Traveling (Motoring) on American Roads is a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right, not a State-Granted 'Privilege' by Richard James McDonald (April 7, 2005)

Traveling (Motoring) on American Roads is a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right,
not a State-Granted 'Privilege'

By Richard James McDonald < richard@caprica.com >
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml
April 7, 2005
Traveling (Motoring) on American Roads is a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right, not a State-Granted 'Privilege' by Richard James McDonald (April 7, 2005)
The CHANGE Your Founders Believed In - Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1vXgUBxqBQI#!

Richard James McDonald
C/O General Delivery
585 Box
Canyon Road, Canoga Park [91304]
CALIFORNIA

http://www.state-citizen.org/

E-mail: richard@caprica.com
Voice: [818] 703-5037
Fax: [818] 887-3217

Oritinal Title:
TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "

1. The issue is whether this Citizen is required to obey the provisions in Michigan General Statutes. It is the contention of this Citizen that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the General Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways by this Citizen is an inalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the State s General Assembly. 2. Let us first consider the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways in is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

3.1 The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

4. The "Supreme Court" of the "State of Illinois" ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 . While a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

8. The "Washington State Supreme Court" stated:

8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

9. The "Supreme Court of the State of Indiana" ruled in 1873:

9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. See: ? Ind 455, 461

10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

10.1 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

11. The "Supreme Court of the State of Georgia" ruled:

11.1 In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

12. The "Supreme Court of the State of Colorado" discussed the issue in the following way. 12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, & sect; 3 provides that:

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be reckoned the "RIGHT" .... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; ....

12.1.1 A motor vehicle is "property" and a person "cannot be deprived" of property without due process of law. The term: "Property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.

12.1.2 Every Citizen has an inalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210

13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:

13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable "RIGHTS," among which are ....; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property .... (Emphasis added).

14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect; 1, states as follows:

14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677

15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.

16. Other supreme authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:

16.1 The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:

16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect; 36:

17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of America.

19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, & sect;2:

19.1 Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of America. I have an inalienable right to use those highways and byways.

20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: 3 Angel Highways 3.

20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

21. I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this common point:

21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway. -- The entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. See: Idaho Code.

22. The "United States Supreme Court" has ruled that:

22.1 Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Citizen travels upon the roadways, he does so, as a matter of "RIGHT" and not a privilege granted by the State.

The authority for such travel is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE RIGHT," an "INALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the "Constitution of the United States". Let us then examine the importance of these terms to this Citizen by defining their meaning.

23.1 "RIGHT" -- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to something out of possession; a power, prerogative, or privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation. See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary

23.2 "RIGHT" -- As relates to the person, "RIGHTS" are absolute or relative; absolute "RIGHTS," such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his or her personal liberty; "RIGHTS" which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.

23.3 "RIGHT" -- A legal "RIGHT," a constitutional "RIGHT" means a "RIGHT" protected by the law, by the Constitution, but government cannot "create" the idea of a "RIGHT" or original "RIGHTS"; it must "acknowledge" them .... (Emphasis added)See: Bouvier s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2916

23.4 Absolute "RIGHT" -- Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligation, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

23.5 Inalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

24. It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the "RIGHTS" of this Citizen to travel on the streets or highways. Furthermore, the State has the "duty" to refrain from interfering with this Citizens "RIGHT" and to protect this Citizens "RIGHT" and to enforce the claim of this Citizen to it.

25. Now, if this Citizen has the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The "Supreme Court of the State of Texas" has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.

25.1 Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S. W. 513

26. These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O' Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;

26.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS." See: Spann supra.

27. PROPERTY

27.1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines;

27.1.1 Property -- The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is not a nuisance in itself. See: In re Hong
Wah, 82 Fed. 623

28. The "United States Supreme Court" states:

28.1 The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law.

28.2 Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the "RIGHT" to acquire, use and dispose of it. See: Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 74

These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Citizen has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel. The definitions in Title 49 Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code positively declare the "RIGHT" of this Citizen to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways in Idaho.

30. MOTOR VEHICLE OR VEHICLE?

30.1 Motor Vehicle -- Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled or which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (6)

30.2 Vehicle -- Vehicle means a device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or horse drawn or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (14)

30.3 Street or Highway -- Street or Highway means the entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (13)

30.4 The term "Motor Vehicle" may be so used as to include only those self-propelled vehicles which are used on highways primarily for purposes of "transporting" persons and property from place to place. See: 60 Corpus Juris Secundum & sect; 1, Page 148; See: Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machine Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432

30.5 It seems obvious that the entire Motor Transportation Code and the definition of motor vehicle "are not intended" to be applicable to all motor vehicles, but applicable only to those having a connection with the "commercial transportation" of persons or property for fee. See: Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352

30.6 "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in " commercial transportation," or a combination determined by the Commission, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger "transportation" similar to street-railway service.
See: Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. §10102 (17)

The Constitutions of the United States and of the State guarantees this Citizen the "RIGHT" to own property. The Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Texas have affirmed that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it while its use harms nobody.

If that property is an automobile, it is included in the definitions of vehicle and motor vehicle in the Idaho Code Title 49 Chapter 3. And in the same Idaho Code Chapter, streets or highways are defined as the place where vehicles are used by the public as a matter of "RIGHT." Thus, it shows that this Citizen has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways.

31. Now, if this Citizen has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways, to what extent can the State regulate or diminish that "RIGHT?" There are some who would maintain that "specific performance" is required of every Citizen who uses a vehicle upon the streets or highways. Therefor, Let us examine this contention in detail.

Contract?

32. Specific performance is a term used to designate an action in equity in which a party to a contract asks the court to order the other party to carry out the contract which he has failed or refused to perform. Thus, if specific performance is expected, a contract must exist. The question then becomes: What are the "terms of the contract" and "when was it executed" and by "whom"? Since specific performance appears to be expected of every user of a vehicle on the streets or highways, the user of a vehicle seems one of the parties to the supposed contract. And since the State appears to be the party demanding specific performance, the State is the other party to the contract. So the supposed contract exists between the user of a vehicle and the State. When was this contract executed and what are its' terms? Some contend that when a user of a vehicle avails himself of the "privilege" of driving on public thoroughfares that he enters a contract with the State that requires him to abide with all the laws in the General Statutes. Others contend that the contract is executed when a driver's license is obtained. We now need to figure out what is a contract.

33. A contract may be defined as an agreement enforceable in court between two or more parties, for a sufficient consideration to do or not to do some specified thing or things. Thus, a contract has four essential features:

33.1 It "must" be an agreement.

33.2 There "must" be at least two parties to the contract.

33.3 There "must" be a consideration.

33.4 There "must" be an obligation or thing to be done.

34. Several types of contracts exist, but all must contain the essential features listed above. Contracts can be classified under three (3) principal categories:

34.1 Express

34.2 Implied

34.3 Quasi

35. Quasi contracts, while being called contracts, are not-really contracts, and will not be considered in this particular discussion concerning contracts, but we will consider and address that issue in a separation section later.Unilateral & Bilateral Contracts

36. There can also be unilateral and bilateral contracts that is "presumed to exist" under some or all the above headings. Let us examine each above types of contracts to see if the license obtained by this Citizen falls under any of the categories of contract.

36.1 An express contract is one in which the agreement of the parties is fully stated in words, and it may be either written or oral, or partly written and
partly oral.See: Bergh Business Law 30

36.2 A true "implied contract" is an agreement of the parties, arrived at from their acts and conduct, viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and not from their words either spoken or written. Like an express contract, it grows out of the intention of the parties to the transaction, and there must be a meeting of the minds.

See: McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)

36.3 License - Is defined as the "Authority" to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.See: Bouvier's Law Dict

37. With these definitions in mind, let us examine a driver's license to see if it is a contract. The driver's license itself is a small plastic card approximately 55 millimeters by 86 millimeters in size. It contains the words "Driver's license or Motor Vehicle Driver's license"; the name, address, signature, and physical description of the user; a pair or set of identifying numbers; a photograph; and the signature or stamp of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement or the Secretary of State. Obviously, this cannot be an express agreement because there are no statements to constitute an agreement. Are there two parties to the "contract?" There is only one signature, thus there are no "parties to the contract", therefore, "a contract in invalid".

Is there a consideration? What has the State given this Citizen in return for this Citizens obligation? Some may suggest that the State has given this Citizen the privilege of driving on the streets or highways. But this Citizen already has that "RIGHT" to drive on the streets or highways, and the State cannot require this Citizen to give up a "RIGHT" to obtain a "privilege".

38. An Iowa Statute that requires that every foreign corporation named in it shall, as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to a permit dependant upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186:

38.1 The full significance of the clause law of the land is said by Ruffin, C.J. to be that statutes that would deprive a Citizen of the "RIGHTS" of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677

39. It would be foolish for this Citizen to exchange a "RIGHT" for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible for this Citizen to do such a thing?

39.1 Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consentor of any inalienable "RIGHT." See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

40. Thus, even if this Citizen wanted to do so, he could not give up his "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways or exchange it for the "privilege granted by the State" of having a driver's license. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no consideration.

It may be contended that the seal on the driver's license is sufficient consideration by the State. It is true that under the common law, the question of consideration could not be raised concerning a contract under seal.

The seal provided conclusive presumption of a consideration. North Carolina for instance, has abolished by statute the common law "presumption of consideration" and this statute is binding upon all officers and employees of the State.

Even though a seal may be present, it is "not evidence of consideration". Of course, the document in question is a contrived and copied document and lacks validity in any case as a contract.

As to an obligation, since the license contains no statement of agreement, and since there are no parties to any agreement, and since there is no consideration, there can be no obligation.

The driver's license thus, is "not a contract" since it fails to contain any of the "four essential and required features" that a contract must in fact contain.

43. Can the driver's license be an "implied contract"? The same elements must exist in an implied contract as exist in an express contract. The only difference is that an implied contract is not written or spoken and the elements of the contract are shown by the acts and conduct of the parties involved. With respect to this Sovereign, there was certainly no meeting of the minds else this brief would not result. It was never the intention of this Citizen to give up Constitutional "RIGHTS" to accept a privilege from the State. Such an action would be ridiculous. This could only be done in a socialistic state. There has been no implied agreement in a free society. Is it possible, that there were two parties to the supposed contract, i.e.-the State and this Citizen?. There was no consideration in the implied contract for the same reasons that there was no consideration in the express contract.

An obligation is the thing to be done. It may be to pay money, to do work, or to deliver goods; or it may be to refrain from doing something that the person contracting had a "RIGHT" to do. Some may say that the State was obligated to allow this Citizen to drive on the streets or highways and that this Citizen was obligated to obey all the Statutes contained in the General Statutes. It would be just as easy to say, that the State could not be obligated to allow this Citizen to travel on the streets or highways because they did not have the "RIGHT" or the power to prevent him from doing so.

45. If the State cannot prevent this Citizen from his or her travels on the streets or highways in, the State does not have any discretion in the matter and does not have the choice of whether to obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot be to grant this Citizen the privilege of travel on the streets or highways. The obligation of the State must be to refrain from prohibiting this Citizen from his travel on the streets or highways since the State does not have the "RIGHT" to do.

46. It is the contention of this Citizen that the only obligation that this Citizen incurs when using a vehicle upon the streets or highways is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, or property. In complying with this obligation, this Citizen does comply with many Statutes of the General Statutes since they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which this Citizen avoids doing damage to others.

47. Still, some Statutes of the General Statutes should not be construed as evidence of a contractual obligation by this Citizen. Neither should it be construed to all the Statutes of the General Statutes or to any of them always. Instead, it is merely evidence of a want of this Citizen to travel safely and to do harm to no one.

48. Thus, the actions of this Citizen do not supply unambiguous evidence of a contract with the State. Instead, the actions can, with equal weight, be said to be evidence of a material fact that this Citizen was complying with the common law requirement in that-he does harm to no one. The driver's license is not an implied contract because there is no consideration, there may possibly be two parties, but there is certainly no consideration, in addition, there is no clear evidence of an obligation. Three of the four elements necessary for a contract of any kind whatsoever, are missing.

49. The question now becomes, whether the driver's license application is a contract. In completing that document/form, the applicant makes several statements and signs the paper upon which these statements are written under oath. The statements concern the identity, physical description, address, ability and experience in operating a vehicle, and one statement on the physical condition of the applicant. None of the statements are as an
agreement.

50. The application form contains the signature of the applicant and the signature of the person taking the oath of the applicant. The reverse side of the Application contains the results of a vision test and rudimentary physical examination with the results of a driving test. These results are signed by the examiner and not by the applicant.

51. Thus the application takes the form of an Affidavit instead of a contract. But let us see if the elements of a contract are present in the application.

51.1 There is no agreement.

51.2 There are not two parties.

51.3 There is no consideration.

51.4 There is no obligation.

52. Since none of the necessary elements of a contract are present, the application does not constitute a contract.

53. The only other document involved in obtaining a driver's license is the document, part of which is copied to make the actual driver's license. It contains, besides the information that is used in making the driver's license, the results of a vision test conducted by the driver's license examiner.

54. The applicant places his signature upon this form, that is then copied by some photographic process. Other material is added including a photograph, signature of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement or the Secretary of State and the driver's license is made of this composite.

55. Thus, the license itself cannot be a contract because it is a contrived document. The form from which the driver's license is made cannot be a contract because, again, none of the elements of a contract are present. So if none of the documents executed by the driver when obtaining a license is a contract, then no contract can exist between the driver and the State as a result of obtaining a driver's license.

56. But the idea that the driver's license is a contract with the State is pervasive. It is a belief, that is strongly held even by people in high places. Therefore, let us examine the driver's license as if it were a contract and see if it can withstand scrutiny. Not every offer made by one party and accepted by the other creates a valid contract. The outward form of a contract, either oral or written may exist, and yet the circumstances may be such that no contract in
reality was never created. Some circumstances that will cause an apparently valid contract to in fact be "void" are:

56.1 Mistake either mutual or unilateral.

56.2 Fraud.

56.3 Duress.

56.4 Alteration.

57. This Citizen obtained a driver's license upon the representation by the State, that one's travel upon the roadways of the United States of America was a privilege. This Citizen accepted this representation as to be true and because of that representation did obtain a driver's license.

57.1 It has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that an individual's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. Thus, a mutual mistake has been made, and the "contract" is void. See: Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E.2d 1000 (1943)

But the General Assembly of the State who passed the Statutes contained in the General Statutes are knowledgeable persons, many of whom are lawyers, and they undoubtedly knew at the time that the law was passed, that an individual's travel was in fact a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. If this were the case, then the mistake would be unilateral. A unilateral mistake known to one party and not to the other party, is sufficient grounds to void a contract if one truly exists.

59. Fraud

59.1 Fraud may consist in conduct, and may exist where there are no positive representations. Silence, where honesty requires speech, may sometimes constitute fraud. The rule that a man may be silent and safe, is by no means a universal one. Where one contracting party knows that the other party is bargaining for one thing, he has no "RIGHT" by silence to deceive the other and suffer him to take an altogether different thing, from that for which that silence has bargained. See: Parish v. Thurston, 87 Ind. 437 (1882)

60. If the driver's license is a contract, a case can be made for the contention that it was an agreement obtained by the State by fraud.

60.1 Fraud is a generic term which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devised, and are resorted by one individual to get any advantage over another. No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition defining fraud, as it includes all, trickery, cunning, surprise, dissembling, and unfair ways by which another is deceived. See: Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485

61. With respect to contracts, the following statements can be made:

61.1 However, in the field of contracts, there are certain standard tests for a claim of fraud which make it possible to define fraud, in connection with a contract as any trick or artifice whereby a person by means of a material misrepresentation, creates an erroneous impression of the subject matter of a proposed transaction, and thereby induces another person to suffer damage computable in money. The misrepresentation may result from a false statement, a concealment, or a nondisclosure. The elements of a contractual fraud are the following:

61.1.1 A material misrepresentation created, by a statement, by a concealment, or by nondisclosure.

61.1.2 An intention to defraud. 61.1.3 Reliance on the representation by the defrauded party.

61.1.4 Damage caused to the defrauded party as the result of his acting upon the representation. See: Bergh Business Law p. 56.

62. In view of the many decisions by high courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, that one's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege, would be hard to defend the proposition that the General Assembly of the State was unaware of these decisions, particularly since many legislators are and were lawyers knowledgeable in such matters. In fact, when one considers the definition of streets or highways in Sections of the General Statutes, the Evidence is conclusive that the legislature knew and knows that ones travels is in fact a "RIGHT."

63. Therefore, the statements in the General Statutes that a travel is a privilege and that a driver's license is necessary before one can travel constitutes a "material misrepresentation of fact" to this possessor of a driver's license. And since the legislature is and was aware of the fact that an individual's travels was not a privilege, but a "RIGHT," the statement that one's travels is a privilege, when applied to this Citizen, constitutes a willful intention to deceive, and therefore, to defraud.

64. This Citizen did rely upon the representations of the legislature, that an individual's travels was a privilege when he obtained his driver's license, else he would not have obtained one.

65. This Citizen did suffer damage as a result of his acting upon the representation of the legislature at least to the extent of the license fee.

In as much as all the necessary elements of fraud are present, if the driver's license is considered a contract, the "contract" is void.

DURESS

67. With respect to duress, Bergh, supra., supplies the following definition:

67.1 A party must consent to a contract of his own free will. Free consent is an essential element of an agreement. Consequently, if he is coerced into signing a contract by fear induced by a threat to cause personal injury to himself or to some close relative, the contract will not be a real agreement and it will be voidable at his option. The threat of personal injury must be a threat to inflict immediate bodily injury or to institute a criminal prosecution against the person threatened or some close relative.

68. Since it was essential to this Citizen in pursuing his occupation of common "RIGHT" to use a vehicle upon the streets or highways, and since the State threatens to and does prosecute persons in criminal actions for not possessing a driver's license, regardless of their status, this Citizen did obtain a driver's license under duress. If then the driver's license is a contract, the contract is unenforceable and invalid because of this duress.

69. With respect to alterations, Bergh, supra., has the following comments:

69.1 Any material alteration in a written contract by one party without the consent of the other party, gives this latter party the option of treating the contract as discharged or enforcing it as it stood before the alteration.

70. If the driver's license is a contract, it is a written contract, at least to the extent that the Statutes of the General Statutes are written. Each time that the General Assembly amends or modifies or adds to any of the Statutes of the General Statutes, the terms of the contract are changed. Since this Citizen then has the option of considering the contract as discharged, he then chooses to do so as of the first change in the General Statutes following his application for a driver's license.

If it is contended that the driver's license is an implied contract, the "Statute of Frauds" comes into play.

72. In the following cases the agreement is invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum of it, be in writing and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent. Evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing or secondary evidence of its contents:

72.1 An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.

72.2 ............. 73. Since the term of the driver's license contract is so many years and the contract is not written, the "Statute of Frauds" does apply
and the contract is unenforceable.

74. The discussion up to this point has been concerned with bilateral contracts in which each party promises something to the other party. Is it possible that the driver's license is a unilateral contract? A unilateral contract is described as:

74.1 A unilateral contract is a one-sided contract in the sense that only one side makes a promise, and the other side performs an act for which the promise was given. See: Bergh, supra..

75. Since the act expected by the State is obedience to the Statutes of the General Statutes, what promise has the State offered in exchange for this act? The only promise that the State could make this Citizen, is the promise to allow him to travel on the streets or highways. Since this Citizen already can do that as a matter of "RIGHT," the State can promise him nothing. Thus there is no consideration and a unilateral contract cannot exist.

Having shown that no contract exists between this Citizen and the State, let us now examine, the proposition that a quasi-contract exists between this Citizen and the State.

77. Quasi-Contract

77.1 A quasi-contract is an obligation springing from voluntary and lawful acts of parties in the absence of any agreement. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

78. In order to establish the existence of a quasi-contractual obligation it must be shown:

78.1 That the defendant has received a benefit from the Plaintiff.

78.2 That the retention of the benefit by the Defendant is inequitable. See: Woodward Quasi Contracts 9.

79. Thus, if it is contended that this Citizen must obey the Statutes in the General Statutes because of a quasi-contract, it must be shown that this Citizen has received a benefit from the State. But one's travels on the streets or highways of the State is not a benefit received from the State. It was a "RIGHT" that attached to this Citizen at the moment of his birth and cannot be removed by the State. In this respect, no benefit has been received from the State, and thus a quasi-contractual obligation cannot exist with respect to this Citizen.

80. It may be claimed that the Statutes of the General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State, and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them.

81. The police power is a grant of authority from the people to their governmental agents, for the protection of the health, the safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature, it is broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true, it is only a power. It is not a "RIGHT?"

82. The powers of government under our system, are nowhere absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are limited to their true intentional purposes. The fundamental "RIGHTS" of the people are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend Constitutional "RIGHTS." The police power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, and upon every power of government and its agents; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the Citizens, whose natural "RIGHTS" that are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it was ordained by the people.

82.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as that use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It plainly and clearly
existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS" that we have all sworn to uphold, fight, and give our lives for.

82.2 It is not a "RIGHT," therefore, over which the police power is paramount. Like every other fundamental liberty, it is a "RIGHT" to which the police power is subordinate.

82.3 It is a "RIGHT" which takes into account the equal "RIGHTS" of others, for it is qualified by the obligation that the use of the property shall not be to the prejudice of others. But if subject alone to that qualification, the Citizen is not free to use his lands and his goods as he chooses, it is difficult to perceive wherein his "RIGHT" of property has any existence. (Emphasis added). See: Spann, supra..

83. Where inherent, unalienable, absolute "RIGHTS" are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways and the "RIGHT" to own and use property have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus, the police power cannot regulate the Citizens "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways.

84. If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate the travels of the Citizen on the streets or highways, and if, through the action of these regulations or Statutes, this Citizen is denied access to the streets or highways; a fundamental "RIGHT" of the Citizen has been abrogated.

84.1 Where "RIGHTS" secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. See: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)

85. The abrogation of inalienable "RIGHTS" by legislation or rule making is unconstitutional.

86. If further proof is needed to show that this Citizen need not be licensed to travel on the streets or highways, it is provided in the following decisions:

86.1 A license fee is a tax. See: Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 So. 257

86.2 A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a "RIGHT" granted by the Federal Constitution. See: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105

Since a fee is charged for a driver's license and since one's travels on the streets or highways is a "RIGHT" guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require this Citizen to be licensed to travel.

88. Even the application for Driver's License Form recognizes the "RIGHT" of some persons to travel without a license. General Statutes recognizes categories of persons who are not required to be licensed in this State. Why is it then that the first demand made by the law enforcement personnel when making a traffic stop is:

"Let's see your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance," and not always politely, when the first question should be; "What is your status and are you required to have a driver's license?"

89. Can it be, that there is a conspiracy afoot within the State, to reduce all Citizens to a status of contract? Why else would a law enforcement person take a Citizen to jail without even trying to discover if that Citizen is exempt from the requirement of having a driver's license?

90. The question now becomes, whether this Citizen is required to obey any of the Statutes in the General Statutes? It has been shown that this Citizen has a "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways. So, any Statute that describes driving on the streets or highways as a privilege cannot apply to this Sovereign. Since the "RIGHT" of this Citizen to travel cannot be abrogated, any Statute the operation of which, would have the effect of denying access to the streets or highways to this Citizen, cannot be applied.

91. Since violation of any Statue in the General Statutes is classified as a "misdemeanor" that is punishable by a fine and six months in jail, and since putting this Citizen in jail because of his use of the streets or highways that harms nobody, would be an abrogation of his "RIGHT" to travel, none of the Statutes of the General Statutes apply to this Citizen. These contentions are supported by the "Supreme Court of United States".

91.1 An Iowa statute that requires that every foreign corporation named in it shall as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to remove, is void because it makes the "RIGHT" to a permit dependent upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186

This decision is consistent with that in Miranda, supra, in which it was stated that where "RIGHTS" are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. It is also consistent with the discussion in the following case. This case is a tax case, but the discussion on "RIGHTS" that it contains is appropriate.

93. Individual and a Corporation

93.1 There is a clear distinction in this particular, between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no "RIGHT" to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional "RIGHTS" as a Citizen . He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His "RIGHTS" are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his "RIGHTS" are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS". See: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43

94. The Emphasized statement is also consistent with North Carolina Statutes. In the Statute reads:

94.1 Common law in force. The common law of England, as far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States in all cases not provided for in these compiled laws, is the rule of decision in all courts in this state

.95. Since the Statutes of the General Statutes cannot apply to this Citizen, he becomes subject to the "Common Law" that maintains that he owes nothing to thepublic, so long as he or she does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS".

96. Is it the contention of this Citizen that because the Statutes contained in the General Statutes do not apply to him that the Statutes are unconstitutional? Absolutely not. There is a class of persons to whom these Statutes apply without reservation. Members of this class include corporations and those who do the corporation business on the streets or highways. A corporation is the creation of the State.

96.1 A corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them, subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its "RIGHTS" to act as a corporation are only preserved to it while it obeys the laws of its creation. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 p. 684

97. A Corporation is a person in the eyes of the law but it lacks character, morals, and has no conscience. It's every activity must be directed and supervised by the State. Under the definition of "Due Process of Law", Bouvier's Law Dictionary states in part:

97.1 The liberty guaranteed is that of a natural person and not of artificial persons; Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359 where it was said "a corporation cannot be deemed a Citizen within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution of the United States which protects the privileges and immunities of Citizen s of the United States against being abridged or impaired by the law of a State". (See also 203 U.S. 243)

The Statutes in the General Statutes are designed to direct the activities of the class of persons of which a corporation is a member. Corporations are absolutely bound by these Statutes. It is imperative that a conscienceless entity not be allowed to roam the streets or highways and jeopardize the Citizens. It is for this purpose that the Statutes of the General Statutes were enacted and not for the control of a Free and Natural Citizen.

Conclusion

99. There is no Court in this Land that could lawfully execute an Order that would or could cause, or work to compel, One to become a servant or slave of any City, County or State without a conviction and with full Due Process of Law, and for any City, County, or State to pretend otherwise is an absurdity.

Have a great day

Richard James, McDonald
ICQ 259224
http://www.state-citizen.org Join our Citizenship Educational program

Voice: [818] 703-5037 Richard James McDonald
Fax: [818] 887-3217 C/O General Delivery
585 Box
Canyon Road, Canoga Park [91304]
CALIFORNIA

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

From Sui Juris

http://local.suijuris.net/index.php?p=4

11/11/2004
Right To Travel
Filed under:

Know Your Rights

— site admin @ 6:04 am

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

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:

Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: ”...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect – laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws—the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling—discussed earlier—in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one’s daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

Source: By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

Comments

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://local.suijuris.net/wp-trackback.php/4

1.With all being said and references made, how do you then proceed to practice your RIGHT to Free Travel with out spending time in jail?

Comment by thebuzz — 11/12/2004 @ 3:41 pm

2.Big Deal! As soon as the gov’t with all it’s VIOLENT MIGHT decides to mandate that travel is to be restricted by vehicle, without I.D. you’re dead meat! This is what is going to happen in the near future.

Comment by Brian Cowger — 12/12/2004 @ 10:05 pm
3.I think that there is a great deal of confusion here. Many americans are still believers in such words as:Constitution,Government,right ,privilege etc.

Lets talk about power,corporation,people,land. What we have today around here is this no-man’s-land,a bunch of corporations,some con artists and a whole crowd of fools. You see ,these corporations have conquered the land and imposed their rules over the crowd of fools. The question is:are these corporations legitimate? Apparently they are,as long as not to many fools are raising any objections.

As the old proverb says: “The rulers are empowered by the ruled”. These de facto rulers,corporations are ruling by the consent of the ruled. If the ruled crowd of fools would become aware of their own power and purpose,for that moment to happen,it would be the end of the corporate mafia.

The corporate mafia is afraid of this crowd of fools because they know that the fools are many.

It is very clear stated in the Corporate Book of Rules that corporations enact their rules and regulations to police their own people. If you are not one of them,under their corporate umbrella,you are not subject to their jurisdiction.

If you ever entered any commercial agreement without informed consent,full discloser you have a natural right to contest that agreement. Before anything can happen you should rescind that fraudulent agreement.

For future events,if the corporate mafia would try to stick anything on you,you should use the power of the “affidavit of denial of corporation existence”. By the said affidavit you raise an objection to their corporate ruling and jurisdiction. If they still insist on harassing you,you should demand to see the contract,written and signed by you,that ties you to their jurisdiction.

Comment by Adrian — 12/20/2004 @ 11:47 am
4.A strategy to lien and stop all motor vehicle depts from defrauding and extorting us: Find out if they agree that they posess no proof registration and license is required outside of commerce and why they only talk in terms of “driving” in commerce. Ask if anyone posseses any proof we ever “drove a vehicle in commerce for hire”. In the absence of proof or evidence under rules of evidence and when we ask them yes or no: Is registration required or license required? If they finally agree “no”, then ask them if they know all the people are being defrauded and extorted in the room, standing in line for registration? Does not the eqalization depts ask if you have any sales during a given period? Then why does the motor vehicle depts ask if we have commercial activity to report, to justify the registration cost? If we do not enter commercial driving status during the year, we should get all the registration money back just like over-payment of taxes, using affidavit.

We should write a letter to the motor vehicle depts and demand answers. If that does not work warn them about misprison of felony relating to their extortion and start going after them personally. Deluge all depts of motor vehicles with registered mail and shut them down. Get them to free over 90% of the people who never really “drive” but travel. Let the people prove they drive commercially in commerce or sign an “AFFIDAVIT OF DENIAL OF DRIVING IN COMMERCE”....Tell the people to register a financial private interest in said vehicle once and for all with the Secretary of State for 20 dollars on a UCC-1 and have it over with. Put a private property UCC filing number plate on the vehicle and be fully protected from any impoundment by
uniformed government ransackers and let them ever try to prove they have any financial interest in the vehicle(s). In any litigation there are ways to talk to a judge, especially to make him show his bonds and liens and if he is qualified after you asked to see his oath and credentials and identification and FORM 700, etc by way of supoena duces tecum. And do not let the District Attorney say he is examining our discovery request and let it go at that. They are all bound by their chosen trap of Admiralty with which they abuse the privilege of being bound by their black letter law. We can trap the hell out of them, especially with felony omission, and abuse of ministerial duty. Go in law in motions court and get it vacated and then chage them for their costly abuse of power(s) DID ANYONE READ THIS AND KNOW HOW TO READ BETWEEN THESE LINES? GO IN WITH A NOTARY AND DO A DEBTORS REVIEW ON THE STRAWMAN OF THE JUDGE. WHAT DO YOU THINK A JUDGE IS ANYWAY?::A FRICKEN DEBTOR LIKE THE REST. CAN HE AVOID REVIEW? NO. CAN HE BE DISQUALIFIED?: YES!!!!

Comment by Lance — 1/8/2005 @ 1:01 am
5.Have won Ala. Supr. Ct. case 1980038 on driving on revoked license. Reversed 6 cases. 770 So.2d 1055. I am suing county for false imprisonment. Case moved to Ala. Supr. Ct.

I am still being arrested and I am working on that issue. Had my unlicensed non-commerical vehicle impounded and released “without a hassel” last arrest Dec. 11. 2004.

Comment by John Snavely — 1/11/2005 @ 5:47 pm
6.How may I get a speeding ticket dismissed on a appeal in NYC? I am now waiting for my transcript? I had hire a lawyer who negotiated it down from 6 pts to 4 pts( I was not present). Also the court doesn’t employ a prosecuter.

Any suggestions Thanks

Comment by Alex — 1/14/2005 @ 11:21 pm

Travel Information - Resource Page

http://freedom-school.com/travel/

Information presented is presented, without prejudice, in the public interest.
Not intended as legal advice.
Unless otherwise stated the various parties presented here are not affiliated with Freedom School

ShareThis All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

Jack McLamb: Right to Travel

United States v. Guest, 383 US 745; Justice Harlan on the right to travel

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel

"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P.2d 46

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky. 731, 17 S.W.(2d) 1012,66 A.L.R.1378; and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S. E. 579, A.L.R. 604. (11 Am.Jur. § 329)

"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." - PG&E v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.

To them may be added the case of W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U.S. 452, 468, where it was held that "the acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.", Power Manufacturing Company v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927).

California: CAR - DMV RELATED ISSUES

New Mexico: Tom Hyland One Citizen´s Quest to Travel Free

Read & Learn

Texas: Exposing the driver's license scam

NO DRIVER LICENSE REQUIRED IN THE U.S !
Item mentioned in video: COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE

"People who fight may lose.
People who don't fight have already lost." ---Bertolt Brecht

> > > On the road a PowerPoint presentation < < <

What Is A License?

United States v. Herrera

The Mythological Motor Vehicle

Driver – a Table of Authorities

U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 31

(a) Definitions. - In this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

(10) Used for commercial purposes. - The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

DOT 150

Instructions for using DOT 150

DOT 150: memorandum in support

MOTOR CARRIER CFR / US CODE SUMMARY

FMSCA rules

Police Training on Traffic Stops

What kind of training did this officer receive? (watch & learn)

National Motorists Association Blog
Use This Card To Stand Up For Your Rights At Roadblocks
5 Things You Need To Know About Roadblocks

Acts of War - Part 1 Article by Ed Lewis

Electronic citations speed up ticketing process for police

Senator Wayne Stump Letter (best copy available)

Hari Heath: The Sword of Commerce

DEFENDING YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL

The ´civil´ Traffic Ticket -- "it Ain´t No Crime" ... at Least That´s What the State Claims!

Read, learn and act accordingly: Texas Municipal Courts Education Center (TMCEC) Bench Book, CHAPTER 1 MAGISTERIAL DUTIES

COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE - CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVER LICENSE

Shapiro v. Thompson

If you´ve relied on prior decisions...

Click here for noteable court cites

Walking through border posts, airports and public places?
Department of Homeland Security´s ´Pre-crime´ detector shows promise.

Price overruns for nuke detectors likely to be in the billions, says GAO

confidence = NO negotiation

Commercial Driver License Handbook - Texas
(Notice the "Prologue")
See also, Texas Department of Public Safety

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

motor vehicle

WORDS TO USE WORDS
NOT TO USE
(Indicate commercial activity)

Car, conveyance, machinery, road machine vehicle, motor vehicle

personal use recreational vehicle vehicle, motor vehicle

Guests, friends, family passengers

Traveling, journeying driving, operating

Traveling, journeying, moving transportation

Public Right of Way road / street

Abode, living, housekeeping Residence / Resident

Domicile Residence

Inhabitant, Non-Resident Resident

Non-Domestic Resident / Domestic

Non-Commerical Commercial, "this state"

- good - - not good -

autonomy Sovereignty

Me, I do not consent. OK / OKay / yes

Me, I do not understand.

Private Property

No Trespass

Me, I am capable of making an informed decision.

* * * List not meant to be exhaustive. Suggestions & additions welcomed. * * *

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance or
conscientious stupidity."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about
and refuse to investigate."
--Dr. Wayne Dyer

"If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." --Molly Ivins

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." -Benjamin Franklin

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds
appointed to guard the past."
--Maurice Maeterlinck

"Me, if I am here at all my presence is special as I am here as result of a force bill of pain and penalty against my Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness and my well-being; and as I am aware of [the following]:

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be 'assumed', it must be proved to exist!"
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211 P.2s 389

"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502

"Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533

I am calling into question the application of the {particular code} over myself and my property."

Petition to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

Comity

He who imposes the terms of the battle - imposes the terms of the peace.

Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle While Traveling

Gun Control Doesn´t Work, Editor´s Commentary

Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says

email on gun control < < <

Handicap: Your opponent has a handicap IF he cannot control himself.

Right to Travel earns Recognition

Traffic Tickets Punish While Richly Rewarding the State

Speeding tickets: a form of tyranny?

The ´Civil´ Traffic Ticket – “It ain´t no crime” …at least that´s what the state claims!

COMMENTS FROM THE PROFESSOR ON TRAFFIC CITATIONS

How To Beat A Speeding Ticket Advice offered here is that of attorney Norman G. Fernandez

Just Say ´No´ to Police Searches | FlexYourRights.org

Discover the Fourth Amendement

The Fourth Amendment "is not an adjunct* to the ascertainment of truth." The guarantees of the Fourth Amendment stand "as a protection of quite different constitutional values "values reflecting the concern of our society for the right of each individual to be let alone. To recognize this is no more than to accord those values undiluted respect." Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218, 242 (1973).

*Adjunct: added or connected in a secondary or subordinate position; auxiliary - one may interpret this to mean that one does have a right not to tell the government everything; in fact, a right to hide stuff from them! (Not Legal Advice.)
They do not want you to know this! (This is in a majority decision!)

Not awake yet? Perhaps this might help you.

excerpts from UNITED STATES v. SALINAS

excerpts from Brown v. Texas

April 2009: High Court limits vehicle searches

National Motorists Association Blog
You Have The Right To Remain Silent -- But Only If You Say So

Opposed to the use of roadblocks? Visit roadblock.org
(Hint - operators of roadblocks are not your friends.)

“The temporary detention of individuals during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period, constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, an automobile stop is subject to the Constitutional requirement that the seizure not be ´unreasonable´ under the circumstances.” Litzenberger v. Vanim, No. 01-5454, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13843 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2002) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996)
"Gee Officer, what is your articulate-able reason for stopping me?"
Must See Video: "I Don´t Need To Stop at a Checkpoint to Prove Who I Am Because This Is America"

When Official Truth Collides With Cheap Digital Technology

PoliceCrimes.com
Know Your Rights When Dealing With Police Officers

How To Deal With Police Officers

VIDEO: How not to pull over for a...

What Not To Say To The Nice Police Office

How To Deal With Police Officers - Magic Words?

Don't want to take time to learn this stuff? May we offer you this:
Man Wrongly Convicted of Runaway´s Murder Will Sue Milwaukee Police

VIDEO: Citizen´s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

Awareness of this may be helpful
" (3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U. S. 452 (1901)

"Me, I am unable to make a legal determination, I am going to remain silent.
I am capable of making informed decisions. I want assistance of counsel."

VIDEO: Professor James Duane from Regent Law School explains why
innocent people should never talk to the police.
"Don´t Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane (read Transcript )

VIDEO: George Bruch from the Virginia Beach police department responds to Professor James Duane´s presentation on why innocent people should never talk to the police.
"Don´t Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch
[See what one may be up against CaseCracker Interview Management System]

VIDEO: PBS - FRONTLINE - CRIMINAL JUSTICE
How could four men confess to a brutal crime that they didn't commit?
IF YOU BELIEVE THIS COULD NEVER HAPPEN TO YOU
...then go ahead and ´talk´ with the police... The Confessions

" Me, I am (will be) happy to talk about what I may be aware of...
with immunity!"

Backgrounder

Generally a city´s charter makes a mention that that all ordinances much be in compliance with state law.
Reading a city´s charter - look carefully for the word "power."
Only ´certain powers´ are conveyed to cities and most of the powers deal with issues of health and safety.
Look to find the power of police in the city charter. Chances are that here is none.
Austin, Texas for example: the Austin City Charter says that there is a police department which is an office under the mayor and city council. (See here)
There is no provision for police officers in the city charter. The City of Austin Police Department contracts privately with the mayor and city council via the city manager.
Yes, to say it in other words, they appear to be nothing more than private security guards.
Harmed or damaged by police action? Consider a law suit against the city.
Better yet -- get to know who you are and act accordingly.

Right to Remain Silent When Stopped by Police
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 1979
Syllabus   Full Text

Read - Study - Learn: Miranda v. Arizona

Officer, you´ve got the wrong person [false arrest] Original story
(interesting comments)

Arrest Proof Yourself

Know Your Rights:
What To Do If You're Stopped By Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI article
ALCU Bust Card

Lie Behind the Lie Detector

CIA Human Resource Exploitation Manual

A Legal Guide To Survival In Post 911 America Know Your Rights

"The temporary detention of individuals during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period, constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, an automobile stop is subject to the Constitutional requirement that the seizure not be ´unreasonable´ under the circumstances." Litzenberger v. Vanim, No. 01-5454, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13843 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2002) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996)

The use of excessive force can be an unlawful "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989); Carswell v. Borough of Homestead, 381 F.3d 235, 240 (3d Cir. 2004). In deciding whether challenged conduct constitutes excessive force, a court must determine the objective "reasonableness" of the challenged conduct, considering "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.

PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
When you look around the web, you´ll find a public servant questionnaire, but not like this one. Its been converted to a single page so you can get a multi-part NCR form made up at FedExOffice, Staples, Office Depot, etc.. Keep some by the door to your house and in your glove compartment to give to [any] law enforcement officers who want to ask you questions. Before answering theirs, make them answer yours. You´ll find supporting law in 5 U.S.C. 552a
Do you understand?

"When plunder has become a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

Escape: There´s always an excape.

Someone say, "REAL ID"?

Department of Homeland Security | Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America
REAL ID Final Rule: Questions & Answers
Recognizing states that need more time

A Primer on REAL ID
Another Primer on REAL ID
...and yet another primer on REAL ID
Three Years Later: ...and yet another primer on REAL ID

Quick primer on REAL ID

VIDEO: What May Be Ahead

Today we´re all prisoners in the USA

How to Create the Perfect Fake Identity

Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists

United States Patent Number 5,629,678: Apparatus for tracking and recovering humans

New York Offers Drivers License with RFID Tag

Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears

VeriChip

Hitachi develops RFID powder    /   (See, Hitachi)

Ex-IBM Employee reveals TV Abandoned Analog Band to Make Room for RFID Chips
An introduction to New Technologies (Part I)

International Driving Permit Information Package Freedom School is not affilated with PATA.)

Well here is some Real ID information.

various documents concerning REAL ID Act

Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship

WASHINGTON LAW AT RCW 46.61.021

Customs Declaration

Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches
Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At border No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies
Groups to warn panel about economic effect of seizing laptops
FISA and border Searches of Laptops
EU lawmakers criticize virtual strip search
New bill would tighten rules for DHS border laptop searches

U.S. Lacks Gov't Agency To Stop ID Thefts

Fraud-prevention pitchman becomes ID theft victim
Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, "There is no company that can guarantee they can protect you (completely) against identity theft, absolutely nobody can do that." [Gee, does that extend to government as well?]
Straight Talk about Identity Theft Monitoring Services
Report: More UCLA staff saw celebs' health records
Thieves skim credit card data at fuel pumps (Notice the last line of the article.)
Meet A-Z: The computer hacker behind a cybercrime wave
UK Government Spills Personal Data of Millions

ID Theft Ring Attacked Retailers on Multiple Levels

Tech Staff Admit They'd Steal Secrets If Laid Off

Rebellion within UK government over plans for massive spy database

OPERATION: DE-FUSE / "Getting to know Big Brother"

Visit the National Motorists Association Blog

On the street dialog...

The cop pulled me over, when he approached me and said: "What is your name"

I responded by stating, "What, is the question?"

Again he stated "What is your name" to which I again responded, "That is incorrect, what is not my name."

Again he stated "What is your name" to which I responded "I just told you what is NOT my name."

"Perhaps your inquiry would be better if you asked me a question instead of making statements that are un-true." -- "I know what I am - question is, do you?"

He then asked "who are you" and again I had to direct him and inform him that it wasn't who but "what" am I."

"Okay, what are you" to which I informed him [that] "I am a living breathing man on the soil, A child of my creator, the creator of all things in Heaven and on Earth, just who might you be?"

He broke into a tirade and admitted I was a living breathing man on the land by stating, "WELL I CAN SEE THAT !"

I smiled, from that point he can't ever presume that I am a legal fiction or that I am incompetent for believing I am the same [thing] as appears on a [plastic] license or [alleged] ID card.

He who has the most confidence controls the event, the people or the situation.     (Think about it.)

Handicap: You opponent has a handicap IF he cannot control himself.

Did someone say, "quotas"?

Here are four memos that seem to add substance to rumors.
These four memos were topic of KXAN Austin, Texas, TV news story, January 16, 2008.
Texas DPS Memos Outline Trooper Arrest Quota

Texas DPS Memo: Criminal Traffic Enforcement
Texas DPS Memo: Coaching And Training Session
Texas DPS Response No. 1
Texas DPS Response No. 2

More on Texas DPS

Did someone say, "Mobile Revenue Generator"?

Cruiser-Top Cameras Make Police Work a Snap
(The article doesn't mention what happens to the data on legal plates. Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?)

VIDEO: Police License Plate Scanner

VIDEO: Loover

VIDEO: How Any Idiot Can Beat a RADAR Speeding Ticket

VIDEO: TEXAS, U.S.A. Some Texas law enforcement appear corrupt, and this CNN video proves it

Texas city Police Chief and mayor battle over officer read here

Claim: Motorists in most U.S. states can be fined for failing to slow down or change lanes when passing parked emergency vehicles.
true

Did someone say, "Red-Light Cameras"?
(It simple. Stopping at red light or a stop sign is not optional - IT IS THE LAW! ...and who doesn't want people to adhere to the law?)

Cities Caught Illegally Tampering With Traffic Lights
To Increase Revenue Of red light Cameras - follow the various links...

Dick Armey Exposes Traffic-Light Spying

Cities Removing Red-Light Cameras To Increase Traffic Ticket Revenues

Cities seek dismissal of red-light lawsuits

Orwell´s Cash Machine Out of Service in San Diego Read Here

California: Traffic Camera Case

House Research Organization
red-light Cameras in Texas: A Status Report

...meanwhile, in Houston, Citizens Against Red Light Cameras
Houston´s red-light cameras to go dark Monday
Judge Rules Red-Light Camera Election ´Invalid´

red-light camera monkey business may be a national trend

Dallas, Texas: Traffic Camera Conundrum

Houston, Texas: As extra red-light cams went up, Houston tickets went down

Austin, Texas: First of 9 red-light cameras set to start clicking   VIDEO

Fighting red Light Camera Tickets

Howard Griswold Conference Call concerning red Light Camera Tickets

What are the most common red-light camera case rejections?

Ticket Assassin

Pay No Fine- A User Guide to Successfully Fighting Traffic Tickets

How to Beat a Speeding Ticket

Why Are They Installing The Cameras?
The Intersection of Strategy and Measurement--The Red Light Camera.
An interesting perspective on the question!

Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration´s red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety´s page concerning red light running

Evaluation of red light camera (photo-red) enforcement final report

National Motorists Association´s (NMA) Objections To Photo Enforcement

How’s My Driving? A Q&A With the Author of Traffic

DIALOG:
Consider that a ticket from a red light camera may be disposable because
you did not sign a promise to appear.
(See Opinion No. JC-0317 below.)

Can one dispute a red light ticket? "I want the camera brought in to court so that I can question it. Thank you big brother."
Bring the matter to trial, jury - (´the whole nine yards´) -- and then tell them that there is a failure to lay proper predicate and that you want the matter dismissed.

Traffic camera photos are hearsay and inadmissible absent other "foundational" evidence - see, California Appeals case ruling

Did someone say, "Toll Roads"?

Hacking electronic-toll systems

Texas DPS requests AG opinion on driver license checkpoints
read and consider signing the petition against checkpoints
UPDATE: DPS withdraws plan to set up license checkpoints

NOTICE TO CHECKPOINT AGENTS

A player distracted is a player defeated.

Did someone say, "registration"?

...concerning Texas registration

...word games

State Vehicle Codes Summary

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile

"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

Kingdom of Heaven Traveling Licenses

Someone say, " insurance"

Did someone say, "Airline travel"?

Texas woman: TSA forced nipple ring removal...

How To Fly Without ID

TSA to let polite terrorists fly without ID

Schneier on Security

in the 9th Circuit Case of John Gilmore, you are allowed to fly without showing ID; story

The Great No-ID Airport Challenge

How to Fly Without ID and Skip Lines

letter from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) written to Senator John Warner,
concerning flying, don't leave home without it.

DIALOG: FAA Flyer stating no ID required

VIDEO: TV News station sends an undercover producer to KCI Airport to put security screening to the test.

Airports crack down on identification regulations

Congressman still faces airport screening problem screening problem

Government´s terrorist watch list aiding fight

Missing SFO laptop found--where it went missing

Mark Nestmann: Canadian Customs Wants Your Laptop, Too

Fliers without ID placed on TSA list.

2009 (underwear bomber): Flight 253 passenger Kurt Haskell: ' I was visited by the FBI'
what ´they´ want...(A)   /    what ´they´ want...(B)
Get Naked to Defeat Terrorists
Inverted Body Scanner Image Shows Naked Body In Full Living color
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff

For more about body scaning see,
Information For People Who Travel By Air

ScanWOW from NWO Solutions

New Year´s Resolutions   /    Total Body Security Scan
Christmas In January   /    Naked Airport Security solution

Jason Stanford: What´s the point of treating us all like terrorists?

Infowars Archive: Control Grid Implementation of Body Scanners

Scholars say security machines violate rules of modesty Airport body scans defy Islamic law

Mary Starrett: KEEP AMERICA SAFE - GET NAKED

TSA Incident Proves Authorities Are Engaged In Monumental Body Scanner Cover-Up

Did someone say Police impersonators?

In Texas “Peace officer” means a person elected, employed, or appointed as a peace officer under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 51.212 ~ 51.214, Education Code, or other law.
OK, then whoever is pretending to be a “Peace officer” should have no difficulty in producing competent evidence of election, employment or appointment - yes?
And that election, employment or appointment possibly has conditions - yes?
And is the actor complying with, operating within all the conditions? (For more see DIALOG below.)
And does one not have a right and a duty to ascertain just who it is that they are dealing with?
YES, one does have the right and duty!
(See the PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE below.)

Police and other impersonators

Police impersonators preying with ease

Police impersonators

Motorists warned of police impersonators

Impostors raise real concerns for police

Police impersonator charged after arrest by real people

Police impersonators, miscellaneous stories

8 NYC police impersonators accused of torturing, robbing drug dealers

Chicago: Teen cop impersonator drove squad car, worked full shift

Police impersonators: try this link
KXAN version of story notice last line - (Oh really?)

Drug Arrests Were Real; the Badge Was Fake

Yes, there are other offices imitated, see this, Fake Priest Infiltrates St. Peter's

Car pulling you over -- is that a real cop?

Remember that any one can fake most any thing -- caveat emptor!

you ask the police officer...        Public officers are merely the agents...
by what supposed...       all tyranny needs...
Whatever the form in which the government functions...        I, me, have authority to question authority

Who are you?

poster

See the public servant questionnaire

(Fake Debt Collectors Terrify Consumers)

Ticket Assassin: Guide to Traffic Stops

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

The one rule - put your opponent down.

NEVER
challenge an officer´s authority on the street -- wait for court.

Message recently received: "My friend was pulled over for a taillight being out, and the officer ran her plates and saw that there was an outstanding warrant for an unpaid ticket for expired inspection. They told her to step out of the car and that if she had anything on her that, "now is the time to tell us." She came clean immediately as she was in possession of a controlled substance (cocaine, which was not in her system) and handed it over. They took her to jail and she´s being charged with a felony. What can she do?"

Reply: [from someone who is NOT an Attorney -- and that anything said is not to be considered legal advice - hey, the respondent may not even know what he/she is talking about.] Apparently your friend has not heard this, "They (Police, government agents, etc.) have nothing, they want everything and they want us to give it to them!" We, here at the School say, "Why?"
Rule one; avoid giving them any reason [articulate-able suspicion] to be interested in you - check often and keep lights, tires, car, etc., in working order - and of course, operate your car reasonably, defensively, and safely.

Rule two; avoid having any reason for them to detain you if they do become interested in you - settle past matters.

Rule three; if one has one or more of their asset identifiers (state plates, registration, etc.) and one has a state issued Driver License -- well, then one is expected to abide by the state´s rules and regulations - yes?
However, was it that you were in commerce? Remember that it is not up to you to prove that you weren't - it is up to them to prove that you were.

Rule four; avoid giving consent, avoid giving up rights. (Gee Mister [alleged police officer], what is your show of authority? ) The old, "...now is the time to tell us" bluff is used, and used with success, more times that one can imagine. One does have the right to remain quite. "Me, I don't accept your offer." -- "Me, I don't consent to this." -- "Me, I am competent to make an informed decision and I am unable to make legal determination about this matter until I have assistance of council." -- "Am I under arrest -- or am I free to go?" -- "What is that... it isn't mine... I don't know how it got there... are you guys planting stuff... setting me up?" (See, public servant questionnaire.)

Rule five; learn this stuff (and more) BEFORE it is needed!

Confidence = NO negotiation!

Remember: There is a cost for freedom -- as it is not free!
Lawful Arrest, Search, Seizure, FAQ

5 Federal Court Cases That Weakened The 4th Amendment

Remember:
"Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intellegent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences."
Brady v. U. S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970)

Review a recent Iowa case involving a warrantless search STATE v. GARRISON

Oath Acceptance

Postal Workers can drive without a driver license?
See JOHNSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51 (1920)
See also Lawyerdude

...as for an illegal arrest...
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." Adams v. State, 121 Pa. 16, 48 S.E. 910 Also,
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary." see, Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the supreme Court of the United States in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

All warfare is based on deception.

Officer must identify himself and show you ID if you request it. Also, officer cannot swear an oath in his own mind he has to swear to the complaint in front of a proper party to attest to the swearing, i.e. signing a ticket and giving it to you on the street doesn't get it anymore.
City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa vs. Atsinger, 617 NW 2d 272, 9-7-2000. (Iowa Supreme Court)
(See the public servant questionnaire)

[3] The fact the restraint on Ms. Spicer´s liberty was minimal does not make the restraint a reasonable one. The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those consuming no more than a minute. (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 879-880 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)
PEOPLE v. SPICER, 157 Cal.App.3d 213
[Crim. No. 45072. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven. June 15, 1984.]

The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from arresting a person without probable cause.
Paff v. Kaletenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3d Cir. 2000).

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

Did someone say, "I want to fight the ticket"?

VIDEO: How to beat a ticket!

VIDEO: James Hardin - Traffic Court

VIDEO: Right to travel without a license plates featuring Carl Miller,
(A transcript of these videos would be a great learing experience and a fine contribution.)    Constitutional Law
Several other Carl Miller videos
Adjunct to Carl Miller´s presentation click here

"Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations of administrative agencies and
where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity..."
City Street Improv. Co. v. Pearson, 181 C 640, 185 P. 962
O'Neill v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P.2d 234.

Eddie Craig´s presentation on traffic stops and how to act - more ...
What The Government Doesn´t Want You To Know About Your Driver License
Eddie Craig´s presentation material. (.zip file)

When whoever stops you asks, "Do you know why I stopped you?" ...consider saying, "No, I don't."
Giving a response like, "I was over the speed limit" or "I was weaving" - even if just a guess
...not only can be an admission of a violation (and maybe not the one you were stopped for)
but an indication of KNOWING the violation - which only makes it worse.

VIDEO: How To Act If You're Stopped By the Police

Don't even consider driving while impaired!

Don't even consider attempting to control your road machine while impaired!
Remember that friends don't let friends drive drunk
For those who get this far:
The instant a citation, or warning, is issued, the motorist is free to leave!
TIP: Don't hang around and answer the usual drug interdiction questions, i.e.; "Are you carrying anything illegal?" If you have received a verbal warning or have your citation in hand and an officer continues questioning, reply with, "Gee, I thought I was free to leave and if I'm not then what are you holding me for?" The officer must explain why he is detaining you since he has already dealt with the alleged traffic violation. If there are no more violations, or [articulated] probable cause, he must let you go! This method stops you from having to go through the, "...can I search your car" process.

Brian Tracy: "Most people achieved their greatest success one step beyond what looked like their greatest failure."

A positive mental outlook and attitude is paramount, because if you think you can’t, then you can’t.
But, just because you think you can doesn't mean that you can if you don't acquire the awareness, skill and knowledge to succeed.

"Am I under arrest?"      "Am I free to go?"     ("I´m going to remain silent.")
"If I am not free to go then I must be under arrest. I do not consent. Do you have a warrant with my name on it?
What is your show of authority?"
"What is your probable / articulate-able cause for placing me under a warrant-less arrest? I do not consent."
If asked for ID, proof of insurance, or any other thing - ask,
"Gee, are you going to use this information in a criminal investigation?"
(Question: Do police ever get involved with a civil matter?)
Because, if it is to be used in any manner of [criminal] investigation then you are going to exercise your rights
especially the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not to be a witness against one´s self.
(If you haven't seen it already, see James Duane´s presentation above.)

Know your rights and be awake when dealing with police officers.
As a lobbyist against liberty a Police Officer´s worst enemy is a well informed Citizen who knows their rights!

Whatever you say - speak to the microphone.

10 Rules for Dealing with Police (Full-Length)

Demand to know if the stop is a custodial interrogation as this demands the assistance of a lawyer,
see EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U. S. 477 (1981)

Keep Your Mouth Shut

VIDEO: Traffic Court Top 5 List

As recently found on the Internet.

by what supposed...        I do not understand...

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, AVOID him.

Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998)--cannot search car in routine traffic stop!

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KNOWLES v. IOWA,/b>
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, No. 97—7597. Argued November 3, 1998 – Decided December 8, 1998

An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles guilty, based on state law giving officers authority to conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming, the State Supreme Court applied its bright-line "search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.
Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence of an unrelated offense seems remote. Pp. 3—6. 569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

State v. Gibbons, 248 App. 859 (547 S.E.2d 679) (2001).

The officer, who acting alone had stopped the driver for a seat belt violation, made no attempt to investigate the seat belt violation but rather launched into an extensive series of unrelated questions that eventually led to the discovery of illegal drugs on the driver's person. Only later did he write the seat belt citation. We upheld the suppression of the drugs, emphasizing in Presiding Judge Pope's special concurrence (joined in by six other judges and quoting from Sims extensively) the trial court's finding that " '[r]ather than ticket [the driver] or release him, the officer decided to conduct a drug investigation.' It is this continued detention that makes the questioning and request to search without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity impermissible."

See also Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)

The Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do not force an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. See Florida v. Bostick, (89-1717), 501 U.S. 429 (1991) If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are 'voluntarily' complying with their 'requests'.

Be as nice as possible, but stand firm on your rights! Read this about the Fourth & Fifth Amendments.

Never consent to a search. Don't resist, be respectful, but do not consent. One has no idea as to what the cops are looking for, or how they will interpret what they find. Most important, whatever errors the police may have made in stopping you, or in the warrant, or in the subsequent search are irrelevant if one consents!
(If you haven't seen it already, see Professor James Duane's presentation above.)

Just Say 'No' to Police Searches | FlexYourRights.org

Remember, they wouldn't be asking you
if
they didn't need your permission!

"Gee, is your request to search my car constitutionally based?"

VIDEO:
How to Refuse a Police Search

VIDEO: Police search my car Part 1 /   Part 2

VIDEO: Abby Newman: Unlawful search

VIDEO: SHOULD POLICE BE ALLOWED TO SEARCH HOMES WITHOUT A WARRANT?

All SEIZURES of PROPERTY is an IN REM action period. Luis Ewing

Brendlin v California: Expansion of Fourth Amendment Standing or the End of a Legal Fiction?

Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car

Texas Lawyer Takes On Bloodthirsty Cops

Hospital refuses to draw blood for police cases

Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot.

I have authority...

I do not understand...         I simply do not understand...

To sign or not to sign a ticket -- Texas Attorney General´s opinion items for consideration:
Opinion No. JC-0317
Re: Whether the addition of certain protest words to a traffic citation constitutes a valid promise to appear in court.
Opinion No. JC-0153
Re: Effect of certain protest words written beneath a person´s signature on a state document.

"Gee, is this ticket constitutionally valid?"

"Gee, this ticket doesn't seem to have a
[valid] statute number showing on it."

The following cases substantiate that it is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must,
when challenged, PROVE that jurisdiction exists:
McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789, 80 L.Ed. 1135
Griffin v. Mattews, 310 Supp. 341, 423, F.2d 272
Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F.2d 906
Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed. 111
Albrect v. U.S., 273 U.S. 1

"Gee, is this ticket appears to lack a competent fact witness."

Did someone say, "I want to fight the ticket" - in court?
(Remember that to fight, to argue, is to enter into 'their' jurisdiction and lose. Consider a conditional acceptance.)

Traffic Ticket Case Dismissed

Marc Stevens - Beating Civil Traffic Tickets

California Traffic Case: Memorandum in Support

Charles Sprinkler's motion

VIDEO: The Court of Public Relations

Questions for Police Officer in traffic court:

[You] "Thank you Officer {Jones} for being here today. You are properly sworn in?
[Yes] OK, please tell this court, did you file a valid cause of action against me?"
[Officer] "Yes."
[You] "OK, please tell this court just how many elements are in a valid cause of action."
You may hear, from prosecutor, something like, "Objection, calls for a legal conclusion, witness is not competent to testify."
Then you may, from judge, hear something like, "Objection sustained."
Then you say, "OK, then I move to strike the witness´s testimony." [testimony includes the ticket] "...and I move this matter dismissed."
[You] Smile ;)]
(Of course this entails the officer actually showing up (the prosecutor may try bluffing you on this, [you] just want to go on and have 'your day in court') -- if he or she doesn't - well they don't have a case then do they? {You} Smile ;) and say, "I want this matter dismissed."

Questions for Police Officer in traffic court:

[You] "In order to be a policeman you had to swear an oath to support both State and Federal Constitutions didn’t you?"
[Officer answer] "Yes."
[You] "On the day and time you approach me you were armed were you not?"
[Officer answer] "Yes."
[You] "Having sworn an oath to the constitution you attacked me by force of arms in an attempt to compel me to be a witness against myself in felony breach of your fiduciary duty pursuant to the oath you sworn."
[Officer answer] "Yes."
[You] "I move to dismiss because the officer just impeached himself under oath."

by what supposed...

DIALOG: In all matters - request [...if need be, demand] that
competent evidence of the Plaintiff´s claim be entered as evidence.

VIDEO: Impeach a witness

DIALOG:
...next time you get a 'traffic ticket'; ask the court, and the policeman (on the stand), what makes them think your automobile is a 'motor vehicle'? Ask them, since you received a 'traffic ticket', just what goods were you 'trafficing' in? And since the fine is to be paid in so many 'dollars', ask them what a "dollar" is.
Watch them look at you like you are insane.
Speak clearly and loudly, tell them that you are competent to make an informed decision and that you are not able to understand the nature and cause of the charges unless, and until, they explain their semantics. Remember, in law or life, it is not wise to go passed an undefined word or phrase.

Presumption

F.Y.I.: Believe it or not, everybody´s case is pretty much the same.
The "System" (b)leeds you to believe you are some kind of "special case."
The absurd accusations they have brought against you are NOT a "mistake."
It is a SCAM to keep you dizzy with and in fear.
Its NOT about "misunderstanding" you -- THEY ARE DOING IT DELIBERATELY!
Remember: Its their 'system' - not yours.

FOLKLORE? A man who, appeared on a criminal charge. The judge asked him if his name was "John Doe"
He replied; "My mother told me that was my name."
This statement then cannot be used to certify the identity of the defendant, as it is hearsay.
The judge looked at him a little funny, and asked, "How do you plead?"
To which the man replied,
"Judge, I'm ready to plead but first I want to know who is going to certify the charges to the court?"
That is all he said, and after the judge haggled with the clueless prosecutor a while, he cut him loose. Probably because they could not certify his identity, as he declined to testify as to his identity.

Consider being a Belligerent Claimant!

Gerry Spence HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense, a/k/a: waiting for attack.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

you ask the police officer...

Vanity

...about gas

Leaving it up to the discretion of the police to decide who is suspicious? The courts have ruled that is unconstitutional, because it allows the preferences and prejudices of an individual to make the decision.

Are we ruled by law or by men? "Gee, Officer, what was your articulate-able reason for stopping me?"

JUDGE: "I know that is what the law says in the book, but that is not what it means.
We only use the law book as a guide. In this court I make the law."

PERSECUTED: Wow! You actually have that delegated power?
Then perhaps you´ll have no difficulty entering proof of that power
into the record of this matter --
and then I'll be happy to bow down and worship you.

   Easy Reference Traffic Book Texas

(A transcription of any video presentation on this page would be great learning opportunity for the transcriber and a fine contribution to the page. Webmaster)

Sets a precedent for a large dollar return for unlawful arrest and incarceration
Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336

In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack--the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers.

NOTICE: Various presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.

(This page was last modified on: 05/02/2015 13:08:06)        Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages

AntiShyster Magazine Attention Signing the Constitution Away

Aware Belligerent Claimant

Bonds Citizenship / nationality related items

Education Graphics

Health related Admiralty related

Howard Griswold History

Jerry Kirk Jurisdiction

Law related items Lee Brobst

Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing

Money Reading Material

Reading Room Stuff

Tax matters

Truth Video

NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you.

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented.
Freedom-School.com site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the pages you visit on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the Freedom-School.com site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit: http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in Freedom-School.com search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)

Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at Freedom-School.com

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.

Presentation Copyright© 2003, 2014
All Rights Reserved
H O M E

Related

A Rarity, Colorado Governor Recognizes Electorate Motoring Rights (Aug. 11, 2005)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/coloradoconstitution11aug05.shtml

Free Newsletter

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.

Travel Information - Resource Page

U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 31

"Me, if I am here at all my presence is special as I am here as result of a force bill of pain and penalty against my Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness and my well-being; and as I am aware of [the following]:

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be 'assumed', it must be proved to exist!"
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211 P.2s 389

"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502

"Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533

I am calling into question the application of the {particular code} over myself and my property."

Backgrounder

PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE

He who has the most confidence controls the event, the people or the situation. (Think about it.)

"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

Confidence = NO negotiation!

Don't even consider driving while impaired!

Don't even consider attempting to control your road machine while impaired!

Whatever you say - speak to the microphone.

Demand to know if the stop is a custodial interrogation as this demands the assistance of a lawyer,
see EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U. S. 477 (1981)

Questions for Police Officer in traffic court:

Questions for Police Officer in traffic court:

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

Travel Information - Resource Page

U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 31

"Me, if I am here at all my presence is special as I am here as result of a force bill of pain and penalty against my Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness and my well-being; and as I am aware of [the following]:

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be 'assumed', it must be proved to exist!" Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211 P.2s 389

"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502

"Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533

I am calling into question the application of the {particular code} over myself and my property."

Backgrounder

PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE

He who has the most confidence controls the event, the people or the situation. (Think about it.)

"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

Confidence = NO negotiation!

Don't even consider driving while impaired!

Don't even consider attempting to control your road machine while impaired!

Whatever you say - speak to the microphone.

Demand to know if the stop is a custodial interrogation as this demands the assistance of a lawyer, see EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U. S. 477 (1981)

Questions for Police Officer in traffic court:

Questions for Police Officer in traffic court:

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be 'assumed', it must be proved to exist!"
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751, 211 P.2s 389

"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502

"Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533

Demand to know if the stop is a custodial interrogation as this demands the assistance of a lawyer,
see EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U. S. 477 (1981)