1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by BarnacleBob, May 31, 2017.



?

Does Driver Licensing Violate the U.N. Treaty on Human Rights?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are fooled into being a person, everything is a privilege.

    So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

    There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

    13th Amendment
    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    14th Amendment: (which defined the term “citizen of the United States”)
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Of great importance is that BOTH conditions must be met in order for a man to be a “citizen of the United States”: (1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]. If you were born in Vermont but never agreed by contract to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, then you can assert that you are a citizen of Vermont, but NOT a citizen of the United States. By doing so, you are NOT subject to any statutes (acts) passed by Congress or any Federal regulations. The “catch” is that when you walk into any court, that court makes the presumption that you are a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to that court’s jurisdiction. And under the Common Law, “a presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” – meaning that you must OBJECT in writing (and verbally, often many times) to their presumption and make them prove it, since any presumption challenged (objected to) by a man in a court must be proven by that court, as the “burden of proof” always falls upon the one making the claim. Further, you could assert that you are neither a citizen of any state nor a citizen of the United States – and both that state and the United States would have to prove otherwise.

    You become a STATE created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

    The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as “person.” Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

    The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

    The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office of a “person” — YOU.

    Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

    The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

    They have created the office of “person.”

    The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of “person,” the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls.”

    A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.” The “person” or “persona” is NOT the real man or woman; rather it is an artificial representation; a false image of the man or woman.

    The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.
     
    arminius likes this.
  2. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    I have known several individuals that have acquired the MSO on their vehicles & they travel around without DL & tags... One guy paid cash for an RV and received his MSO. Thats his title and he travels all around the U.S. w/o DL & plates, etc.. The same fella never pays for U.S.P. postage either, he did his research and now has franking privileges.

    One guy I knew built a race car from the ground & frame up in his home shop. One night he took it for a test drive on the public street when he pulled over by a LEO and given citations for not possessing registration, tag & insurance. His case was dismissed on motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

    A d.l., registration, plates, insurance, wearing seat belts, etc., etc., etc. are only applicable to vehicles that possess a state title. Remember there are two faces to every state, a public side & a private corporate side. The states DHSMV is organized & a product of the states corporate commercial side, hence as the holder of the MSO is a COMMERCIAL ENTITY operating in COMMERCE. Thus every vehicle that possesses a state title is a registered commercial vehicle and subject to the promulgated corporate legislative statutory enactments, and the rules & regulations of DHSMV Enforcement Agency.

    Traffic court is not a judicial power court, but a PRIVATE ad hoc lex merchatoria (law merchant) equity contract dispute. This is not a court of record, its a private contract dispute, the so called judge sits as a private dispute arbitrator. The owner & holder of the original MSO (the private state) is accusing the operator/driver of the vehicle of violating the certain terms of the agreement & PRIVILEGE they have extended (speeding, reckless operations, DUI, no seat belt, etc.). Traffic court is a private contract dispute fraudulently disguised as a public legal proceeding....

    The state has a compelling interest to prevent the general public from learning how these scams operate. If the public begin demanding the RETURN of the MSO's by voiding the registration & colorable title on the grounds of fraud & deception the state would lose regulatory authority & subject matter jurisdiction over the property. Secondly, research suggests that the states have hypothecated the MSO's as collateral for bond flotations... the MSO's may very well be highly leveraged & encumbered to private lending entities. Thirdly, the states would realize a tremendous loss of revenues & cash flow if they lose subject matter jurisdiction over the MSO's. Fourthly, every MSO returned reduces the states collateral position forcing the state to pay down the loan by the same amount. Every recreational vehicle sold that doesnt receive a colorable state title via the MSO swap represents lost credit & income to the state, counties & municiple .govs.

    If your "charged" (a commercial term) with a (contract agreement) privilege violation traffic offense, start carpet dropping the PRIVILEGE bomb while threatening "recorded" testimony @ discovery for the public record. Oh the horror! LMAO....
     
    arminius, Bigjon and Cigarlover like this.
  3. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,859
    Likes Received:
    2,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
  4. Cigarlover

    Cigarlover Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,455
    Likes Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So how would you go about getting the original MSO back? Just for shits and giggles I would give it a shot.. I have a car that isn't registered and will probably sell it anyway but in the meantime it would be interesting to give this a try. The car was registered at one time so I do hold a title to it but would gladly try to trade it for the MSO. Once I go through the process I can then do it on my currently registered vehicles.
     
  5. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    How do you arrange the return of the original "unencumbered" MSO? Good question? A question I have been pondering for about 3 yrs now. You could possibly petition the state for its return, if they refuse you may seek the Courts to compel its return. The real sticking point is that the state possesses it, they are THE owner, you would be presenting a claim as the rightful owner, BUT the rightful owner would possess the original MSO. To support your claim you would be in the position of proving the state gained possession of the MSO illegally via trickery, fraud & deception, etc.. Another problem arises if your not the original buyer of the vehicle. Remember the state will claim the original buyer VOLUNTARILY transfered the MSO to the state seeking to limit his/her risk & promote safety on the roads thru regulation, rules, statutes & the enforcement thereof. IOW the original buyer transfered his MSO in return for the PRIVILEGE of state protections via regulation & enforcement. When the original buyer sold the vehicle you VOLUNTARILY accepted for value in a transaction the transfer of the colorable state title to your legal fiction. The colorable title is not the vehicle, the state title certificate references the vehicle but it is actually the certificate of certified evidence that the transfer of the user "privilege" has been authenticated & recorded. The real title, the MSO has not moved even once no matter how many times the state "certificate of title" has been transfered.

    Lets say your the second owner of the privilege and now you seek the return of the MSO. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... the state as the MSO owner can claim you voluntarily agreed to accepting the privilege for value with all of the prior conditions offered by the first buyer that transfered the MSO to the state, you signed the state title in acceptance thereof, now you seek to jump the conditions in dishonor... Why would the state return the original MSO they now fully control? They would not... Next to prove your case of fraud and theft by deception you must now bring the original buyer into the case and he/she must testify as a complaining party that they were duped into transfering the MSO to the state... If the state refuses to return the valuable MSO in exchange for the worthless state certificate of title it would be a long shot in court to force its return, especially if your not the original transferror. There are many other legal issues that may or can arise when attempting to secure the return of an allodial title.... Remember thats the beauty & design of holding and possessing allodial title, its almost unchallengeable.

    The best means of acquiring an MSO is to pay cash for a brand new vehicle or find a vehicle that has never been issued a state certificate of title & registration (needle in haystack). Pay cash for new untitled vehicle & demand the MSO from seller. You may be able to find a used foreign vehicle with an MSO & import it. Or build a kit or reproduction car and create your own MSO. If you build your own car, you cannot use a previously registered production frame. Each production frame has hidden identification numbers tied to the the original V.I.N..

    Nowadays most states require auto salvage companies to collect & send the state the certificates of title to the cars sent to be crushed & scrapped. When these colorable titles are received by the state, I suspect the MSO is destroyed & the recorded privilege is removed from the states DHSMV inventory. If this is correct you may be able to use such a frame & other parts as the MSO owner has voluntarily relinquished legal ownership, interest & all claims to the property.
     
    arminius and Cigarlover like this.
  6. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,859
    Likes Received:
    2,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    So I got about half way though your first paragraph BarnacleBob and the thought in my head is MOS can be fought off like a lien against the title.

    prove it or lose it.

    come on.....think about it.

    edit: shit dam meat bees are flying.
     
  7. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    I think the real ? is "can the state provide the original MSO if summoned to do so"? Are they capable of proving they hold & possess the allodial MSO title? The state issued "certificate" of title is merely evidence that an MSO once existed, but its not the MSO. If they cannot produce the original MSO then they are reduced to a mere "claim" of ownership & contractural jurisdiction over the property which then is very challengable. The colorable certifcate of title may possibly then be employed to challenge ownership. That said, look at the top of the certificate of title, it is styled just the same as an FRN or any other written contract agreement, the owner & issuers name appears first on the document. In the case of a state certificate of title, the name of the state appears first at the very top as the owner. How do you successfully challenge this form & custom style is unknown to me.... Best I can tell once the MSO falls into the hands of the state, most of the exits are closed shut concerning it being returned to the market.
     
    michael59 likes this.
  8. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,859
    Likes Received:
    2,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Nope...Me thinks it can be challenged just like a lien. But, one must know the process that captures the thing. Kind of like that link area51/50 posted. one of the reason Miller went down in flames is because he had no "COLOR" no kitty cat, not about that. No color of law for his averments/ challenges.

    tuff to prove the gold is hidden when you know what Island it is on but not what coast.

    edit: sorry me be gone to check the guy lines....yeah just ate...out of here.....
     
  9. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I see the fountains of misinformation in this thread continue to flow.

    When dealerships receive new vehicles the dealership does NOT put them under title. TD dealership gets the certificate of origin from the manufacturer in lieu of putting its name on title.

    Once the dealership sells the new vehicle the CO is used to put the purchaser on title. From that point on anytime the vehicle is sold to someone else it's the TITLE that transfers ownership.

    The CO is essentiall irrelevant to ownership once the new vehicle is sold for the first time and someone goes on title.

    This has absolutely ZERO to do with the fact that driving is a PRIVILEGE and is certainly NOT a fundamental right as a few confused and misguided individuals have tried to insist.
     
  10. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    You DO NOT know what ur talking about! Period, end of story....

    So please inform us as to where & why the so called Privilege arises. Tell us how the right to use the roads for personal recreation & business was transformed & transmuted into a privilege!
     
    arminius likes this.
  11. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    The courts have ruled that driving is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right - - I provided you with the case law from the Miller v Reed ruling. Did you even bother to read it? The court ruling could not have been more explicit.

    Poor, misinformed, Miller thought he could use the same feeble argument that you're trying to use. And he was completely overruled on the matter.


    "The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.  The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right."

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html


    Bottom line, my friend - - driving is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a fundamental right.
     
  12. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    4,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    D-R-I-V-I-N-G means you are engaged in commerce. I'm sure I'm wasting my time as I really don't think you even read these threads.

    Lieyers make their "living" off word games. Driver, motor vehicle, operator, operating all have specific legal meanings that differ from common vernacular.
     
    arminius likes this.
  13. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    You didn't read the case, did you? Educate yourself, my friend - - that's the only way you're going to have an awareness of what's going on. Because the Miller v Reed case concerns the right to interstate travel and had absolutely ZERO to do with engaging in commerce.

    Here's a few tidbits for you to pay particular attention:

    "Instead, because Miller cannot legally drive a car unless his driver's license is renewed, he argues that he has been deprived of an essential mode of transportation.   Emphasizing the importance of automobiles in modern society, Miller contends that his right to interstate travel encompasses a fundamental right to drive a car."



    "We conclude that by denying Miller a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself-the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel."



    "In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license."

     
  14. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    4,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL Clearly you're the one that needs to educate yourself...friend. You keep re-posting evidence of your own lack of comprehension skills.

    At this point I'm a little embarrassed...for you.
     
    TRYNEIN, BarnacleBob and Bigjon like this.
  15. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Your avoiding & deflecting my question to you! Most of us on this thread understand & agree with the judiciary that the term & definition of motor vehicle is a legal & jural term denoting & signifying commerce & commercial use. Further we recognize that commerce is a "PRIVILEGE" that is regulateable & taxable by the legislature & enforced via the police power, etc.. "Privileges" & the use thereof are taxable & regulateable while constitutional & inherrent rights are not.

    In the Miller case the courts ruled that Miller was not treated any different than any other DHSMV applicant, therefore there was no violation of 14A or due process. I have previously disposed of the Miller argument & agreed in toto with the courts opinion . Your position employing the Miller case is a fallacious error, and without standing in the subject matter now discussed.

    Since you have rejected the logic & reasoning provided that explains exactly how & why the MSO transmuted & transfered into a State Title as secured party creates the so called PRIVILEGE & arises as a constitutional source of authority to justify the use tax & regulations on vehicles that ARE NOT used or employed in commerce for profit, but rather strictly for personal recreation, travel & biz affairs.

    Please inform us just exactly how this PRIVILEGE (excise use tax) is legally, lawfully & constitutionally exercised by the state against automobiles & travelers not used in the course of commerce for profit can be justified to lay, collect & regulate noncommercial vehicles. (Note: excise on using their issued title, hence their property)

    Thus far you continue to pound sand saying that the operation of an automobile for noncommercial purposes is a privilege. However you have failed to provide the legal, lawful, constitutional & jural sophistry that justifies transforming & transmiting a lawful constitutional right into the PRIVILEGE.

    According to you & your silence on this question, one can only presume its a "privilege" because the legal wizards, lackeys & stooges have publicly announced that it is. Most state legislatures however in their statutory schemes remain silent on the use of such verbiage. What we do observe is that it is the states DHSMV & police power that employ such verbiage to justify the compulsory collection of registration & DL taxes & the regulatory enforcement via police powers. Yet they, like you, do not & will not announce exactly how the privilege (excise use tax) & enforcement thereof arises as a source of administrative or constitutional law.

    It is a well established maxim of law that a benefit conferred & accepted creates a duty & obligation to the beneficiary. It is also well established that the benefit conferred upon the beneficiary must be accepted knowingly, intentionally & most importantly voluntarilly to create a binding legal & lawful agreement. Compelled Benefits received & accepted due to implied or real threats, compulsion & violence are not accepted VOLUNTARILY, & therefore possess no standing in a civil or criminal judicial administrative or power court.

    Again please inform us just exactly how the acceptance of the "BENEFIT" creates the taxable & regulateable commercial PRIVILEGE. It is observably axiomatic & self evident that most vehicles are NOT being used or employed for commercial purposes in the transport of passengers and/or cargo for profit, hence the "PRIVILEGE" of legislative taxing, operating & regulating commerce is nonsquitor for the majority of vehicles traveling & using the roads for personal noncommercial use.

    Please explain!
     
    arminius and Bigjon like this.
  16. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
  17. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,008
    Likes Received:
    3,769
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    I've been reading up on drivers licenses and how they started. Apparently by 1935 only 39 States had drivers licenses, with very few of those requiring any type of test at all. So much for it having been started as a safety thing. Although that was the stated reason for them.

    My question? How do you create something in the name of safety and then completely ignore safety while implementing said system that was created to......increase safety?


    BTW, South Dakota was last in 1954.


    Edited to add:...and can it be true that only 29 States currently require driver education?

    https://www.openbay.com/blog/compare-drivers-ed-requirements-by-state/
    Only 29 states require that drivers with no prior experience behind the wheel take driver’s education courses.

    Some states don’t require any driver’s education courses at all for first-time drivers, instead leaving that decision up to the driver and his or her parents, if they’re underage.

    Again, so much for the safety angle.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  18. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    I posted these earlier and they state in plain English the difference between Driving and traveling



    "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen."
    Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27

    "Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the highway for public purposes."
    Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.

    The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. ..."
    Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872

    "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)

    “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”
    Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

    "One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act."
    Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452

    "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
    Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.833


    "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 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
     
    arminius likes this.
  19. edsl48

    edsl48 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless I am mistaken Congress declared that all US citizens had the right to travel on all highways and navigable waterways in the late 1700s. Since that time, in all probability under the guise of public safety, traveling has somehow been twisted into being a privilege rather than a right. I swear anytime I hear the term "public safety" I know that another right will be eliminated along with a new set of fees for enforcement are on the horizon.

    Additionally regarding driving being a privilege let a politician try to eliminate all driving "privileges" in a given area and see how far that gets them. Divide and conquer while preaching public safety after instilling fear in the public is the key here. Meanwhile here in Illinois illegal immigrants are allowed to get driver's licences... some privilege.
     
  20. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,008
    Likes Received:
    3,769
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    That people have encumbered themselves by making certain declarations and signing certain statements, plays a big role in answering your question.
     
  21. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    4,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just lieyers utilizing their bag of tricks to get people to consent to impaired contracts. I've worked to eliminate the word "person" from my vocabulary when referencing a flesh and blood human, but eliminating the words "driving" and "operating" are even more difficult. Really disgusting that these word games are necessary.

    When you try to explain this mess to other adults and parents, you're met with disbelief followed by apathy. It's simply not important enough to look into for them, so they'll go right on brainwashing and helping to enslave their own children. What a sad state of affairs.
     
    TRYNEIN and arminius like this.
  22. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,008
    Likes Received:
    3,769
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    That's because we're so far in to this, that there is no living memory remaining of anything else.
     
    TRYNEIN and solarion like this.
  23. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    UN declaration of human rights, article 13:

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    If one is not allowed to choose how to travel, one might argue that freedom has been limited. Limited freedom via taxation & regulation is not freedom of movement!

    The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

    ONLY Congress is authorized by the Constitution to regulate commerce among the several states. The states are prohibited from regulating commerce amongst themselves. The DL, registration scheme & the DHSMV compacts amongst the several states appear to be unconstitutional & a usurpation of Constitutionally delegated powers under the commerce clause.

    “While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.” --Miller v Reed

    The several states are prohibited from regulating interstate commerce, and per the SCOTUS decision in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) Congress has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce destined for interstate commerce.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/317/111

    One could claim to be under Congressional authority & immune via the commerce clause from intrastate state regs while traveling with an interstate destination to one of the several states. Yet this argument is moot... which proves that the DL, registration & PRIVILEGE scam is much deeper than mere commerce.

    I contend that the basis of the scheme & its PRIVILEGE has nothing to do with commerce & everything to do with the voluntary application for "CERTIFICATE" of title.

    certificate - Legal Definition
    1. An official or sworn document that formally attests something to be true. Also called certification.
    2. A formal document certifying some interest, permission, right, or status granted to its bearer. (my emphasis added)
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/certificate

    It is the reciprocation of surrendering the MSO for a CERTIFICATE of title issued by the state that creates the states compelling interest in the property, subject matter jurisdiction & therein creates the PRIVILEGE.

    privilege - Legal Definition
    An advantage that is not enjoyed by everyone; a special exemption, immunity, or legal right granted to a person or a class of persons; an exception. (my emphasis added)

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/privilege

    What is this granted legal right & exemption that creates the PRIVILEGE that requires a DL & registration etc.? Its the privilege & benefit of using their colorable issued CERTIFICATE of legal title in lieu of the MSO.

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/of

    Its much like voluntarily applying for a SSI #, you receive a benefit which creates the duty & obligation to pay the tax & follow the rules. Its their SSI # not yours... they are however allowing you to use their account #.

    It is a well settled matter of constitutional & federal law that "Congress controls what Congress creates."

    http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/33-theory-of-plenary-congressional-control.html

    By extension the same applies to the legislatures of the several states. The state legislatures possess pleniary control over everything it creates for as long as it meets the standards & requirement of 14A.

    Who created & issued the CERTIFICATE of title? Answer: The state legislature via authorizing the rule making & police powers of its administrative creation the DHSMV! Who controls the title & by extension the use of it as property once a title is issued? Answer: The legislature & its administrative agency!

    "The citizens power to contract is unlimited" --Hale v. Henkel, #340, (1906)

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/201/43.html

    Did the state coerce or force you legally or by gun point to trade the allodial MSO for their at law colorable "Certificate" of title" evidencing that an original MSO was issued on the property by the manufacturer? Or was the MSO freely traded for a state certificate of title?

    Was there fraud, deception, & coersion by the state involved in the transaction of converting the MSO into a legislatively controlled certificate of title. Was there equal value exchanged? Does the transferrer possess a full understanding of the benefits, duties & obligations of the transfer agreement? Has or did the state intentionally hide or misrepresent the transaction as compulsory? Would a fully informed person knowlegeable of all of the facts, duties, obligations, etc. enter into such a voluntary transaction & agreement???[/U]
     

    Attached Files:

    TRYNEIN likes this.
  24. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    2,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now

    they're only necessary because of lying lawyer morons who use words they define to create situations against the rest of us that lead to funding for themselves, as is only too obvious in this case, but the positive side is that this thread is rich in helpful information secondary to attempting to institute reality over fraud.

    this is the whole IMHO reason for the public policy democracy, and the fraudulent control that comes from it...
     
    TRYNEIN and solarion like this.
  25. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since the constitution makes no mention about regulations or laws concerning driving or motor vehicles so that power falls to the individual states as per the 10th amendment:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    Each state can implement whatever rules or regulations they want concerning driving provided they're not violation of fundamental rights set out by the constitution. And for more than 100 years no court in America has ruled against requirement of a valid drivers licence in order to operate a motor vehicle for business or for personal use.

    Driving - - for business or for personal - - is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked or refused if you're unwilling or unable to meet the requirements for driving set forth by the state.

    It is illegal to drive - - for business or personal - - without a valid licence in every state in America. No court in America has ever ruled that this infringes upon the fundamental right to travel.

    People who can't manage to follow traffic rules and piss tanks who can't manage to drive sober have their PRIVILEGE to drive - - for business or for personal - - suspended or revoked every single day in America. And once again, no court in America has ever ruled that this infringes upon the fundamental right to travel.

    That's because driving - - for business or for personal - - is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a fundamental right.
     
  26. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Traffic laws of each state define what constitutes a "driver" and a "vehicle". The 10th amendment gives them the power to do so. From the Illinois Vehicle Code:


    Sec. 1-115.8. Drive. To drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.

    Sec. 1-116. Driver. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

    Sec. 1-146. Motor vehicle. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, low-speed electric bicycles, and low-speed gas bicycles.

    Sec. 1-217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway ... except devices moved by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles ...


    Sorry about your luck my friend, but those are the definitions set out by state laws - - not by some kook trying to formulate their own "definition".
     
  27. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    4,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Goal post movement detected.

    I believe someone just gave up on defending the actions of the supreme geriatric lieyers and moved on to defending the actions of a particular State legislature. The morally and financially bankrupt clown show in Springfield, IL at that. LOL

    Yes, defend your oppressors at all cost. Freedom is such a hassle after all.
     
    TRYNEIN likes this.
  28. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    2,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    note how he uses what you said, restates it in his defined legaleze language, created to be used by his ilk, and uses that reasoning to club you over the head with his "logic".
     
    solarion and TRYNEIN like this.
  29. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    No court in America - - and that includes the supreme court - - has ever ruled that people should be permitted to drive without a valid driver's licence.

    No court in America - - and that includes the supreme court - - has ever ruled that refusing or revoking a persons PRIVILEGE of driving infringes on their right to travel.

    You can shake your fist and stomp you feet as much as you want, but the fact remains driving is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a fundamental right.
     
  30. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    I sure as heck would not give any validity to the UN within the borders of these 50 united States!!!!!



    Let's take a look at our criminal governments definition of this word 'PERSON'


    U.S. CodeTitle 1Chapter 1 § 1

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”



    A
    nd if we re-arrange the words in order to make it easier to read....(especially for some on this board)

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals....unless the context indicates otherwise


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    PEOPLE or CITIZEN (person) WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

    http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm

     
  31. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    I'm not the one who made the rulings or set out the laws - - I'm just referencing them, my friend.

    I've asked the resident kooks to cite a decision from any court in America that rules a person has the right to drive without a valid driver's licence, or that being denied the PRIVILEGE of driving violates a fundamental right - - but none have been able to do so. Hint: that's because there's never been such a ruling.
     
  32. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    Exactly,

    I know he's going take my post about PERSON's and ...See, that's what I've been trying say this whole time but you guys wouldn't listen to me...
     
  33. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Please cite any court decision which ruled that a person - - or a citizen - - could drive in America without a valid driver's licence.
     
  34. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    4,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...and you still cannot see the glaring holes in your arguments here? How?

    Language itself has been weaponized against the people. Wake up and smell the coffee...friend.

    It's difficult to even effectively describe what a flesh and blood man or woman of the land does with his or her own car without using the words "drive" or "operate". This is absolutely being done intentionally to deceive people into consenting to impaired contracts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    TRYNEIN likes this.
  35. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,008
    Likes Received:
    3,769
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Ummm, post #98 seems to be full of them.
    ...and now that your question here has been answered, (you're welcome btw), we've been missing you over in the bitcoin thread. lol
     
    TRYNEIN likes this.
  36. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Reference Post #106.

    The definitions of what constitutes a "driver" or "driving" or a "motor vehicle" is clearly defined in the traffic code of each state. You may not like the definitions or agree with them, but those are the rules of the nation until you or someone else is able to convince the courts otherwise and win a ruling that holds driving is a fundamental right and there's no grounds for requiring a valid drivers licence to operate a motor vehicle for personal use.

    Sorry about your luck.
     
  37. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,315
    Likes Received:
    4,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There you go again.

    Wait, so are you saying it's the law or the traffic code? Then you call them "the rules of the nation" ...which means what exactly?

    We all recognize that the federal regime uses two clauses in the Constitution to shoe horn their way into every situation. Those being the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause. That being the case, it should come as no surprise that lieyers have pretended that utilizing one's own car to exercise one's own Constitutionally protected liberties should fall under the overbearing federal regime's authority to regulate commerce. What gets left out is the interstate portion of that and the fact that people utilizing their own cars for personal enjoyment are not necessarily engaged in commerce. That part is simply assumed along with jurisdiction and the people have been so thoroughly dumbed down by attending indoctrination camps called skools that they don't even realize what is happening to them.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  38. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    Nice try...

    I have posted them twice, but you seem to lack the necessary brain cells to understand the judges words.

    Now, if you're stupid enough to think that these judges would use the 'SPECIFIC' language that you are looking for....well.....
     
  39. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    You didn't take the time to read any of those cases in Post #98, did you? And that's why I've stressed you have to educate yourself instead of just relying blindly on the cut and paste of a few snippets from some kook.

    Hendricks v Maryland - - the court ruled AGAINST Hendrick and upheld the finding of guilt and subsequent fines for driving without having procured the certificate of registration required by 133 of the motor vehicle law.

    People v Horton - - totally unrelated to the topic of driving without a valid drivers licence or that driving is a fundamental right. Horton was charged with possession of marijuana and the case centers around search and seizure.

    Escobedo v State - - is regarding due process. Escobedo's PRIVILEGE of driving was suspended following an accident and he claimed he wasn't afforded a hearing prior to losing his PRIVILEGE.

    Do yourself a favour and read the rest of the cases cited in Post #98 to educate yourself on the matter.
     
  40. Area51

    Area51 Silver Miner Seeker

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Until there's a precedent setting case ruling people can drive - - for personal use or commercial use - - without a valid driver's licence, it's illegal in every state to do so.

    Until that time, driving - - for personal or commercial - - remains a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked or refused and NOT a fundamental right.
     

Share This Page