Today's SodaHeadlines News & Politics Entertainment Living Fun & Humor Leaderboard

The right of travel vs. driver's 'license' revenue ploy

by steven Posted January 27,
2011 20:53:22

Related Topics:
Supreme Court, Fraud, Fuel

+8 Rave

share this Share

Read
all 64 opinions

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

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 Travel

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL
COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT
TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet
Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on
the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a
citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit
or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the
privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that
there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege
and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented
here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of
which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and
to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is
not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a
common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE
579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the
states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction
(license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that
does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by
the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225
F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no
room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed
have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as
long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and
accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is
restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to
travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This
means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and
those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in
determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free
exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured
by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is
unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the
inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are
involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may
very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are
unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that
a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a
few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US
516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right
and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point --
that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or
limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more
straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is
not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler,
263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F
946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the
Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put
restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws
of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound
by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath
or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for
such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are
sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful
acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime
to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our
system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right
belonging to the people. These are:

by lawfully amending the constitution, or

by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many
millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and
volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given
up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the
proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in
this category:

More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

===============================================================

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.shtml

Armey Exposes Traffic-Light
Spying
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/traffic-light.htm

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
http://web.archive.org/web/20010221144001/http:/user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.html

Wood County Texas Courts'
Violation of Soverign
Citizen's, Constitutional Right's
http://web.archive.org/web/20010221144001/http:/user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.html

COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL
DRIVERS LICENSE
http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS

C2-96-1116
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9702/c2961116.htm

The Sword of Commerce
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htm

Driver's License is a Contract
between you and the
Motor Vehicle Department
http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.html

THE AMERICAN HALLUCINATION
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/halluc.htm

The Right to Travel
vs.
Driver's License
Scam
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm

American
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.org/

APFN Sitemap

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents
Page

APFN Home
Page

E-Mail:
[email-masked]

Last updated
12/04/2010

+8

You!

Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

dink January 27, 2011 22:17:42

+4

There 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.

>> See Replies

Sort By

Most Raves

Least Raves

Oldest

Newest

text size
Opinions

Amanda L February 02, 2011
20:34:52

+2

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

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually
construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who
rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses)
and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business,
convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways,
Sect.427, p.717.
"Traveler One who passes from place to place, whether for
pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

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

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

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...

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

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually
construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who
rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses)
and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business,
convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways,
Sect.427, p.717.
"Traveler One who passes from place to place, whether for
pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

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

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

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.
(more)

reply

Amanda L to Amanda L February 02, 2011 20:36:57

+2

"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 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

reply

Amanda L to Amanda L February 02, 2011 20:55:19

+3

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

"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for
the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co.
vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made
clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle
or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage,
used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term 'motor
vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'"; City of Dayton
vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is
made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every
description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and
used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes"
means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or
other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly,
a...

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

"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for
the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co.
vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made
clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle
or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage,
used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term 'motor
vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'"; City of Dayton
vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is
made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every
description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and
used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes"
means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or
other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

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

reply

jlmeal January 31, 2011 00:33:09

Another quick note on the subject.
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 ...

Another quick note on the subject.
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'.
(more)

reply

Pieter Joubert January 30, 2011
08:14:45

Travel on foot, bicycle and horse does not requier any
permit or licence so, it is only motorized transport that has that
restriction. Right to travel is thus not restricted in any way, only the
chosen mode of transport

reply

Pieter Joubert January 29, 2011
09:13:47

In general laws are introduced for a reason by
representatives of the people and by a majority decision.

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.

reply

Matt January 29, 2011
08:35:43

These articles seem like they are written by Jared
Loughner. If states don't require a license to drive, how are we to tell who
is prohibited from driving ?

reply

Frank January 28, 2011 18:45:46

Want to drive get a drivers license simple as that, it
is a privelege, not a right.

reply

Tom January 28, 2011 15:40:34

Diving is not a right, it is a priviledge.

reply

paleale to Tom January 29, 2011
19:22:28 (edited)

I agree, Travel is a right. Driving is a privilage. No
one can stop you from walking.

reply

autumn_1959 January 28, 2011
13:30:49

i got pulled over by a cop for a burned ut tail light
which i had no idea at the time he asked to see my drivers license and
registration my son was 3 at the time and he asked why do you need her drivers
license driver license dont drive at that time i found it funny but then i
rwalized out of the mouths of babes it,s a priviledge to drive not a
right

reply

cynsity January 28, 2011 06:31:11

This is what is SOOOOO wrong in this country. No one
any more knows the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVELDGE.... simple
litnes test here.... if its a right there must be fair judical due process for
that right to be taken from an individual and no marker (such as age or
testing/training) for them to gain it in the first place.

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

reply

wtxwoman January 28, 2011
04:00:51

I would not want to drive on the public roads if I
thought the majority of the other drivers didn't have some kind of permit and
accident insurance. That's crazy thinking. Travel anywhere you want to without
a license as long as you are a passenger. As for DUI stops, they should have
them more often. Drunks should not DRIVE! They kill people when they do!

reply

Thor to wtxwoman January 28, 2011 17:33:19

Then I'd suggest you stal out of Southern CA.

reply

wtxwoman to Thor January 28, 2011 17:41:38

I know what you mean. I've been there, done that. It
wasn't fun at all. El Paso is the same way, especially on the weekend. Every
store that has a sell gets mobbed by Mexicans who come across the border in
droves to shop. The stores always look like a tornado hit them when it is
over. I shop during the week.

reply

jubil8 BN-0 WAWU January 28, 2011 03:33:59

+1

"Right to travel" does NOT = "right to operate a motor
vehicle."

"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.

reply

none January 28, 2011 02:08:19

+2

No one has the right to drive unless you have a license
in the state you reside. You also can't legally drive in most states unless
you have proof of insurance. Anyone who has no license and proof of insurance
should have the vehicle they are driving taken away from them at the time of
the offence. Who gives a sh*t if it's some damn ILLEAL alien criminal or
anyone else. You either do it right or you pay the price, tough sh*t. Do it
right or don't do it.

reply

JohnDavidBurling January 28, 2011
01:15:29

+1

You don't have the RIGHT to operate an automobile with
in any given states boarders. You have the right to travel with a license but
beyond that you ahve to get a license if you want to drive yourself. Cover
your rear and let the ones that break the law deal with the repracutions if
there are any.

reply

wordpress January 28, 2011
00:53:15

You have a right to drive and a responsibility to do it
responsibly.

reply

Dwight January 28, 2011 00:39:41

+1

North Carolina has so many ilegal drivers, some of them
just plain illegal, there's no real point in getting a license. Shucks, I
expect to see a Tau Cetian any time.

reply

jlmeal January 28, 2011 00:18:02 (edited)

I have fought this for years and win everytime.. The
key is that when you buy a vehicle and register it or even have a "Certificate
of Title" meaning the state owns your vehicle, that makes you a "driver" and
you are under their rules and regulations.
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

reply

gregaj7 January 28, 2011 00:04:58

Been trying to do this here in C/S. Having you own
plates (private trust) can get their attention. My "engine-powered items" have
not been in the muni-corps system, since Nov of 2008, and I have my own
private (notarized) ID.

reply

La January 27, 2011 23:30:42

+2

That's loverly and all, but statutory law overrides
case law, and statutory law says that people need a licence to drive.

reply

WGN January 27, 2011 23:16:33

+3

You have a point, but the other side to this is quite
simple. Yes, you can travel. All well and good. But that does not mean that
you have the right to not get a permit to drive. The two are quite separate
and they are different. I can travel with another person and I do not need a
drivers license. I can travel by horse and buggy, by bicycle, or walk without
a license. No Constitutional rights abridged in those. The other part of this
is the states right to grant permission, by way of testing for a person to
Drive. To travel does not mean to drive. That part is where your argument
falls apart. The state does have the right, and it is Constitutional, to limit
whether a person can (has the ability so as to not injure another) drive a
motor vehicle, not that a person can not travel.
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.

reply

Stan Kapusta January 27, 2011
22:53:19

+1

This is why we should get rid of the lawyers and
replace them with common sense.
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>

reply

dlsofsetx January 27, 2011
22:40:26

+2

I tnink there needs to be some regulation of
driving.Automobiles are too dangerous when driven by incompetants.

reply

steven to dlsofsetx January 27, 2011 23:14:12

+1

Certainly train and test people, but make them pay the
state every few years? There has to be a middle point.

reply

dlsofsetx to steven January 27, 2011 23:17:04

+1

I agree with that.I also think drivers should be
retested every so often.

reply

Mr. HooDz to steven January 28, 2011 01:27:54

Agreed. its a shame I have to give the DMV 30 bills to
"renew" my license. Just another way for them to rob us.

reply

dink January 27, 2011 22:17:42

+4

There 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.

reply

steven to dink January 27, 2011
23:15:15

Law is law. But "law" is not law. Color-of-law is
counterfeit.

reply

dink to steven January 28, 2011
21:47:34

I was a cop for 20 years in Texas alot of the laws are
the law. The illgeal immigration law is Color -of-law and is counterfeit and
has been since 1976.

reply

merlinskiss January 27, 2011
21:41:20

+2

While I personally feel driving and free travel are a
right and not a privilege, I am not sure about all of this. If this is true,
we should have many millions of traffic court ticket challenges going on right
now. Can anyone tell me why this isn't happening? Sounds like the perfect
defense.

reply

steven to merlins... January 27, 2011 23:16:11

+1

Some have done so and won. I have a friend in Arizona
whose aunt has fought and won on this issue.

reply

merlins... to steven January 27, 2011 23:25:10

Great. It's going to take a lot more. Maybe a class
action lawsuit?

reply

newhon63 January 27, 2011
21:40:52

+1

I can only assume that someone brought up the High speed
railway because that bonehead, Barrack Obama said we needed one in his SOTU
address. Is it any coincidence that he wants to build a high speed railway
because President HU MAKA RAN Sukiaki has one in his country?

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...

I can only assume that someone brought up the High speed
railway because that bonehead, Barrack Obama said we needed one in his SOTU
address. Is it any coincidence that he wants to build a high speed railway
because President HU MAKA RAN Sukiaki has one in his country?

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.
(more)

reply

steven to newhon63 January 27, 2011 23:18:51

" I will when I want to get put to sleep."
That
about says it all for some folks' willingness to research, doesn't it?

reply

newhon63 to steven January 31, 2011 07:13:13

The problem is who the hell could understand it anyway?
I know You are going to tell me you are a lawyer or something to make you far
more superior intelliectually to the rest of us losers that read Sodahead.Or
you are going to tell me that it is not anyone else, but it is me, so that you
can focus an insult directly to me.
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.

reply

Beer30 January 27, 2011 21:38:57 (edited)

+1

It's an AWFULLY long-winded article, Steven, but it can
be reduced to two words ~~ Common Sense.

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.

reply

Wayne January 27, 2011 21:34:04

+1

Very interesting.

reply

1 2
Next
» Last
»

Hot Questions on SodaHead

news

Woman
Blinded by Acid Spares Attacker the Same Fate: Would You Have Done the
Same?

On Sunday, an Iranian woman blinded in an acid attack seven years ago
halted the "eye for an eye" punishment for her attacker. She told CNN, "Such
revenge is not worth it."

45% voted No Do
you agree?

Curfew
Keep Kids Safer in Chicago?

Does
Christie's Health Concern You?

Freaking
Out About Debt Ceiling Yet?

Walmart
Right to Kick Out Bikini Woman?

Lifestyle

Would
You Stay at an 'Airbnb'?

Hotel rooms are boring, sterile and just plain depressing. But what if
you could stay in a fully-furnished house or apartment for the same price,
or less?

48% voted Yes Do
you agree?

news

Should
the Taliban Be Allowed to Maintain a Facebook Profile?

First they wanted to live in caves and not let their people have TVs. But
now the Taliban has not only a Twitter account, but a Facebook page too.
Make up your mind.

46% voted No Do
you agree?

Weird News

Facebook
Adds 'I'm Expecting' Option: Creepy or Cool?

Individuals trying to decide how, when, and who to tell about their
pregnancy now have another factor to consider. Should they use the
"Expected: Child" option on Facebook?

36% voted Cool Do
you agree?

More
Community More Originals

Slideshow

Who Should Jennifer Lopez Date Next?

Slideshow

Most Iconic Celeb Hairstyle?

Slideshow

Which Star Are You Most Sick Of?

View more slideshows »

Login

Register

Ask

Ask a Question

Create a Poll Widget

Answer

Hot Questions

Recent Questions

Discover

Find People

Groups

Slideshows

Hot Topics Public Opinion2012 Electionmore …

Topics: Public Opinion2012 ElectionQuotes of the DayBarack ObamaCasey AnthonyDebt CeilingWeird NewsMichele Bachmannmore …

SodaHead Site Links

Ask a Question

Create a Poll Widget

Hot Questions

Slideshows

News & Politics
Opinions

Entertainment
Opinions

Living Opinions

Topics

Sitemap

About SodaHead

About Us

Partners

Advertise with us

Poll Widget Samples

SodaHead Legal

Terms

Privacy

Code of Conduct

SodaHead Tools

Ask a Question

Create a Poll Widget

Find Friends

Search SodaHead

Follow us on Twitter

Find us on
Facebook

SodaHead Help

Report Abuse

Help

Contact Us

FAQs

SodaHead Swag

SodaHead
Store

© 2011
SodaHead.com All Rights Reserved