The right of travel vs. driver's 'license' revenue ploy
I've gotten into it a few times with other SH'ers here, regarding whether we have the right of travel or need to bow to revenue machines, whether state-sponsored or just the antics TSA presses upon us in order to get on a plane. As you likely already know, I favor liberty first and foremost. Many of you feel the same way, but there are those who seem to look forward to bending over and having the inevitable cavity search that government will force upon us if we quietly submit. First the airports, then the trains, the subways and buses. Then maybe taxis. Won't that be fun?
-------------------------------------------------------------...
Right to TravelDESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITSBy Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
- by lawfully amending the constitution, or
- by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
===============================================================
Raymond Karczewski
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Thu Mar 29 14:52:35 2001
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
George Lee McElroy wrote:
Raymond Karczewski wrote:
rk: I received Mr. McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.
rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government.
rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of law. Such could not happen if the public "Traveller" who travels the public roadways in the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the
time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one's Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit.
rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.
rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over our lives?
rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?
rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.
Ray Karczewski
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clay Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Mr. Johnson,
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that 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 drivers 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 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 drivers license.
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. 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 transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.
I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law.
At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator.
Sincerely,
George Lee McElroy
Cc: Oregon Department of Revenue
Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Representative Carl Wilson
Representative Jason Atkinson
Ray Karczewski
Illinois Valley News
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Josephine County Sheriff, Dave Daniel
Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers
United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft============================
Raymond Karczewski
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:54:45 GMT
From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown)
unk: You're incoherent
unk: Why do you think only drivers of commercial vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any less dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of your claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in logic or law.
rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one at that!
In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the the legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim
Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., "It Speaks for Itself."?
rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and see what I mean, HERE IT IS AGAIN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20====================================
Raymond Karczewski
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
unk: Here's your controlling law Raymond
Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT
From: Maybe you'd like to actually read it? (unknown)
unk: Here is the legislation duly enacted by representatives of the people. You'll notice, if you take the trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe of the license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental interest that is upheld by appellate review.
rk: You will also notice that such legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO "drivers" and commercially "driven" motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle") AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in noncommercial activities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070
for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20=================================
Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker
reply
Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 2001
This is just my own opinion, & anyone's free to disagree!!!
The Amish folks don't get drivers licenses, & they use the roadways!! BUT--they don't operate lethally dangerous iron motor vehicles either! In most states you can also drive a farm tractor on public roadways without any sort of license! They also don't have the EXPENSE of fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups & so forth! IF you're going to operate a car or truck, I'd recommend taking the trouble to get a license. If you don't want to, then why not trade in your car for a horse& buggy, or for a John Deere?===============================
Right to Travel Vs. Drivers License
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtmlArmey Exposes Traffic-Light Spying
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/traffic-light.htmDriver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
http://user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.htmlWood County Texas Courts'
Violation of Soverign Citizen's, Constitutional Right's
http://user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.htmlCOMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE
http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.htmlSTATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C2-96-1116
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9702/c29611...The Sword of Commerce
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htmDriver's License is a Contract
between you and the Motor Vehicle Department
http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.htmlTHE AMERICAN HALLUCINATION
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/halluc.htmThe Right to Travel
vs.
Driver's License Scam
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htmAmerican Patriot Friends Network
"...a network of net workers..."
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
http://www.apfn.orgE-Mail: APFN@apfn.org
Last updated 12/04/2010
More polls by steven
Top Opinion
-
dink January 27, 2011 22:17:42
+4There are millions of americans that don't own vehicles and millions of illegal immigrants that don't have driver's licenses and insurance. You get into a wreck with an unisured driver and your insurance goes up and they recieve a ticket that they never pay and just keep on driving.
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.
Notice 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 ord...
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.
Notice 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.
"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. " - written by Glen Bronstein of Spokand, Washington
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, a...
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.
Driving is what a person (someone under a contract) does with a "motor vehicle" that no longer has an original Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO)... Which means that whomever has it, bought it from the MFG... Once the MSO is turned into a a Cert of Title the product becomes a motor vehicle and is required to be "driven" by a "person" under contract ) ie. the Driver License.
Of course the law states that you cannot give up your right to travel by ANY MEANS YOU CHOOSE unless you do so "willingly, knowlingly, and without being tricked or under durress, etc"
Therein lies the argument. Do you want that social security which made you a US citizen rather than a so-called sovereign State Citizen? Keep in mind folks.... Once you become free and IF the cops were stop towing your vehicle and arresting you, there is always that chance you could have an accident and injure a child or cripple the family bread winner.
Could you live with that? And the big question is... are you avoiding a license because you are a drunk with multiple DUIs or a weed smoking hippie? Or simply do not want to be hassled by law enforcement.
Those here who believe traveling by a car or motorcycle you build while you do not have license is a privvie ARE FLAT WRONG.. It ...
Driving is what a person (someone under a contract) does with a "motor vehicle" that no longer has an original Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO)... Which means that whomever has it, bought it from the MFG... Once the MSO is turned into a a Cert of Title the product becomes a motor vehicle and is required to be "driven" by a "person" under contract ) ie. the Driver License.
Of course the law states that you cannot give up your right to travel by ANY MEANS YOU CHOOSE unless you do so "willingly, knowlingly, and without being tricked or under durress, etc"
Therein lies the argument. Do you want that social security which made you a US citizen rather than a so-called sovereign State Citizen? Keep in mind folks.... Once you become free and IF the cops were stop towing your vehicle and arresting you, there is always that chance you could have an accident and injure a child or cripple the family bread winner.
Could you live with that? And the big question is... are you avoiding a license because you are a drunk with multiple DUIs or a weed smoking hippie? Or simply do not want to be hassled by law enforcement.
Those here who believe traveling by a car or motorcycle you build while you do not have license is a privvie ARE FLAT WRONG.. It is a Natural Born American's right to travel however they so choose with the exclusions I mentioned above. The trick is we live in these united States of America with UN-a-LIEN-able rights rather than within the US with inalienable rights.
I have a license and I am insured only because I have been hit (broadsided) without either and the licensed driver was in the wrong and they walked away without paying my medical or damages because I was not playing the 'game'.
Competancy test of persons to drive a motorvehicle was introduced 100 years ago to curb rising road deaths.
As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[2] On August 1, 1910, North America's first driver's licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[3] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[4]
A decision to control firearm possession was enacted 100 years ago to curb the violence and prevent criminals from having free access to firearms.
The National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on 26 June 1934, currently codified as amended as 26 U.S.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.
Driving is not a right, owning a car is not a right... travel is a right but only travel under your own powers. And even such travel is still not an absolute right as age is a barror to total free travel, a 5 year old can not go where he pleases when he pleases without police interference and a return from where he came. There are no absolute rigts for persons in societies, rights exist but the absolutness of them is forfitted for the good and protection of the societies.
People need to start getting it in their heads that many things they think are rights are not at all only privledges. And many of those are only state level privledges not promissed by the federal government in any way. Privacy, voting, land ownership, banking all only privledges at the state level completly stoppible if the fed decides to suspend them for a time or even perminatly
"Right to travel" would be walk, run, Fox Trot, whatever, on your own 2 feet. Period. Did the FF's have a RIGHT to own a horse so they could travel faster? No.
But to be honest, it would cost you everything IF you were to get into a wreck and not have insurance to pay for damages, not to mention the huge financial troubles you'd cause the family you wrecked into (IF that were to happen).
I would be happy to send anyone a copy of what I have used over the years, but the gov't does try to tie it together with the birth cert and school docs (as if a minor could legally be held responsible)... The title must be "conveyed" back to the state and that number used as a license plate. HOWEVER, this will NOT prevent police power from arresting you and towing your vehicle and making your life Hell just because they can. (ignore my typos)
jlmealATyahoo
The states licensing of drivers does not stop them from traveling over the roads, it just says that you need a license to Drive on them. Driving and traveling are not the same, although one may infer the other.
You don't have the authority to tell an Adult American where they can come and go unless it's
for security reasons. Where is Shakespeare when you need him>
Problem is Obama used up about 3 trillion dollars on this Stimilus package and other funds that no one below Bankers and auto industries got much of in the last 2 years.
We don't have any more money, Freezing spending in it's present place will still have interest accrued to it each day that goes by. We need to cut spending. He says we needed jobs and to fix the economy. Well his ideas got us more in debt. But that's another story, isn't it?
To drive a car, it takes a certain amount of skill. You can't just allow anyone to drive on the road without the proper training. Hell, there are alot of people I know of that although they recieved training and have been driving for a few decades now they still don't have the hang of it. I think they should do more testing. I love and respect elderly people but when it comes time for Grandpa and Grandma to hand over the keys and the driver's license due to reduced reaction speeds and vision. They won't do it on their own. They should be subjected to a eye test and a road...
Problem is Obama used up about 3 trillion dollars on this Stimilus package and other funds that no one below Bankers and auto industries got much of in the last 2 years.
We don't have any more money, Freezing spending in it's present place will still have interest accrued to it each day that goes by. We need to cut spending. He says we needed jobs and to fix the economy. Well his ideas got us more in debt. But that's another story, isn't it?
To drive a car, it takes a certain amount of skill. You can't just allow anyone to drive on the road without the proper training. Hell, there are alot of people I know of that although they recieved training and have been driving for a few decades now they still don't have the hang of it. I think they should do more testing. I love and respect elderly people but when it comes time for Grandpa and Grandma to hand over the keys and the driver's license due to reduced reaction speeds and vision. They won't do it on their own. They should be subjected to a eye test and a road test to ensure they still possess these necessary skills to operate a motor vehicle safely. For that matter I have seen some kids that are just learning to drive really worry me on the road. They are distracted and reckless. There is a reason for insurance as well. So when you total a guy's car and put his wife in the hospital you can't just say" Sorry" and that is it and you leave them with medical bills and car replacement costs.
Registration is so that you can prove ownership. That I can't just jump in your car and take it to Las vegas with buddies and leave it where I want and take the bus back home.
So This steve guy that posted all this stuff. Is he a lawyer? I didn't read it all either. I will when I want to get put to sleep. But it looks like it is saying that after all this time , we have been using Driver's Licenses and we don't have to .
Someone a long time ago also told me that American citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts because they have a flag in court that have the fringes around the edges of the flag and therefore their authority over us can not be recognized.
That about says it all for some folks' willingness to research, doesn't it?
But for all intents and purposes it means nothing to the rest of us. So translate it for the rest of us. What you are saying is we have been forced to obtain driver's licenses for driving and we have never had the legal obligation to do so. yes? And as an added issue, we were never legally obligated to obtain insurance or registration for our vehicles either, yes? So we should all just cut up our driver's license and other paperwork and just drive to our heart's content and there is nothing law enforcement can do about it.
Citizens authorize public roads be built and maintained, just as it does sea lanes, air corridors and rail right-of-way. For the purposes of public safety and the general welfare, the State must insist on standards of competence among all users, and 'roadworthy' fitness among the various vehicles operated. We don't want our planes to crash. We don't want some rusty garbage scow sinking into the middle of the river. And we don't want some puking drunk on the road at 3:00am.
That's why it issues operator permits to automobile drivers, sea captains, airline pilots and railroad engineers. That's why we mandate brakes, headlights, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, speed limits, airhorns, control towers, and safety stickers on your windshield.
It's designed so the user of our public systems, and his motorcar, can operate skillfully and safely without being a risk ~~ or a victim ~~ to everyone else.