Driving IS YOUR RIGHT. Free Use of Public Highways IS YOUR RIGHT paid for by you and people like you.
These are absolute truths without question, held up by courts in Canada and the USA, and fully recognized (though not publicly) by police forces everywhere. “TO TRAVEL IS A “RIGHT,” NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED “PRIVILEGE”, and use of your private automobile on public roads and highways CANNOT be regulated, taxed, restricted or constrained in any way whatsoever. You cannot be legally impeded by police road checks, traffic stops or by use of such schemes as “mandatory” insurance, registration, driver licenses or other contracts. You are a human being and as a human being, this inventions do not apply to you, but to corporations.
“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
From the day of the signing of the Magna Carta highways became free to the public. New rights can be granted, but existing rights can not be taken away, a timeless and basic principle of common law. Based on common law, new charters do not override previous rights.
• No Charter overrides previous rights.
The Common Law:
• Magna Carta – was signed in 1215 when people placed a knife to the throat of King John
• English Bill of Rights
• Absolute Right of Bail
• Assize of Arms
Deceased MP Stanley Knowles declared in the House of Commons about the Common Law:
“It consists of a number of statues, some of them Canadian, some of them pre-1867, some since 1867. After all, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1688 and many other statues are in effect part of the constitutions of both Canada and the United States.”
Examples of Inalienable Rights
• Personal security. • Personal liberty.
• Right to own and enjoyment of personal property.
The government doesn’t own the highways.
• The government holds the highways in trust for the people. (Example: a trustee is holding your money, but has no jurisdiction to spend it without your consent, even if he thinks it’s in your best interest).
• The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest. But not to destroy your rights to use them.
• Traveling on public highway in your car is a right not a privilege.
• An execution of a right can not be charged a fee.
• Insurance fees can not be mandatory. Advice: Use identification plates for cars that are not tied with insurance .
• Historical note: when insurance was first introduced rates were low. In Manitoba, in past 10 years, motorcycle insurance went up over 288%. The amount of motor-cyclists went down from 20,000 to 5,000.
• Other types of unlawful fees are: parking fees, speeding tickets, charges for registration and renewal of a driver license (they are there to raise revenue for police).
A “DRIVER” is defined in the National Safety Code as a person who drives a commercial vehicle”.
Any common dictionary will tell you that the word “drives” means directing something or someone to a destination. “COMMERCIAL” means a venture wherein there is a profit, or intended profit. A “BUSINESS” is a COMMERCIAL venture. “MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORITY” is exercised over Commercial TRANSPORTATION. A VEHICLE engaged in COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is called a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is the acting as a third party in the movement of passengers (with tickets) or goods (with bill of lading) in the exercise of the liberty or property right.
Since the exercise of exchanging one’s skill and labor for money is a right, the driving of a commercial transportation vehicle cannot be deemed an unlawful act requiring a license. Therefore, the term “driver or commercial driver” can only apply to an “owner/operator”.
What, then, is the “CRIME” in DRIVING?
DRIVING is a COMMERCIAL venture which uses the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS as a TOOL. If you aren’t doing this for profit, you aren’t actually driving. Taking this right from you is a form of THEFT. Remember, theft entails UNAUTHORIZED USE as well as the unlawful physical confiscation (stealing) of property. When you don’t consent, they have no authority. See article entitled “Learning to Succeed in Court.”
Remember that in the eyes of the corporate courts, according to civil law, you are guilty until proved innocent.
A “LICENSE” is a waiver of prosecution for doing something that would normally be unlawful.
A “LICENSE” is a form of CONTRACT.
A CONTRACT must have three factors, which are:
1. An exchange of property of equal value.
2. Full disclosure of terms.
3. Entered into voluntarily by all parties concerned.
A contract exchanging your property (right to travel) for the “privilege” of driving certainly isn’t a valid contract.
Generally, an owner of property issues a “permit” or permission statement when there may be a situation where the user of someone else’s property may be brought to question. A trustee representing a large group of owners would issue a “license”. The Crown, and thus the Provincial government, is the trustee of the public highways and roads; and, therefore, has authority to issue licenses for drivers.
Upon receiving and acknowledging by your signature that you are a “DRIVER”, you have admitted by signed confession that you are doing something unlawful. In civil law, this is guilty until proven innocent. The public record of your signed application constitutes a “GUILTY PLEA”, just as if it had been entered in the permanent record of a Court of Law.
Now, drawing from your own source of knowledge, you can understand that there is no “trial” or “jury” for someone who is charged with a crime and who enters a GUILTY plea. That person proceeds directly into the custody of the Crown as a convicted criminal. That person becomes a “WARD” of the Crown, and GUARDS or WARDENS have a military type control over that person until his sentence, or his debt to the public is completed.
How does this apply to DRIVERS? Driver’s licenses are issued for a fixed period, the term of the sentence for the unlawful act. Licenses expire; but, the unlawful act is still of public record. Unlawful acts have no statutory limitation; so, presumably, you can forever be held accountable for the unlawful act of being a DRIVER.
The police act under the authority of a prison warden or guard when acting as enforcement officers of the Motor Vehicle Act. They are not acting as peace or public officers. Now you know why they can issue citations, decide fines, search vehicles, confiscate vehicles, arrest and confine people without a warrant and/or with no evidence of any crime as described in the common law, and maybe they even stretch it to the point of searching homes without a warrant (as the Federal gun control legislation supposedly authorizes).
Our government has converted us all into “CONVICTED CRIMINALS” by use of “Driver’s Licenses” and other licensing schemes – such as the “Marriage License”. The Sang Chong Case of 1909 in British Columbia (B.C. Appeals Court) stated in the Judges finding for a street peddlar of vegetables, that one of the freedoms enjoyed by the people was free use of the highways.
There are many precedent setting cases, as well as constitutional documents in the USA which state the same sentiments as did the B.C. Judges in 1909.
The RIGHT TO TRAVEL derives from the inalienable property right, in that, one has the right to exchange or sell property. The place of exchange or sale of property is the “market” – a term with broad meaning. Travel to market is guaranteed through the property right. Remember, LABOUR and SKILLS are property. Also, the right to travel is included in your right to go to the church of your choice. The travel rights were invoked in ancient times to prevent interference in the exercise of primary rights. The right to travel is part of the absolute right of “liberty”. Liberty also entails the right to exercise other rights.
In the above definitions, there is a question as to whether a person who is hired or contracted to drive a commercial vehicle is actually doing anything that could be considered unlawful; and, therefore in need of a license. It seems that the licensing need would only fall upon an owner/operator or the owners of a trucking or busing company.
Anyhow, if you are not in the business of commercial trucking or busing, why do you have a “driver’s license”?
The Motor Vehicle Act is private legislation directed at “commercial drivers”. It is not the “law of the Land” or public general law. I bring to your attention the word “outlawed”. Outlawed means being outside the protection of the Common Law. The protection of the Common Law basically means that you cannot be charged for non-performance of any regulation; and, that there must be damage to person or property before there is an offense which would warrant requiring you to appear in court. As a so-called driver with license, you have been deceptively and fraudulently taken out of the protection of the Common Law (outlawed) by the quasi-legitimate state or federal government and placed under prison or military law, where no protections or rights exist.
The COMMON LAW remedy, if you have a driver’s license, would be to revoke the licensing contract by CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE to whatever claims to be in authority.
If you don’t wish to fight the hassles of not carrying a “driver’s license”, have your license re-issued and place brackets around your signature. If you put brackets around your signature, in law, its as if there is no signature there. This could also be used if the traffic cop has you sign a traffic citation; or, if you a coerced into signing any other kind of summons to appear. Placing the expression “without prejudice” above your signature and/or “trustee” behind your signature also affords some protection against liability for responsibility under the licensing contract. This has apparently worked quite well in the USA; however, staff of Motor Vehicle registar offices may not let you do this, but you should do it anyway. As far as they are concerned, this is part of your signature, which can be pretty much anything.
The plate issued by the state, commonly called a “license plate” is (or was) only a registration number for identification. Authorities may have elevated cars to the status of a legal entity; and, have laid claim to actual ownership of cars and private trucks, with only possession rights going to those who believe they “bought” the car.
If you buy a new car, insure that you actually receive a “bill of sale”, not a “title of ownership”. A title of ownership only signifies “possession rights”. Then, there is the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin. You have approximately two weeks after you purchase a new automobile to get the “Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin” from the manufacturer before they dispose of it. Do you suppose they dispose of it by sending it to the government where the vehicle was registered?
Should you decide to go “whole hog”, and remove your license plate from your car, there are some important steps you must take. First, you would need a “constructive notice” to the authority of your state telling him/her that you are revoking any assumed contract which supposedly made your car a “legal entity’; and, that you are withdrawing any form of implied trust which gave trustee ownership of your property – your car – to the state. Second, you would need a plate to replace the license plate, upon which would be: “This Car Is The Private Property Of (Your name, properly spelled out, See under TICKETS) Traveling Under Common Law Right”.
If you do not have any plate on your car, the police have a perfect right as a peace officer to investigate a possible stolen vehicle.
The replacement plate is a trespass warning to the police that they are dealing with private property. Third, you will need to carry some proof of ownership, such as a bill of sale and , if available, the manufacturer’s certificate of origin. In common law, possession is 9/10th of the law. If there is no official report of this particular piece of property being stolen; or, there is no particular evidence of it being someone else’s property (say, by a name on the door, etc.), the police have no reason to question your possession.
IF, or more appropriately, WHEN you are stopped by the police, they are going to ask you to produce a driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Lock your doors and talk to the police officer through a slightly rolled down window. Remove your keys from the ignition. (They may attempt to grab your keys and seize your car). That would be armed robbery and breach of trust of a public officer if they do attempt this. Remember, although police do much in the way of commendable work, when acting as a motor vehicle enforcement officer, they are acting as armed thugs. Your response should be: Officer, has there been a breach of the peace? His response will include some statement in which he mentions the Motor Vehicle Act. This tells you that the Officer is not acting as a “peace officer”; but, is acting as a “Warden”.
For a police officer, acting as a warden, to use arrest authority against a free and natural person for their exercising of their common law right(s) is a criminal act of common aggression. If he makes any move to use force, such as marshal arts or a weapon to effect an arrest against such a person, that becomes “armed aggression”. Such acts are outside a warden’s authority.
Several years ago, the Governor of the State of Arizona sent a warning memo to all State Troopers telling them that they were to leave peaceful and non-suspicious cars without license plates alone. If they were attacked or harmed by the owners of such cars, those troopers would not be protected under the Police Protection Act.
1. File an Abatement of type use a “Dilatory Plea”; it allows to change the procedure by which you defend, by allowing you to make a statement before you are in “defending mode”.
2. You can’t use a lawyer, must do all by yourself.
3. Don’t appear in traffic court – by doing so you admit that you’re guilty. If you end up in traffic court, inform the judge that you want to be transferred to a regular provincial court.
4. Draft “Affidavit of Dilatory Plea”. It must be sworn by any magistrate or justice of the peace. Then give to court.
5. Provide court precedence (previous cases) upon which you will rely.
6. When in provincial court, ask the judge if you are judged by Admiralty Law, or by Common Law. If Admiralty Law – leave, or if forced to stay, remain mute.
7. Otherwise if it is indeed Common Law, confirm with judge if rights and freedoms are preserved by Common Law.
8. Attack: prove to court that you have the rights to use the public highway using your “automobile” to travel for private pleasure.
Regarding the driver’s license, you would ask: Does this car appear to you to be a commercial vehicle? Under common law, you would only have to prove financial responsibility if you were in an accident and have damage to other property. Most, if not all provinces or states have the requirement for insurance to establish financial responsibility; but, that is written within the Motor Vehicle Acts – acts which are only applicable to commercial vehicles, or as they have been doing, applicable to vehicles placed into the trustee ownership of the state or province through vehicle registration.
So, for the “proof of insurance” question, you would ask: Does it appear to you that I have done any damage to any person or property? If the officer tells you that you must sign the ticket, put brackets around your signature (that nullifies your signature). If you are arrested, you can apply for “Habeas Corpus.” You will have to, and should, research the use of that right, especially if you are going to de-license. Fighting any ticket or summons to appear is listed below.
Should you choose to avoid some of the hassles you would, no doubt, encounter if you do not register your car, you can sign the registration and put the words “without Prejudice” after your signature. The term “without prejudice” means that you are making no contracts by your act of affixing your signature to that document.
Most people confuse “driver’s license” with a “proficiency certificate”. The state or province may have the duty to protect the public from harm. Automobiles are dangerous mechanisms, especially in the hands of the ignorant, the untrained, the careless, the alcohol or drug impaired, the emotionally unstable and/or the arrogant. A requirement for a demonstrated proficiency level and proof of proficiency in the form of a certificate would certainly be in order for the operation of a motor vehicle. (Although the term “motor vehicle” may imply state or provincial ownership, according to some researchers, here it is used strictly to mean a wheeled engine-powered machine used for traveling.) A peace officer certainly has the power to restrain the misuser of a dangerous instrument.
It is up to you to deter inappropriate use of radar speed traps and cameras. If you get stopped in a radar speed trap, you can demand that the radar, and the patrol car (if the radar is attached) be seized and sealed as your defense evidence. The patrol car would have to be trucked to a secure compound as the evidence may be subject to tampering.
If the policeman writes your name any other way than the proper common law way, (IE: John Fitzgerald Kennedy) it is a military name; and, therefore inapplicable to you ( if you have properly nullified your signature on the license you are carrying ). Military or prison names are legal in administrative courts – traffic courts. The proper common law presentation of a name is: First Middle Last – Start with a cap and the remainder of each name in lower case.Example: John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Most tickets for speeding state a speed. For instance, 68 in a 50 zone. Fines are based upon 68. You are allowed 50, so, you should only be penalized for 18. Of course, this is based upon your being classed as a “driver”. If you take the common law measures mentioned earlier, such tickets are invalid unless there has been damage to a person or property.
If you wish to go to court to fight a ticket, question the name on the ticket. If that doesn’t impress the Traffic Court (administrative – not judicial court) judge, then, after the policeman states his evidence and you are given opportunity to question him/her, say: “NO”, I wish to call my own witness”. You then name the officer.
Your questions to the officer are (and, these questions can also be asked of the judge):
1. (If you have the “without prejudice” on your driver’s license, have your signature in brackets, or have “trustee” after your signature) Ask him to read the signature on your license. If he doesn’t mention it, ask him to note the signature and additions. Again, this should make an impression on the judge.
2. Ask: Do you personally have any cause of action or judgment against me? His answer has to be: NO.
3. Ask: Do you know of anyone else who has a cause of action or judgment against me? The answer has to be: NO.
As an option, if you feel comfortable in doing so – and fiesty, you may ask additional questions of the officer, such as: Are you a peace officer? He has to say “yes”. Was there a breach of the peace on the occasion of your giving me the citation which brings us here today into this court? He has to say “no”.
Under what authority, then, did you impede my travel at (place) on (time and date) and serve me with this citation? He would have to answer: “The Motor Vehicle Act”.
How does the Motor Vehicle Act give you the authority to violate sections 20, 24, 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta; and, do that against a natural person exercising his common law right to travel on free highways? His answer here (if the Judge lets him answer) may be: “You are a licensed driver”.
Sir, did you observe that my car was not a commercial vehicle when you decided to stop me on (date)? His answer: ??
Do you believe that a driver’s license carried by a natural person who is traveling in his/her private conveyance gives any authority to a peace officer to enforce regulations which can only be construed as being enforceable against a person who is operating a commercial vehicle?
You then turn to the judge and demand that the case be dismissed for want of proper cause; and, demand that the officer and Crown attorney be sanctioned for the criminal act of “breach of trust of a public officer”.
What about Risks?
• Government doesn’t have the right to make risk free highways by denying rights of people to use them.
• Individuals who choose to be around highways are deliberately placing themselves at risk – its their choice.
• People still speed and occupy parking meters as long as they want.
• Speeding is not the cause of the majority of accidents.
• As already covered, a Driver license is required only if vehicle is used for commercial purposes
• In literature referenced “automobile” means private vehicle used for leisure, and “motor vehicle” – a commercial vehicle used for business.
• Driver License is not a certificate of skill of driving.
• When you get a driver license, you sign a contract to obey laws in the Motor Vehicle Act. You are signing your rights away! You don’t have to sign it . Without signing you will not be granted a driver license, because they cannot take your money and your rights without your written consent! You claim Common Law Jurisdiction.
Advice: Cancel contract by sending “Affidavit of Denial of Jurisdiction”. If no response (or denial response), send “Constructive Notice”. (Just Google it for info.)
• You can not be stopped by police without reason and asked to inspect papers, unless they have a search order from the court.
• You can not be charged with a possible crime if you haven’t committed it. If you don’t interfere with other traffic, you can not be pulled over
• The corner stone of a police state is the restriction on free travel and registration of the means to do so and the identification of those who wish to do so.
What is freedom if one is not free to move from point A to point B, UNREGISTERED and UNLICENSED?
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMITS
A vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property, within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the RIGHT to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable RIGHT to acquire. Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.
Those who do not fight for their rights do not deserve them.
If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.” – Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout Canada and the USA 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 government.
SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN:
“For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.” – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 (“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
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 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 conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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 another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”
This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.
THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.
The first of such questions may very well be – 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, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?
For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
“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 U.S. 22, 24.
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:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).
The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)
In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments 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;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.
We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.
Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.
In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. 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 that 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 the fact 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
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), 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, 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 license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12
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 up to officers to research it further for themselves.
#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)
We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States 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 [and province in Canada] have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. 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 vs. Rights”. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., 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”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.”
OUR SWORN DUTY
An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”
What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)
Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!
Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to
be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.
As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.
Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore people’s rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:
“THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME.” – Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.”
Aid&Abet Newsletter Mon, 03 Feb 2003
P.O.BOX 8787, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85066
Driver’s licenses are used as a ‘guilty plea’ and a signed confession of guilt. Police are given “warden” authority; rather than ‘peace officer’ authority over ‘drivers’. The confiscation by the Province or State of the New Vehicle Identification Statement (NVIS) or Manufacturers Certificate of Origin(MCO) of all automobiles sold at the dealer level, and the registration by the Province or State of an gives it the status of a ‘legal entity’, thus making the owner a ‘ward of the Crown’ as a confessed criminal(license holder), with the ‘privilege’ of possession of that automobile. MAKE SURE YOU ALWAYS CARRY A SIGNED BILL OF SALE FOR YOUR VEHICLE.
Another recent successful court case: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/6499 No Drivers License or Insurance – Case Dismissed! – “I Claim Common Law Jurisdiction – I Do Not Consent And I Waive The Benefits”
“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.”
[emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” [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.
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.
- “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.
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 licensing, the states and provinces 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.
Furthermore, 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 his or her right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. XX “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – Edmund Burke, 1784.
How should it work?
• Still need to pass a test (but without probation period) upon which a certificate of driving proficiency, and identification plates are given. Government should not profit – the charge should just recover their costs.
• Individual is not required to tell the government on which car he/she will put the identi-
fication plates. He/she can change their car every day, by reusing the same identification plate.
• The test doesn’t have to be retaken. Doctors are responsible to report to the Crown if they find that an individual in question can no longer drive correctly (e.g. impaired sight). Then the Queen should take the individual to court and present medical evidence.
• Bad drivers, criminals etc. must be dealt within the court – the court will suspend their driving rights only after they have demonstrated danger to other people.
• Insurance is not mandatory, but optional. Right now thousands are denied the right to drive
because they can’t afford insurance. If accident occurs – we are already paying for health care with taxes!
• Slowing down traffic to snails must stop.
• For some city areas 60kmh is too slow.
• Lights should be synchronized so that if traveling at speed limit, you always hit a green light.
• Number of red lights should be reduced and replaced with stop signs or yield signs.
• Some stop signs must be replaced with yield signs.
• Harsh rules that slow you down without reason are simply ignored right now anyway!
The only difference is that now these ignored rules cost unlawful fees.
Remember that any new adventure requires faith. Who do you put your faith in?
Right to Drive – 1
Driving brief and memorandum of law: Template can be used to challenge your state’s driving laws. (An updated version is available with more case law and evidence. General format can be used to challenge your state’s driving laws… just replace relevant information and be sure to include your state’s driving code, and send certified mail.)
Right to Drive Handout: Example of what to hand out when you get a police stop for some innocent “infraction.” (US version. Make appropriate changes for Canada).
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm The Right to Travel vs. Driver’s License Scam
FURTHER CASE HISTORIES:
1 Chitty Pr. 32
Barron v. Burnside 121 U.S. 186
Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607
Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171
Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E. 2d 1000 (1943)
Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432
Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677
In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934
McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105
O’Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37
Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140
Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257
Parish v. Thurston 87 Ind. 437 (1882)
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210
Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139
Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352
Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513
State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864
State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580
Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98
Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485
Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359
Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274
• “Rights Denied” by David Lindsay.
• “Corpus Julius Secundum” section on Abate-