law. By international convention, each country can define what is a motor vehicle in their country. The United States defines a motor vehicle in Title 18 (criminal) of the federal code. Title 18, Section 31, definitions: 6. motor vehicle; 10. Used for commercial purposes:
(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the
highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or
property or cargo.
(10)Used for commercial purposes.—
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in
connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
The supremecy clause of the U.S. Constitution supercedes States' laws; and, you must use the federal definitions when looking at definitions used by the States when the federal definition is narrower in scope. The Federal definitions surpercede the States definitions where there is a conflict. For example, California uses a much broader definition for a motoer vehicle. The Federal definition would supercede California's. Of interest is that the CA Motor Vehicle Code was, for a short period of time, posted on the DMV's website (a logical place for it to be). During that time, I happened to do a search for "who must register their car in California." I was taken to a page where it was written in Bold Red Letters that "only commercial vehicles are required to be registered in California." California has sent removed it (the vehicle code), posting a notice that it was no longer available on their website.
You can draw your own conclusions as to why they did that.
The federal government hasn't assumed control over general highway regulation. Though there are a few federal highway crimes with their own definitions they aren't enforced very often, and the definitions don't apply outside of federal enforcement of federal law. Most highway regulation happens at the State level, and the states have their own definitions created by their legislatures and courts that apply when interpreting their laws. You can read the California Vehicle Code and the definitions within it, and will find there is no commercial requirement for registration, licensing or financial responsibility. You can also surely find some court cases on Google Scholar explaining the States position clearly, because many, many people have tried to argue what you are now and been shut down publicly, on the record. I have done exhaustive searches in several States' legislation and case law and it's always the same – the State controls the public roads and requires licensing and obedience from everyone that uses them by virtue of their police power, for the health and safety of citizens, residents and visitors of the state.
Perhaps it's so the registration can be declined if a vehicle falls into disrepair and becomes unsafe to operate.
Here you go, https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml The info at that link is quite elaborate and encompassing and disproves most of this garbage, the right to travel is protected by the constitution but so far as I can tell the right to travel only applies to the need or lack thereof of a drivers license, not registration or insurance those can be and are both still required by state traffic regulations. Please feel free to argue and bash to your harts content }:~)
We're familiar with that site which misrepresents the Constitution and numerous cases. I suggest you read them in full for yourself and continue research from more sources before dismissing our article which is based on months and years of study, not just a 5-minute Google search and finding of a popular lie.
I can keep going to fool
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4689a50f3a31d3eed69c91ad289209cb93aea3bde1774e5872ae8379e87bac6b.png
From time to time even governors and senators get the law wrong. Neither of those positions require a law degree. Heck, even a meathead like Arnold Schwarzenegger can become governor. If you keep an open mind and keep fearlessly questioning what you believe soon you'll know more about the law than that guy and many others.
It is apparent that the Supreme Court may have a real problem where a decision does not overturn a prior decision.
These high court decisions have not been over turned. Which one of these shows I'm required to have a drivers license to use the highways in a none commercial manner? There are other court decisions ruling requirement for registrations and insurance are not required as well. If the public knew the truth the gravy train would end.
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
I suggest you read those cases in full.
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago considered the question about whether a city could prohibit travel by certain commercial automobiles. The court found that the state legislature had such power and could delegate it to cities but had not done so. Cities were allowed, by the power vested in them by the state, to regulate the operation automobiles but not prohibit them entirely. The court went on to say that the people do have a right to use the public roads, subject to reasonable regulation, except for commercial activity which could be revoked completely.
Thompson v Smith considered whether a law that allowed the Chief of Police to revoke the permit of any driver who, in his opinion, became unfit to drive an automobile on the streets of the city was lawful. The court found revocation was lawful but only by legislation that was equally applied and not at the sole discretion of the Chief.
Kent v Dulles dealt with the government requiring a passport for foreign travel in times of national emergency, and the Secretary of State refusing to issue a passport in such a time to communists. The court recognized the right to travel could be revoked through due process of law, but that the Secretary lacked the authority to revoke travel based on beliefs or associations alone. The Secretary could only do so if the applicant was not a citizen or a person owing allegiance to the United States or was engaging in criminal or unlawful conduct.
It is the dissents of these judges that proves my point.
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago.
You are referring to the commercial aspect of the case.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Thompson v. Smith.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Kent v. Dulles.
Due process.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
There is a right to travel but it is not unlimited. It can be reasonably limited through due process of law, such as for health and safety under the states' police power. Those cases say that but you fail to quote those parts.
A license is a permit to do what is normally illegal. Travel is a right. Using the public roads for personal gain is a privilege. A registration is a permit to have or use a piece of equipment for its intended purpose. In this case it is being used to regulate what is allowed on the roads. It was meant to regulate commercial vehicles. In travel it is as unconstitutional as would requiring a registration on my tennis shoes. It would prevent citizens the right the travel by creating undue difficulties. There is no argument that these requirements meet health and safety police powers. A traveler could and would be fined or arrested for violating the laws that govern the road ways. The point system regardless it be a driver or a traveler is unconstitutional period. If it were only used to assess insurance risk it would be OK. It however is used to punish you twice for the same offenses. Violates your right against double jeopardy whether it is a privilege or a right.
State and federal courts do not agree that travel by automobile on the public roads is an unlimited right that may not be regulated reasonably for public safety. There is a right to use public property, always, but the right is never unlimited. If you read the cases you cite in full and the citations from the federal courts in this article you will see that. If you disagree with your state's point system and view it as unconstitutional at the state or federal levels you can argue that as your defense in state court when you're assigned points and thereby gain standing to challenge it, and/or bring a challenge in federal court where appropriate. It may take a lot of study to find out the exact best way(s) to challenge the relevant legislation and regulations, or you could hire a competent lawyer to do it for you.
State and federal courts do not agree that travel by automobile on the public roads is an unlimited right that may not be regulated reasonably for public safety. There is a right to use public property, always, but the right is never unlimited. If you read the cases you cite in full and the citations from the federal courts in this article you will see that. If you disagree with your state's point system and view it as unconstitutional at the state or federal levels you can argue that as your defense in state court when you're assigned points and thereby gain standing to challenge it, and/or bring a challenge in federal court where appropriate. It may take a lot of study to find out the exact best way(s) to challenge the relevant legislation and regulations, or you could hire a competent lawyer to do it for you. Driver point systems have likely been challenged in the past, and you might find existing decisions on the topic if you search existing case law via Google Scholar, etc.
pseudo the liar … i've repeatedly proven to you that motor vehicle only applies to commerce, stop reading things as you want them to mean and/or because you, as most people have been brainwashed to believe, think words mean one thing and legally they mean something totally different. it is a privilege to obtain a license (commercial) and drive (commercial) a motor vehicle (also commercial), but it is a creator given right to travel by any automobile not doing commerce. creator given rights cannot be regulated or taken away by anyone, though one cannot harm or infringe on other's rights or harm others or their property.
So basically the police have the power to do whatever they want? The police agency they work for has the power to declare what is legal and what is not? So the rights we have has human beings are ignored? This is crap!! Its one big circle. Why even have the constitution it just gets trumped by desisions that are made by people who in the end have the same agenda. To extort money from the people. They use the excuse that a vehicle is a dangerous machine and they want to make sure people are commpetant to operate one on the road. Thats why you need a lisence? Can someone tell me the numbers of accidents or violations committed by lisenced drivers and unlisenced drivers. If saftey is the case why do they allow a 16 year old kid the ability to obtain one. Not so safe in my opinion . which is exactly what these laws or rules are , a group of peoples opinion. The real truth behind it is and has always been money!!!!!! The dmv is a corporation that extorts money from the people and the courts that follow are the same. One huge evil industry. Free my ass!!!
I would like to pose a different, but related question here, while proposing an answer too, consistent with Federal and U.S. Supreme Court Case law mentioned here a lot. I cannot claim to have read the entire 8 megabytes of this thread but I scanned it and find no reference to this issue. That question is: "can a State National (different citizen status than U.S.Citizen), or a Sovereign Citizen (ditto) drive or travel in an automobile without a state license?" I conclude absolutely yes.
Travel is a right and it cannot be restricted and made into a “privilege” by a state. The Law of Supremacy prevents any state from making a law that takes away any constitutional right. However, this issue is far more complex than that and this discussion is totally ignoring a key aspect — your personal legal status. And the 14th Amendement created, non-constitutional courts as arbiter. I propose that the question depends entirely on your legal status.
U.S. Citizens, a legal status by default when born in the U.S. when a Birth Certificate is issued, subjects you to the “Administrative Courts” (traffic and probate) created by the 14th Amendment. Essentially you have “contracted with them” and agreed to be subject to their jurisdiction. At least that is what they claim, though I know a contract requires a “meeting of the minds” and full and proper disclosure and that never happens in this instance.
Sovereign citizens and State Nationals, however, which is also a legal status recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, are NOT subject to the Administrative Courts (which act unconstitutionally all the time to generate fees and business for themselves).
As such a Sovereign citizen does not need a driver’s license. Of course, every lawyer, judge and politician resists this concept, to grow their own power and fees, under the excuse that it is a “State Statute”. But again, taking away a right to travel (not restricted by type of conveyance in the U.S. Constitution) is unlawful under The Law of Supremacy, and therefore the statute is void ab initio with “no legal effect or force” if it requires a “license” to travel on the public roads that you paid for. Any unconstitutional statute is void. And no judge should enforce them, but they do every day in every court.
So do not take this as legal advice or strategy, as our judges and courts are completely corrupt and driven by money, not be law. See the YouTube series “Lawless Family Courts” for proof of that with all case citations. Basically the “Family Courts” are a RICO racketeering scheme run by judges and lawyers that violate your rights to generate a $50 billion in legal fees, plus another ~$50 billion in hidden jobs and related costs. This is all protected from law suits in federal courts by judge created “immunities” and other judges in federal court protecting state judges so it never gets fixed. You should be able to sue them under U.S. 42 1983, designed to go after any "state actor" violating your civil rights.
Requiring you to get a license, paying money, is the equivalent of charging you to vote, or regulating who can vote by state mandate. These are both “natural rights” which cannot be taken away without good cause, due process and court order against you specifically.
When you are not subject to the Administrative Courts you are subject only to Constitutional laws and the criminal courts (not Administrative courts) which require that you do harm to someone (not run a stop light) to be dragged into court. This was a major purpose of the Founding Fathers to prevent government creep of power over time.
Unfortunately, this attempt by the Founders has failed in many ways as nearly 50% of federal legislation has unconstitutional components. Ron Paul, Texas Congressman for 4 (?) terms and Presidential candidate 3 times refused to vote for any legislation that the U.S. Constitution did not specifically state as a power of government. The government has no right to have a Department of Education, or tax and pay for most of what it does today. It is out of control.
That said if you are stopped for driving under the influence, this is a criminal matter, not Administrative, and the court can legally order you not to drive given proper due process and prosecute for "harm". As that is potential harm to others and makes sense. Running a stop sign at 2am when no one is around, not so much.
I am not a lawyer and not giving legal advice. I am a trained Court Watcher and student of the law. Do your research but don’t trust what any lawyer says. Contrary to popular belief and propaganda, their loyalty is first to the court (by oath and law) and second to you. And for practical purposes all about money.
This topic is highly complex and may not even be fully resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, but I believe there is a body of case law that makes it clear regarding constitutional rights. Connecting the dots of federal laws and Supreme Cost case law says clearly to me you can opt-out of these Administrative Courts by becoming a State National. Only then you do not need a driver's license. Of course they will do everything to hide this and screw you anyway because it is how they maintain their phoney balony state jobs.
Think about this: You cannot graduate law school without swearing to do your best to get off, and put back on the street free, someone you know is a murderer on a technicality. Law schools call this a “graduate” or Juris Doctor (JD). In the private sector we call this a sociopath.
So you think that prosecutors shouldn't have to follow the law to get a conviction? It's a pretty dangerous thing to do to ignore the law because you think somebody is guilty.
Never said that. I think you are confused. Or maybe a lawyer?
What I am saying is that lawyers do not become lawyers without the ability to completely turn off their ethics and morals. That is a dangerous thing. Scary really. Public prosecutors should have hard evidence to proceed, the bar is way too low, maybe to make business for lawyers. Public defenders are a complete joke (Public Pretenders really) and let people linger in jail for months, even years, because they have literally HUNDREDS of "clients" at a time. Do the math. They can spend maybe 10 minutes per client per month. Hence, they can only make plea bargains, not ever go to trial to defend the truly innocent.
If you do not have money (bail and for lawyer) you will stay in jail a long time even if you are innocent, or there is almost no case against you. Profiting the system, prisons and lawyers. Our courts are completely incompetent today and just focused on generating money for themselves. Not the proper execution of the U.S. Constitution (1st) and its principles, then other laws secondarily, as the Constitution DEMANDS under the Law of Supremacy.
Also, I would estimate 40-50% of state statues and even Federal ones are not constitutional. No one make sure that happens. There are hundreds of examples but as Ron Paul points out nearly 50% of federal bills have no constitutional authority to back their passing and power grab over people.
I'd say it would be more immoral to suspend the rules of evidence and procedure to tolerate unlawful conduct on the prosecution's part, regardless of whether or not the defendant is guilty. If the prosecution is relieved of the burden of obeying the law and the defendant is deprived of counsel that will hold the prosecution to their obligations, then justice is not served.
BTW the USA has about 8 times more lawyers per capita than any other nation on the planet. And it has been shown there is a steep decline in productivity related to this. Causality, not correlation. Huge waste generated. Like the medical industry they are growing and demanding too much of the Gross National Product (GDP). Really "regulating it" by constantly manufacturing new laws we do not need, which are often inconstitant with the U.S. Constitution and people's rights. I predict a rapid decline for this industry over the next decade, as is already happening due to their abuse of clients in the divorce industry.
The true purpose of the law is to protect individuals rights! There is no possible way anyone can interpret the constitution without having thoroughly read and studied the law of nations by vattel. The right to travel is an inherent right and can only be taken when it infringes on another mans rights. For the state to deprive people the liberty of travel is a direct violation of the law of nations and is a capital offense against the people.
Some states are wising up like New Hampshire, they have had enough of the dulocracy created by the servants. see the new hampshire bill just passed this year by googling: nh travel law 1778
For all the nonbelievers that you have a natural and inherent right to travel.
great by nh, but the law has always been transparent for anyone bothering to educate themselves. as i listed earlier u.s. code 18 has always specifically stated that "motor vehicle" and laws of such only apply to commerce.
I can see how we could lose all of our rights and have some out there Laughing at our True Patriots.
I can see it now.
Dumb guy 1 "Can you believe that guy thinking we have rights?
Dumb guy 2 "yep he should go to jail"
Poor Patriot "Hey, without Rights we are Slaves"
This is why this farce of a government "for the people" needs to be forced to evolve past laws and statutes created decades to centuries ago; they are no longer, word for word, relevant to OUR society….Here we are arguing on the interpretation of outdated text instead of looking at the real issues and using our collective intelligence and reasoning to propose actual meaningful change; smoke and mirrors, keeps us squabbling against one other, instead of participating in meaningful change initiatives.
In my opinion, the more someone something does not want change from the status quo, due to it benefiting them financially, politically or socially, the more they cling to and protect whatever mechanisms assist in keeping change from occurring. Sure there are amendments, but how often is one ratified, and what does it take to make it happen? It depends, is it to protect the interest of those in power (27th amendment, last amendment ratified, in 1992) or does it actually benefit The People? The latter usually takes extreme civil unrest, resistance to the status quo, and a change in the consciousness of society. If anything, US history has taught us that it is up to US, The People, to FORCE this government to have OUR best interests in mind.
doesnt this just mean that states are allowed to set limits to speed and add traffic signs for safety but how does requiring a license fit this criteria of promoting safety along highways and roads?
I can think of a few ways licenses improve safety. Qualifying for license for a specific class of vehicles demonstrates you can competently handle those vehicles without killing people. The ability for a license to be revoked encourages adherence to laws, and allows police to quickly and easily identify who shouldn't be on the roads because they may be a danger to themselves and others for various reasons, be it physical or mental deficiency, repeated dangerous or impaired driving, being below a reasonable age of responsibility, etc.
licenses are always commercial by legal definition, why do you think taxi drivers can use the exact license, duh … because it's commercial.
motor vehicle, traffic, transportation, driver, operator and any other "color of law" scam they use with travelers only apply to commercial by legal definition.
I don't argue that some regulation is necessary but only that licensing and registration has been turned into a monetary gain for government instead of a public safety issue , for example registration should be a one time procedure , annual registration is simply to collect more fees which they continuously increase , licensing is also suspended for reasons having nothing to do with the persons driving performance demonstrating again the monetary policy rather than having public safety as the issue and reason for the laws they impose at will and without consent of the governed .
True, some fees are used to do things such as maintain the roads, administer transportation and other programs, etc. Licenses can indeed sometimes be suspended for things other than driving, e.g. for non-payment of child support in some states. I don't necessarily agree with that but it is what it is, the states have a fair amount of discretion with how they exercise their police power for the betterment of society. The laws are created through the people's representatives in legislature who have the consent of the governed through the electoral process. If you want to demonstrate that a law doesn't have the consent of the governed you could start a movement where the public is polled about certain laws and their will is made apparent. Once public polling widely says a law should be struck down the representatives should do it or face losing legitimacy.
please stop pseudo liar? ….
repeating lies never makes the lies become truth. fact #1 the constitution is a piece of paper that would be better used to wipe someone's butt, it means zip, nada and was a contract agreed to among people long dead. contracts are not binding on anyone that doesn't freely agree to them without being deceived or scammed, the constitution was a complete deception filled with lies.
there is no constitutional government, just as there are no entities with constitutional police powers because the constitution never gave powers to govern nor police to corporations. the united states is a corporation ergo; zero constitutional governing or police powers, all states, most counties and cities have incorporated thus no constitutional governing or police powers. so we are left with creator given rights and defending those against liars and thieves calling themselves; teachers, lawyers, judges, politicians, law enforcement, military and anyone else hoping we are dumb enough to be defrauded by their lies and/or force.
Lost of good debate, here.
I've got a question; when the dealer sends in the Certificate of Origin to the DMV why do we get a Certificate of Title back, does the State own the vehicle?
The government doesn't need ownership to regulate people or property under its police power. Google: certificate of origin dmv [your state] for details about what they're used for. Basically you need to prove ownership of the vehicle to be able to register it for use on the public roads. That doesn't make them the owner. The vehicle is your private property.
Then how is the State able to claim ownership of our personal property, when they impound it?
My brother and I were talking about ownership of property. So I asked how can you own something you are still paying on?
If you're making an annual payment as compared to a monthly payment, you still don't own it.
So, after paying the taxes on the original purchase. In order to use the car we still have to pay another annual tax to use it.
They don't claim ownership when they impound it – it's still your vehicle – they just hold it temporarily under the laws created for health and safety. Everything is automatically bound by federal, state, county and municipal law.
If you have a car loan you are legally able to act as the owner subject to the contract / security agreement listed on a UCC-1 financing statement. An annual registration fee is a condition of using the public roads independent of your ownership right. If you don't maintain the registration you still own the car and can use it on private property, just not the public roads.
actually impound is theft, that is why you can shoot anyone trying to tow your vehicle and why cops don't tow but lie to get someone else to do it, no one has jurisdiction or authority to take another's property without permission. as i've explained to you repeatedly there are zero constitutional police powers to corporations. one other interesting point about commercial "motor vehicle" and "drivers" licenses, some states such as mizz-a-re (if you ever lived there you know it is very miserable) use private companies to do dmv duties, trying to cut down on their fraud liability, (make the companies' insurance pay for any informed travelers suing for violating their rights) for color of law scams infringing on the rights of us commoners. lol
I dont think the 10th amendment gives police powers to the state to take away from rights previously granted in the Constitution. That would be an overlap in powers. And besides, the 9th amendment already prohibits the state from taking away from rights not specifically mentioned.
wrong again certificate of title same with every thing you thought you owned with us filing bankruptcy in 1933 they effectively took ownership of everything period when are the people going to wake up
https://thelawdictionary.org/driver/
This Right to Travel is not just in the Supreme Court but also in Jurisprudence Constitutional Law, This movement doesn't change a few words around, it is very mindful of how the law is written and that words have meaning and definitions. Like "motor vehicle" and "Automobile" These two items are different and have different meanings that are not the same. Let's take what a "Right" is and a "Privilege", A Right for instance is unalienable as stated by the constitution. A Privilege is to do something that would otherwise be illegal, like having to purchase and submit an application for a Driver's license. We've all herd the phrase "Driving is a privilege." right?
This movement looks closely at the words used in the constitution and in law. When you have to go to court would you say words have meaning and definitions and if you use the wrong word in your case it could break your case and you lose for not knowing the proper definition for that word or phrase. So first we go to constitutional law and see what it says about the right to Travel, you will find a cornucopias of information there confirming the right to travel as well as the privilege of driving. Let's remember one thing first of all. The People are Sovereign in all respects.
We the People created the Constitution of the United State of America as a contract for the government to run the country for the People on their behalf. Not to be the King over them and tell them what to do. This is the same for the States as well. You will find that every State Constitution was created and implemented by the People. The People are Sovereign and are always above the state and government.
This also is backed up by Supreme court cases. When you look up these cases they will not be first about what you think they are, as you read them you will find they are about something totally different from what you were looking for. However in the text of the summary the court will use words and phrases that are in line with what we are looking for. A lot of these documents you find on the internet are researched in depth by people in the law industry and know what they are doing. I personally have read many of Supreme court cases and if you are diligent you will find what your looking for.
The States even agree the general public has the right to Travel on the public roads and all agree the roads belong to the public. The problem here in my opinion is that the Executive branch, meaning the "Police" policy enforcers, do not know the law. They are kept ignorant of the truth. many people and police I've talked with have never herd the term "The Right to Travel" this shows how our society has been brain washed.
We are taut at an early age when we grow up and reach 18 years of age we can get our drivers license, so we can get in our cars and drive. Everyone has registration and tags, hmm. That means I must do this too and be a good little citizen and follow all the Statues that are not meant for me to follow.
Statues are written by a government agency not by the Legislators, This government agency we will call the "DOL" for Washington State. writes these statues and thinks they are law. This "DOL" this is a Corporation a fictitious entity made up from the mind and is only on paper. Statues are made for the government employees and the people who pay the tax for a driver's license to follow certain statues.
When you fill out the driver's license application, you are applying for the privilege to Drive on pubic roads to make money like a business. You must have a vehicle called a motor vehicle, registered and license (Tabbed). Once this is done you have turned your Automobile into a motor vehicle. However the higher courts have ruled, it's what you put the vehicle use too is what is important. If you Travel in your automobile your a "Traveler" and if you use your automobile to make money on the public roads it is a motor vehicle which is taxed and you must have a license to operate it as well get a business license.
ON the issue of Police Powers, let me start off by saying I'm referring to this movement called "The Right to Travel". The Sheriff gets his powers form the Executive Branch and local police get theirs from the Legislation Branch for courts like municipalities. These police are really just clowns in a uniform with guns, they say they have them for their protection but they also use them for intimidation.
When the police pull's someone over for a statue violation they are committing a felony if that person is a Traveler, if they are a driver then the police are in their jurisdiction to do so by the so called contract one signs as they say when you sign your driver's license. The police turn on their emergency lights to pull you over. Depending where you are lets say on the freeway for a license plate light out. Was it an Emergency really he had to pull you over and how did he know if your a Traveler or a Driver? Hmmm!
There is no Emergency and he pulled you over on a busy freeway which is very dangerous. What a fool, now he has put you and himself in to danger by doing this. How many times have you herd of an officer being hit by another car on the side of the road while stopped. Those flashing light act as beacons and mesmerize the on coming cars which can pull the driver right into the cars parked on the side of the road.
Now let's say he pulled you over on the city street. Police only have authority or jurisdiction for individuals whom are in the act of doing business on the public roads and have not authority to pull over a Traveler. You have the right to travel so that means you will not have a license or a plate on your car or have it registered, so when he ask you for license and registration you will not be able to give them to him.
He is not aware that you have the right to travel and he is out of his jurisdiction. He now can be sued for obstructing your right to liberty a serious offense. You are given a bill of pains (a Ticket) and he tells you if you don't go to the court you will have a warrant for your arrest. Sounds like a treat to me. Constitutional law says you have the right to Travel on the public roads cause that is what they are made for. But business is unusual and special requiring a license for the privilege.
This officer will say to you when you tell him you are a Traveler and are participating in your right to travel, he will say you are driving a motor vehicle aren't you? In the state of Washington you must have a license to drive and have your car registered and licensed as well, but officer I'm not driving, I'm Traveling. It's seams he is death to your words and is ignorant to the real law only law that he was taught.
This is all done under color of law to steal your personal property and money from you for the courts and waste your valuable time. They could care less about you all they want to do is get their quotas he go home. These officers took an oath before being certified on the job.
That oath starts out like this…I, Officer's name do solemnly swear to uphold the constitutional rights or defend the constitution of the untied states of america and the constitution of the state of (what ever state he is in) and to uphold the statues of the state and protect the general safety of the public. Since Constitutional law trumps statues and code he is violating his oath, once he has violated his oath he has no jurisdiction and now can be sued like any other person.
I wager it is what use you put your automobile too which makes it a traveler or a driver for a business. let's say you are a truck driver, so it would seam to reason that you need to get a license to operate a semi truck and have it licensed and registered and other fee's that go with doing that type of profession. When you get off from work and now you want to go home or stop at the store before going home you jump into your automobile and travel to where you want to go. You are not doing business on the road anymore so why do you have to comply with license and registration for your not in the act of business anymore. See my point. The state would not have any jurisdiction over you. For now you are exercising your right to travel. Does the state have the right to control everything we do in our life.
The constitution says you have the right to do as you please as long as you do not take away some one's else's rights. Your ability to contract is limitless and you don't have to open your records or tell your private business to anyone.
0. Pursuant to common law and Constitutional law: The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123
1. "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
12. Dating back to the Articles of Confederation, “the people of each State have had free ingress and regress to and from any other State.” Art. IV, Articles of Confederation. This “freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic freedom under the Constitution” as well. In fact, “this freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful-knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking.” Aptheker v. Sec'y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 520, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring); see also Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999) (describing the constitutional right to interstate travel as “firmly embedded” in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence); see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 638, 89 S.Ct. (1969)
3 It is clear that traveling was considered such a fundamental common right that it was not even put into the Constitution understood this as well and were careful to word Florida and Federal statutes as such.
4. Pursuant to Florida Statute Ch. 322 (17)“Driver license” means a certificate that, subject to all other requirements of law, authorizes an individual to drive a motor vehicle and denotes an operator’s license as defined in 49 U.S.C. s. 30301. (no definition of automobile is given)
5. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30301 (5) “motor vehicle operator’s license” means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.
6 Pursuant to Fl. Stat. 316.640 Enforcement.—The enforcement of the traffic laws of this state is vested as follows: (2)COUNTIES.— (a)The sheriff’s office of each of the several counties of this state shall enforce all of the traffic laws of this state on all the streets and highways thereof and elsewhere throughout the county wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle.
7. As one can see, the right to travel by motor vehicle is recognized in Fl. St. 316.640 definition of motor vehicle and is distinct versus the privilege of driving a motor vehicle under charging statute 322.34.
8. Pursuant to Fl. St. 322.01: “Motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003.
21. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901 (3) except as provided in section 32908 of this title(49 U.S.C), “automobile” means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
22. Federal legislatures and U.S. Supreme Court rulings are very specific in terms of automobile and motor vehicle. The Florida legislatures, whom have knowledge of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, make a careful distinction between the privilege to drive (Fl. Stat. 322.34), and right to travel (Fl. Stat. 316.640). The Department of Transportation is to regulate the driving privilege of motor vehicles operating in commerce as is noted in 49 U.S.C. 30101.
23. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30101, The purpose of this chapter is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is necessary—
(1) to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce;
24. More evidence of the right versus privilege can be found in Federal crimes. There is no definition for automobile, but the definition of motor vehicle is: 18 U.S.C. 31 – crimes chapter 2 (6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
25. State prosecutors claiming a license is needed for traveling in an automobile is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Florida Statutes, Federal Code, and Article I section VIII of clause III of Constitution where the government does have the power to regulate, but in commerce.
26. Title 49 U.S.C. Department of Transportation is for manufacturing standards of motor vehicles and automobiles; also, to protect the publics’ right of traveling in their automobiles from people exercising their privilege of operating motor vehicles in commerce. Fl. Statute 322 is to license the privilege of driving motor vehicles,
27. Yet, even further evidence of licensing is for the privilege of driving, not the right, is in the word traffic itself, which is synonymous with commerce. 49 U.S.C. 31301 states:
(2) “commerce” means trade, traffic, and transportation—
exactly, but motor vehicle doesn't legally mean what they lie that it means.
LII U.S. Code Title 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Part I. CRIMES Chapter 2. AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES Section 31. Definitions
(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10)Used for commercial purposes.—
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
"they are established definitions that specifically pertain to commerce, for hire, or employed!"
They are established as that by Sovereign Citizen friendly scholars, not by any legal authority such as a federal court or a court of one of the several states. Black's Law Dictionary has NO LEGAL STANDING IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE TODAY, any more than any other legal dictionary does.
Supreme Court cases – such as those listed in the above article – are VERY clear that "driver", "operator", "motor vehicle", "conveyance" etc are so many nit picky non-sequitur arguments that skirt the primary issue, that states have the right to regulate all of those with no distinction or differentiation between commercial and non-commercial usage or intent.
It is the implied contract that every single citizen agrees when they first set a tire on the public roads – an implied usage contract – that is authoritative. By placing their vehicles on any public road anywhere for even a moment they agree to the implied contract that they will follow each and every law, ordinance, code, statute, rule and guideline that the state properly establishes for the safe operation of a motor vehicle and the vehicle operator operating it.
ALSO, for all you sovereign citizen types out there, laws are broken all the time WITHOUT an injured party or a corpus delecti, which means, just so you geniuses know, in the American jurisprudence "evidence of a crime", not a body or injured party, murder, rape, burglary or other heinous crime. Most crimes people get pulled over for are on the books to prevent the gruesome outcomes that Sovereigns see as the only things that are crimes at all.
Well, truth be known when the state and dealer colluded to steal "your" legal title Manufacture Statement of Origin. There was a bit o fraud involved. Otherwise deniers wouldn't use the fallacious argument that they state creates the title.
So, your implied consent theory has now become compelled compliance with the threat of implementing violence, even lethal violence, if they deem necessary.
Should the state under the cloak of law conspire against we the the Serfs? Oh, that's right we've never been anything more than Serfs.
Case in point.
The king recognized and acknowledged our independence but he never gave the Serfs allodial titles to property. What he did due under Corporate Sole is give the states as corporations of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The federal government sealed the deal by making illegal to own property in allodium.
The misconception is thinking the constitution applies to the Serfs. No one alive today and for more than two hundred years signed the contract between the states. Which was a voluntary agreement or at least it was meant to be.
Lincoln, our first elected tyrant was the foreshadow of what was to come. These deified tyrant forced the Southern States back into the Union. And we do the disgrace to the Confederate States of America by calling it a Civil War. No, the Southern States were left with no option but to leave peacefully. And you should consider what happened when they walked out. The senate declared ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
"without assigning a day for a future meeting or hearing".
Which meant there would not a legitimate constitutional congress. During reconstruction provisional governments were installed.
I can prove to you that Lincoln want to keep the subjugation of the southern states intact. Two words Corwin amendment. Do a timeline from the tariff act of 1828 to the Morrill Tariff Act.
Using a vehicle certificate or title to create a registration as a condition of using the public roads doesn't remove your ownership of the vehicle, your ability to sell it, pass it to your heirs, make claims for possession of it if someone withholds it from you, etc., or restrict your use of the vehicle on private property. The registration process is simply to confirm your rightful ownership and to regulate the use of your private property on the public highways. The actual authority to regulate is achieved through the state Constitution and legislature and is separate from the act of registration.
If what you're is true… Why does the state hold on to the Manufacture Statement of Origin (MSO) after the car is payed off.
Given the fact that the MSO is made Stock Market, high security grade paper.
The state keep their worthless Certificate of Title. Which in fact is an Equitable Titel.
This isn't much different from fee simply title. Which is not the same as an title in allodium. By federal law only the state can hold allodial property.
Outside of the states permission to use their title a car is unusable.
Read the requirements of your state DMV for vehicle registration. You may just have to prove your ownership of a vehicle to register it. You keep the Certificate of Title which is the main proof of ownership. If you get a loan for the car the financing company will hold onto the title until you pay it off after which they must send it to you. The MSO "is employed to certify that a good being exported either from the United States into Canada or Mexico or from Canada or Mexico into the United States qualifies as an originating good for purposes of preferential tariff treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." and having or not having it isn't necessarily evidence of ownership. Some, not all, states do require it for registration, though.
Are you in the legal profession in some capacity?
I'm not attempting to disparage you in any manor. The reason I ask concerns the use of legalese. Most people have no idea that the common use of language does not aply in law.
I don't work in law I just have an unhealthy obsession with it. I used to believe all the internet rumors and theories until I tried them numerous times, failed and learned better. I hang out in legal channels, sometimes with lawyers, but after studying things so long I don't really need their advice.
Thanks, I can appreciate that. Then you would agree that law can be a bit convoluted.
I've struggled with how the assertion of the legal fiction applies to the natural person, when the state uses the legal person, in law.
Its obvious the state moves in and out of legal vs natural person to avoid answering any questions or being exposed.
How are we accept the all caps name as anything but deception, when filled out the application in proper grammer and used Dog Latin to bastardize it
All men, women and "other" living humans are considered "natural persons" in law, whether they have a birth certificate or not. They can be stateless and they're still construed as "natural persons." It's not possible to not be seen as a natural person by a court or the police. The criminal and civil laws of the federal, state, county and municipal governments apply to all natural persons, i.e. everyone, plus all artificial persons, i.e. corporations, within their geographical area of influence. The birth certificate name is not considered an artificial person, but a set of rights enjoyed by a natural person. Since the criminal law applies to everyone whether citizens or not, citizenship or naturalization in fact grants significant rights and benefits with little to no additional duty.
Then why is a legal person considered to a human or non-human entity?
Its my contention under color of law; the state's assertion (legal fiction) that our names spelled in all caps (legal person) is a fictitious entity. That has gone unchallenged. Any presumption left unchallenged is considered as fact.
Otherwise, why would every legal document received from the state is in all caps. The legal system has defiled the constitution by creating a fiat currency (unconstitutional currency) so the created the Uniform Commercial Code. Which the courts conduct common law, tort law, or equity law, along with the UCC. Theattorneys know this, but they no better than to expose the ruse. Because they would lose their ability to make a living.
The original 13th amendment AKA, Title of Nobility Amendment. Was meant to strengthen the already neglected clause in the constitution.
http://www.amendment-13.org/
A number of court decisions addressing the "all caps" stuff and other similar arguments can be found in a fairly inflammatory but informative publication here. Basically the capitalization is irrelevant to the courts. You're always a natural person subject to the laws, and if you also have a citizenship they use it to identify you and you can use it to interact with the system. Acting stateless is a difficult place to be, and as I said before you can still be regulated under government laws whether stateless or not. If that weren't true you could be a violent criminal and never be able to be charged – it would be chaos. There is no special "non citizen" name you can use that gives you any extra rights within the system. Whenever you interact with the system its always within its laws the same. Yes the federal, state, county, municipal jurisdictions may incorporate legislation, common law, tort law, equity law, UCC, etc. via their Constitutions, legislation and courts as they please, and you are subject to them when interacting with those governments.
Look, to even suggest that the courts operate above board is completely dishonest.
I had gotten in some legal trouble years back. I was going two miles over the limit. Thats the pretext the cop (highypatrol) needed to make a stop. I got popped for possession. My first court appointed asswipe never once spoke to me prior to each appearance.
My mistake was believing that attorney/ client privilege was real. I asked if gold fringe on the flag signified Admiralty Law and if all caps was a strawman. Well the bastard told the judge he wanted me evaluated. Not once but twice. Of course I wasn't given the results, but I knew what the results would be. I even told the psychologist as much. She tried to pretend there wasn't a conflict of intrest, even though everyone was employed by the state. Anyway, long story short, 30 days in a state hosp. Fired the first attorney. When the second one was appointed. I told to file a motion to suppress, and a motion to suspend, based on 351-A and 351-B of the traffic code. Well, (he says) in Texas we have a prima facie speed limit. Yeah, at first glance it appears to be. Again this asswipe ignored my request and after l took it up the ass. The bastard walked up to me, patted me one the shoulder, looked right in the eye, grinning from ear to ear, laughed ever so smugly, and said" YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IS THE LAW".
Nope, I think your hiding something, because no one defends the courts if they're not working for the courts.
Yeah, well, I've seen the gold fringe and the eagle on the staff on the battle field. So, the courts are lying. Not that I'm Surprised.
When was the last time you've seen the civil flag flying? We've been under a military flag since tbe war of aggression. That is a fact, whether the courts admit or not.
What, you think the courts are going to reveal their deception?
I am pretty sure that is a made up distraction issue, my friend. The gold fringe on a flag is a decoration, nothing more. If it meant marital law or whatever people online are claiming, then all branches of military would be using it. They don't.
we are the courts, law enforcement or whatever liars choose to call themselves; and after 1 second of in depth investigation we find that we did no wrong, contrary to all the mountains of evidence and facts proving the contrary.
more lies pseudo truth teller; all licenses and all certificates are commercial by legal definition and some by legal code.
pseudo truth teller , means i just stated that you're a liar son …. as i listed earlier from us. code, "motor vehicles" only applies to commercial conveyances. anyone researching for 5 seconds, (hanging out with liars calling themselves lawyers – [none having the required law license] and swapping lies is not a requirement and certainly a detriment to truth), can ascertain that all these words have strictly commercial legal definitions – and are intentionally used to scam and defraud regular joes; driver, traffic, motor vehicle, operator, and all types of licenses and certificates {even a birth certificate is a commercial document executed with deception and fraud}.
Read the requirements of your state DMV for vehicle registration. You may just have to prove your ownership of a vehicle to register it. You keep the Certificate of Title which is the main proof of ownership. If you get a loan for the car the financing company will hold onto the title until you pay it off after which they must send it to you. The MSO "is employed to certify that a good being exported either from the United States into Canada or Mexico or from Canada or Mexico into the United States qualifies as an originating good for purposes of preferential tariff treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." and having or not having it isn't necessarily evidence of ownership. Some, not all, states do require it for registration, though.
Using a vehicle certificate or title to create a registration as a condition of using the public roads doesn't remove your ownership of the vehicle, your ability to sell it, pass it to your heirs, make claims for possession of it if someone withholds it from you, etc., or restrict your use of the vehicle on private property. The registration process is simply to confirm your rightful ownership and to regulate the use of your private property on the public highways. The actual authority to regulate is achieved through the state Constitution and legislature and is separate from the act of registration.
The dangerous nature of traveling by car is a bogus legal argument, in my opinion. Everything in life can be dangerous. Drinking too much water can be dangerous – does that suggest that the state shall have the 'right' to license drinking water? I don't think so.
A state issued license is permission granted by the state to an individual for an action that would otherwise be a crime. Is it illegal to get married? No? Then why the marriage license? Is it illegal to travel? No? Then why the license? And how do we deal with court decisions like this one?
“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” — Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
Lenin knew how to stop an action and leave a people vulnerable. License it.
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Of course, Lenin was apparently much more honest than most US federal and state governments. In the USA Americans are told that the government is the people's servant, but in reality, government has become the people's master. How's that working out for Americans? With an estimated 2 million laws controlling them, are Americans free yet? I don't think so.
These people all dictate the rules to the cops . Some of them are rude as hell . They need to train every cop in Article 10 of the Constitution. And get these people off the road … and stop letting them operate illegal convainces.
One is not prohibited or required to have, show, insert, or validate a licence to actually operate a motor vehicle, car, truck, van, motorcycle, property or whatever means of transportation you so desire. However if the police conduct a valid probable cause traffic stop/detainment…. well then a valid drivers licence is probably ones only saving grace and you should have one.
State laws typically require those operating self-propelled vehicles on the highways to have a valid Driver's Licence issued by the state. There are a few circumstances where the government is allowed to operate checkpoints or perform arbitrary stops where they can check your licence – I believe most are mentioned in, or linked to by, this case – but in general, yes, evidence of a violation of state law is required before state officers can lawfully pull you over and require you to identify yourself and investigate your licence status.
State laws typically require those operating self-propelled vehicles on the highways to have a valid Driver's Licence issued by the state. There are a few circumstances where the government is allowed to operate checkpoints or perform arbitrary stops where they can check your licence – I believe most are mentioned in, or linked to by, this case – but in general, yes, evidence of a violation of state law is required before state officers can lawfully pull you over and require you to identify yourself and investigate your licence status.
Has there always been a requirement to be licensed other than for commercial purposes? The answer is obviously no. The courts recognized the right to travel in ones personal capacity. That is until they realized the enormous amount of money to be made by aggressive policing.
They did the same thing with the drug laws. Once overstepped their authority by invoking the commerce clause, to regulate drug control policies.
Not true, Nevada didn't have licence Plates, and the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, their only 13 Colonies and 37 Territory Union States that can enacted but is prohibited No new States Bill Attainder ex post facto, United States is a foreign Corporation, Human Living Beings are not The Property of The Government, States, City and Township, Plantations don't, The Constitution protects the people's life, liberty, of Slavery, involuntary Servitude, We the People's formed Government, Government LLC is a Plantations Enterprise, RICO, I own all my cars, and I don't use for Commercial Use, Why do I have to register my Automobile with the DMV and get a Certificate Copy Title of my own dam Car…! The laws was Horse and Buggy, the only crime, is a Accident and your found drunk, use the car to run them over, carrying a unregistered gun….! That's a Crime, Nevada had no speed limit before making up for Revenue and lining their pockets to have the Residents, Taxpayers, and Voters pay for their livelihood…! The Constitution tell each public servants salaries and who's has vast interest of the outcomes of Racketeering…! we have a right Not to consent to these Contracts without full disclosure (I don't know the Laws and wasn't taught in school, and wasn't given any, I am one of the People's of the United States, I Travel from state to States USA is my Home), each States when you look up a Law, Laws or Passed through Congress not States, City, County, thoes or Statutory Code and when you look Revised Statutes it never match up to origin of the bill that'd was passed by Congress…! the same when you ask to see a Attorney, Judge Licence, they can't show because they have a bar Union card, Certificate is not a Licence…! When you point and Direct the Laws to be followed, "I do believe Public Officers, Oath Keepers, they need to follow them (No one's above the Law, British No King can't do no wrong), every 37 territory Union sworn oath to protect the Constitution, the Constitution is the Bylaws of the Local Government limited power….!
Please state your argument coherently. It is rambling and run together to point of reading like the ramblings on the mad. No, I am not call you mad. I am stating your argument is so written.
Of what I can gather. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.of America. True.
Why does the state charge for a tag verifying your vehicle is registered?
1. The state builds and maintains the thorough fares. The Federal government owns Federal highways. The States own State highways. The Counties own County highways. The Cities/Townships/Villages own City/Township/Village highways. These highways are often called Interstate highways, Highways, Freeways, Boulevards, Roads, Lanes, Streets, Avenues, … Should you be willing to pay for the full maintenance of the US roadway system removing that expense from every level of government, I am sure each would gladly forego that expense. I expect the cost is about 250 billion dollars per year. Oh and please actually repair (Really fix all the roads and bridges in the US the expected cost is over 1 TRILLION dollars). Please note there are completely private roads in the United States on which one may not be ticketed by any law enforcement.
2. Public safety. The courts have ruled the government has the right to enact laws to help insure public safety. A driver's license is proof of having the skills, knowledge, and both physical and mental health needed to safely operate a vehicle. While I may not agree with every law passed to insure public safety (like laws against suicide, how dumb, how do you punish a dead person) as I believe it is a person's God given right to be totally stupid, when such stupidity endangers others it has gone to far and must be regulated.
There are 50 states and either 16 or 17 territories depending on if you consider Washington D. C. a territory. The territories are Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank and Wake Island. In the eyes of the Federal government there is no difference in any state, all are equal as to status. There is no 13 colonies and 37 territories.
As to you knowing or not knowing the laws. Even in colonial days there were separate laws for each colony. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state could enact taxes as it chose. Each state could impose import duties for items brought into the state and export duties for items taken out. Each state had its own currency, and often you were not allowed to spend currency from another state and had to take it to be changed at a charted money changer. The "national government" had no power to raise and maintain a standing army, states raised them and offered them to the government. This resulted in many attacks no one could protect against. A fort would be in one state, maybe a mile from the battle in another state and not only had no obligation to respond, they were actually prohibited from responding. It was sometimes actually necessary to request permission to enter a state. There was no UNITED, each state was effectively a country unto themselves with a rather weak mutual defense pact/treaty. The current state system is with all powers not specifically (and yes they are very very liberal in interpretation of what is specifically) granted to the Federal government is reserved to the state. The people did not want a distant over arching government. They saw some serious problems and created a much stronger centralized national government, but the states reserved most of the powers.
You are more than capable of reading. You are welcome to read, study, and meditate on all laws passed by the US Congress, the various state legislatures, the various county/parish legislatures, and various city/township/village legislatures. You have absolutely no say in the laws of another jurisdiction. If you travel through it, just as in colonial times you have agreed to obey the laws of that colony/state/pseudo-country. Try going to Mecca and saying something about Mohammed. You will be lucky if the law enforcement officers arrive in time to arrest you (ie you are not already dead). When they sentence you to flogging, prison, or even execution, good luck saying I did not know it was against the law. You are on their ground, they make the laws, you obey or punishments are given. You have no say. That is how the US is organized. Each level must abide by laws of the higher level but can supplement as they choose. The fact that you do not agree with a law does not invalidate it. You must obey or risk punishment.
Yes, you have a God given right to travel. Put on your shoes and do so, freely. In most areas, outside of cities, you can use a horse, mule, cow, ox, or other form of transportation without limit too (please note crossing state lines using an animal may cause problems unless health certified by a licensed veterinarian in the new state). Most places will allow a bicycle without license but you must obey traffic laws. Many states allow usage of motorized bicycles/scooters/motorcycles with a total engine displacement less than 50cc without a license but many highways (state and federal) restrict or prohibit usage of such vehicles).
Might I suggest you refresh your study of the United States starting with about 1760 (just before the French and Indian War/Seven Years War) through about 1809 (Thomas Jefferson's presidency). Pay very particular attention to the years between 1776 and 1788 (the period of the Articles of Confederation).
No dum ass, It's 13 Colonies, and 37 Territory Union add that'd up 50, your Invisible Empire Klan member, Being paid as a TI Undercover White Racist, this ain't no Dictatorship, y'all going to Learn Day…!
Your Stupid, a Corporation can't own your dumb ass…! Fiction Straw-Man
Your Post mean nothing, "I can tell you write a lot, but you don't read or listen, you better go to the Orgin of the Congress Bill Passed (because what your talking is not Laws, Statutory and Codes Commerce is City Ordinance and can't Trump the law's), before you start posting what was added and taken deliberately…! Historic White Lies…! The Missing 13 Amendment, over 1000 word from the Bible, 👉A Wanted Man Christopher Columbus Rapist, thief, he spread syphilis in the Colonies (because he never made it to the United States and that's a known fact, and how he Discover America, Hello GOD Created the Universe in 7 Days, every word your stating is untruth, Just because your saying it…! "Who or you, No dam body and you no nothing..! Your a Earth Distruber, a paid Troll
1. I am Native American, Cherokee to be exact, and an actually card carrying (yes, they have citizenship cards) member of the Cherokee Nation band of the Cherokee. My grandmother was not even a US citizen until she was 26 years old (1924). My father who was in the military during World War II was not even allowed to vote until 1948 when law passed granting Native Americans the right to vote. Yes, Constitutionally blacks got the right to vote in 1870 (yes some areas passed laws making it difficult if not impossible). There has never been a Constitutional right granted to/covered Native Americans voting.
Blacks think they have such a terrible history. You were slaves. So were Native Americans. We were slaves in the Americas before your poor, suffering, standing-on-your-soap-box ancestors. Do you think the Spanish and English wanted to pay for slaves with shipment costs from Africa? No! They made slaves of the native population first. There was a problem though, we had no resistance to the diseases they brought. You round up slaves, start to finally get them obeying and they die off. Ok, so now look for slave labor elsewhere and try your best at genocide of the indigenous population. If they had done the same thing to the blacks (who I might mention sold the slaves to the Muslims who then sold them in the New World) their would not be as many blacks in Africa WORLD WIDE as there are in the single country of Liberia. Stop your whining. Grow up. The past is the past. No one can do anything about it. Trust me if the Native Americans could, Columbus and crew would never have left the island. Sailors would still think they would sail off the edge of the world and be afraid to sail west. As for the blacks they would have stay killing each other for gold, silver, gems, slaves, and what-not.
2. As to your presumption that I am white and want to serve some sort of white agenda, I wish every last bigoted white, black, oriental, and whatever would go back to where your ancestors lived. I actually welcome those that have desire nothing more than to live quietly and in peace with their neighbors, nature, and God. You appear to be part of the first group.
3. Learn to write. Learn what words mean. Learn the difference is various homophones and near homophones, in particular "dam"/"damn" and "versus"/"verses". Between your almost inability to write a complete sentence, constant use of partial clauses, inability to use (comprehend??) syntax, and use of various little pictures that mean nothing to me (yes I know the devil one), your ramblings are mostly incomprehensible to me and when I try to decipher (make visible that which is hidden) result in ambiguities. Learn how to write at least as well as a third grader. That is the level newspapers are written on as the publishers realize the lack of general literacy. You prove their point. I know you think you can write. You are not displaying any such ability. I suspect you are one of the poor and disenfranchised due to ignorance and attitude. Please when writing do not show off your ignorance. Attitude when presented with facts or well thought out arguments is welcome. I strongly recommend you use a spell checker with content analysis. Not only do you apparently have difficulty spelling words, you have difficulty determining the word you wish to spell. For example you appear to
4. Taxes are the source of revenue for governments. Hopefully the elected officials spend the money wisely. Hopefully there is no embezzlement or back room deals with kickbacks or directing contracts to companies owned by the officials. Roads are one of the ways the government spends taxes. As they are financed by the government, the government has the right to place restrictions on their use. You as a citizen have the right to attempt to change such restrictions by either convincing the government the restriction is wrong or getting enough people to vote in an administration that will change/remove the restriction. All restrictions are tentatively supported by the population as a whole. That means you do NOT have the right to oppose such restrictions without incurring legal consequences.
The government decides where the money will be spent. As the government has limited revenues (I really wish they would return to the tax tables from 1960 adjusted for inflation, even though it would roughly double my tax liability), it must prioritize its expenditures. Sometimes it is discovered the prioritization was wrong. Examples are: A). a minor accident in St Louis (I live just outside it) on a bridge resulted in part of the bridge breaking off, falling, striking a car, and killing the driver (I believe that bridge is closed until further notice); and B). local waterways (creeks) have had the water paths changed and it has undercut the banks in several neighborhoods including one where not only have the trees fallen due to insecure root system but even homes have shifted off foundations due to suddenly the soil the foundation was on no longer being there.
5. I agree corporations are not people. They are legal entities.
6. I have no idea what you mean by "the United changed 4 time since original Constitution". There are a total of 27 amendments to the US Constitution. The original Constitution include NO rights. The Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments) were passed after the original constitution was ratified. All those rights like freedom of religion, speech, press, … were not included in the original constitution.
7. Washington D.C. is part of the United states. I do not know its official designation, but it is effectively a territory.
8. As to your belief that all information taught is a lie, might I suggest if you are that paranoid about the media and education system you talk to your parents, your grand parents, and if still alive great grand parents about what happened in their lives. You might also purchase/read private journals. Many were kept. These were not meant for public reading but were rather personal histories and interpretations of what was seen and heard. While colored by personal bias and prejudice they will show history as it was viewed by the author at the time of the events. A final source would be newspaper archives. Some papers actually have archives stretching back to the early 1800s. The articles will present eye-witness accounts of many events, consensus on what happened, reasons for what happened, and often reliability of the witnesses (again always filtered by and colored through the bias and prejudice of both witness and reporter). Since many of the events are local, the papers were often just to state known facts ending rumors.
9. I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about referencing Revelations 22:19. The news is not religious dogma or prophecy. The materials taught in schools are not religious dogma or prophecy. Most books in no way care about religion. Many texts can actually be somewhat anti-religious, and scientific information be presented with almost a religious fervor to science that rivals the suicide bomber. None of these claims to be prophetic and to have anything to do with an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, …) religion so how could Revelations 22:19 apply?
10. Your declaration of winning the discussion (I do not consider anyone wins a discussion. You can win a debate but not a discussion.). This is not a debate. Your statements are unreasoned and unsupported by stated facts with references. I am not either. Neither of us can therefore win anything except hopefully educate. Your declaration of a victory is as valid as me declaring I have one the Mega Millions lottery and spending a 100 million dollars. At best no one lets me spend the money, at worst I have everyone seeking legal action for fraud.
11. I have no idea of what round table you are referring to. I have no table save my computer desk. The only people I talk to are in religious services (Judaism). Other than that I spend 99% of my time at home with my cats. Had I not seen an article about Flat Earthers and done a search on that and watched a YouTube video about them that was followed by a video about Right to Travel, I would never have known about this entire subject of discussion.
12. For your education, whitewashing has nothing to do with Whites. It comes from the fact that back when people used to use lead paint for painting homes and fences the most common color was white. To whitewash was to paint and hide the blemishes of the wood making up ones homes and fencing. The other color paints cost significantly more money so the average person with a home or fence made of wooden boards it was almost always white. Your treating the phrase like it has to do with White people is the same as the morons that insisted upon naming hurricanes after males and females as it was derogatory to females. (Historically sailors named all things they loved or respected after females, both good and terrible.) You are being that level of stupid if that is your assumption on what the word means.
13. First there were not actually 13 colonies, contrary to what is most often stated. That is just how we count the "colonies". All of New England was actually part of Massachusetts. They were more like colonies or branches of a colony (Massachusetts). I do not believe the other splinter colonies ever had actual charters only the original colony they split off from.
Second I believe I stated what the US territories were. And if you wish to argue territories that make up the various territories and states of the United States, you have Louisiana Purchase, Texas, Utah-Oregon territory, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, the land making up the Gadsden Purchase, and the 17 current territories. Those are the territories that have/still exist that are part of the CURRENT United States and its territories. With the exceptions of California, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, all the states are made come from the breakup and organization of larger territories and were not territories unto themselves. In point of fact Texas was not actually ever a territory of the United States as when it became part of the United States it was a state from the start.
14. I believe I have addressed the issue of possibly being part of the Klan. Native Americans were not allowed in the KKK or most other organizations including the Masons, Knights of Columbus, Moose Club, …
15. You are right the United States of America is not a dictatorship. Dictatorships are much more efficient. Dictatorships tend not to all dissidents such as yourself not allow comments such as you are making. They tend to eliminate problems with extreme and often excruciating pain (torture). The United States is a republic. That means it is made up of smaller self governing regions that provide representatives to a national government and are subject to the laws of the national government. As a republic on the national level it is a democracy. It is more a pseudo republic in the case of the United States as only the legislature (Congress) is such a representative democracy. A true republic has only the "senate", lacking a president or judiciary at the national level. The United States is now and never has been a democracy. Local and state governments may be democracies. Our representatives to the national government are elected through democratic methods, that does not make the national government a democracy. It is most definitely not a dictatorship either though various officials have tried to 'rule' as if it were one.
16. Your next appears as complete rambling words. I have no idea. Please state some laws with House or Senate bill number and I will gladly read it. I actually do that from time to time when I see a strange law being passed or hear strange comments about a law. It often takes a while as most laws are changes to other laws where they never put the entire law together into a single document. You have to research a lot of laws to finally find out what the full wording of the law is. The precedence of laws: A). US Constitution; B). Federal Laws; C). State Constitutions; D). State Laws; E) County/Parish Constitution (if it exists); F). County/Parish laws; G) City/Township/Village Constitution/Charter (if it exists); H). City/Township/Village Laws; and finally I). Local ordinances. No lower level constitution, law, or ordinance my conflict with a superior constitution, law, or ordinance. If that is what you are saying, you are correct.
17. What missing 13th Amendment, and why would it be text from the Bible. The Amendment to the US Constitution reads as:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
It is neither 1000+ words long nor is it taken for the Bible. In point of fact, the Jews recognized slavery as a legal institution within Israel. Slavery was not as slavery was in the New World. Slavery, at least for men, was always for financial reasons and had limits on duration. Slaves had rights, actually most of the same rights as non-slaves. I exclude women because I am not sure if women could be forced to marry. If they could be, they lost almost all rights that they had until divorced at which time they gained even more rights than they had before marriage. Before marrying a woman was completely subject to her father. During marriage a woman was completely subject to husband. After a divorce or widowhood assuming a male child has been born a woman was only subject to themselves and laws all males had to abide by. If widowhood occurred before a male heir was born woman was required to marry the closest male relative. This is why Ruth and Boaz were a scandal, he was not the closest male relative, he was second.
18. No Columbus never made it to North America, he did make it to South America on his 2nd or 3rd voyage. He did not discover America, he publicized it. The Piri Reis maps (shows Antarctica as it really is without the ice sheet) prove it was known of at least centuries before Columbus if not millennia. Zheng He apparently sailed down the west coast almost 100 years before Columbus.
If something is not known and then found out other than by teaching (formal or informal), it is a discovery. Children make discoveries every day. I remember when my son discovered light switches. He would insist I hold him up so he could click it on and off for what seemed hours (he started feeling heavy). Columbus discovered a new land to conquer as the people were primitive, the land was rich and fertile, and the people were not even people because they were not followers of the TRUE god.
19. Not even in Judaism is it believed God created the world in seven days. The period of seven days is honored but not considered literal fact. Possibly 7 epochs or descriptions of periods of time but not seven 24-hour periods. It was not even until the 4th day that God created the sun, moon, and stars. Please note he had growing plants all the way to bringing forth seeds that grew also on the 3rd day, that is to say before their was a sun.
As you appear to be one of those fundamentalist Christian religious types, how when you work back by the listed generations and begets and so on, do you come up with the year 4004 B.C.E (+/- maybe a dozen years to allow for the fact that whoever was not exactly x number of years old (his birthday) when the listed child was born) when both the Egyptian and Sumerian kings lists go back at least a 1000 years older. Further Plato in his Timaeus and Critias, lists Atlantis being sunk over 12,000 years earlier.
The Old Testament is rife with contradictions and corrections. It is the work of men. Even the Torah is not just the work of Moses, but the work of at least 2 people and while most of the information remains the same there are differences.
20. READ, STUDY, MEDITATE on what you have read and studied, and finally LEARN little girl. My son at 3 years old made more sense and had more knowledge than your statements.
On bended knee I bow my head. For I have just read typed words from a man of greatness. Please oh great one. Do not disappear and go quietly into the night. Our great county needs a man of your knowledge and oratory skills to visit us often. Nat you are the shit! I'm claiming Nat as the winner of this thread. Do I have a second?
I am neither great nor a man. Nat as in Natalie. I just look things up. I do not presume to know most even of what I once knew as it has been 40+ years since I graduated college and in that length of time memories dim and even change. (Neuroscientists have shown each time you access a memory, you actually recreate it at that time, possibly with changes.) I unlike many have continued reading and studying. I probably average 2 to 3 hours reading and study daily. I like reading and finding new things. This hardly makes me knowledgeable but does make me a font of generally useless knowledge outside of a possible candidate for "Jeopardy".
I love reading well thought out arguments of positions. They make me think. These comments I responded to, were not well thought out nor well presented. They actually made the poster appear ignorant and mentally handicapped. No one should present themselves in such a manner.
Thatgirl702, made me angry. One should never present a case when angry. Arguments should always be completely dispassionate.
Her presumption that I am some form of White Supremacist was unfounded and insulting as I am not White. I am assuming based on her icon that she is black. Icons can of course be anything one wants and of any person so that presumption may be in error. She may not even be a she. It does not matter to me. Perhaps she is only an internet troll striving to spread discord.
I do get upset when I her African Americans boohooing about how badly they were treated when Europeans basically in the United States attempted genocide of the native population and like they were the only ones enslaved. Many tribes no longer exist as they were successfully exterminated. Then attempts were teach Native Americans to live as Europeans go so far as to take children from their homes and forcibly educate them in government schools. In more than one case, the children where forced to watch their parents punished for speaking their native tongue at the schools. Punishments were also given to the children that committed that crime.
I do not cry over that past. I look at it. I remember it. Blaming people alive today for what their ancestors may or may not have done (Not all were even in the Americas at the time and not all those in the Americas were offenders.) is ridiculous. It is the same as a man kills someone. For whatever reason he can not be punished. So we round up his children and execute them for his crime??? The sins of the parents should not be considered the sins of the children. Only find fault with the children for the sins they commit.
Lastly my oratory skills are actually poor, my writing skill is better but not great. I just did research before replying to each of her points. You may have noted, a few typographical errors like spelling allow as all or skipping words a few times. Writing, being unsatisfied with the statement, deleting part, and then rewriting, leads to that type of statement.
No other human can grant you a dam thing, Without the People, it would not be a Government Inc., We The People formed Government, they have no power over the People's that'd Elected them to Represent the People's, they all sworn oath to protect the Constitution, The Constitution is the Supreme Law for the Nation, Changing Word, Deleting words, Missing Documents, Don't Change the Orgin.
You sound stupid, how States, County, own highway, The Taxpayers, Residents pay for the highway and Government Employees salaries
Corporations or fictitious Not a People, Without human beings it wouldn't be a Government, Who formed Government We the People, do you even know that the United been changed 4 time since the original Constitution, do you know the supposedly Capital of the United States of America – Washington DC and Washington DC is not even part of the United States, Everything and I mean Everything taught about history, the News, including you are all lies, "The Versus from the Bible States Do not add are take away, and that's all y'all have accomplished, Can't be trusted….!
By the way…! "That'd don't hurt my feelings when you try to say you don't understand what I am saying, because my word running into…! Because I know dam well you understand
Because you wrote a Dam book and responded, you put on a good game baby, but I'm the 👑 @ Chess Checkmate my opponent Win Win Baby…! Go back to the round table and tell the rest of the'm Pirates, they're not falling for the okie dokie no more, Y'all need new tactics (All Whitewashed), the gig is Up 😈
try to keep the lies going gnat, err …. nat. lol
as you well know and as I posted earlier, the us code definition for "motor vehicles" means strictly for commercial purposes.
"Title 40 Section 85.1703 Definition of a Motor Vehicle" has the following text:
"§ 85.1703 Definition of motor vehicle.
(a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled and capable of transporting a person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or more of the criteria set forth below are met, in which case the vehicle shall be deemed not a motor vehicle:
(1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved surfaces; or
(2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use, such features including, but not being limited to, a reverse gear (except in the case of motorcycles),
a differential, or safety features required by state and/or federal law; or
(3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, such features including, but not being limited to, tracked road contact means, an inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry.
(b) Note that, in applying the criterion in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, vehicles that are clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles. Absence of a particular safety feature is relevant only when absence of that feature would prevent operation on highways.
[39 FR 32611, Sept. 10, 1974, as amended at 45 FR 13733, Mar. 3, 1980; 73 FR 59178, Oct. 8, 2008; 75 FR 22977, Apr. 30, 2010; 81 FR 73972, Oct. 25, 2016]"
Please forgive me but I find no requirement that a commercial use is required to be classified/defined/specified a "motor vehicle".
Please the reference for the US Code to which you refer. If possible, as I have just done, please quote the full text.
You are more than welcome to call me a liar or insult me. You mean nothing to me so, the statement means nothing, to me it reads as a rather poor attempt at a joke. Your statement appears to be just an opinion (no I have not read the full thread). Without proof as I have provided in rebuttal, I can only consider you, one of the sheep that rather than choose of research and think, would prefer to take the ramblings of others as truth and proof. I am sure the drunkards at whatever tavern, lodge, or assembly you attend and/or belong to are your legal experts.
Why do you not bother reading the laws you are talking about before you write your commentary. It will make you look MUCH smarter. Further I would be most interested in a coherent rebuttal where you present verifiable information.
you got all the answers spoken like a true democrat but ware you are wrong is the USA is a republic not a democracy you wrote your book here with all your all knowing crap true slave maybe you need to study the difference between a republic and a democracy free men and yes remember the pledge of allegiance in school the republic for witch it stands no one rules over another that is a democracy satin-est think they have the right to rule dictate to another natural law gods law that is how our for fathers established our country and meant it to be period
Restating what you have written first using English not some form of street talk, then my replay.
You have presented all the answers spoken like a true Democrat, but where you are wrong is the USA is a republic not a democracy. You wrote your book here with all your all knowing crap, true slave. Maybe you need to study the difference between a republic and a democracy. Free men ??? [You are missing the rest of this clause or sentence, as "Free men" and "yes" do not group. I am not sure what you are missing as it is completely missing.] and yes [apparently an audible pause much like uh and um, an unneeded word.] Remember the pledge of allegiance as stated in school reminds us that our government is a republic, "the republic for which it stands". No one rules over another, that is a democracy. Satin-est [What is a satin-est? I find only references to the type of fabric or to a tactile texture. I am dropping the word "is" as I think satin-est is either a noun or a adjective acting as a noun.] think they have the right to rule and to dictate to another natural law, the Lord's [Forgive me, I realize using God does not indicate a particular deity, but it still bothers my religious sensibilities, I prefer Adonai or Lord.] law. That is how ourfor fathers established our country and meant it to be period.
Reply:
1. I am not a Democrat. I am a student of the US Constitution. I have read the works of John Locke, Thomas Paine, the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention as recorded by James Madison, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I have also read the early briefs of John Jay, and many of the papers of Samuel Adams, John, Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. I am against the size of the current Federal government and would like to see most of the powers returned to the states.
2. I am well aware both state and federal governments within the United States are republics. There may still be some actual democracies on the local level but those are few and far between. Most consist of councils that are elected or appointed that make the local laws and ordinances without review and voting at large by the entire affected population.
3. The elected/appointed officials DO have the authority to pass local laws and ordinances. They may enact any law not expressly forbidden to them by their territorial government, their state or the Federal government. State governments are only constrained by what is forbidden to them by the Federal government. There are very very few things forbidden at any level. The greatest limitation on government is actually at the federal level. Though the Federal government uses any possible interpretation of the US Constitution to attempt to increase its powers, its powers are constrained by that document.
4. To my knowledge no jurisdiction limits your right to move from one point to another when such movement is both by foot and does not trespass. Travel across most public lands is unrestricted. There are exceptions such as military installations and certain government owned/leased buildings/suites. If you want to walk across the United States you are most welcome.
5. Rob Powell has presented information by Jack McLamb proposing the US Supreme Court and various state Supreme Courts have ruled a "Right to Travel". I have read all 4 cases he mentions. I would suggest you also read the full briefings of the cases he notes and both the full text of the various courts decisions. They DO NOT grant a blanket "Right to Travel" nor do any of the decisions restrict a state from requiring certification of the ability of a motor vehicle operator and licensing thereof.
6. You are more than welcome to try and initiate class action litigation against all 50 states. The award would easily be in the billions of dollars. I would imagine the winning firms commission, assuming 40%, could easily be 2-3 BILLION dollars. I am sure if the states may not limit your Right to Travel, any attorney firm would be more than glad to take the case.
Laws nor the constitution grant inalienable rights. These rights precede the constitution and any other man made attempt to deny them. Man has no authority to force, threaten, or act to deny civil rights. Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Don’t Tread on Me!
Where are these alleged rights written? Can you cite them? Where in the federal and state constitutions, legislation, regulations or court decisions are they protected and guaranteed?
Start with the Magna Carta then read Bastiat The Law and Hoppe https://mises.org/library/idea-private-law-society
Still mere writings from men bear no ultimate standing over others no mater how many fancy hat officials endorse them. Even the perverted court of record today is still subject to nullification of bad law.
Yet, you don't discuss the New Hampshire Freedom of travel bill that is making its way through legislature..or that under UCC 9-109 your vehicle is household goods and cannot be taxed….ie registered!
The BOTTOM line about all of these arguments is that the only one that matters is the one settled by the Supreme Court – if you want to overturn those, then you need to file a lawsuit and win. The Supreme Court has ruled that the states are within their rights to regulate travel by motor vehicle, on their roadways. Once that was decided, it is each individual states definition of what driving/traveling/motor vehicle, etc. are to support their laws and traffic codes that matter – The Constitution says absolutely nothing about motor vehicles, so, quit claiming a Constitutional right to drive! The Supreme Court decides what is a violation of the Constitution, and they have decided that the states regulation of motor vehicles is NOT a violation of your right to travel.
The people who take it a step further and attempt to "exercise" their perceived "right" on the side of the road, are completely ignoring the rest of the system we have in place – NOWHERE is it ok to argue with a police officer, and think that you and the officer can decide the issue on a roadside. The system is set up so that if you feel your rights were violated, you take them to court and argue your point. As most laws currently stand, if you are driving a motor vehicle and commit a traffic violation, the officer makes a lawful request for proof of your license to drive.
Yes, there are those who still argue that you have violated no law, only a traffic infraction, so, you have no obligation to provide identification – WRONG. Once you have committed the infraction, the officer makes the lawful request for the identification – you refuse – YOU ARE NOW BREAKING THE LAW, not a code or infraction. If you were walking, or a passenger, different story if you're not breaking an actual law, but, in a vehicle, the driver will be breaking the law by not providing the license.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of videos on youtube of people making these claims. If they were legitimate. you would also see hundreds, if not thousands, of videos of smiling, happy "travelers" leaving court with no convictions and a pocket full of police officer's money! Instead, you see what happens when you break the law – windows being smashed, people being tazed and arrested, all for nothing.
I can honestly say I have no idea how any type of roadblock in any state is legal – they all seem to be a clear cut violation of being stopped with no probable cause – But, what I do know is that the Supreme Court has ruled they are legal, so, agree or not, I have to stop at them. It's not about how you interpret the Constitution – whether it seems very clear and simple to you or not. it's about how the Supreme Court interprets it.
Not true, Nevada didn't have licence Plates, and the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, their only 13 Colonies and 37 Territory Union States that can enacted but is prohibited No new States Bill Attainder ex post facto, United States is a foreign Corporation, Human Living Beings are not The Property of The Government, States, City and Township, Plantations don't, The Constitution protects the people's life, liberty, of Slavery, involuntary Servitude, We the People's formed Government, Government LLC is a Plantations Enterprise, RICO, I own all my cars, and I don't use for Commercial Use, Why do I have to register my Automobile with the DMV and get a Certificate Copy Title of my own dam Car…! The laws was Horse and Buggy, the only crime, is a Accident and your found drunk, use the car to run them over Bodily Harm or use to damage public or private property, carrying a unregistered gun….! That's a Crime, Nevada had no speed limit before making up for Revenue and lining their pockets to have the Residents, Taxpayers, and Voters pay for their livelihood…! The Constitution tell each public servants salaries and who's has vast interest of the outcomes of Racketeering…! we have a right Not to consent to these Contracts without full disclosure (I don't know the Laws and wasn't taught in school, and wasn't given any, I am one of the People's of the United States, I Travel from state to States USA is my Home), each States when you look up a Law, Laws or Passed through Congress not States, City, County, thoes or Statutory Code and when you look Revised Statutes it never match up to origin of the bill that'd was passed by Congress…! the same when you ask to see a Attorney, Judge Licence, they can't show because they have a bar Union card, Certificate is not a Licence…! When you point and Direct the Laws to be followed, "I do believe Public Officers, Oath Keepers, they need to follow them (No one's above the Law, British No King can't do no wrong), every 37 territory Union sworn oath to protect the Constitution, the Constitution is the Bylaws of the Local Government limited power….!
This whole thing is wrong…. We the people are the law, you just need to study and figure it out! And not all statue at large codes are positive laws! And words are very important when it comes to law.. Its code words and code numbers… Drivers license are only for COMMERCIAL VEHICLES That is the positive law! Driver's License are COMMERCIAL LICENSE OF DIFFERENT CLASS. …Your personal vehicle is not for business!! Traveling is if you have to go get food to eat… That is 14th amendment they can't take away from you including our other rights! No rights or privileges can be taken away from any one… Driving is a privilege.. Which makes it a right.. You do not have to have a DL… I know cause I refuse to have one… Tell officers the codes they have to walk away! Non positive laws are prima facie… Not enactive laws and can be won in all courts!
Well once you register your automobile to the state (corporation) it becomes a commercial vehicle, and yes you need a drivers license to operate a company vehicle. I think most do not truly understand how deep this hole goes. Same thing with the right to bear arms, not firearms. Without offending anyone, please lets read more and not base your freedoms on what a corporation gives you.
You are a lawyer are you not and just like the rest of them get rich by Stomping on of United States citizens rights granted them by the Constitution of the United States of America because your money is more important you make me sick let's go back for a minute genius why did we even have police officers ever in the first place ??it was to protect United States citizens as they spread across this country and exercise their common law right to travel as they saw fit by horse carriage or automobile and transport their goods Thompson vs Smith Supreme Court with no regulations or stopping points to pay ..and the police protected us from robber barons toll booths Etc as we practice those rights.. well genius the rights ain't changed its just now we have to pay the judges and the lawyers and the state regulations and taxes so we can exercise those rights. and every automobile in the United States is that damn far leap safer than any horse God you're idiots.. you know and it seems like you must not have paid attention in law school… remember any regulation or tax or any law that abhors or prohibits a United States citizen from practicing their constitutional rights that law then has become Moot and irrelevant.. just like the rest of them caught up in this billion-dollar last of tyrannical state government you're such an idiot if you're going to put a fact down put all the facts what a jackass get rich off of the poor old lady oh wait that poor old lady she couldn't leave her house and her dead husband left her a car but she couldn't use it she had to stay home and starve to death or freeze to death cuz she couldn't get water food because lawyers and judges like you said when you got to have this little piece of paper says you can do it okay it's all a billion-dollar lie and it will end good luck in Hades Bubba
I have another argument to make here. First I am not a lawyer that said means that I am not familiar with the devil in the details of law. So the argument that I have is since the states have the sole rite to govern and adjudicate laws of automobile use among its citizens wouldn't this situation kinda fall under the laws of monopoly and racketeering which deserve over site. If that is or is not the case where does the licencing and approval agency (Department of Motor Vehicles) get authority to charge the people any more for the cervices that it is responsible to the people for. If someone is violating the law than that is what the judicial system is tasked to do. The state agencies are not like a department store which gives credit to its customers because the customers are not customers they are the boss. Department of Motor Vehicles penalty for this penalty for that. Why? how?
Travel restrictions, in lieu of criminal wrongdoing, warrants, imminent arrest, etc., are inherently unconstitutional. Invocation of the lack of a SCOTUS ruling supporting that basic fact can easily be applied to other areas, such as Dred Scott.
The People is not the State's, City, County, Township or Plantations "Property", and No the State's don't own shit, the Taxpayers pay and Paid and Built the Road, Street and Hwy, the only thing State have is statutory rules over their Constitution byway of Contracts and Services, such as Welfare, Food stamp, Housing, and Prisons and their Jails and still the Taxpayers pays that'd for too the things mentioned above is Local-Government Service Contracts, I never Contract with neither….! My cars are all paid for…! and FHA is Federal, most of the people on this post saying the Government Owns you, That'd would be called Enslavement and that'd is against The Constitution Bylaws, All Law Enforcement sworn under Oath to Protect the Constitution and the Public from Domestic and Foreign Corporations License/Deceptive Business Practices, the United States has been changed 4 times, and 4 time Bankrupted, Washington DC supposedly the Capital of the United States of America and Washington DC not part of United States, looking at the real history it would've been NY…! Country's has King and Queens, United States Corporations has President, Vic Pesident, secretary treasurers resident agent and stockholders, Trade Marketing the Injust Enrichment Bigotry of the America way….! Nothing is Truth to the Forefathers in the United State's because United States is Actually a Foreign Country by the Global Map…! All the true history of the Constitution has either been stolen, added and hidden…! I can't and will never serve two GOD…! and who ever saying you don't understand what I am saying, because I am speaking into a cell phone mic and didn't check want it said, but you clearly understand…! The People's formed government, and without the People their would not be a Government, Government Citizens, Corporate Employees are nothing more then Public Servants, and has definitely Flip the Script, from We The People to We The Corporations a Modernized Ku Klux Klan in New Uniforms, Your Racist Neighbor's, You know the whole ordeal…! GOD Created all Man Equally…! The gig is up…! Nobody has Respect for the Government Inc. "It's Corrupted and has been exposed, from the time of Christopher Columbus was a Wanted man for Many Crimes…! and the Government made him a Federal Holiday, most and all the President(s) was Rapists, Muders and thieves, if they went wayback to bill Cosby, We can go wayback also here in Nevada the Mayor turn a Federal Court and Post Office into a Mob Museum talk about wrongdoers, heathens, and Pirates RICO The New Modern Day Invisible Empire Enterprise…! "This too shall and Must come too pass, In due time by 👉 "The Universe
Ignorant sheeple, the right to travel is a creator given right and subject to no authority nor jurisdiction. Every "buzz word" used by liars in fake courts (really civil tribunals) are in fact commercial and all have commercial legal definitions. Personal automobiles not being used for commerce are not subject to "motor vehicle" laws, nor can anyone "drive" without being hired, Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition or previous versions that haven't been doctored by liars. Last fact; there are zero lawyers because there is no such thing as a "law license", bar associations are private companies that give out memberships, have zero government authority, and most state on their websites that they don't issue licenses and are not affiliated with government.
READ and learn, I looked up the first commercial law definition for you that continue to lie for your masters.
——————————-
LII U.S. Code Title 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Part I. CRIMES Chapter 2. AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES Section 31. Definitions
(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
(10)Used for commercial purposes.—
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Another truth is stranger than fiction fact for those of you too stupid to read the real laws and real legal definitions of words, (no words don't mean what the brainwashers "taught" you in public education factories), contracts made by past generations have zero authority over anyone not a party to them. So even the liars calling themselves federal anything or state anything have zero contracts binding anyone that hasn't expressly agreeing to contract with them, also a condition of legitimate (valid) contracts is that there must be full disclosure and no fraud. Everything used by false courts, false federal government, false state governments. false lawyers and false law enforcers are lies.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/179/270.html
Right of locomotion in a fed case #honest
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/179/270/&ved=2ahUKEwjp3Oyb7rXiAhUFc98KHR_4DbYQFjABegQIDhAG&usg=AOvVaw2QAtAj2uWflpsRqncd-hkf
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=260.
Read it n weep 😊 #honest
Edit:if the link doesnt pull it up type 260 in the section box it should lead to commercial vehicle
Man, I'm tired of you people always using these dated (pre1950s) decisions. Give me one from 2010 or later.
Don't say you can't. Find a Justice, and get an interpretation from him or her. Find a way to do it. Until you do, I will continue to refuse to sign into that bullshit, and I will continue to operate my vehicle, TEN TIMES SAFER THAN 90% OF THE LICENSED LACKEYS OF DEATH! By that, I mean every single driver who drives while intoxicated, drives while texting, doesn't look both ways every time, doesn't check mirrors, doesn't shoulder check, and they don't look twice.
You're using the word "traffic", which is defined as "commercial travel"
Privilege is depriving one natural rights, also it was a time when Speed Limit, Driver License wasn't even needed on Road, Toll fee is for hired Motor Vehicle Operators, this dam shit privilege is nothing more than Injust Enrichment, ex post facto after the fact of Self-Government infringement Enterprise RICO, the Residents Taxpayers pays for the Public Road and the Local Government Salaries, We the People formed Government, not the other way around, we're the bill passed by Congress that'd made it a privilege law, any one who says it's a privilege is a pirate working for Self-Government Ponzi scam for Injust Enrichment is Unconstitutional…! States has Limited Powers and no power to enforce unlawful rules that'd depriving Life, Liberty, of the People Natural GOD giving birth Rights…! GOD is govern over all things, never gave Corporation power to infringe another man Rights, All man is created equal, anything other then that is Vast interest of the outcome Municipality to gain Injust Enrichment Contract, We the People's Don't Consent, you have to have two party in agreement, Slavery days is over for these undercover pirates in new uniforms…! Legalizing Injust Enrichment White Collar Criminals
modern day Enslavement, Which a bill was passed in 2015
S.553 – End Modern Slavery Initiative Act of 2015
114th Congress (2015-2016)
Stop you pirate spreading Racketeering Injust Enrichment for Local-Goverment Pirates
In the case titled State of New Jersey vs Marc Stephens, Fort Lee Municipal court released the order dismissing the traffic citation against Marc Stephens for driving without liability insurance coverage on a motor vehicle. The municipal prosecutor did not file an appeal.
On Sunday, February 7, 2016, while parked in a private parketing lot, Marc Stephens was ordered not to leave his vehicle, and was ‘detained’ for 50 minutes by Officer P. Kellett of the Fort Lee Police Department.
Officer Kellett asked Marc Stephens for his license and registration. Marc stated he did not have the documents because they are ‘not required to travel’.
Marc Stephens explained to Officer P. Kellett that he has a constitutional ‘right to travel’, and does not need a driver’s license, vehicle registration, or forced vehicle insurance.
Kellett ran Marc’s information and confirmed that his vehicle has never been registered, or contained insurance. Instead of a driver’s license, Marc Stephens only had an identification card that was issued by the State of California.
Officer P. Kellett did not believe Marc’s constitutional right to travel argument, and issued Marc Stephens a ticket for parking an unregistered motor vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:3-4), and for having no liability insurance coverage on a motor vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2). Kellett then called a tow truck, who then removed Marc’s black S-Class Mercedes Benz, which contained California license plates, from the private property without Marc’s consent.
On October 27, 2016, a trial was held at the Fort Lee Municipal courthouse. Marc Stephens raised the argument that New Jersey’s Title 39, which is the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation, ‘does not apply’ to citizens who are not ‘commercial drivers’.
Stephens stated on record that, “Title 39 is for the regulation of “Motor Vehicles” and that pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 31 (a)(6) and also N.J.S.A. 39:3-4.1, the term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo, and that pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 31 (a)(10); and also N.J.S.A. 39:3-6.1 the term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit”.
Marc vehicle was purchased in the State of California, and Marc pointed out California’s Vehicle Code, which reads:
“Passenger vehicles are Exempt and are not required to be registered, see, DIVISION 1: 260: (a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles”.
“There were no citations issued to me for using the highway as a commercial use or persons for hire”, says Marc.
Officer P. Kellet 'testified' that Marc Stephens was driving on Lemoine Avenue in Fort Lee, but was not operating a commercial vehicle.
Marc Stephens closed raising his constitutional argument, and citing the opinion of the Supreme Court:
“The right to travel is equivalent to the right to free speech”, says Marc.
“There is ‘common law speech’ which the State cannot regulate, and then there is ‘commercial speech’ which the State can regulate by permits and licenses because it’s a privilege. The same applies to the right to travel. There is ‘common law travel’ which is a fundamental right that the state cannot regulate, and there is ‘commercial travel’ which is classified as ‘driving’ and is subject to State regulations because it’s a privilege” says Marc.
“Travel is common law, driving is commercial law” says Marc.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled, “The right to travel is an "unconditional personal right," a right whose exercise may not be conditioned”. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 643 (STEWART, J., concurring) (emphasis added); Oregon v. Mitchell, supra, at 292 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined). Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 – Supreme Court 1972 at 342”.
Judge John R. Desheplo stated to Stephens, “You won”.
Judge Desheplo found Marc Stephens not guilty for driving without vehicle insurance.
Marc Stephens is also currently in the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit regarding a $76M lawsuit which he filed against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, Nina C. Remson at Law, LLC, and Comet Law Offices, LLC for false arrest and legal malpractice. read Article.
Marc also has a highly watched second amendment case that will be reviewed by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on February 17, 2017. read Article.
Most shockingly, Marc Stephens has never been to law school.
The writer of this article is confused as to the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment in no way bestows any special Power or Authority in regards passing legislation. The tenth amendment was one of ten amendments that was inserted into the united States Constitution with the understanding that without there inclusion "We the People" would not only not accept ANYONE telling us what we could and could not due, but also the founding fathers would have been found hanging from the nearest trees!
These ten amendment were none other than the Bill of Rights. As everyone of average intelligence, for which the writer has clearly shown him/her self to be "LOWER", knows that the Bill of Rights has and had nothing to do with States Rights, but in fact was about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!
Thus, the tenth amendment bestowed absolutely no Power or Authority to pass any legislation to LIMIT one's Right to Travel, which is also known as the Right of Locomotion, much less give the State any Power or Authority to force "We the People" to pay the State (License, Registration, Tags, Insurance….etc) in order to engage in a God-Given Right! To anyone with COMMON SENSE God-Given RIGHTS cannot be converted into Privileges to be controlled by the SERVANTS of "We the People"!
COMMON SENSE: NOWHERE has "We the People" given ANYONE Power or Authority to tell us what we can do with our own personal property, much less are own physical bodies! For anyone to claim otherwise is completely IDIOTIC. This action would equate to slaves back in the days of SLAVERY being able to force their MASTERS to seek the permission of its slaves before engaging in a simple action of traveling to the nearest farm in the engagement of their daily activities! YEP, like the writer expects "We the People" to believe his/her bovine excrement!
Does any body research and or actual read case law or law books anymore? People making these false videos with wrong information need to stop. People watch to many of these clowns on Youtube given Construction advice to people when they have no clue or distinction between De Facto or De Jure government. Someone making a video from a basement under a laundromat reading words he underlined from a dictionary while not having any teeth, smoking a cigarette with chickens crowing in background is not law advice I would listen too. These people still think Washington D.C. is a State located in U.S.A. neither are correct. They don't even know United States and United States of America are two different governments. But enough about these idiots.
The reason why police can do want ever they want to your automobile, ready? "Your not the owner." All registered vehicles are owned by the State and are property of the State. You are driving a State corporate vehicle, therefore you are subject to their laws regarding acting in commerce on the road, require a driver license, vehicle insurance, and registration. Anything you registered with the State makes the State the new owner. Do you have a Birth Certificate? They own your Name and You. And you thought slavery ended LOL.
When you purchased a new car with a loan, ownership must be surrendered to the State before it's registrater. Dealership don't tell you they surrendered the MSO (legal title to automobile, proof of ownership) to the Department of Revenue in exchange for a Certificate of title (Pink Slip). Dealership also get paid for every MSO they send them. You pay to register the (States) property which they own. For the privilege of you borrowing the States property, your paying the (States) car loan every month, driver license every four years, registration yearly, smog every two years. The MSO is microfilm and original destroyed so you can't ever get it. This is all done without your consent. It's Fraud, Extortion, Deceit, Coercion. All Malicious acts along with RICO activity.
But, if you paid cash for a new automobile no loan, you demand the MSO because your the sole owner. Automobile purchased for primarily use of traveling, personal, drive to and from work, and not intended for commercial use, makes the automobile "Consumer Goods". UCC Article 9. Part 1. Sec. 9-109. Making the automobile private goods, and not required to have it registered, or driver license, per UCC. Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp. , 3 UCC Rep. Serv. 1035: 415 S.W. 2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966)
State's have the right to regulate the operation of motor vehicles for public safety, which means; traffic signs, red lights, speed of vehicle etc. But they do not have authority forcing you get a driver license, pay registration a (tax). All that is only for commercial vehicles. The only reason they force you to pay is to make money.
Y'all should look up reno v. Condon where the Supreme court rulled "the activity linens by a state DMV's and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV is itself integrally related to interstate commerce" further more the US 18 defined "motor vehicle" means a device in,on, or by witch a person or property is or may be transportated or drawn on a highway, except a device used extensively on a stationary rails or tracks
So who needs to fact check?
US Courts are Masonic temples (a religion) hence operate in violation of the 1st Amendment. The Cannanite Priest who's cult of Baal worships the LORD impersonates the "State" as a private corporation fraudulently claiming is a branch of the government.
The problem with this all is that since the act of 1871, the UNITES STATES, and the states have all become CORPORATIONS… We are under a CORPORATE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and not the republican form we have been given. WAGONS did a LOT of damage to roadways. Roads had to be maintained then.. But sudden bikes and cars are destructive enough to regulate? Come on. this is a matter of contract through the corporatocracy KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES WHICH HAS usurped THE CONSTITUTIONS REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE ARE SUPPOSE TO HAVE.. we are under corporations… Don't believe e.. Here are the DUNS and Bradstreet numbers which you can only get as a CORPORATION… Are we to have a CORPORATE GOVERNMENT? Or the LAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT promised to us in the constitution? After seeing USC 28 3002 (15) and othr laws making STATES CORPORATIONS you cannot convince me that we are not under a CORPORATOCRACY rather than a REPUBLIC..
TN DUN # State of Tennessee-04143882
http://www.citizensofidaho.com/FEDERAL_DUNS___.pdf
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems fairly simple to me. If you want to "drive" you have to follow the state's law. They're not preventing you from traveling. If you wish to "travel" put your stuff in a cart or a backpack and travel on. You don't need to use a highway or vehicle to get from state to state so no one is being prevented from traveling. Driving on the other hand needed laws to govern the act because people were being killed by inexperience, carelessness, and impairment. So the states as well as the federal government saw a need for laws and regulations governing operation of a vehicle to ensure public life and safety. The licence you get simply shows you have the proper "training" to operate a vehicle. Requirement of insurance was implemented as well as vehicle inspections due to people operating dangerous vehicles and causing damage to property and life. Again a public safety issue. Driving without a license, or claiming the constitution has anything about driving is absurd. They didn't have cars at that time nor did they have the foresight of such possibilities. Requiring a driver's licenses does not prevent anyone from traveling. Preventing pedestrians, horses, bicycles, among other things from highways is just common sense to prevent accidents. No one is saying you have to get a license to go any where. You only have to get one if you're going to DRIVE. And yes driving is a privilege that can be taken from you. Just as freedom can be taken from you if you break the law. Also the "cases" mentioned above does not have anything to do with "DRIVING" as it pertains to the licensing for the operation of a vehicle. The constitution simply states no one can impede or prevent you from "traveling" between states. As stated earlier you don't need a vehicle to travel. You can walk and still travel. Skating, skateboarding, swimming, and skipping are all forms of travel. Also you can get a ticket for jaywalking among other things. So no license required. No agreement or contract with the state. So what argument would you use for that? Here's something for you to consider when trying to use the constitution incorrectly. The constitution allows states to make their own laws. So I'm guessing that would cover driving or traveling within their state. I don't understand how one can try to use the constitution to usurp the law of a state when it clearly states that they have the right to make such laws as long as they aren't in conflict with the constitution. Now when a law is in conflict, eventually the supreme court will hear the case and decide, like it did with some states helmet laws. These laws are factual and one is able to research them. All court cases are public domain. Unless sealed by the court. I've heard of people trying to use these arguments, but they still wound up paying the driving without a license fine and any other fines that weren't dismissed for whatever reason in the interest of time or justice. Other times simply due to lack of evidence. Speaking of which, the above mentioned cases lack any evidence for your argument. Until I see court documents to support an argument to have driving without a licence by "traveling" charges dismissed, I can't believe and won't believe such rhetoric.
Proper training LOL. What a load of shite. It is a money grabber, it is a freedom grabber, and only statists would accept such a system. The right to travel unmolested is a natural right. Today, we have vehicles to do this in. What do you think Jefferson would have said if a redcoat came up to him and asked for his papers for traveling with his horse and carriage?
As for trying to make a distinction between "driving" and "traveling" in my opinion is ridiculous. Driving has nothing to do with commerce. When one drives and is also participating in commerce, they have a commercial license. If they operate their vehicle in business for themselves, they will also have a business license. As far as I know no one has ever argued it's unconstitutional to force one to have a business license to participate in commerce. There is no need for one to use a motor vehicle to travel. The constitution again states that no one can impede anyone from traveling between states. Essentially that means that no one can erect a fence, gate, wall or other implement to prevent entry or exit nor can they physically prevent you, unless you are on probation or parole. The states requirement of a license to operate a vehicle is the same as requiring a pilot to have a license. Are they being prevented to freely travel as well? Would you want an unlicensed pilot? How about an unlicensed train operator? Maybe an unlicensed doctor? Lawyer? No one is preventing anyone from traveling by the requirement of a motor vehicle license. The licence simply shows you are "trained" to operate as well as provided proper identification in case of accident or crime while in operation of a motor vehicle. Without it one could claim to be POTUS and until proper ID is obtained one can't be properly charged for their crime or infraction while in operation of a motor vehicle. The argument you're trying to make is that you require a motor vehicle in order to travel, which you do not.
If you read these cases carefully, you will notice its about regulating the highways. They only case shown here that says anything about license is construed to mean for hire drivers along with interstate commercial drivers. Not one of those cases stated all automobiles are required to be registered and travelers to be licensed to use the highways. There are way to many cases out there that prove the right to travel is definitely the people's Right. Willing to bet some Crown Esquire (BAR Attorney) posted this nonsense. Always dig deep if you want to find the truth. Do statutes, codes and regulations apply to a living man or woman? NO, they do not, they only apply to legal persons and government employees. Truth can only be found by digging through the lies. Whoever wrote this article is ignorant of the common law or a Crown Esquire (BAR Attorney).
All I know, is that if an unlicensed driver/traveller causes a crash that kills or injures anyone in my family, they will learn the effect of the 2nd amendment real fast!!!
Will they experience said violence if they have their little piece of plastic? If not why? The right to travel is an inalienable right.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CARL MILLER, THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND ALL OF HIS CASES IN COURT CLICK HERE. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion&p=229161#post229161
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CARL MILLER, THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND ALL OF HIS CASES IN COURT CLICK HERE. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion&p=229161#post229161
EVERYTHING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, CARL MILLER, AND HIS TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion
EVERYTHING ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG AND HIS TEACHINGS ON PROJECTAVALON.NET.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show…y-sheriff-hoax
EVERYTHING ABOUT ROD CLASS AND HIS TEACHINGS ON PROJECTAVALON.NET.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes
EVERYTHING ABOUT DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt…s-depopulation)
I think the problem begins when we (Regis)ter our family automobiles or private conveyance. We unknowingly and unwillingly contract with the govment by deception they convert our private property into a commercial vehicle because we turned it over to them with our signature and agreement and gave them the power over us to enforce their (polic)ies with their private contract enforcement (POLIC)E.
When we regis+ter anything in a sense you give it to the king where the term 'Regis' comes in. Then they apply the govment name they created for you to the license they own and we all fall for it.
Your name in all caps is never your proper name. It is a fictitious entity used as commerce, transmitting utility, franchise, corporation, person and other entities used for their gain and controll.
Contract Law will always supersede Constitutional Law. That's why we need to be careful what we sign, they assume your acting in an official capacity for the fictitious entity they created from your name. Test it…. write any govment entity that uses your name in all caps and you probably wont receive a response or they'll act like they dont know what you're talking about. Dont take my word for any of this Look it all up for yourselves…….
"My people perish for their lack of knowledge"…..
Peace be with you
"Judging constitutionality is ultimately up to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 3: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"… because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause."
No, judging constitutionality is not up to the Supreme Court, they are bound by it by the creation of that branch by the US Constitution spelling out in writing the duties that branch/office within each branch has, and by the Oath(s) required of those who SERVE WITHIN our governments. This is a newer way of interpreting the US Constitution which has not changed by those who serve and are bound to it, and it is incorrect. It is first the states, and then the American people who created the government of the USA duty to say, by studying its historical meaning, what our founders created for us to follow and live by.
James Madison, offered a warning, emphasizing the importance of a fixed Constitution in a letter to Henry Lee: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!”
George Washington said that, we must “resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.”
Plus he said: that “one method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”
Alexander Hamilton postulated: “A limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
The state of Georgia has already met this issue by passing the Georgia Right to Travel Act of 2010. If we study
Maxim of law, the Constitution, civil law, and uniform commercial code all of which precede state statute ( public policy), it becomes apparent that you cannot contract under threat, duress, or coercion, and a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime. Remember a right is taken free and clear. You don't ask. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20092010/97280.pdf
That bill was introduced by one assemblyman and read twice in the House but never reached the Senate and was never voted on or signed by the governor to enact it as law as required by the Georgia Constitution. Here's how a bill becomes a law in Georgia.
As I recall reading the House transcripts on the topic, which I can't seem to locate on the legislature site just now, there were concerns about the failure to explain how commercial vs non-commercial drivers could be identified and what would replace the revenue generated by the licensing programs.
Maxims have no force in law. All law originates in legislatures enacting things according to a constitution, executive branches making regulations pursuant to power delegated by a legislature, or courts making decisions at common law when statutes are vague or silent. State law stands unless a federal law or judgment overrides it, and the federal government has so far decided to leave general highway regulation and licensing to the states and considered equally-applied regulation reasonable. Civil law is about non-criminal law interactions between parties. The UCC is a suggested set of rules which are variously enacted (or not) by state legislatures and also can be interpreted differently by each state's courts. A decent overview can be found on wiki.
I find it interesting someone would suggest such an act. Apparently there are more people interested in the right to travel but there are enough bureaucrats to block the attempt at some semblance of freedom.
I find it interesting someone would suggest such an act. Apparently there are more people interested in the right to travel but there are enough bureaucrats to block the attempt at some semblance of freedom.
That bill was introduced by one assemblyman and read twice in the House but never reached the Senate and was never voted on or signed by the governor to enact it as law as required by the Georgia Constitution. Here's how a bill becomes a law in Georgia.
That bill was introduced by one assemblyman and read twice in the House but never reached the Senate and was never voted on or signed by the governor to enact it as law as required by the Georgia Constitution. Here's how a bill becomes a law in Georgia.
What is so difficult to understand about the right of states to control regulations not specifically assigned to the Federal government? Cherry picking portions of outdated SCOTUS decisions does not not equal any right to operate a powered machine to travel. It's as absurd as claiming you don't need a plane ticket to fly NYC-Chicago because of your "right" to trave!.
It's especially silly to pretend that an automobile is not a vehicle. What do these fools think the "v" in a VIN number stands for? And dear deluded folk, think twice before removing your VIN numbers, because in most places that is a felony.
The person writing the article is HALF correct and that is states have the right to regulate traffic law OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ONLY.not privately owned vehicles that are used for personal use.
Superficial look at the movement. Everything is about consent of the
governed, maxims of law, trust law. Most really don't know enough to say
anything meaningful about it. Redemptionists are practicing their
patriotism and studying the law and all the interconnections between
businesses, institutions, tribes and other entities. At times they
argue amongst themselves about the meaning they found in the federal
register and come to a consensus. If anything it's a big law study
group similar to a jury panel. If you think about it, altogether they
are a court of superior jurisdiction outside the United States since
they literally know the definition of United States and it's boundaries. Nothing smells more like freedom than
having a bunch of these guys on your jury panel. They will nullify any
law they disagree with and it"s perfectly legal.
Right to travel unrestricted by any state or city license or registration by horse drawn carriage or automobile is a right and not a privilege.
Wow this article was written by a government loving Trader
Wow this article was written by a government loving Trader
The inferior courts are administrative not judicial. The clerk masquerades as a judge trying to assume commerce contract with everyone that doesn't know the courts are going after the trust created in your name at birth, but have not taken control of it at the age of 18, are still considered by the courts at the age of infant take control as a guardian to create a contract. Simply by saying "I do not consent" and "I reserve all rights and waive none EVER!" besides demanding proof of claim (property damage or injury) and proof of jurisdiction, the prosecutor must discharge the case of will be acting as a private business involved in fraud. $100 million per entity & $1 million per person for interfering with their private right to conduct commerce since they use the threat of jail to coerce a plea contract.
This side has more bullshit the Murphy as pigs! Always twist in the Constitution and the laws of the Constitution! I can see another civil war coming within 10 years if it's not straightened up soon!
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS BULLSHIT, BIASED, AND WHOLLY MISLEADING!!!!!! BECAUSE IT LEAVES OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES: WHICH ARE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL VS. "DRIVING" FOR "COMMERCIAL" PURPOSES, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A "LICENSE"!! IT THE USUAL THING THEY DO WHEN THESE FKTARDS CREATE THESE "NAMELESS ARTICLES" AND "BOGUS WEB PAGES", WITH THESE LINKS TO LAWS WHICH "DO NOT APPLY" TO THE "PARTICULAR ISSUE AND TOPIC, WHICH THEY EXPECT THE IGNORANT TO BELIEVE!!! THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT IT IS A RIGHT TO TRAVEL, VERSES THE "PRIVILEGE" TO CONDUCT COMMERCE "WHILE" IN A VEHICLE (NEED LICENSE)!!! THEY SHOULD NAME THIS PAGE PSEUDO-TRUTH!!!! FK OTTA HEAR WITH THIS B.S.!!!!
The U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR "NORMAL" USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS BULLSHIT, BIASED, AND WHOLLY MISLEADING!!!!!! BECAUSE IT LEAVES OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES: WHICH ARE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL VS. "DRIVING" FOR "COMMERCIAL" PURPOSES, WHICH DOES REQUIRE A "LICENSE"!! IT THE USUAL THING THEY DO WHEN THESE FKTARDS CREATE THESE "NAMELESS ARTICLES" AND "BOGUS WEB PAGES", WITH THESE LINKS TO LAWS WHICH "DO NOT APPLY" TO THE "PARTICULAR ISSUE AND TOPIC, WHICH THEY EXPECT THE IGNORANT TO BELIEVE!!! THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT IT IS A RIGHT TO TRAVEL, VERSES THE "PRIVILEGE" TO CONDUCT COMMERCE "WHILE" IN A VEHICLE (NEED LICENSE)!!! THEY SHOULD NAME THIS PAGE PSEUDO-TRUTH!!!! FK OTTA HEAR WITH THIS B.S.!!!!
The U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR "NORMAL" USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
its against the law for them to turn you into a criminal because to extra sized your right to travel the law uses word tricks to confuse law look up legalese they change simple words meanings such as the word person their meaning is corporation now thats a trick because they dont tell you there is a whole dictionary full of trick words called black law 5
To all the "smartasses" who think you don't need the driving license and insurance AND plates:
If you want to LEGALLY ride the public roads (state property) you have to go to contract with the owner of the road (aka having driving license, insurance AND the plates) and subscribe to the owners set of rules (aka traffic laws). If you DO NOT WANT TO subscribe to the set of rules the owner of the road (aka state by the means of police) can legally remove you from its property, because you ultimately trespass at that very point (of course it has its legal traffic law definition). If you can't get it, the police can remove excesive glass barrier out of the automobile, ask you to leave the vehicle by any means neccesary by the level of your politeness while this action takes place, can electrically stimulate you and gift you with law bracelet and kindly escort you to a waiting room inside the police office with other gentlemen who failed to subscribe to the set of rules of the state.
Haha, that's funny. I will add, though, that everyone and everything in the geographical area recognized/accepted as controlled by a municipality, county, state, or the federal government is automatically subject to legislation issued by those entities. You don't have to consent, agree, "contract" or anything for it to be able to be lawfully applied to you by force.
Find, and read, the letter from USA Dept. of Travel to Governor Pat McCrory in 2015…."Please forward this information to all of your law enforcement agencies in your state to prevent any unnecessary lawsuits from being filed against these agencies for not following the law and violating the rights of the people to freely travel without interference unless they are a threat to the public safety". RE: VIOLATION OF U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS REGARDING THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
I've obtained a copy of the alleged letter which can be viewed here. It appears to be made up as the so-called Department of Travel doesn't seem to be a legitimate federal agency. With a number of web searches I can't find any current or historical information about such a department.
I have further located a link to the most recent CNA Manual cited in the letter. The letter says the manual contains information about "American Nationals," however the document appears solely targeted to "Foreign Nationals." The manual does not appear to support any right to use the public highways without a license. General public road regulation, including laws requiring driver licensing, is left to the states – the federal government has not been empowered, found or created a power, or otherwise chosen to supersede state police power in this area.
I've obtained a copy of the alleged letter which can be viewed here. It appears to be made up as the so-called Department of Travel doesn't seem to be a legitimate federal agency. With a number of web searches I can't find any current or historical information about such a department.
I have further located a link to the most recent CNA Manual cited in the letter. The letter says the manual contains information about "American Nationals," however the document appears solely targeted to "Foreign Nationals." It does not appear to have any supporting information supporting a right to use the public highways without a license. Further, the states each have their own driver licensing laws and any licensed right to use the public roads in a state would not be up to the federal govenrment.
Travel all you want. In someone else's car, with them driving. Or walk along the sidewalks, or ride a fucking bike. You cannot DRIVE legally without a licence, and insurance. These sovereign citizens make my teeth itch
Have you people even looked up the definition of driving? The definition is ignorant to the charge. That right there in its self sould disqualify any court action.
you don't need a licence to do anything you can't do lawfully.
understanding that answers all your questions. the disagreements are
that anything legal is also legitimate and things are Just because the law
makes them so. law is force. the injustice, is reasonable custom is to
be obeyed as law.
you can't get a licence for anything you can't do lawfully. understanding that answers all your questions. the disagreements are that anything legal is also legitimate and things are Just because the law makes them so. law is force. the injustice/argument, is a reasonable custom is to be obeyed as law.
I hope everyone continues to defy the police when they are pulled over…and please keep recording it on video. The YouTube videos showing these idiots getting their windows smashed are great viewing! It's hilarious to listen as these dummies spout off about their "rights" and pretend they know more about the traffic laws than a policeman does.
The fact is, if no one needed licence and registration/insurance, and we reverted back to the old days when you didn't need all this "state/government legal regulation" , …how would you identify a car that decided to hit you and run? (no licence plate) And if you DID catch them, how are you gonna get compensation if they have no insurance? Take them to court?…most people don't have the cash to pay for a major accident. Good luck with that. Okay, you might send them to jail, but getting your money will still be an uphill battle.
What about identifying a stolen car? What a nightmare that would be! And bad drivers wouldn't be removed from the road very easily. In fact it might complicate things resulting in drunk and reckless drivers allowed to continue driving even after they cause major mayhem.
But please, keep it up. You crazies are so entertaining to watch.
I always find this to be an interesting subject. It never changes. It is a very grey area legally. Really, the State and Federal laws supersede previous court decisions. Obviously, if you can get it to the Supreme Court they often agree that these laws are unconstitutional. But good luck.
Honestly, its actually not a literal Constitutional Right. It is an inalienable right. Which, the Constitution recognizes as superseding to the Constitution, so that legislation can never take those inalienable rights away. Fundamentally, under the constitution, our inalienable rights supersede ALL laws even constitutional laws. It was set up that way because they knew it would be amended and ripped apart.
If what you are trying to propose is in fact truth, and right to travel does in fact refer to travelling between states(which the supreme court determined that is exactly what right to travel means.), then my inalienable rights to the pursuit of happiness and right work and own property would still then include the roads my taxes paid for.
According to Wikipedia:
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Crandall does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), the appellant asked the Court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom of movement. The Court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others.
But apparently that only applies to a motorized vehicle. Which means I can drive my horse and buggy in the left lane of an 80 mile an hour freeway without respect to those laws because my mode of transportation in not motorized. I mean… technically.
The fact is the correct term is "freedom of movement" not "right to travel" and that particular supreme court ruling has since been superseded. But freedom of movement does mean that we have to the right to use public highways by means other than motorized vehicles. So we can't use motor vehicles without a license. Then I propose we all start driving horse and buggies and riding our horses on the freeways. Elephants for that matter. We will get arrested but honestly, where do the amendments end? Because ultimately, our inalienable rights are being taken away! The part of using the roads freely for pursuit of happiness without taxation… which is still a right…has been completely taken away from us.
You can't collect rain water in some states, you need a license to hunt and fish. Public land is subject to whatever laws the government sees fit. We don't have water rights and pretty soon we are gonna be paying for air. And we do all this under the guise that it's for our own good. Then there's the right to bear arms. All of these rights were put in place to prevent tyranny and a Police State.
Even the term Police suggests tyranny. They used to be Peace Officers and they worked for the people. Now they work for the government. The government was supposed to be for the people by the people. Now we work for them.
All this begins by slowly degrading and amending the Constitution to the point that it doesn't exist.
The IDEA of sustainability is great but has anyone ever downloaded and read Agenda 21? Because if you actually read it, and you're smart. you'll see it's the slow progression of complete dominance of the entire world.
while their "doctrine states the complete opposite:
"We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…"
—United Nations Charter
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the universal Declaration of Human Rights, without distinction of any kind, such as race, creed, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
—Principle 1, ICPD Programme of Action
(notice security of person. that means the exact opposite of the right to bear arms I can promise you that)
"We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…"
—United Nations Charter
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the universal Declaration of Human Rights, without distinction of any kind, such as race, c reed, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
—Principle 1, ICPD Programme of Action
We can quote case law all we want but unless we can get the current statutes and laws overturned because they are unconstitutional…they don't mean a thing.
Clearly, from the many examples below Supreme Court decisions in the past tried to prevent what is happening. Unfortunately, many statutes and laws are passed that are often unconstitutional and WE are allowing this to happen for "our own good".
This was copied from a facebook page on this subject.
"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence,*and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." [Northwest Ordinances, Article 4]
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo vs. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher vs. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson vs. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. vs. Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.
"Constitutionally protected liberty includes…the right to travel…" 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416
In California, a license is defined as "A permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt vs. California 158 P2d 199, 300.
"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a RIGHT or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams vs. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46
"One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act." Pontius vs. McClean 113 CA 452
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.833
"A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or equal protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." – PG&E vs. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.
"The same principles of law are applicable to them as to other vehicles upon the highway. It is therefore, the adaptation and use, rather than the form or kind of conveyance that concerns the courts." Indiana Springs Co. vs. Brown, 74 N.E. 615.
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Moore vs. Roddie, 180 P. 879, Blair vs. Broadmore 93 S.E. 632.
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livlihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees…Berberian vs. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872
"Truck driver's failure to be licensed as chauffeur does not establish him or his employer as negligent as a matter of law with respect to accident in which driver was involved, in absence of any evidence that lack of such license had any casual or causal connection with the accident…Bryant vs. Tulare Ice Co. (1954) 125 CA 2d 566
"The RIGHT of the citizen to drive on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People vs. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
"The RIGHT to TRAVEL on the public highways is a constitutional RIGHT." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.
"The right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ that a citizen cannot be deprived of without due process of law." Kent vs. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, U.S. vs. Laub 385 U.S. 475
"A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his property upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has NO right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating the due process or equal protection clauses." In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
"CVC 17459. The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the CONSENT by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle." California Vehicle Code
"CVC 17460. The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the CONSENT of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state." California Vehicle Code
"When a person applies for and accepts a license or permit, he in effect knows the limitations of it, and takes it at the risk and consequences of transgression." Shevlin-Carpenter Co. vs. Minnesota, 218 U.S. 57.
Some States this freedom of movement and right to travel laws do work. But unless we the people legislate these laws, they won't for long.
Hey, all you fucking legalistic idiots! Face it! With a few twists of words, the Racketeers of the States have bilked Trillions of dollars from you stupid ass' pockets in frivolous tickets – Its $$$$$$$ folks, thats all. If you THINK a State Golam is really out for your safety, I am Mickey Mouse.
When rats infest a barn to the point you cant drive them out, what do ya do? Burn the barn down. And rebulld a new one.
READ THE BOLD. I wonder if rational people can understand simple language: Does this mean what it says, and say what it means? Or do I use NEWSPEAK to get the real meaning? = Please LOOK at the difference people!!!!!!! You Newspeak bastards!
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile, is —– a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
at will, [NOT] the common Right which he has under his Right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
REF.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
How about being pulled over for white light to the rear of a vehicle?
Well we anr American Nationals naturally born in the several states under God not mans laws you and i are not the birth certificate and that can be proving is that really you no because a state put the name on a paper copy of the birth certificate it's a bond on the stock market don't believe that look it up and set off all accounts the country is in bankruptcy not the living human being it's been twisted up to fool you it takes a man or a woman to state a claim for damiges you go into a court order your birth certificate name you are giving up all your natural god giving name to a fictional character like the wizard of Oz it's been twisted up for a few hundred years now understand the definition of words
EXACTLY WHAT IS THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL"?
"THE HOAX"
Amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.
THE TRUTH:
The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT OF A PERSON TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.
BELOW IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
1). Jones v. Helms, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7830792318853896035&q=%22jones+v.+Helms%22+%22U.S.%22+1981&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL… is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.
2). Saenz v. Roe, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q=%22Saenz+v.+Roe%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'… protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR… IN [THAT OTHER]… STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]… THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE." (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.
THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.
1). State v. Sullivan, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=%22State+v.+Sullivan%22+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.
2). Miller v. Reed, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q=%22Miller+v.+Reed%22+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]… the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.
3). North Carolina v. Howard, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10451209462604692152&q=%22North+Carolina+ex+rel%22+Kasler&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL… IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' … . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license… . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.
4). Thompson v. Scutt, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=%22Thompson+v.+Scutt%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court wrote, "… Petitioner claims that the State… violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]… DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor… when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.) Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.
FACT: A PERSON MAY FREELY EXERCISE HIS/HER "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" WITHOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING BY WALKING, RIDING A BICYCLE OF HORSE OR AS A "PASSENGER" IN AN AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE OR HELICOPTER.
1. State v. Sullivan, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=%22STATE+v.+SULLIVAN%22+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]… ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
2). Miller v. Reed, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q=%22MIller+v.+Reed%22+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
FACT: STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSES DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".
1). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4613890670558831166&q=%22Chaoui+v.+City+of+glendora%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE STATE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION… ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE THE [CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.
2). Robinson v. Huerta, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8872041112923644828&q=%22Robinson+v.+Huerta%22+++14-0451&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL… because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]… ')… ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE using other MODES of transportation]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]… THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because… THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.
3). State v. Williams, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q=%22State+v.+Williams%22+tennessee+%22right+to+travel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE… . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. … . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense in this case]. Appellant[Williams] is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH as Appellant [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]." Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW.
4). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q=%22John+Doe+No.+1%22+georgia+%22right+to+travel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel]… . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]… THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'… . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]… . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [under the tenth amendment], AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [which is something else entirely]." (at the 4th paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.
FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE UNREGULABLE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.
1). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5697942351825850984&q=%22257+MDA+2016%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]… ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".
2). State v. Sullivan, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=483036688545450484&q=%22966+A.2d+919%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]… .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways… .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'… . 'Driving on the roads of this State is … NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".
3). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q=%22John+Doe+No.+1%22+georgia+%22right+to+travel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'… ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]… ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".
4). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9780294138406294886&q=%22Acevedo+v.+New+York+State%22++%22right+to+drive%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".
BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves).
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion
For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;
For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f-wM7dRFrcK7StVhzUHZ2dEM0hbr-18uvmibuxzAZMI/edit# what i think
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wu4ZhabaTyS_NhWA7n2JqB0GQND6npLa0aTrFgb6F1g/edit
I just read some of these comments
below. I have to tell you if it wasn't for some of these American
Patriots my family and I would be loss as goose in a whirl wind of
unlawful statutes or just a sheep following along with the injustice.
Started many years ago, we did not want to have anything to do with
all these type of teaching. I do not have the time in the world to
get into this. I have family to deal with. But we ended up
studying the law for ourselves because we noticed too many law
enforcement seemed to be overstepping their boundaries. Then one day
upon studying the Declaration of Independence which by the way is one
of the organic laws of the land, these words came out of the page and
it hit my spouse first, then it hit me. “We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Those are
very powerful words. Then it goes on to say “That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.” If public officials do not do what they supposed to do,
We The People have the power to hold those in power accountable for
the wrong they do or they will continue to thread on your liberty and
your children will be slaves. It's up to each of us.
We are not free because of old
documents. We are a FREE People because God created us to be free.
It is up to you and I to value our liberty. American soldiers, young
American soldiers died, gave up their lives for you and I to be free.
And the people who come from China and other communist countries
they appreciate this United States of America. They appreciate the
Constitution. They know what it is like for wicked people in power to
take over their land and their property. They just took it by force.
And their parents through blood and sweat got it for their kids. So
these people who come from these communist countries value the
freedom of this country. If a public official infringes on we the
people's unalienable rights you have to hold them accountable. They
swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and to defend
the American people. They must do that or get off the seat and let
someone else do it. We the People have to know who we are,
understand the laws for ourselves or these people in power will take
us for granted. We need to wake up. The American people have to
wake up. Stop allowing public officials telling you what to do, what
to wear, when to get out, when to wear a mask, what clothes to wear,
what to think, decide for yourselves. You can think for yourselves.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is still the
organic laws of the land. Trust yourself. Think for yourself. Most
people are good people.
I just read some of these comments
below. I have to tell you if it wasn't for some of these American
Patriots my family and I would be loss as goose in a whirl wind of
unlawful statutes or just a sheep following along with the injustice.
Started many years ago, we did not want to have anything to do with
all these type of teaching. I do not have the time in the world to
get into this. I have family to deal with. But we ended up
studying the law for ourselves because we noticed too many law
enforcement seemed to be overstepping their boundaries. Then one day
upon studying the Declaration of Independence which by the way is one
of the organic laws of the land, these words came out of the page and
it hit my spouse first, then it hit me. “We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Those are
very powerful words. Then it goes on to say “That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.” If public officials do not do what they supposed to do,
We The People have the power to hold those in power accountable for
the wrong they do or they will continue to thread on your liberty and
your children will be slaves. It's up to each of us.
We are not free because of old
documents. We are a FREE People because God created us to be free.
It is up to you and I to value our liberty. American soldiers, young
American soldiers died, gave up their lives for you and I to be free.
And the people who come from China and other communist countries
they appreciate this United States of America. They appreciate the
Constitution. They know what it is like for wicked people in power to
take over their land and their property. They just took it by force.
And their parents through blood and sweat got it for their kids. So
these people who come from these communist countries value the
freedom of this country. If a public official infringes on we the
people's unalienable rights you have to hold them accountable. They
swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and to defend
the American people. They must do that or get off the seat and let
someone else do it. We the People have to know who we are,
understand the laws for ourselves or these people in power will take
us for granted. We need to wake up. The American people have to
wake up. Stop allowing public officials telling you what to do, what
to wear, when to get out, when to wear a mask, what clothes to wear,
what to think, decide for yourselves. You can think for yourselves.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is still the
organic laws of the land. Trust yourself. Think for yourself. Most
people are good people.
The Supreme Court has Stood with the American Citizen many times enforcing the Constitution. Anyone who says You do not have the Right to travel by model means, Car, Motor Cycle, Truck, etc is attempting to defraud you. Any one who says the Sovereign Citizen does not exist, is either, indoctrinated to believe such nonsense or is completely ignorant. DO your research and do not rely on the first web page you land on.
It also says that the police cannot turn a constitutional right into a crime
You are not winning with your disinfo there Sparky. lol stupid monkey
In wv the department of motor vehicles has a hearing that isn’t composed of the same court system, judge only or judge and jury, it is composed of employees of the department of motor vehicles and their decision to take your drivers license, a life changing event, is made by them regardless of what the criminal court, the real judge and court the has a higher standard including due process, rules. I’d say if a person is driving a registered insured vehicle and it is in safe working order, and the driver is Not impaired by known health conditions known to render him unsafe to drive or impaired by alcohol or drugs then the DMV should not have the supreme power over the laws our courts have always carried. The DMV is getting too big for their britches, hooking up with social security department and on their way to marrying up with DHHR CPS and God knows what else. Why isn’t any one looking. We blindly allow the DMV is making us a policed nation what next they will also control gun permits and curfews and marriage certification and so on. Time to say NO more. These people are responsible for job loss home loss families can’t survive the financial stress and strain leading to the serenade of CPS poking their nose in to further strain our family units take a look at the numbers. You can’t work if you can’t drive telling our Fathers it’s ok stay home drive and you go to jail. Their out getting drunk and orvsellin dope. This is insanity. Drug rehabs sponseeed by tax payers, are helping profit 40 0000 bucks a per person or more for DMVMandated participation, wonder how many of them have some profit share there. Meanwhile our families are dissentegrating. Why not use all that money to help families stay together I could go on but I think if you look past my grammatical spelling as lack of more organization of this opinion, you get what I am writing here. The DMV has taken due process and along the way we lose more than just our right to move about we are losing democracy
4th Amendment violation to be safe in person papers home and affects..
This is how they get you to obey , and track you where ever you move too
The dmv has all that info for the government agencies, FBI,COPS, DOJ, ALL THATS WHY THEY WANT TO KNOW IF YOUR ADDRESS IS CURRENT..ITS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS WHERE YOU LIVE .. I NEVER GIVE MY REAL ADDRESS..
THE DMV IS FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVERS ONLY .. LOOK IT UP ANY IN FRACTION IS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN TO THE DMV NOT ,THE ILLEGAL TRAFFIC COURT
The only roadways mentioned in the federal judgements are specifically highways… Does this mean that surface streets not designated as highways are in fact legal to operate a motor vehicle on, without need of a license, and without fear of legal recourse?
I "SUGGEST" that ALL obtain a COPY of both their State Constitution and Federal Constitution and MEMORIZE THEM BOTH.
I Filed my 1st "Sui Juris Lawsuit on my 18nth Birthday in FEDERAL COURT"… IT SETTLED WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER FILING "OUT OF ANY MARTIAL LAW COURT!!!"
The bottom line of this inane discussion is that anything that puts public safety at risk is regulatable as public safety outweighs almost all other concerns. My right not to be killed by a fool operating a piece of equipment they are not qualified to operate outweighs your right to operate unregulated. Furthermore, any rights, laws, and powers not specifically designated to the federal government are the sole province of the states, thus allowing each state to decide for itself if its roads will be regulated. Thankfully, all states and territories have decided that the roadways require regulation.
Travelling refers singularly to your right to travel freely. Regulating to ensure safe travel violates no rights. Driving is a privilege, not a right, as one can travel by means other than driving. If one travels by controlling a vehicle, be it a tricycle, a skateboard, or a car, one is, by definition, driving. An individual does not have the right to define or change the definition of a word to suit their own personal desires to the exclusion of the population at large. The definition and meaning of a law is often in its spirit, not its word for word interpretation. Those who wrote the Constitution could not have anticipated the invention of motor vehicles and therefore would not have thought to write constitutional law regarding such things. However, they covered his in two ways.
First they created a living, adaptable, and amendable Constitution. Second, they clearly stated that any power not given to the federal government is, by default, the power of the individual states, as I previously noted. Interpretation must be reasonable and judicious, never self-serving or momentary to a condition or circumstance. Regardless of how a so-called "sovereign" citizen (of which there is no such thing), tries to twist the laws and rules regarding roadways, travel rights, and safety responsibilities of governments and individuals, that person is wrong.
Sorry you left out a big chunk here's the rest .. Any powers not delegated the federal government is given to the state AND THE PEOPLE..
and all powers are inherent in the people any power given to any government or state is given by the people and is not absolute we can take that power away..
FREE MEN ARE NOT GOVERNED..
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CREATED TO GOVERN FREE MEN .. THATS AN OXYMORON .
ITS WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF ALL MEN .. NOT TO REGULATE OUR FREEDOM INTO SLAVES
Its funny how people like you always ways leave parts of the Constitution out when quoting it .. the people ,,, We the people are sovereign, we are free people we have no ruler or king
We are self govern.. you need to go back study more ,, or your CORRUPT BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBER..WHO IS BRAIN WASHED..
CAN THE GOVERNMENT FORCE ME TO SIGN A CONTRACT. YES OR NO PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER..
my drivers license recently expired. The local DMV sent me an updated "valid" license (after receiving the renewal fee), No testing of any kind, no recent photo or autograph (signature) did not even have to go in physically . ALL the info to include my signing was taken from the records from the last renewal without my authorizing it. How is this legal? All this state is interested in is revenue not safety. How do they know I can still see or operate safely?
The author of this article is either lacking intelligence, deeply indoctrinated, or part of the tyrannical system.
Between “qualified immunity” and “discretion”, public servants get to decide WHICH “laws” they enforce as well as the ones THEY follow.
To top it off, they (the oath-breakers) get to decide WHO has to follow the oppressive and extorting statutes.
Hey author, you ever heard of:
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
Please STOP misleading people and trying to make them think they have no rights!
It's all in the language of what you say and don't say . The supreme court uses blacks law dictionary that makes clear the language necessary to travel freely without molestation or the need to register, have insurance or pay for a driving license .
You wrote that the Supremacy Clause makes federal law superior to state law. The Supremacy Clause only mentions federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution.
THIS "NO AUTHOR" PROPAGANDA, BULLSHIT WEBPAGE IS APPROPRIATELY NAMED Pseudolaw!! BECAUSE IT ONLY SHOWS ONE-SIDE OF THE FACTS ONLY, THE CORPORATE MARITME JURISPRUDENCE SIDE, WHICH IS "NOT" THE TRUE LAW OF THE LAND! ALL FEDERAL CODES AND STATUTES ARE NOT MEANT FOR "ALL" CITIZENS!! THEY ARE MEANT ONLY FOR 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENS, AKA CITIZENS OF "THE CORPORATION" AKA THE U.S. CORPORATION AKA ALL FED. EMPLOYEES!! 4 THE RECORD THEIR ARE "TWO TYPES OF CITIZENS 2 DIFFERENT STATUS'S!! AND THAT THEY DON'T TEACH YOU IN SCHOOL INTENTIONALLY!! IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AMERICA IS A CORPORATION AND NOT A COUNTRY… THATS THE MAIN PROBLEM!! LOOK IT UP!! ‘United States’ is a Federal corporation, says U.S. Code, Title 28 United States. This term has several meanings.
[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations,
[2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or
[3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
One reason congress may have created a corporation is to gain power or jurisdiction over the people who actually sit above the congress. We don’t have a king, so the people are sovereign. To circumvent this, congress created a corporation called United States, then creates franchises or sub-corporations using the ‘FIRST LAST’/’JOHN DOE’ name combination, and the parent corporation has jurisdiction over the subs. As stated in the Articles of Confederation, which is still law, the confederacy is called, “The United States of America.” https://www.educatedinlaw.org/2019/02/united-states-is-a-federal-corporation-says-u-s-code-title-28/
true they claim that we have the right to travel ok they also say it is dangerious so they we get inshurance on our car like we inshure our home no big deal but to pay regerstration is bull crap because the money the dmv gets they do not give to the schools like they say and we are not driving to ern or comercial for business there for we should have the right to drive our car and as far a a licince we should be able to drive and we should drive and obay the law of the land but they should not inposse on us cheap taticts like regerstration to take our money screw them but inshurance we should have to protect our selfs and others agree
i believe no cop could say much if we jusy had inshurance to protect us and others we are good or even just others another thing is remember they work under the color of the law so remember you are there boss speak to them with respect and tell them you know your rights thats it ask for a there boss if they dont know or look it up for them on line and show them hey man look dont insult them just speak to them
ok, right to travel question. Each state can regulate traffic laws and I agree to that. Every State regulates traffic laws that fall
under the Transportation Code and wrights tickets under that guess, correct? If so please, please define the word 'transportation'
because transportation is defined as "to transport goods" making it uses is commercial use only or for hire. Where does the meaning of Transportation state other wise?
you are the goods. they are transporting you
Someone old lady and her husband live 40 miles from the nearest town in Ashland Kentucky she's never had a license because he always drives the truck.. they have no kids and they heat the whole house with with firewood because they are, " poor"..(people who are not lawyers and born without silver spoons). They go to town twice a month for supplies.He drives she knits clothes on the way..
Well sadly he passes away. ..shes running out of wood and food..Well thank God she has the old truck he left her.. but wait,
According to the state of Kentucky she doesn't have her papers in order it got to stay up there and starve to death and she also has to stay up there and freeze to death she doesn't have papers from the state to go get food in a truck or wood for a wood stove.
Well boys it just don't work that way in the United States of America.. not according to 24 Supreme Court affirmations since 1865. You need to look up the definition of a few words you throw around lightly. Those word were bled for.. life, liberty, etc. how happy you think shes going to be dead of starvation or hyperthermia???you must be a lawyer or a judge hope you've got rich off the backs of the working man over this lie..I pray 4 u….
wow, a lot of great comments from both sides. 4 years back and still being discussed today. My take on it is, if they use the "letter of the law" to charge, prosecute and convict us, why cant we use "letter of the law to defend ourselves"?
And here's a lil life experience that happened to me in the Peoples Republic of Maryland back in 2016.
The company i worked for had me deliver a small load of steel to a jobsite using a rented Ryder flatbed truck. No class B required but over 26,001 lbs. I passed the scales on RT 301 NB and of course Maryland DOT caught up to me and had me go back to the scales to weigh in and i was 1,000 over weight. This is a true story mind you
1: the truck was rented so no CDL required
2: truck over weight by 1000lbs but the officer says because its a rental its ok
3: (THE DOT OFFICERS WORDS) because the truck is a rental and anyone can rent the truck AND if I was using the truck and delivering the steel for personal use (NON COMMERCIAL) I wouldn't have to stop at the scales.
So the question is. Why would I have to stop at the DOT scales for commerce but not personal using the exact same truck and the exact same load?
because lawyers are liars and these lairs are attracted to power and money. There is no truth in them. Right travel automobile are lawful terms privilege drive motor vehicle are commercial legal terms. THE COURTS DO NOT EVER TELL THE TRUTH . THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THEM
Of course you have the right to travel freely. Dont listen to the attourneys. Keeping your head all fogged up and throwing tantrums protects their income. They are by far some of Americas worst enemies. Right there with CNN.
I have been studying this issue for years now and finally came to the point where I knew the only way to find out for sure was to go get a ticket and fight it. I admit I took a couple losses. But each time I got closer. Watching the wanna-be judges reactions and paying close attention to his questions, AND THEN BOOM !!! I nailed it.
Got a win on a "no registration/no insurance" ticket from the California Highway Patrol. It started off as a fix-it ticket. But when the so called judge heard I was fighting, he said, "ok then, $1200". I said ,"you can make it $10,000 if you want, hell you can put me in jail. But you know whats gonna happen when I get out? Im gonna have to get in my Suburban, and take it to work in order to get all this money you want. So hows that gonna work?" Then like all the other courts, he had me sit down till he cleared the room. I cant even leave a courtroom out of the same doors as everyone else, because they WILL ask what im doing. And i WILL tell them. Even though none of them will do it too. Some of the questions that told me i was on the right track were, "but you have plates on your vehicle" and "but you have a drivers license". See, your not supposed to have either of those. I said, "its not a vehicle and none of you guys want to make it clear what to do about the plates, so there they sit" and "i have a license for work. In case i need to drive a company vehicle."
Key points that MUST be made right out of the gate , When they call the case, NEVER admit to being the name they read because you dont spell your name in all caps, (CAPITUS DIMINUS MAXIMUS, (loss of all rights)), first thing is ask if its a court of record and tell them "everthing i say is for the record". Say, " i am making a special appearance in propria persona,, speaking for the named defendant. I am not a US Citizen, but an American National, a free flesh and blood, breathing man of the land. Not of the sea. I travel by the Common Law. Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution guarantees me a Republican form of government, and i invoke that into this court, and i set my court". Out of curiosity, i asked him if this was criminal or civil? He said, "you tell me" (because it was now MY court) . What all that just did was change the format of the court from a military/admirality court(of the sea), to a Common Law court, where you have rights. From this point you just tell them that you challenge the jurisdiction of the court, hel ask why, i say " because you dont have it and im nor giving it to you", hel say write a brief, so you go write one pointing out that you are not an attorney so your papers dont have to be correct, and you expect him to honor his oath of office and judge by the substance of what your saying. Copy down USCode definition of motor vehicle, some jurisdiction cases and travel cases and your Constitutional right and that since you used the Const. And Supreme court cases that gives you the perfect case for "willfulness" and your immune to the prosecution. Motion for dismissal on the grounds that the prosecuter has failed to show a cause of action where relief can be granted, AND WATCH HIM STEAM. DISMISSED !
Important note, 2 days after the day you were in propria persona (the first day) go to the clerk and ask when is the court date for your failure to appear warrent, AND DONT MISS IT. Youl be in and out. Probly wont even get to sit down which is good cause the judge would be sh!++!♡@ bricks everywhere.
Its awesome when you can shut them down on all their corrupt tricks.
Yeah i told him that too, along with "statutes and codes dont apply to the people of a Republic". (He yelled at that one, but he didnt tell me i was wrong. He just said WHAT !!
you heard . DO NOT GIVE A PLEA, YOU ARE ONLY THERE TO CHALLENGE. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AT ALL dont do like me,, i was learning. ANY QUESTIONS JUST REPLY, "IM ONLY HERE TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION AND ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT IS PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE WHICH YOU CANNOT DO..
If he says hel enter a plea for you, make sure for the record that he understands its under duress.
Have fun.
Just reviewed the "holding" for one of the cases you cited. Reitz V mealey.
Held consistent with due process of law, and not in derogation of the Bankruptcy Act. P. 314 U. S. 36.
If you don't know how to cite evidence of law leave it to a professional. You are 💯 wrong about that one and I will check the other 2 for accuracy.
The courts and the judges are all run by a private organization,, called the ABA/BARassociation, they have for decades kept good constitutional law attorneys from passing any laws .. where in the Constitution does it say in order to be a judge you have to join the BAR . no where the people elect the judges..not the bar.. only real judges are elected..
They say it's to keep the bad lawyer's out and keep the good ones in ,, but I don't see that that has happened.. its to keep a rein on what lawsare passed.. the BAR WAS CREATED TO KEEP BLACK AND NATIVE INDIANS FROM PRACTICING LAW.. FACT..
IF YOU ARE A BLACK PROFESSOR OF LAW AND TEACH LAW,, THEN WHY CANT YOU PRACTICE LAW WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO JOIN A CORRUPT PRIVATE ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE YOUR SAME MORAL VALUES..
ARE NOT THE SAME RULES AND PROCEDURES OF COURT THE SAME ..
DO WE NOT ALL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES .. EVEN JUDGES..
WHEN DID THE BAR BECOME A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION..
AND WHEN DID THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT..
NO THEY ALL DO THESE BACK DOOR DEALS ON WHO IS GONNA WIN BEFORE THE CASE EVER GOES TO TRIAL.. ITS ALL A BIG PERFORMANCE… THEY ARE TAUGHT TO SETTLE EVERYTHING OUT OF COURT .. TRIALS BY JURY TURN INTO CASE LAW .. AND YOU HAVE JURY NULLIFICATION. THAT CAN STRIKE DOWN ANY LAW ,, YOU NEVER HERE THAT IN COURT.
Shuttleworth v Birmingham
Chicago coach v city of Chicago
Shapiro v Thompson
Just a few on the rights of the people to travel, Shuttleworth v Birmingham says any law statute or city code that violates the Constitution you can ignore it with impunity it has no standing In a court of law … meaning I don't need a court to tell me when my rights have been violated ,, if it's goes against the Supreme law just little bit it has no power its not enforceable has no standing..
The fact that they force people to contract with the BAR ASSOCIATION AND PAY A LICENSE AND FEE TO PRACTICE LAW . IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 1ST AMENDMENT TO LIFE LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS..
THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT FORCE YOU TO CONTRACT NOR CAN THEY FORCE YOU OUT OF A CONTRACT … EYES OPEN YET…SHUTTLEWORTH V BIRMINGHAM
Rob Powell is stating much more recent Supreme Court Rulings, further see 28 united states code 242 (28usc242) deprevation of rights under color of law. Any of those state made decisions which circumvent the Supreme Court decisions are in fact a Deprevation of Rights under Color Of Law. Which carries a penalty equal to that of treason. Death. Put that in your troll pipe and smoke it!
“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment.” – Kent v. Dulles, 357
U.S. 116, 125
(1958)
The problem with this article is that they use all commercial terms (UCC), there is a distinction in this country between “Commerce” and “Private” travel.
Automobile v Motor vehicle, operating a motor vehicle v traveling in a private automobile, person v citizen, driver v operator,
If you extract yourself from the admiralty (commerce Law (law of the water or Roman law) jurisdiction) and place yourself in common law, (law of the land jurisdiction) invoke your status, and standing informing the court in which juris of law you are operating in, there is little the “Admiralty Courts” can do with you, as you do not fall within their jurisdiction. All article 1 courts operate under “Admiralty Law” law of the water or more commonly referred to as law of commerce. If you are a being of the “Land” and not engaged in “Commerce” how can they apply the laws of commerce against you.
This is SMU:go read legal definitions of: driver, traveler, motor vehicle, automobile and all the other words in legalese. Changed your presumed rulings. Go back to high school and graduate this time.
The problem with this article is that it's completely wrong.
The problem with this article is that it's completely wrong.
horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
It seems most commenters have left out a key point. Even though the Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war, it clearly states living flesh and blood humans have been endowed with certain UNALIENABLE rights from our Creator, to wit; Life, Liberty (freedom or sovereignty) and the pursuit of Happiness (property). Constitutional "rights" are actually privileges as they can been revoked, repealed and usurped. Creator endowed rights are NOT granted, but endowed, and hence UNALIENABLE, which means they can never be revoked, or repealed, however, they are usurped illegally and unlawfully and will continue to be until, We, the People wake up and take back our country. Rest assured, the pitch forks are coming!
All I know is that insurance policy say only valid for lisence driver and yet Supreme Court defined driver as one who is paid for doing this.taxi DRIVER truck DRIVER..yet state law requires all Drivers to have insurance.its not real clear is that all operators or just drivers..what about travelers..we are suppose to be able to travel without cost or restrictions..what about toll ways..you must pay no matter what you are in
What most here are failing to take into account is that the rights of all men and women are the main concern when it comes to laws. If we could all respect the lives and property of all men, women and children we wouldn't need laws to govern those who disrespect these rights! All those arguing they don't have to obey traffic laws are either saying they can govern themselves and ensure they don't cause damage to lives or property or they are claiming they are outlaws who don't care about the rights of others. You decide which category you fit into. If they wrote laws for those who know how to govern themselves, there would be no need to enforce them!
Sadly, I see the nonsense used by the "I'm not a sov cit" used repeatedly. The will claim that it only applies to commercial use/transportation. They will claim that the definition of driver/operator matters to the state DOT, deciding that licences only apply to that, and that somehow, someway, because it's travelling (and not driving) that it's a protected right, equating the two.
Apparently this comment section is full of them – but find anyone of them in court trying to make this argument and they never win on it. Sometimes cases are thrown out because of technicalities or errors made by the state and somehow the public defender got the sov cit to shut his or her mouth long enough to get them out of trouble, but that's not the same thing. And for the ones who spout "maritime law" and every other thing under the sun still find themselves fined or even jailed, found guilty of the offense, and life goes on. Then they go off about how the courts have abdicated their responsibility or corruption or any other such nonsense.
What a terrible assertion. No sir, the states define "motor vehicles". I challenge you. Go to Arizona law, look it up. apply the definition and then read what motor vehicles DO NOT apply to and you'll find there are distinctions. The States work for the people, not the other way around, though many are just starting to understand their slavery and also the way to get out of it.
The problem is that nobody understands what a motor vehicle is a motor vehicle in the definitions of the United States codes title 18 subsection 31 number 6 he clearly states that a motor vehicle is a vehicle used for commercial purposes from article 6 go to article 10 and it describes what a commercial vehicle is fact! But when it doesn't pertain to them that don't count it's all about thievery it's all about money it's all about keeping the American people so far into debt that that people think that they can't get out the problem is with that is the debt that's created in this country is not the people's debt it's the United States corporation debt in the United States corporation is in the district of Columbia you can look that up it's all theft and fraud!
You're correct, definitions are determined to be applied in all cases. One does not "drive" his personal conveyence. According to Title 49 of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations for Transportation, the act of driving or the driver is classified as one any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle. That would mean that any act of driving is merely for commerce purposes only. One has the right to use the public highways and freely travel in his vehicle as he sees fit.
This right has been clarified and established time and time again in case documentation, citing from Thompson v Smith; Kent v Dulles; Schactman v Dulles, and many others. It is classified under the right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. Driving and traveling are not the same thing, one has a right to use his vehicle to travel for personal reasons and not be subject to unlawful restrictions placed upon that right, however one does not have the use the public roadways as a means to earn monetary value. Hence why licensing is needed for "driving". Think taxi driver or truck driver.
It's a complete misunderstanding of the common right we all share, and one used to extort money by way of road piracy through actions taken along the lines of traffic regulatory statutes.
Any law that is repugnant of the constitution automatically becomes null and void. One can just ignore it as if it were never penned to begin with. If anyone attempts to enforce unconstitutional statutes, they becomes criminals on the spot under 18 US Code 242 Deprivation of Rights under color of law.
*sees fit as long as one does not victimize others in the exercise of his right, ie doing quantifiable damage to party or property in his exercise of that right.
The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgement.
The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. Using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the RESTRICTIONS require you to give up a constitution right
The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness
There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager. it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy. It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances.
The state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
Because the government is a corporation (artificial person) it is a fictitious entity that has no natural rights or power. Because the government is a corporation or fictitious person it can not think, see, speak, touch, smell, or do anything that a living person can do. As a result the government can only operate in a fictitious world 😏😎
To function in the real world it needs a conduit or a liaison of some sort to connect it to the world of living breathing people
Names are not real, living, breathing people, but instead of symbols of things (non- beings) in legal terms names are (artificial person's) which are cooperations. In other words, your legal name represents the corporate name that is used by the government to identify you.
The process that allows the government to legally claim you as a corporation involves the creation of a fictitious you. Which is the name written in all capital letters. Then tricking you to agree to be that artificial person or legal name
You should know this before ever stressing about what the government can and can not do to you legally in the real world
When they tell you there is no such thing as your strawman they are blantly lying to you.. Your strawman is literally your legal name in all Capital letters (the fictitious you /corporation) the government created and use to identify you.
This legal name was created shortly after your was born and was recorded on a bond. This bond that represents the date of your birth is known as your birth certificate. The birth certificate is actually a certificate of slavery. Which is why it's recorded on a bond. Your legal name which is used to represent you. (The body of water or liquid) is written in all capital letters because it is a piece of liquidated capital, in other words, it has been securitized and turned into a financial instrument. (liquidated capital) to liquid something is to sell it off entirely or sell it to pay off a debt. The purpose of liquidating you is to turn you into capital money.
The courts use Blacks Law dictionary for all legal definitions. The States don't get to decide legal definitions. This article is propaganda.
Driving is commercial. commerce can be regulated.
Traveling is private. Private cannot be regulated.
You can volunteer to give up rights but they can't be taken away in a Republic. Democracy if you are in the 49% that lost you can lose your rights because more people feal you don't need those rights to protect you, they know what's best for everyone. Mask up.
We live in a Republic. Republic's are private.
They want you to think it's a democracy which is commercial corporate structure much different then our American Republic..
"The courts use Blacks Law dictionary for all legal definitions."
No, they most certainly do not.
"The States don't get to decide legal definitions."
Yes, they absolutely do.
"They want you to think it's a democracy which is commercial corporate structure much different then our American Republic.."
You are an absolute idiot who has no idea whatsoever what the difference is.
The primary difference is right there in the definitions.
Democracy:
A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic:
a form of government in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
See the difference?
A "body of citizens entitled to vote."
The key difference between a Republic and a Democracy is who gets to vote.
In a Democracy, it is all adult citizens.
In Republics, it's a small select minority – generally only landowners.
We tried that and it was bullshit – especially since only rich white men could even legally own land at the time.
Hence the 15th and 19th amendments.
Another difference which also dates back to the Romans is that in a Republic the Senate is not elected, but appointed by incumbent state legislators, and they also had to be landowners.
We tried that too, and it was also corrupt elitest bullshit.
Hence the 17th amendment.
We are not a Republic; we are a Democracy.
It's not a "subversion" – it's a simple fact.
And ironically, the best argument in favor of Democracy was John Adam's argument against it in 1776:
"Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open such a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters.
There will be no end of it.
New claims will arise.
Women will demand a vote.
Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to
And every man, who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state.
It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and surrender all ranks, to one common level."
We the people made it clear that we didn't want his Republic "distinctions".
We believe that all ranks are supposed to be on one common level.
It's why we left England in the first place.
I see the ignorance of the writer. he does not know the languish or the meaning of the terms used in the above court case by the Supreme Court.
Drive and Driving are commercial terms meaning that one is employed by another for compensation. Everything that said government do they do according to the law and the Law is the constitution. Do they not say that the constitution is the Law of the land. All laws that are made must conform to the constitution, (State and National) otherwise they are, void.
They Change the government system in 1933, this only means that everything was done commercially, all government are operating in business, for profit. One Still has the right to Travel without license, but one must understand and know law.
"I see the ignorance of the writer"
That's funny – so do I!
"Drive and Driving are commercial terms meaning that one is employed by another for compensation."
No, they absolutely are not.
"Do they not say that the constitution is the Law of the land."
Yes they do.
What they don't say is that the constitution ever said anything about driving being a commercial term – because it isn't
You simply have no idea WTF you are babbling about.
The ignorance and arrogance of whoever wrote this drivel is far from the truth.
#1 The People are the State. Without people there is only an empty area with no need for elected servants of the people.
#2 in all of these cases they only talk about “ motor vehicles and the inherent danger to the public they pose and it is the care of the people and property that is at hand. Read 49USC and definitions and specifically at the one sentence in each section that states “ for the good of the public”, “ for the safety of the public”, “ for the welfare of the public”, and 18 USC 31(6) definition of a motor vehicle. Blacks law dictionary and Bouviers law dictionary span 2000 years of legal language and they agree; a vehicle is a conveyance in TRANSPORTATION: the movement of people and goods from one place to another for COMPENSATION. MOTOR VEHICLES ARE COMMERCE-IAL IN NATURE.
#3 The Commerce clause; articke 1 sec 8 clause 3 of the United States Constitution gives sole regulatory power over COMMERCE to Congress and the States ( 10th A) have to get PREEMPTIVE permission from the Secretary of Transportation to affect regulation of motor vehicles in commerce ONLY; not citizens RIGHT to FREE MOVEMENT. Articles of Confederation Article 4 and the New Constitution ( 1789) cannot drop that Right shown to be. The SCOTUS says I’m in the 5th and 14th A as the word “LIBERTY” the Right to locomotion, the ability to remove from any situation to another at will and SCOTUS also agrees (1906) yes even the automobile.
When you start out to denigrate and deny a right you will always miscalculate the power of the words you are using. I am just passing along knowledge of 4300 hours of deep lawful legal study.
People say this/that, and some of article above makes valid points but what the REAL thing people aren't hearing is the ruling states " right to travel by horse, buggy, train, automobile is a god given right as long as you aren't conducting business commercially, and NO STATE CAN MAKE PASS LAWS THAT GO AGAINST THAT, ALSO WHEN THEY TAKE THAT RIGHT AND SAY ITS A PRIVILEGE AND CHARGE YOU FOR IT , ITS TO NOT BE CONSIDERED LAW, and rejected with full prejudice? Yes the State has right also but to TELL you you have to get (pay for) a license before you can and punish you severely in some cases if not is horseshit! Yes take a drivers course if parents can't teach you but that's extent of it.
there are more by far deaths on the roadways by license drivers than non-license drivers
i’m sorry, but this is a bunch of BS. I can tell that you’re a Democrat that wants to constantly gouge and charge everybody for stuff that is a violation of constitutional law. As a constitutional lawyer myself everything you’ve written on your website, here is incorrect. We have the right to travel. It is a right not a privilege. We do not have to be ID. We do not have to have insurance and we do not have to register our vehicle. I have many many cases that this has actually won. Constitution right life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what it falls under when you make me have to get a license and you make me have to register my vehicle and pay out the nose for these stupid programs. You are violating my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which the constitution has granted every US citizen.