Jump to content
rblprd

i guess i am lost on licensing

Recommended Posts

if the supreme court and several other courts have all ruled you don't need a license at all for basic travel and such, how can you even get a suspended or revoked license.

 

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

 

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."

 

there are like 50 cases where higher courts and the US Supreme court ruled a drivers license is ONLY required if you are doing business with a vehicle.  SO how can any municipality revoke a license you don't have to have anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a good idea for you to actually read the case decisions before you post this drivel that usually comes from the same lunatic fringe that says the US Income Tax is voluntary and you don't have to pay.

 

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham had to do with a minister who was arrested and convicted for engaging in a civil rights march without a parade permit. It has nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle without a driver license. Only an idiot would imply that it does.

 

As for Payne v. Massey, it's a Texas Supreme Court case not a US Supreme Court case. The quote that you have conveniently taken out of context refers to the right to travel and says nothing about the right to operate a motor vehicle without a license.

 

I have not been able to locate the text of the decision but I did find another quote from Payne v. Massey:

 

"a license fee for the privilege of operating a certain type of business may be imposed for both regulation and revenue purposes. Payne v. Massey, 145 Tex. 237, 196 S.W.2d 493"

 

Which leads me to suspect that Payne v. Massey was not about operating a motor vehicle without a license.

 

Here's another lunatic that entitles his article:

 

"U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets."

 

Yet none of the cases he cites actually say that.

 

You are free to drive without a license any time you want to and when you are prosecuted for it you are free to use this ridiculous defense and give the judge a good laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well im not a lawyer, and actually I have a valid license, etc, it was just a question of curiosity, since I saw a news article about it. I never read much into it, but after seeing various news stories it did peak my curiosity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well im not a lawyer, and actually I have a valid license, etc, it was just a question of curiosity, since I saw a news article about it. I never read much into it, but after seeing various news stories it did peak my curiosity

 

You have no idea how often this silliness comes up on legal websites so please don't take our responses personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the supreme court and several other courts have all ruled you don't need a license at all for basic travel and such, how can you even get a suspended or revoked license.

 

This is a pointless question because (with the possible exception of an odd case or two from the earliest days of the automobile) neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other court in the U.S. has ever ruled that drivers of automobiles do not need driver's licenses.

 

 

 

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

 

Where does this quote come from?  It is not a quote from the opinion in Payne.  Payne was a case filed by a person who operated a taxicab business in Houston, Texas and who sought to enjoin the City of Houston from enforcing a city ordinance regulating the operation of taxicabs in the city.  The case had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the State of Texas could properly require motorists not engaged in the operation of a business to maintain driver's licenses.  Stated differently, the court absolutely did not "make[] it clear that . . . when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”"  Did you actually read the case?

 

 

 

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."

 

Shuttlesworth was a case brought by a "Negro minister" who was convicted of violating -- and who challenged the constitutionality of -- "an ordinance of Birmingham, Alabama, making it an offense to participate in any 'parade or procession or other public demonstration' without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission."  394 U.S. at 148.  Again, did you actually read this case?  Here's a link to the opinion:  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/case.html.  Where exactly did the Court "say[] No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary"?  Note that the word "drive" (or any form thereof) appears nowhere in the opinion.  The word "automobile" does appear once:  "The purpose of their march was to protest the alleged denial of civil rights to Negroes in the city of Birmingham.  The marchers stayed on the sidewalks except at street intersections, and they did not interfere with other pedestrians.  No automobiles were obstructed, nor were traffic signals disobeyed."  Id., at 149 (emphasis added).  Likewise, the Court quoted a prior case for the proposition that "the First and Fourteenth Amendments [do not] afford the same kind of freedom to those who would communicate ideas by conduct such as patrolling, marching, and picketing on streets and highways, as these amendments afford to those who communicate ideas by pure speech."  Id., at 152, quoting Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965).  Stated differently, the case had absolutely nothing to do with the operation or licensing of motor vehicles.

 

 

 

there are like 50 cases where higher courts and the US Supreme court ruled a drivers license is ONLY required if you are doing business with a vehicle.

 

Really?  Have you read any of these purported cases (and, if not, why on Earth would you make such an unequivocal declaration such as this)?  Or are you just regurgitating something you read at some random web site?  Feel free to cite these cases and point to the specific portions of the cases in which the courts ruled as you claim.

 

 

 

I saw a news article about it.

 

Got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really?  Have you read any of these purported cases (and, if not, why on Earth would you make such an unequivocal declaration such as this)?  Or are you just regurgitating something you read at some random web site?  Feel free to cite these cases and point to the specific portions of the cases in which the courts ruled as you claim.

 

 

I think OP may have stumbled on a website like the following:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier?redirectFromSplash=true

 

Where dozens of cases are cited under the banner but none of the quoted portions of the decisions actually say that a driver's license is not required for the operation of a motor vehicle.

 

That same tripe is repeated ad nauseum from website to website created by the loonies who propound it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how old  a law is. A law is a law. If circumstances change so drastically that the law is no longer effective, it gets amended or repealed.  The United States Supreme Court is the ultimate court in this country. If a judge declares any of the laws passed by the Supreme Court are wrong or erroneous he is being unlawful. 

   We, the general public, who didn't go to law school listen to the words Driver, Operator, motor vehicle, transport, etc. and assume they mean what we learned in elementary school. WRONG!

 When a police officer says you are operating a motor vehicle on a public highway without a valid licence he is ACTUALLY stating this. - You were taking people or possessions from point A to point B and charging someone money for your services. You did this using the streets that are there for the citizen's private use for transportation and you didn't have a license saying you could conduct your business on the streets  put here for the citizens to use. We assume the english words spoken in the community mean the same thing when spoken in a court room. WRONG. Law makers and law enforcement use legal terminology to criminalize us and rob us of our civil liberties. All for revenue. 

  I got pulled over a few months ago and the police officer wanted to take me to jail for not having a valid license. I told him he can not criminalize me for claiming and exercising my right to free travel. I  did not let him take me to jail. I spoke with his supervisor, explaining to him that I am a private citizen simply traveling through town in my day to day activities and haven't done anything wrong, He said "you are operating a moter vehicle - No! I said. I am traveling. I am not "operating" anything. I do not charge people a fee to take them or their belongings anywhere. I do not earn any income or profit from going about my normal daily activities in MY privately owned car. OWNED BY ME. MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. These streets were put here for my travel and leisure activities. Those who make a living "operating" "transporting" or "driving" have to get a license and pay for that privilege. Not me, private citizen joe schmoe.

   The United States Supreme Court ruled AGAIN just a few months ago that We Americans STILL have the inherent right to free travel without being accosted or molested by peace keepers, police officers, etc. As long as people continue to happily surrender their freedom in exchange for blissful ignorance to whomever claims to serve and protect them you guys are going to continue giving them the best reason in the world to call you criminals and rob you in the name of law and order.   - When you sound THAT stupid about something that every american should take pride in learning and preserving for future generations - YOU DESERVE IT! The United States Constitution was written, signed and preserved by the very men who were willing to die so we could have freedom, privacy, and protection from tyrant dictators. It is your duty as an American to Learn what they really wrote on that paper. Commit it to memory and Demand that those rights be restored to the American people. Those laws have been amended over the years but nobody has had the power to repeal them so they ARE THE LAW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and Adjusterjack, please stop talking!!! If you were intelligent at all you would realize how utterly stupid you really are. When you talk to these people like they dare to ask a question that requires actual intellect to understand then you say the most idiotic thing you think makes you sound like you actually know something. YOU ARE A TOOL! Apologize to the person who posted

 

Edited by Findlaw_FN
This post has been edited for language –Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States Supreme Court is the ultimate court in this country. 

 

Only as to matters of federal law.

 

 

 

If a judge declares any of the laws passed by the Supreme Court are wrong or erroneous he is being unlawful.

 

The Supreme Court doesn't pass laws.  It obviously is true that other courts are bound by U.S. Supreme Court holdings regarding matters of federal law.

 

 

 

We, the general public, who didn't go to law school listen to the words Driver, Operator, motor vehicle, transport, etc. and assume they mean what we learned in elementary school. WRONG!

 When a police officer says you are operating a motor vehicle on a public highway without a valid licence he is ACTUALLY stating this. - You were taking people or possessions from point A to point B and charging someone money for your services.

 

Ummm...no.

 

 

 

I got pulled over a few months ago and the police officer wanted to take me to jail for not having a valid license. I told him he can not criminalize me for claiming and exercising my right to free travel. I  did not let him take me to jail. I spoke with his supervisor, explaining to him that I am a private citizen simply traveling through town in my day to day activities and haven't done anything wrong, He said "you are operating a moter vehicle - No! I said. I am traveling. I am not "operating" anything. . . . 

 

Yeah...and how'd that work out for ya?

 

 

 

The United States Supreme Court ruled AGAIN just a few months ago that We Americans STILL have the inherent right to free travel without being accosted or molested by peace keepers, police officers, etc.

 

Oh really?  Here's a list of opinions decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2014 term (i.e., from October 2014 through June 2015):  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/14 (if the opinion in question was issued during the 2015 term, you can easily obtain a link at the same site with only a few clicks).  In which of these opinions does this unprecedented holding appear?

 

 

 

As long as people continue to happily surrender their freedom in exchange for blissful ignorance to whomever claims to serve and protect them you guys are going to continue giving them the best reason in the world to call you criminals and rob you in the name of law and order.

 

As soon as you (or anyone else) can cite an opinion that actually says what you are claiming, I will happily stop "surrender[ing] [my] freedom."  Until then, my alleged ignorance will remain because I'm not aware of any authority that supports what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doucar, I do apologize, I haven't had a day off since my last post. I am searching for the Case number, and other info. I saved it my book marks and when I click the link, I get an error msg saying the page is no longer there. I will find it.... Not that it matters. This country was built on the belief that we have the freedom to say what we want, go where we want,and there laws written so we may always know what those laws are and what they mean. You just need to learn a few things before diving into the laws, statutes,law dictionaries and case laws to find out what freedoms we still have but are being robbed of by our local and state government. 

First - Laws are written very specifically so they may not be misinterpreted. The definitions of legal terms are usually conveniently written with the law so you may see the terminology is very specific, and different in the courtroom. You must learn legal definitions for every legal term used in a law so you may understand it completely and correctly. The definitions do vary state to state so be sure you are looking FIRST in your state's Statutes. If you do not see a definition for a word in the statutes, it still means exactly what is written in Blacks or Bouvier's law dictionaries. They are very old because law doesn't change. The laws written in the early 1800's have been amended over the years as we, our lives, and technology changes BUT no law can change our fundamental rights that have been recorded in the United States Constitution so we do not forget. If a law were to be so drastic as to change our "constitutional" rights it would have to go through a long process. They have attempted, and FAILED, to impede on our right to free travel many times throughout history. They always fail and the United States Supreme Court always finds in favor of the traveler. Those laws have never been repealed, which is the only way they can impose those laws on us, the traveler. The Licensing laws do not pertain to a private citizen going about daily life in the pursuit of happiness because it is always ruled that we have the right to travel freely. That means we do not have to have a contract with the state, or keep paying fines and penalties for rules that were put in place so that we the citizens can travel safely and freely without delivery people,taxis and merchants making our roads less safe and convenient for our use. The only reason we have been taxed and criminalized for not having a license is because we think the simple terms used to charge us with something have the same meaning or definition as is in basic english. That just is not true. As is in the law dictionaries and statutes, driving is moving something/someone using a carrier (which has it's own legal definition) for profit, Automobile,motor vehicle, carrier, etc. all are defined as some type of carriage used by a driver (has it's own legal definition) to transport (has it's own legal definition) people or goods for MONEY. There is a lawyer who talks about this subject extensively. His knowledge is of Texas law but he always tells you what parts of each law are law in virtually every state and which parts you will need to research further. He explains how to understand what you are reading, and that some of these publications are changing slightly every year to make it harder to find the definitions,case law,and sometimes actual truth. If you watch and listen carefully you will know what you need to know to educate yourself further about this subject. This is SO boring and SO very long but it all good information. Even if it can't tell you what the law is exactly in your state, you will be able to find and understand that info. Watch it all the way through and watch it more than once. I watch it still. I study and learn then go back and understand everything he says more thoroughly than I did before.

 

 

It is truly confusing at first and every part of it can always be debated by some goof ball that no longer even knows what rights we have as they are unalienable and inherent. You can not change one word of one law ruled by the Supreme court. The supreme court is the highest court. It is the ultimate court. To change one word of one ruling handed down by the Supreme Court is unlawful. Any law maker or peace keeper who does so is being unlawful. Laws are made in court all the time. That is what we refer to as "case law" They are laws that have been made by simply being ruled in court. When you go to court and you are trying to defend yourself case law is very important and is usually essential to winning. This is one of the hardest subjects I have ever tried to learn and I still have a long way to go. Thank God I don't have to do the LSAT or pass the bar. I just refused to accept that in a free country we can be taxed for everything, charged with anything, and criminalized without ever having hurt anyone or doing anything malicious. That is another topic that will addressed in the video. I hope I have helped you at least learn how to get the correct information regarding this subject. Good luck finding answers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ojosazulesma,

 

First and foremost, the video you have embedded above is fundamentally flawed. It first declares that the constitution has no authority in the first place then discusses the terms and meaning of  laws and concepts that in the author's opinion don't actually exist or matter. Its active misinformation.

 

It appears you are misconstruing the right to travel provisions of the US Constitution. You have the right of travel from state to state but that does not mean the mode of transportation can not be regulated.

 

It also appears that you are only picking partial quotes from statements made by the supreme court. Which, devoid of context, can be misleading.

 

Something so profound as a finding that would allow children, the blind, and mentally incapacitated individuals the ability drive as well as decriminalizing drunk driving would have been a case with clear specific reasoning and widely known. I see none of that here.

 

Nevertheless, please feel free to continue to post your legal questions at our forums,

 

-The FindLaw.com Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really aren't aware of much. That is all I am giving you pg 1067. I am not justifying your your public display of complete ignorance with any more than that. BEFORE you talk/type, EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!!!  

 

It is frustrating (among other things) that you criticize me for being ignorant but refuse to provide me with the means to rid myself of that curse.  All I ask is that you provide two case citations:

 

1. For the case in which, according to your 12/16/15 post, "[t]he United States Supreme Court ruled AGAIN just a few months ago that We Americans STILL have the inherent right to free travel without being accosted or molested by peace keepers, police officers, etc." and

 

2. Any case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, any state supreme court, or any of the federal circuit courts of appeals held that a state may not require non-commercial drivers to be licensed.

 

As to #2, as the original post in this thread and my response to it indicate, what typically happens is that, upon reading the cases that typically get cited in connection with this issue, it becomes clear that they have nothing at all to do with the issue.

 

So, in response to your suggestion that I educate myself, I am trying to do exactly that.  Will you help me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue central to this topic is frequently misunderstood by most Americans. The question central to whether or not a "license" can be lawfully required by the State in order to operate your personal vehicle on the public highways is 'What is a license?' The legal definition of a license is: "The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a trespass or tort. 
Because the majority of people foolishly accept the premise that state 'lawmakers' can unilaterally make anything they want into a 'law,' (example-black people are legal property) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 Howard 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857); many unconstitutional laws get passed and accepted by the general public.

Example:

Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 P. 1075 (Kan. 1890) a 1890 Kansas Supreme Court decision. Swift involved a bicyclist who was arrested and fined one dollar for pedaling across a Topeka bridge in violation of a city ordinance. The ordinance forbade any person "to ride on any bicycle or velocipede upon any sidewalk in the city of Topeka or across the Kansas river bridge." The ordinance represented bold-faced discrimination against bicyclists, because horse-driven vehicles and wagons were allowed to cross the bridge without legal impediment. W. E. Swift argued he had a right to cross the bridge using the vehicle of his choice without governmental interference.
The Kansas Supreme Court struck down the Topeka ordinance and reversed Swift's conviction, declaring that [each] citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the "law of the road."

 

Another issue central to this topic is that states DO NOT POSSESS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PASS LAWS THAT CONVERT CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES INTO PRIVILEGES. Because states do not possess such legal authority, enactments and enforcements of such laws is in effect, ACTS OF TREASON

There are 2 existing legal treaties on this topic.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772042

2. WRONG TURNS: A CRITIQUE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RIGHT TO TRAVEL CASES; http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2167&context=wmlr
 

The State of Georgia recently introduced legislation to repeal the illegal and unconstitutional Georgia Drivers License law. It is quite revealing what the lawmakers in Georgia cited from court decisions concerning whether there is a legal and constitutional authority inherent to the state to even enact such a law.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1286305108
 

Simply put, No State has the legal authority to enact a state requirement to obtain a drivers license if the operator is not traveling for profit or gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lee_Russell said:

Simply put, No State has the legal authority to enact a state requirement to obtain a drivers license if the operator is not traveling for profit or gain.

 

Simply put, the courts have uniformly rejected that argument. The reasoning you provided in your post, while appealing to certain groups opposed to most government regulation, is nevertheless not legally sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2017 at 6:53 PM, Lee_Russell said:

Another issue central to this topic is that states DO NOT POSSESS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PASS LAWS THAT CONVERT CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES INTO PRIVILEGES. Because states do not possess such legal authority, enactments and enforcements of such laws is in effect, ACTS OF TREASON

 

1. Like Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, I continue to plead with learned folks such as you to cite any case that supports your theory that driver's license laws are unconstitutional.  Just one.  Not some random "legal treatise," but an actual case.

 

2. Treason is defined in section 3 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution:  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."  Thus, the notion that enacting or enforcing a driver's license law is treason is absurd.

 

 

On 12/2/2017 at 6:53 PM, Lee_Russell said:

The State of Georgia recently introduced legislation to repeal the illegal and unconstitutional Georgia Drivers License law. It is quite revealing what the lawmakers in Georgia cited from court decisions concerning whether there is a legal and constitutional authority inherent to the state to even enact such a law.

 

The link you provided here is obviously not to a site maintained by the State of Georgia.  It refers to a bill referred to as "House Bill 875," that was introduced by "Representative Franklin of the 43rd."  Below the text of this supposed bill is a URL that indicates that this bill was introduced in 2009.  While all that is correct, the Bill never even voted on

 

If we visit the actual web site for the Georgia Legislature, we can search for legislation introduced in the 2009-2010 Regular Session by Representative Bobby Franklin (who died in 2011).  A Franklin's Wikipedia page (which is well-sourced) indicates, he held many "fringe views" that were not shared by the majority (including a desire that all state transactions be conducted in gold or silver).  Franklin did, in fact, introduce HB 875, called the "Right to Travel Act," which did, in fact, seek to repeal Georgia's driver's license laws.  However, whereas you claim that it "is quite revealing what the lawmakers in Georgia cited from court decisions," your comment misrepresents the Bill.  First, the Bill represents nothing other than the desire of the single legislator (not legislators - plural).  Second, the Bill cited the Magna Carta (a historical English legal document that has no legal weight in the U.S.), makes a vague allusion to the U.S. Constitution, and cites only a single court decision (not decisions - plural).

 

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was an appeal in which the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision "holding unconstitutional a State or District of Columbia statutory provision which denies welfare assistance to residents of the State or District who have not resided within their jurisdictions for at least one year immediately preceding their applications for such assistance."  394 U.S. at 621-22.  In other words, the case had nothing to do with the "right to travel."  Moreover, Representative Franklin's Bill cited the concurring opinion of Justice Stewart, rather than the opinion of the Court, which was written by Justice Brennan.  While the quote from Justice Stewart's concurring opinion is accurate, it is ultimately meaningless.  Yes, the "right to travel" is fundamental.  However, like virtually every "fundamental right," it is subject to limitation and regulation, and the bottom line is that neither the Shapiro case nor any other Supreme Court case (nor any case ever decided by any federal or state appellate court) has ever held that driver's license laws are unconstitutional.

 

 

On 12/2/2017 at 6:53 PM, Lee_Russell said:

Simply put, No State has the legal authority to enact a state requirement to obtain a drivers license if the operator is not traveling for profit or gain.

 

And yet neither you nor any of the others who believe this and occasionally show up here can cite a single case to support your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want the truth?

You can't handle the truth.

 

This "right to travel" theory has been kicked beyond death by the lunatic fringe for many years.
Here's a rather lengthy thread in which attorneys and others debunk the theory. One of the attorneys is our Taxing Matters writing as Tax_Counsel (regulars here will recognize the font).
Note how the loony trolls keep insisting on "right to travel" despite facts to the contrary.
I hope that satisfactorily answers your question (though I doubt it) and puts an end to this thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...