Jump to content
NOJURISDICTION

Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

Recommended Posts

You lawyers tell so many lies.

 

You mean like when you falsely cited Penhallow for a quote that doesn't appear in the opinion?  Are you the pot or the kettle?

 

 

 

Google moorish science temple of america and they have temples all over america.....if i wanted i can ditch the US citizenship and claim my moorish nationality

 

Yes, you could.  Don't see what that has to do with needing a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle, though.

 

 

 

So a corporation is not a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment equal protection and due process provisions?

 

Never said that and don't see how it's relevant to the subject under discussion (of course, with all the nonsense you've posted, it's not really clear what subject(s) are still being discussed).

 

 

 

corpus juris socundum [sic]

 

Another little-used legal encyclopedia that is not the law but only purports to summarize cases.

 

 

 

so those old cases are outdated you people say.......well i will go and take a look in shepards citations and see if the are standing

 

Outdated and no longer good law aren't the same thing, so let's add another check mark in the "you don't know what you're talking about" column.

 

 

 

You lack basic reading comprehension and writing skills which indicates that you are poorly educated and not up to the task of performing good legal research and providing intelligent, articulate and persuasive analysis.

 

This is what the Moors teach.

 

Got it.  Now it all makes sense, although I wonder if they would agree that they teach folks to write like uneducated idiots and make incoherent and illogical legal arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they even said the US is a corporation on fox news hahahahaha where not dumb a county is a corporation. MANTA.com

 

You mean you believe everything that the talking heads on the Fox network say? That would explain a lot. The commentators on Fox aren't known for being particularly accurate in the things they say. They make statements to be provocative rather than informative. Indeed, the media as a whole tends to do a poor job of reporting about the law or any other really technical subject. 

 

Cities and counties are often referred to as “municipal corporations.” That has a different meaning than the business corporation. In any event, that fact still is irrelevant to the issue in this thread: whether the state may require you to have license to operate your vehicle on the roads of this state. You’ve yet to even try articulating how the federal government, county or city government being a corporation would matter. None of them have laws requiring drivers licenses. It is the state that has the laws requiring driver’s licenses. This is a great example of the problems with your logical reasoning. If you cannot even tell what things are relevant to the discussion and what are not, you’ll keep grasping at meangingless bits of case law and in the process keep showing us how poor your legal reasoning skills. 

 

You lawyers tell so many lies.

 

I always get a good laugh when guys like you say this. So you think that lawyers, who have spent 3 years in law school and many of whom have years in practice and are skilled in legal analysis and research are all liars when they disagree with you and your ilk, people who have had no training in legal reasearch and analysis and have no skill in it? Don’t you think that lawyers, who are experts in the law, might know a whole lot more about it than people like you are not experts in the law? That lawyers are telling you something quite different from the web sites or whatever sources you are getting your bizarre arguments from should give you a clue that those sources you are relying upon are giving you bad information. But of course folks that follow those sources also tend to be those that would rather believe that the government, the courts, and lawyers are all involved in some mass conspiracy against them rather than admit the far more likely and realistic explanation that the sources they are following are simply wrong and misguided. 

 

if i wanted i can ditch the US citizenship and claim my moorish nationality

 

Once again, you prove that you don't understand what is relevant to the discussion. While a person may give up his/her U.S. citizenship, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether the states may require you to have a driver’s license. The laws of every state require every one, citizen or not, to have a driver’s license. Giving up your citizenship would not help you avoid that requirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean you believe everything that the talking heads on the Fox network say? That would explain a lot. The commentators on Fox aren't known for being particularly accurate in the things they say. They make statements to be provocative rather than informative. Indeed, the media as a whole tends to do a poor job of reporting about the law or any other really technical subject. 

 

Cities and counties are often referred to as “municipal corporations.” That has a different meaning than the business corporation. In any event, that fact still is irrelevant to the issue in this thread: whether the state may require you to have license to operate your vehicle on the roads of this state. You’ve yet to even try articulating how the federal government, county or city government being a corporation would matter. None of them have laws requiring drivers licenses. It is the state that has the laws requiring driver’s licenses. This is a great example of the problems with your logical reasoning. If you cannot even tell what things are relevant to the discussion and what are not, you’ll keep grasping at meangingless bits of case law and in the process keep showing us how poor your legal reasoning skills. 

 

 

I always get a good laugh when guys like you say this. So you think that lawyers, who have spent 3 years in law school and many of whom have years in practice and are skilled in legal analysis and research are all liars when they disagree with you and your ilk, people who have had no training in legal reasearch and analysis and have no skill in it? Don’t you think that lawyers, who are experts in the law, might know a whole lot more about it than people like you are not experts in the law? That lawyers are telling you something quite different from the web sites or whatever sources you are getting your bizarre arguments from should give you a clue that those sources you are relying upon are giving you bad information. But of course folks that follow those sources also tend to be those that would rather believe that the government, the courts, and lawyers are all involved in some mass conspiracy against them rather than admit the far more likely and realistic explanation that the sources they are following are simply wrong and misguided. 

 

 

Once again, you prove that you don't understand what is relevant to the discussion. While a person may give up his/her U.S. citizenship, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether the states may require you to have a driver’s license. The laws of every state require every one, citizen or not, to have a driver’s license. Giving up your citizenship would not help you avoid that requirement. 

Which "state" are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there is no known document entitled, "The Constitution for America". So no one here is likely to be able to tell you "WTF happened" to it.

Also, "Corpus deleti" is not a term that anyone here has likely ever heard of. There is something called corpus delicti, but a great legal mind like yours would have specified such term if that is what you meant.

You've long since established your severe lack of intelligence in this thread, so there's no need to spike the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which "state" are you talking about?

 

I used the word “states” to refer to them collectively. And, as I said in my reply, every state requires a driver’s license. Now, unless you are totally clueless, I would think even you would understand in the context of this discussion that I am referring to the several states of the United States, e.g. New York, Pennsylvania, California, etc. It is the states that require drivers’ licenses, not the federal government. This is stuff that most people learn in high school.

 

WTF happen to The Constitution For America?

 

If you are referring to the Constitution of the United States, nothing has happened to it. The original is still safely in the hands of the U.S. Archives. If you meant to ask something else, then you’ll need to rephrase your question because as written it doesn’t make it very clear what you are asking. 

 

What about Corpus deleti? The prosecuter is making a claim that the state is the vitim....Where is the body of a crime?NO STANDING wtf 

 

I assume you meant to use the term corpus delicti. (Your spelling needs work.) This Latin term means “the body of the crime.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed. The word body does not refer to a physical body, like a human body, but rather to the material substance on which a crime has been committed; the physical evidence of a crime, such as the corpse of a murdered person. There doesn’t have to be a "victim" for there to be a crime. The defendant merely needs to have violated a criminal law, and what the prosecutor must prove to the court is that the defendant violated that law by presenting evidence that will convince the court beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

 

Once again, it is impossible to tell what you are really asking. Using “wtf” doesn’t explain much, after all. What about corpus delicti do you think matters in this discussion of drivers’ licenses? And how do you think it affects standing? In a prosecution for driving without a license, typically all the prosecutor must prove is that you operated a motor vehicle on roads and that you did not have a valid driver’s license. In the ordinary case, this is not hard for the prosecutor to do. 

 

If you ever need to argue anything in court, you’ll need to be far more articulate than you have been in these posts. If the court can’t even decipher what you are trying to say, you’ve lost the case befroe you even get started. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there is no known document entitled, "The Constitution for America". So no one here is likely to be able to tell you "WTF happened" to it.

Also, "Corpus deleti" is not a term that anyone here has likely ever heard of. There is something called corpus delicti, but a great legal mind like yours would have specified such term if that is what you meant.

You've long since established your severe lack of intelligence in this thread, so there's no need to spike the ball.

I PUT FACTS AND YOU GUYS JUST SAY NO ITS NOT TRUE WITH NO TYPE OF PROOF..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the word “states” to refer to them collectively. And, as I said in my reply, every state requires a driver’s license. Now, unless you are totally clueless, I would think even you would understand in the context of this discussion that I am referring to the several states of the United States, e.g. New York, Pennsylvania, California, etc. It is the states that require drivers’ licenses, not the federal government. This is stuff that most people learn in high school.

 

 

If you are referring to the Constitution of the United States, nothing has happened to it. The original is still safely in the hands of the U.S. Archives. If you meant to ask something else, then you’ll need to rephrase your question because as written it doesn’t make it very clear what you are asking. 

 

 

I assume you meant to use the term corpus delicti. (Your spelling needs work.) This Latin term means “the body of the crime.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed. The word body does not refer to a physical body, like a human body, but rather to the material substance on which a crime has been committed; the physical evidence of a crime, such as the corpse of a murdered person. There doesn’t have to be a "victim" for there to be a crime. The defendant merely needs to have violated a criminal law, and what the prosecutor must prove to the court is that the defendant violated that law by presenting evidence that will convince the court beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

 

Once again, it is impossible to tell what you are really asking. Using “wtf” doesn’t explain much, after all. What about corpus delicti do you think matters in this discussion of drivers’ licenses? And how do you think it affects standing? In a prosecution for driving without a license, typically all the prosecutor must prove is that you operated a motor vehicle on roads and that you did not have a valid driver’s license. In the ordinary case, this is not hard for the prosecutor to do. 

 

If you ever need to argue anything in court, you’ll need to be far more articulate than you have been in these posts. If the court can’t even decipher what you are trying to say, you’ve lost the case befroe you even get started. 

Nics BS.......but you are forgettinjg one thing.......what are the 2 elements for a body of a crime????And the prosecuter need to proov willfulness....without that he aint got spit......And for your info they always claim the state to be the victim soo that bs you said there does not have to be one is just an idea of yours...... and there under a jurisdiction not granted by the constitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LETS SEE WHAT YA SAY ABOUT THIS......ITS THE JUDGE WHO SAID THIS..

 

14 Georgia 438, 520:

“But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it.”

 

 

This is because its not our constitution......the Constitution for the united states of america is the real one....and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the corprate charter......explain why a corporation is a person in the 14th amendment if this is not true
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LETS SEE WHAT YA SAY ABOUT THIS......ITS THE JUDGE WHO SAID THIS..

 

14 Georgia 438, 520:

“But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it.”

 

 

This is because its not our constitution......the Constitution for the united states of america is the real one....and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the corprate charter......explain why a corporation is a person in the 14th amendment if this is not true

 

For starters, you've provided an incorrect citation to a case from 1854, but I digress.  

 

Let's assume you are correct about the U.S. being a corporation by today's definition of such term.  Let's also assume that the U.S. is governed by a document entitled "the Constitution for the United States.  You still haven't asserted a compelling argument in support of the notion that an individual need not possess a valid driver's license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  

 

You may recall that the right to travel is the topic of this thread.  However, for some reason you choose to continually stray way off-topic and inundate us with out of context quotes from off-point, out dated case law in an effort to convince us that the Federal Government is an all-powerful, for profit corporation that, by force, controls and enslaves the citizens of this country.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, although you and your fellow internet conspiracy theorists remain free to espouse such idiocy.  

 

By the way, nowhere in the 14th Amendment does the word corporation even appear, so, once again, it's not at all clear what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF happen to The Constitution For America?

 

Never heard of such a thing.  There is a Constitution of the United States of America, and all states have constitutions.  What are you talking about?

 

 

 

What about Corpus deleti? The prosecuter is making a claim that the state is the vitim....Where is the body of a crime?NO STANDING wtf 

 

What about it?  Corpus delecti simply means that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.  The law requires a driver's license to drive, so one who drives without a license has committed a crime.

 

 

 

I PUT FACTS AND YOU GUYS JUST SAY NO ITS NOT TRUE WITH NO TYPE OF PROOF..

 

What "facts" are you talking about?

 

 

 

LETS SEE WHAT YA SAY ABOUT THIS......ITS THE JUDGE WHO SAID THIS..

 

14 Georgia 438, 520:

“But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it.”

 

 

This is because its not our constitution......the Constitution for the united states of america is the real one....and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the corprate charter......explain why a corporation is a person in the 14th amendment if this is not true

 

 

Other than the facts that your quote is slightly (but not substantively) inaccurate and that this is a pre-Civil War case from Georgia concerning a slavery-related issue, I have no problem with this statement.  Private parties may not sue for "breach of the [united States] Constitution," and no private person is a party to the U.S. Constitution.  What part of that do you not agree with and why?

 

I have no clue what you mean by the following:  "the Constitution for the united states of america is the real one....and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the corprate charter."  Other than substituting "for" and "of," you're referring to the same thing.  It's worth pointing out that the U.S. Constitution has no title on it, so it make no difference if one refers to it as "the Constitution for the United States of America" or the Constitution of the United States of America."

 

As far as the 14th Amendment, the word "corporation" appears nowhere in it.

 

And, once again, none of this nonsense has anything to do with the subject of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LETS SEE WHAT YA SAY ABOUT THIS......ITS THE JUDGE WHO SAID THIS..

 

14 Georgia 438, 520:

“But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it.”

 

 

It's true, the U.S. Constitution is a compact between the several states and individuals are not a party to it. But what of it? That fact is completely irrelevant to the issue in this thread: whether the states may require you to have a driver’s license. You evidently don’t understand the concept of relevance. I’ve asked you several times how the stuff you post relates to the issue of driver’s licenses and you never answer. I think you know this garbage you post has absolutely nothing to do with the issue which is why you don't bother trying to explain how what you post applies to the issue here. If you don’t understand that it’s not relevant, then sadly you truly are clueless and no amount of reading the law will help you. 

 

You really need to stop reading the web sites that spew the sort of nonsense you are posting here. You are getting a lot of bad information and you evidently cannot tell the difference between sites with accurate information and those that have nothing but garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is going to be a long post.

I have copied text form a couple of websites for reference. I am doing this for debating purposes, and not for people to sling poo all over. Please provide any relative information in support of or to the contrary.

This is the correct text from the "constitutional driver's license"

County of______________

OFFICE OF THE CLERIC

______________ , Michigan

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, is FORBIDDEN 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!!

SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is signed_________________________________________

WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________

WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________

or

NOTARY PUBLIC_________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES____________________________

Form below use for County Clerk

state of MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF_______________

1, ___________________________________, CLERK of the County of

_____________________________________, thereof do hereby certify the

Citizen above named has sworn to the contents of this document and that

same is TRUE AND CORRECT. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have

hereto set my hand and affixed the SEAL of said CIRCUIT COURT, at

the City of __________________________________ , MICHIGAN this

________________day of_______________________, AD.__________

______________________________________Deputy County Clerk for

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________COUNTY CLERK

Yes, I do live in Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now all motor vehicle codes state that a person must, but what if you are not a person but a man or human being?...i.e.

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a

general word which normally includes in its scope a variety

of entities other than human beings. See, e.g., 1 U.S.C.

Sec. 1.

[Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice]

[ 612 F.2d 417, 425 (1979)]

Here is another take on the word "person"

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person ...

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person ...

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person ...

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person ...

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person ...

Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment

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.

14th Amendment:

Section 1. 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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of "person."

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls."

A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears."

The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

A resident is another STATE office holder.

All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government.

But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person."

Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.

Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.

Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs.

If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own.

The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.

"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free.

They will say, "All men are free," because that is a true statement.

What they do not say is, that holding any STATE office binds free men into slavery for the STATE. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the STATE office of "person," and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free persons."

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes.

Most STATE constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the People:

Political power -- All political power is inherent in the People. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the People.

Notice that this says "people" it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the People are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law of creation and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?"

Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE "person."

Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).

As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).

Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words."

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

"A Sovereign 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. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).

The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.

I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

... A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...

Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.

"No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.

There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions.

It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.

You are not a "person" subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him:

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you.

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge w ill try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you.

The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices.

This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case:

"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 such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] 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 [Common Law] 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." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, "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." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.

If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other.

Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy:

Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now another view on the right to travel.....

The following brief has been used in at least three states as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

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 driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.

This brief or the right it demonstrates is no substitute for either being safe on the road or for learning the subject of rights versus regulations thoroughly before attempting to use or act upon this information.

This brief demonstrates in substantive form the manner in which the inherent rights of We The People have been "surrendered to the State" through un-awareness of those rights, or un-wittingly, or under coercion and threat, entering into a "voluntary" contract with the "State". See Our Enemy, the STATE"

This brief may be used as a model for briefs for Dismissal in other actions where a Citizen's Common Law Constitutionally Protected Rights have been violated. Just be absolutely certain that all cites and references are factual and directly to the instant case. See Sui Juris Court Defense

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONS:

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 2 -- Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3 -- Judges bound: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 5 -- Oath of Office: 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;"

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5, Clause 7 -- Due Process Clause: nor be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due Process of Law;

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 9: The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, Clause 3 -- Due Process Clause: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Constitution of the State of Florida, Article I -- Declaration of Rights:

Constitution of the State of Washington, Article I -- Declaration of Rights:

STATUTES:

Florida Statute Chapter 322 DRIVERS' LICENSES

Florida Statute CHAPTER 318 DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS

Florida Statute CHAPTER 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

Title 18 USC 31

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd]

12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269

16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70

25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260

25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717

CASE HISTORIES:

Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18

American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31

Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 1

Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607

Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22

City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876

Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540

Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46

Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171

Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43

Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592

Hale v. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516

Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

Kent v. Dulles (1958) 357 US 116, 125. 2

Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848

Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934

Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45

Marbury v Madison (1803). A void act is void ab initio. 2

Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882

McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316

Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 US 436, 491. 2

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1

Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661

Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.

O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256

Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613

Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313

Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682

People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4

People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715

Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290

Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147

Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203

Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. 1

Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660

Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. 1

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.

State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487

State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. 1

State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020

Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140

Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427

Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389

Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294

Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 1

Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11

Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526

Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.

LAW DICTIONARIES

Bergh Business Law 25.1, 55.1.4, 61, 63

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 5.1, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 14.1, 25.3, 27, 28, 29.1,

71.1, 88, 92.1, 93

Century Dictionary, p.2034.

Woodward Quasi Contracts 9 72

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES

Webster Unabridged Dictionary 9.1

NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest for failing to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:

ARGUMENT

If ever a judge understood the right of the public 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.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

RIGHTS

The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

This concept is further amplified by this 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 horsedrawn 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." [emphasis added] 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." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution. 777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

"...We are of the opinion 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 examination on 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 investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

"He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as 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 the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of 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 rights to 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 the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

"..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

"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.

and...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and...

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and ransportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] 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.

and...

"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.

So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

"...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; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;

and other cases too numerous to mention.

Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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 of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

and...

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.

What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

and...

"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

and...

"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." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

"Personal liberty or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton , 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...

Travelling upon and transporting ones' property upon the public roads, which is our Right;

and...

Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.

"[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith." Ibid.

"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.

There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."

DEFINITIONS

In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"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.

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"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.

The distinction is made very clear 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.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

TRAVEL

The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

otice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

DRIVER

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as:

"Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

OPERATOR

Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; the 'operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both 'operator' and 'driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.

Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

TRAFFIC

Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":

"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.

Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."

In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

"Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.

Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.

Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:

"..in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."

The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:

"The word 'traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.

Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

LICENSE

It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:

"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.

In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, 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.

This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)

In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:

"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.

This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.

Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."

"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.

The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.

Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?

How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.

POLICE POWER

The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power," infra.)

Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

"1. Is there threatened danger? 2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right? 3. Is this regulation reasonable?" People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power."

When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.

First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

The answer is No! 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. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)

Next, does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.

The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"

The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.

Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)

"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." Connolly 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 police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:

No person shall be...deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.

As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.

In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.

DUE PROCESS

"The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.

Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.

"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..." Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.

and...

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.

But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)

Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that "no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court," by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.)

Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common."

The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:

"The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized..."

and...

"Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways..."; Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11.

This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.

This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall.

"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.

Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."

The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

REGULATION

"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260.

and...

"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.

First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:

1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?

The answer is No!

The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."

However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.

Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.

2. Is the statute reasonable?

The answer is No!

This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)

But isn't this what we have now?

The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.

These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.

We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS

A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..."; [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

and...

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.

TAXING POWER

"Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.

"...It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax...a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars." Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.

and...

"If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation." Ibid., p.47.

Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.

CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME

As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.

Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.

and...

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda, supra.

Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the Constitution was to protect the Rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.

So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.

Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty.

As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen's Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.

CONCLUSION

It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form.

"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty indeed they are under a solemn duty to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.

and...

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.

The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)

Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)

The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those Free and Natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways.

This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.

This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege.

To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.

"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

and...

"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee." Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.

and...

"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People."

Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.

So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

Therefore, it must be concluded that:

"We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power." Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra.

and...

"The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain." Ibid.

Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.

April 20, 2006.

This ends the legal brief.

In addition:

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the states have committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.

Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.

"The People never give up their Liberties but under some delusion." -- Edmund Burke, 1784.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Furthermore...

Selected from a police force educational paper written by retired Phoenix Officer Jack McLamb

THE 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, Ret. Phoenix Officer

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.

"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 (1958) 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.

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 that the encroachment by means of licensing and roadblocks 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 Hurtado v. California (1884) 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, (1966) 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 notwithstanding." - Supremacy clause.

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, 245 P 1073.

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 [protected] right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to those of you who are trying to travel without a license, DO NOT hire or try to hire an attorney to defend you, they CAN NOT! Here is some reading materiel for you wack jobs who think you can drive with out a license. Driving is a commercial activity and as being such is commercial by nature, and the corporate entity is a creation of the state and is subservient to the state. Now traveling on the other hand is what a man/woman would do in the normal course of life and would be the normal use of the roads as opposed to driving which is regulated by the state. You also need to realize you are traveling in an automobile and not a motor vehicle as defined by federal law as well as most state laws. You also need to realize that these are statues which have the color of law. So if an officer does hand you a citation(see bill of attainder) Remeber 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, which states...

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, 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 person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

And you would hand them this....http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/LAW/Form_COL.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also why an Attorney can not defend your rights...

Hiding Behind The BAR

Why Attorneys Are Not Lawyers

by Joe Blow

In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another?

What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney?" A credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State BAR Certification number. The credential is issued by the boards of law examiners, the applicant having acquired a minimum competency in law. In most cases, the board is an independent, self-financing, separately incorporated group of law professionals, administered by the state bar association, a branch of the American Bar Association, functioning in an advisory capacity to the supreme court of each of the states. Simply stated, they are an advisory board of recommendation to the court. The accreditation number is issued by the state bar association, a professional dues paying union.

As we are about to show you, an ‘attorney’ is not a ‘lawyer,’ yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.

In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it’s necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S. courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning. It's important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.

The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word "bar" is of British origin:

BAR -- A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails, one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers." The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).

From the definition of ‘BAR,’ the title and occupation of a "barrister" is derived:

BARRISTER -- English law. A counselor admitted to plead at the bar. 2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar. 3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar. 4. Vacation barrister, a counselor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house. 5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. -- Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes himself as an apprentice of the common law. -- A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

BARRISTER, n. [from BAR.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to pleas at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish them from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to pleas within the bar, as the king's counsel are. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator's gallery. This will be explained more as you read further. As with the word ‘BAR,’ each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:

1). From the word "solicit" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘solicitor’; one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.

SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin - solicito] 1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking ... 2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

2). From the word "attorn" is derived the name and occupation of an ‘attorney;’ one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.

ATTORN v. ME. [Origin French. atorner, aturner >assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.] 1. v.t.Turn; change, transform; deck out. 2. v.tTurn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign. 3. >v.i. Transfer one’s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one’s tenancy to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy ( to a new landlord) -- Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another; formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. -- Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

3). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.

ADVOCATE v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.] To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

4). From the word "counsel" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘counselor’ or ‘lawyer’; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law;

COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. -- A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor -- one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor -- one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer -- [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister -- one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate -- one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney -- one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights and property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).

Feudal Tenancy

If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land. You will almost always find the words "tenant" or "tenancy." The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.

A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior. A feudal tenant is a legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another's land. The land has been conveyed to the tenant's use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior. If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he's legally defined as a "feudal tenant", not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant - person pays him to occupy the land.

This is the hidden Feudal Law in America. When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person, partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior. If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?

We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise. It's no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man. The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.

Are you the entity the other person claims you are? When you "appear" before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise. You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are. Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition?

See PERSON for your role in the BAR Attorney system as a Feudal Tenant.

British Accredited Registry (BAR)?

During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.

When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown Territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.

Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?

Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner.

Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder. See "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, 1850.

The official duties of an Esquire

Let's not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as adirect result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of "esquire." This word is a derivative of the British word "squire."

SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n. 1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield-bearer, f. scutum shield: see - ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b. Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c. A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire- was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served. Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall.

The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That's why they deliberately call themselves "Esquires" and "Attorneys at law ." It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.

Knowing these simple truths, why would anyone consider the services of BAR Attorney-Esquire as his representative within the ruling courts of America? Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE. [see Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock, 1935, His Classic Critique Distinguishing 'Government' from the 'State']

They are sworn oath officers of the State whose sole authority is to transfer your property to their landowner-employer. Think about this the next time you enter their courtrooms. From now on, all Americans should refuse to enter past the outer bar when they are called. Who would voluntarily want to relinquish all he has by passing into their legal trap that exists inside that outer bar?

We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can't plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Let the BAR Attorneys continue in their jobs as property transfer agent-officers for the State, but if no defendant hires them, they'll have to get new jobs or they'll starve. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar.

Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys. Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial position by being a State Officer through his BAR licensure. This is an unlawful monopoly of power and commerce.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law

Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful definition. An Esquire is an officer of the State with the duty to carry out State activities, including "attornment."

State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR union licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over asset transfers.

Learn why not to define yourself as a "Person"

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!

Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person ...

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person ...

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person ...

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person ...

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person ...

Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment

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.

14th Amendment:

Section 1. 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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of "person."

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls."

A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears."

The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

A resident is another STATE office holder.

All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government.

But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person."

Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.

Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.

Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs.

If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own.

The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.

"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free.

They will say, "All men are free," because that is a true statement.

What they do not say is, that holding any STATE office binds free men into slavery for the STATE. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the STATE office of "person," and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free persons."

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes.

Most STATE constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the People:

Political power -- All political power is inherent in the People. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the People.

Notice that this says "people" it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the People are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law of creation and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?"

Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE "person."

Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).

As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).

Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words."

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

"A Sovereign 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. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).

The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.

I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

... A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...

Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.

"No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.

There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions.

It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.

You are not a "person" subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him:

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you.

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge w ill try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you.

The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices.

This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case:

"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 such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] 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 [Common Law] 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." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, "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." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.

If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other.

Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy:

Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again.

This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control.

Remember all political power is vested in the people, and the people are what created government. Any thing that is created is subservient to it's creator.

I'm sorry if this seems like an attack, it is not. I am looking for any proof or resources to disprove anything in this post. And to those I called whack jobs, I was being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of paragraphs and the sheer length of it pretty much guarantees that no one is going to read all that in detail. I can tell you that in skimming the material, it rehashed the familiar arguments I've seen by persons claiming that no license may be required to drive on the roads. Those arguments have been rejected by the courts. They do not work. You can try all day to throw together a chain of citations to cases that are not on point and it will not win the day. I posted earlier some of the cases that that have squarely dealt with the issue of a requirement for a driver's license and the courts have upheld those requirements. Licenses are required whether you are driving commercially or not. They are required of men and women, who are by the way “persons” under the law (known as natural persons or individuals to distinquish them from legal entities like corporations). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To dudeinaroom:

 

While you've posted several thousand words, as an author you lost all credibility just fifty six words in with the mention of  "constitutional drivers license".  This is a silly, baseless notion that has been circulating the internet for years on many unreliable, untrustworthy websites.  It is a term espoused by many anti-government, conspiracy theorists in an effort to convince others that the government somehow does not have the authority to require that individuals possess a valid driver's license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. 

 

Often, such websites rely on case law that is hundreds of years old and / or some antiquated common law theory to support their position.  Other times, to bolster their arguments, they quote snippets from various statutes, case law or other primary authorities and foolishly apply them completely out of context.  Not only do the people who post on these websites lack the skills to perform legal research and analysis, they seem to have great disdain for the American legal system.  

 

That you posted the following question is one of many examples of your foolishness:  "Now all motor vehicle codes state that a person must, but what if you are not a person but a man or human being?"  I challenge you to objectively analyze this and report back to this forum with your analysis.  

 

Unfortunately, you are way wrapped up in this "Right to Travel" nonsense.  So, go ahead drive without a license.  It will eventually catch up with you.  Then try to spew some of the garbage you found on those unreliable websites at a judge, or try to find an attorney willing to do so on your behalf and see where it gets you.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the formatting as it was all typed up in note pad and the formatting was lost during copy and pasting. All information is from various legal and Sui Juris sites.

 

Holy f-ing s**t.  You don't seriously expect anyone to read through all that, do you?  As far as the sources, which "legal . . . sites" did you get this nonsense from?  As far as "ui [j]uris sites," I have no idea what you mean by that.  Sui juris means "its own right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way...

 

 

Sorry, but this is going to be a long post. I have copied text form a couple of websites for reference. I am doing this for debating purposes, and not for people to sling poo all over. Please provide any relative information in support of or to the contrary. This is the correct text from the "constitutional driver's license" County of______________ OFFICE OF THE CLERIC ______________ , Michigan COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen_________________________: hereby Certifies. . . .

 

Could you please provide us with the address of the "OFFICE OF THE CLERIC"?

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is funny, When I copied it it said office of the clerk. Come on guys you are educated you should be able to spot a typo and be able to figure out what was meant. Also if you read all the way through it you will see it does say "1, ___________________________________, CLERK of the County of

_____________________________________," on the bottom for them to sign.

Some of the legal sites I used were http://www.law.cornell.edu, http://www.supremelaw.org (which I believe is a law firms website)this site, and also some searching on Google scholar. Sorry I don't have access to west law to check the validity of the case or if they have been upheld or overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...