• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

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

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

LetterG

Outsider
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Messages
17
Likes
19
Location
Not Sure
What I actually mean is, "If my son or wife is in college, at work, out at the local grocery store, or just headed to their home, and He or she becomes a victim of assault or a serious crime, I would like to think it's a great thing if the offender can be identified through a Driver License or vehicle regristration. Can we expect everyone to be honest or do the right thing? Of course we can't. A lot of people are killed by LEO's daily because of putting themselves in a stupid situation. Majority of the time that LEO doesn't know who you are. His safety has to come first because he has a family also. The Game Warden that wrote me the only citation I've ever had, knew me. He didn't even take my firearm from me that was fully loaded. We walked out of the woods together and carried on a conversation. He just said man I'm sorry but you know the deal. I replied, "yes i do, it's going to cost me some money." He knew me and knew I wasnt a harden criminal that would attempt to take his life over something I knew was wrong. They don't always know who you are. We can't expect someone to hire, insure, and retire our children if they are fighting the Police, driving drunk, stealing, assaulting, and lack the responsibility ever 4 years to renew their DL's for 26$. A company or business on the scale that is considered a decent career path can't insure them. They are forced to rely on someone else or work else where that is only slavery with no benefits. Can I expect you to work hard and do what you are supposed to do, if you are not paying your bills or acting like a fool?? I think a lot of times we get mad at the wrong people. Its always easier to bitch or point your finger. The responsible thing is to do your part. If people would do that, myself and others wouldn't have the IRS and other government agencies taking my money or expecting more from me because of unemployable retards that are simply a thorn in society. People breed and raise problems, instead of raising their child to do their part and be responsible. So, "they" are forced to take from the person that is doing what's right. We have to many people expecting a handout. Because they have never been taught. Most people that bitch about a law, is the very person forcing the system to create that law or no one would even be on the topic.. Our children will suffer for everything we lack. My son will have to go through all the Good and Bad, but it's a lot better when you do the right thing. Unfortunately he will have to pay for the ignorance of people who waste their life on stupidity and blow opportunity. He will be taxed for it the way I have and the few, that do the right thing so they can offer their family a good life. We can sure complicate life, if we are not careful. None of us are perfect but if you can't own your choices, you are in trouble and will just become another person eventually we have to feed. I see people in the shop I work in part time on a daily basis. Miserable lives and full of bad choices. Begging for money or forced to live somewhere because they can't make it on their own.. Majority of them began bucking the system, that led to their first trip to jail and the majority are consumed by Meth, Heroin, LSD, Cocaine, or serious Alcohol addictions. But its always someone else's fault. Normally the LEO's. We have to be be willing to accept the outcome. Most just can't. Go live in some of the countries I've lives or served in for months and years at a time, you'll beg to come back I promise you that. Then again, that's part of the problem, most don't know what it's really like. They've been to busy being a problem rather than being a solution. I've heard it called Generational Curses before, I call it stupidity passed down from a ignorant person. Be thankful our LEO's have the restraints they do in the U.S. most places I've been, they will kick your ass and then ask questions after you regain consciousness.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
cool submit and comply. That is how we got here.

edit: what was it that guy said? Oh"he who would give up freedom for security deserves neither." was some blowhard from years ago I thinks.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,471
Likes
7,734
Funny how going along to get along seems to require more and more incursions into your privacy and liberties all the time. Weird how that works.

Perhaps today we just suck it up, bow and grovel before our so called public servants, and tomorrow we ask if we can please leave our sustainable development compound.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Funny how going along to get along seems to require more and more incursions into your privacy and liberties all the time. Weird how that works.

Perhaps today we just suck it up, bow and grovel before our so called public servants, and tomorrow we ask if we can please leave our sustainable development compound.
Naw, we pay for the privileges they let us have.
Once a right turned to privilege is now a millstone. bear the yoke of burden that has been placed upon you by yourself in thinking a fiction has more to say than you. It is a wonder that, that 1/3 of the people actually got that 1776 war accomplished as it would not happen today.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
@ LetterG... there is only one sovereign in the united States since the passage of the 14th & 17th Amendments, the Federal .gov. Any person natural or otherwise that claims they are a sovereign citizen in a courtroom deserves exactly whatever the judge dishes out to them. A sovereign holds property in allodium, a sovereign possesses the ability to defend himself & his property from persons, corps, foreign states, etc., a sovereign can declare laws & create money.... etc., etc., etc..

In this nation the 3 branches of the body politic declares that we are a nation of laws as guided by the federal & state constitutions operating under rule of law... when ipso facto we are actually under fascist corporate law of rule. The peoples dejure "common law" & common law rights & remedies have been defacto replaced with a foreign "fourth branch" ministerial statutory "law merchant" jurisdiction. ALL crimes are now considered operating in commerce

Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime. -- 27 CFR 72.11

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/72.11

The dejure state & federal constitutions only recognize & authorize three judicial jurisdictions: law (common), equity (contract disputes & enforcement) & maritime-admiralty (martime commerce). No other judicial proceedings are enumerated in the organic law.

The administrative ministerial statutory jurisdiction is "PRIVATE" legislative commercial law that operates in a private corporate capacity outside of the enumerated written & unwritten constitutions. It operates privately outside of the constitutional LIMITATIONS on .gov power & authority. The so called judiciary are private federal Article 1 legislative commercial courts, while the several states & their courts operate in the same defacto capacity.

The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation & Constitutions were expressly written to place limitations on .gov authority & power, as time & political experience has shown that one group of men would capture the machinery of government & use it to exploit the multitudes. The use of private lex merchatoria (law merchant) was the battering ram used in Europe against the masses.

When .govs of every kind assume the role of operating in commerce, they are in theory & at law not immune to the public laws, hence they are no different than a private citizen. The problem arises when they employ unconstitutional private legislated commercial law & the public police power to enforce their PRIVATE business models to enrich themselves. This was the exact reason that the colonists in 1776 rebelled against the king!

"That all (political) power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; -- Art. I, sec. 1 Tenn. Const. (my emphasis added)

"That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." -- Art. I, sec 2 Tenn Const. (my emphasis added)

"The right to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice system." Art. I, sec. 35b Tenn Const. (my emphasis added)

"The Legislature shall pass no law authorizing imprisonment for debt in civil cases." -- Art. 1, sec 18 Tenn Const.

https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Tennessee_Constitution

Throughout the history of antiquity servitude, slavery, servants & slaves alike have always in & at law been "units of commerce" that were traded, sold & bartered as merchants then masters property. In Rome & other nations there were 2 bodies of law, one for the freemen & one for the slaves. The slaves were beholden to the Roman civil statute law! (HINT, HINT).

Since all crimes are commercial crimes as exhibited @ 27 CFR 72.11 it means that any person charged or accused of a crime is also a slavish unit of commerce...

I certainly DO NOT want a future for my children & grandchildren where .gov rule, regulation & law making is unlimited & at the mercy of the dictates of political graft & corruption by the greed & avarice of billionaire CEO's & financiers, insurance companies, Wall Street investors & bankers, etc., etc. etc.... Either we have the right to enjoy unlimted liberty & freedom or we do not! We cannot survive as exploitable half loot & half ryot at the mercy of legislative puppets being controlled by the will of men hiding in the shadows.... Either we have operational constitutions or we do not! One cannot be half pregnant, nor can one be half free!!!

Heck we dont even own anything, everything we possess or will possess in the future has been hypothecated as collateral for the phony money & credit flotations!!! To wit:

mortgage of the people.jpg


Its sad to admit but Americans have been reduced to Ryot tenants living in Ryot tenures on the land:

RYOT. In India. A peasant, subject, or tennant of house or land. Wharton

RYOT-TENURE. A system of land-tenure, where the government takes the place of landowners and collects the rent by means of tax gatherers. The farming is done by poor peasants, (ryots), who find the capital, so far there is any, and also do the work. The system exists in Turkey, Egypt, Persia, and other Eastern countries, and in a modified form in British India. After slavery, it is accounted the worst of all systems, because the government can fix the rent at what it pleases, and it is difficult to distinguish between rent and taxes. ~~Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition (4th ed), page 1499

Sad to say... but there it is! And what I find most disturbing is that the majority will protest, fight & even die to maintain their servitude... its as if free will & liberty with its concurrent duties & responsibilities have departed from their consciousness replaced by socialism & the risk free shit mentality.

The patsy and the culprit

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1496556180.php

3 QUESTIONS YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK ABOUT LIFE IN A SICK SOCIETY

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/29/3-questions-youre-not-supposed-ask-life-sick-society/
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
ahhhwhaaa. how refreshing. I was going to send a thing in the mail, and I am still going to but not as I wanted to do. I just whished all this crap was out in the open. Like a goes to B and B->C and on and on....but it is not that way. It is always a gleaning to get the measure and one is not ever sure the glean will measure out. So it is Don Quixote and windmills till one dispatches the thing and then the owner comes for damages.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,224
No Plates, Trooper stops everyone but me, see Why?
Posted: 3rd September 2013 by admin in for hire, Motor Vehicle,Registration, Travel Rights
0
This week I drove 2000 miles with friends from Nebraska to Idaho.

I watched diligently the whole trip, only seen one trooper car on the way up and one on the way back, not one was making a stop at the time.
Now that same week I drove between Omaha, Nebraska to Lincoln, Nebraska, 90 miles round tripe and I seen 5 to 7 troopers, and several were in the process of issuing citations.
Now the same week I drove 10 miles into Iowa, and saw 2 troopers, both issuing citations.
Now think about it, Nebraska is the only state that has a unicameral verses a bicameral, for what they claim is more efficient, but the truth is that it is much easier to make a police state with only one legislative body to get laws passed through.

Police stopping people 100 times more than in other states is a sign of a “police state”.

On 9-2-2013 I was traveling out of Nebraska and into Iowa on a moderate high traffic highway where the state troopers frequent.
They love to sting people for no seatbelts, expired plates, you name it the stop you for it.

I was in my RV, no plates, no state registration, I do have liability insurance at 68$ a month. I put in 100$ of fuel a month and 68$ for insurance, what a rip.

Well a trooper watched me go by as he was just done writing a citation, I speed up to 75 in a 65 hoping to get to a safe place to stop if he did pull me over, he must of went 120 miles an hour to catch me and then he pulled up to my left side and looked me over, for about 30 seconds, as I backed down to 65 MPH, then he got close behind me for about one minute, then he ‘jurkedly’ pulled to my right side and looked me over, all this in about a quarter mile of driving, then he just slowly pulled over on the side of the road and stopped.

This is what my plate said:

Private Household Good,
Non-Commercial Use,
Not For Hire.
402-957-2853 Paul John Hansen

If he did pull me over I would show him that my recorder is in my hand.
Then ask what determination of probable cause did you witnessed to pull me over?
He will say no plates.
I’ll then say what evidence do you have that this vehicle is a type or in a use that requires a plate in his jurisdiction?
I’ll then say that I believe that the United States Code and Court Opinions only allow him to detain me for 10 minutes then he must issue begin issuing me a citation, arrest me, or let me go.
After 10 minutes I will demand that I be allowed to exercise my liberty to leave, and if he refuses. I will tell him that I am making an arrest upon him and demand that he only Identify himself in writing to me so that I can serve him a summons to appear in a community court to answer for this stop.

You see no state employee, of all 50 states, has authority to stop a vehicle for not having plates unless they have probable cause that it is involved in commerce at that time, in a state jurisdiction, or causing a disturbance, or the operator is doing a crime, or reasonably believed to have done a crime.

Paul John Hansen 9-3-2013

Click HERE to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,224
Automobile v. Motor Vehicle, per state written law.
Posted on February 13, 2017 by Paul John Hansen
2006 Nebraska Revised Statutes – § 60-3,184 — Motor vehicle tax and fee; terms, defined.
Section 60-3,184
Motor vehicle tax and fee; terms, defined.

For purposes of sections 60-3,184 to 60-3,191:

(1) Automobile means passenger cars, trucks, utility vehicles, and vans up to and including seven tons;

(2) Motor vehicle means every motor vehicle and trailer subject to the payment of registration fees or permit fees under the laws of this state and every cabin trailer registered for operation upon the highways of this state;

((Hansen comments – Note the automobile is not subject to registration, or permit fees.)))

(3) Motor vehicle fee means the fee imposed upon motor vehicles under section 60-3,190;

(4) Motor vehicle tax means the tax imposed upon motor vehicles under section 60-3,185; and

(5) Registration period means the period from the date of registration pursuant to section 60-392 to the first day of the month following one year after such date.

Source:


  • Laws 2005, LB 274, § 184
~Revised Statutes Supplement, 2006


>>>

2006 Nebraska Revised Statutes – § 60-509 — Automobile liability policy; corporate surety bond;effective when; limits; notice of accident; duty of insurance company or surety company.
Section 60-509
Automobile liability policy; corporate surety bond; effective when; limits; notice of accident; duty of insurance company or surety company.

No such policy or bond shall be effective under section 60-508 unless issued by an insurance company or surety company authorized to do business in this state, except that if such motor vehicle was not registered in this state or was a motor vehicle which was registered elsewhere than in this state at the effective date of a policy or bond or the most recent renewal thereof, such policy or bond shall not be effective under section 60-508 unless the insurance company or surety company, if not authorized to do business in this state, shall execute an acknowledgment that the company shall be amenable to process issued by a court of this state in any action upon such policy or bond arising out of such accident. Every such policy or bond is subject, if the accident has resulted in bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, to a limit, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to such limit for one person, to a limit of not less than fifty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident and, if the accident has resulted in injury to or destruction of property, to a limit of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident. Upon receipt of a notice of such accident, the insurance company or surety company which issued such policy or bond shall furnish, for filing with the department, a written notice that such policy or bond was in effect at the time of such accident.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,224
Twilight Of The Courts: The Elusive Search For Justice In The American Police State


by Tyler Durden
Jun 7, 2017 12:35 AM
76
SHARES
TwitterFacebookReddit

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,



“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state.

As the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez makes clear, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Continuing its disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of excessive use of force, a unanimous Court declared that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sleeping.

Understandably, the Mendezes were startled by the intruders, so much so that Angel was holding his BB gun, which he used to shoot rats, in defense. Despite the fact that police barged into the Mendez’s backyard shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence and fired 15 shots at the couple, who suffered significant injuries (Angel Mendez suffered numerous gunshot wounds, one of which required the amputation of his right leg below the knee, and his wife Jennifer was shot in the back), the Court once again gave the police a “get out of jail free” card.

Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.

A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits.

Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.

Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. A divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. In doing so, the Court opened the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Incredibly, a report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.”

Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals actually ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home.

Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

Police can interrogate minors without parents present.

It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. A majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute.

Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police.

The military can arrest and detain American citizens.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat, who are nevertheless subjected to such excessive police force as to end up maimed or killed.

When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses—that is, you and me.
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
5,461
Likes
2,966
cool submit and comply. That is how we got here.

edit: what was it that guy said? Oh"he who would give up freedom for security deserves neither." was some blowhard from years ago I thinks.
Sure makes you wonder how law men were able to get their man before the police state.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Sure makes you wonder how law men were able to get their man before the police state.
Yes it does...!!! Kinda like the false sense of security that DL's, reg & lic plates supposedly provide. Thieves, criminals & terrorists have throughout history created false aliases combined with fake identification, they have stolen automobiles then swapped license plates to hide themselves in plain view... once again we find the argument in support of the scam baseless, as thieves, criminals & terrorists hold the law in contempt!

The ? concerning the DL & reg scam is are the rules & regs promoted as "public safety" reasonable?

Seems to me that if the scheme was reasonable & promoting public safety, a DL would only need to be issued once in a life time. A reasonable one time test to insure that the operator of an automobile is certified that he/she understands the signage, common rules of the road & possesses the necessary skills, ability & capability to properly control the machine I think is possibly acceptable. IMO requiring a compulsory renewal of a DL every 4 or 6 years is nothing more than profiteering by the state and predatory financial exploitation of the populace. For the DL holder has previously proven that they do possess all of skills to safely travel in an automobile on the public roads & conveyances... there is absolutely no logical compelling need under the banner of "public safety" to require renewals of a DL.

Secondly does automobile registration, plates & annual renewals promote public safety? Of course not... once an automobile receives a title, reg & plate there is no compelling argument to support the annual renewal under the guise of public safety & general welfare. The only justifiable occurence for additional fees that may be required would be a small transfer fee from the existing registrant to a new registrant.

As we can observe, automobile licensing & registration renewals are completely devoid of any nexus to providing any measure of public safety. The scam is merely another tax to increase the revenues of the state at the expense & loss of both common & constitutional rights of the common traveler.

I'm reminded of a very important written historical document that is applicable today as it was one the day it was written.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"

"For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

The foregoing are excerps from the Declaration of Independence 1776. Did these men perform the right & proper things? According to the King they were criminals & terrorists, and this is a truism, as the King as the sovereign owned & licensed the north american colonies & commerce, the colonists by king law were his subjects that owed complete loyalty & fealty to the king. Colonists that did Not consent or agree with the king or followed his decrees was a crime of the highest magnitude regardless of even the most trite or petty decrees & laws.

According to King Law as sovereign authority the small group of radical minorities possessed the political & religious duty & obligation to do "the right thing" and to capitulate & consent to the kings authority & abuses.

Its a good thing for us & our posterity that the signers of the Declaration claimed & fought the revolutionary war and they rejected "the divine right of kings....

"debuit ac potuit" (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree) — Latin proverb

The maxim is "Qui tacet consentit": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented. — Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons[

The colonists petitioned the king repeatedly seeking redress of grievances, remedy & relief from their daily plunder & exploitation. The king turned a deaf ear to their pleas, for he was a major beneficiary of the plunder & exploitation of the colonists labor & wealth creation.... Plainly with every grievance he received he just added more plunder & exploitations...

There is this law that supercedes the divine law... and that is called natural law. If I kill a man that is attacking me with the intent to injure or kill me, and I kill him to defend myself, its still murder in the eyes of the divine law. The civil law recognizes the natural law as there are no legal consequences for justifiable homocide when defending ones corpus from an attacker with the intent of causing injury or death.

The Declaration signers used the rights contained in the natural law to overcome the divine law & divine rights of kings. These men did the wrong thing per divine right while doing the right thing per the natural law.

And here we are once again facing the same legal plunder & exploitations... How do we know this? Its very simple, when the exercise of natural rights whatever they may be are outlawed & deemed illegal & metaphysically by proclamation are transformed into a privilege , you better believe someones got a scheme & scam operating to enhance their authority, monopoly & profits by compulsion. Compulsion is only used when voluntary consent cannot be acquired....

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." --The Law, Frederick Bastiat

And of course its easy to observe just who & what classes of persons are the beneficiaries of the legal plunder & exploitations.

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

If the state can regulate enumerated & unenumerated constitutional rights such as 2A & the right to travel then it stands to reason that they can & will use the law perverted to enrich themselves & their cronies.

This is much deeper than merely DL, reg & plates, for as we have seen automobile insurance that was once voluntary is now compulsory thru private legislation... the insurance industry is responsible for creating all kinds of new laws such as air bagged equipted automobiles, the compulsory wearing of seat belts, etc... How about the drug industry buying legislators and forcing compulsory vaccinations... the same industry that fakes drug tests & is responsible for todays opiod crises sweeping the nation yet they enjoy legislated immunity from civil damages by their drugs..... The health care & health insurance industries employing the law perverted under the Obama Administration passed compulsory heath care legislation dressed up as taxes no less! Sheesh! Compulsory education has been a blessing for the Teachers Union while the Petro-Chemical monopolies have used the law perverted & regulations to prevent fuel efficient economical automobiles from entering the U.S. market by both foreign & domestic producers, this keeps demand for their product from declining... There is of course the institutionalized lawful daily thefts by wallstreet & the banking industry robbing small investors... The Military Industrial "death" Complex (MIC) is always starting wars & inventing new enemies to suck the taxpayers dry forever... Worst of all is our corrupt Congress who has legalized "insider trading", generous health care & pensions for life for themselves. This list could go on for pages... simple fact is that we the lil people are being plundered & exploited to death by the law perverted and the special interests that have seized the machinery of .gov.... And it all started when the first constitutional rights were LOST & transformed into regulateable PRIVILEGES.

There is no more decency, security & liberty! SCOTUS got it right in 1966... its been all down hill ever since.

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same (page #480) rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means…would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." -- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (USSC+).
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,190
Likes
5,703
Location
right here right now
Curious, I posted the same with text just 3 posts prior.

“Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.”

Speaking of small minds and trolls, of which I believe are one and the same, I wonder if it actually knows the truth, and is just being pedantic secondary to a salary and or lifestyle, or it is truly clueless...
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,224
h ttps://youtu.be/QTcrLMPOJJc?t=4050

At 1 hour 17 minute mark:
Mens rea
Mens rea is the mental element of 1 intention to commit a crime or 2 knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

IF your intent is good, you are not guilty in most criminal prosecutions.
Myrland argues that right to travel is secondary to the law trying to rob us via applying a fee to a non-commercial activity.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
I posted these earlier and they state in plain English the difference between Driving and Traveling.

THIS IS WHAT THE LAW ITSELF SAYS ABOUT "THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL" & "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" (CONTAINS LINKS TO THE LAW)

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE" AMONG ["BETWEEN"] THE "SEVERAL STATES" ("interstate commerce"). See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL THE POWERS of Congress). READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "[INTERSTATE] COMMERCE CLAUSE". It authorizes the FEDERAL government (only) to regulate "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause authorizes the FEDERAL government to require driver's licenses (ONLY) for drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW ALSO APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES "OUTSIDE" THE CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS). See the Tenth Amendment here. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how totally irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to STATE driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the SECOND (2nd) comment in this thread above. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax. Look for "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX".

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL":

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...2&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" to require driver's licenses of all drivers who are “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" .

2). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...icensing+of+their+drivers"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE TENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States provides, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES... .' WITHIN THIS RESERVATION OF POWERS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, is what has been judicially termed 'THE POLICE POWER.' (citation omitted). '[SUCH A] STATE MAY RIGHTFULLY PRESCRIBE UNIFORM REGULATIONS... in respect to THE OPERATION UPON ITS HIGHWAYS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES... . And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and NOT belonging to the FEDERAL government under the tenth amendment]... . (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 8th paragraph not including block indented portions at about 45% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for all vehicles and drivers "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

3). Chaoui v. City Of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...oui+v.+City+Of+Glendora"++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE USE OF STATE ROADS BY REQUIRING DRIVERS ON THOSE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, and that such regulation DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COSTITUTION. (citations omitted). In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, A STATE may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles, — those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and not to the federal government] and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens... ." (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 31st paragraph, not including block indented portions at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for vehicles and drivers NOT engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

4). El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...88&q=MIZRAIM+MOHAMMED+EL,+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The Supreme Court has held that STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE THE USE OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. In Reitz v. Mealey, the Supreme Court stated: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of such regulation apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO register ownership of automobiles AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of ITS [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway IS CONSANANT WITH [means "complies with"] DUE PROCESS. (citation omitted). [And, contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe]... [T]he Supreme Court DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [ABOUT DRIVER'S LICENSES] TO COMMERICAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS." (at the 13th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

5). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5697942351825850984&q="257+MDA+2016"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]... ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

6). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=483036688545450484&q="966+A.2d+919"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE[showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

7). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

8). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...k+State"++"right+to+drive"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

9). Matter Of Allen v. New York State DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+TRAVEL+within+the+United"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

10). Matter of Matsen v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+TRAVEL+within+the+United"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

11). Matter of Gillman v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+TRAVEL+within+the+United"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

12). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ones+v.+Helms"+"U.S."+1981&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

13). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q="Saenz+v.+Roe"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

14). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ate+v.+Sullivan"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

15). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...="Miller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] 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 [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

16). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...th+Carolina+ex+rel"+Kasler&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

17). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

FAACT: STATE requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

18). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...aoui+v.+City+of+glendora"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION... ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE [THE CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHILCE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

19). Robinson v. Huerta, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...inson+v.+Huerta"+++14-0451&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL... because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]... ')... ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because... THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

20). State v. Williams,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ennessee+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE... . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. ... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense]. Appellant is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense] as Appellant." NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW.

21). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel].... . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. .... . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE, AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text).
FACT: A person may freely exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

22. State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ATE+v.+SULLIVAN"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

23). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...="MIller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

3 MINUTE VIDEO.

SNOPES:
http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

ABOUT ROD CLASS:
Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

THE "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec.
(Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).

THE HOAX:
Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

THE TRUTH:
As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

BACKGROUND:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver’s license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (divided legal jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (the jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

SIMPLIFICATION:
Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. As a result, FEDERAL and STATE governments DO NOT REGULATE THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECTS, THEY REGULATE THE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this constitutional division of powers was to ensure harmony between the FEDERAL and STATE governments by DIVIDING between them the LEGAL SUBJECTS that each was empowered to regulate. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because FEDERAL law and STATE law regulate "OPPOSITE" legal subjects.

NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the these BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970.

CONCLUSION:
If "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you WERE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THIS SUBJECT:

Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE!

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued an officer who arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent DANGERS, renders the reasonableness and NECESSITY OF REGULATION apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a town and government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she '[THERE IS NO LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY CODES WHICH DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH [a claim identical to what Eddie Craig also claims].'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested.." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that... HE DID NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE because, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case before using an almost identical argument. In discussing that earlier case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license... six times. After she refused... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams, an amateur legal theorist, filed a claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court convictions for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE... . . [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... ." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL.... . [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]." But, the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Appellant, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS [A WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], was [convicted by a jury]... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE... .[and]... WAS... SENTENCED... TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, [WILLIAMS]... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him][a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him] [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed BOTH convictions. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but the Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS... . [The "Right To Travel" documents]... contained a birth certificate and documents that stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND ... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

"SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-...hwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/3391...by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of decisions which they use as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK LIKE" "RIGHTS":

1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Berberian v. Lussier, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

1). Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the RIGHT "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this case also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the very same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence AGAIN and AGAIN]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Virginia anyway.

2). Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The RIGHT of a citizen TO OPERATE a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER [citing Thompson v. Smith (directly above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right".]... ." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Idaho anyway.

3). Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...nc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a specified minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off their customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides "for usual and customary purposes" and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the third case above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". But, TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER, this very same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of this so-called "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Mississippi anyway.

"CRIMINAL STOPS" v. "TRAFFIC STOPS":

AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE THAT AN OFFICER MUST ACTUALLY WITNESS A "CRIME" BEFORE HE/SHE MAY LAWFULLY MAKE A ROUTINE "TRAFFIC" STOP. But, this is not so.

Unknown to amateur legal theorists, THERE ARE TWO (2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF STOPS INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES. There are "CRIMINAL" stops and there are "TRAFFIC" stops. "CRIMINAL" stops involve "CRIMES" (like selling illegal drugs or possessing stolen property) which are NOT MERE "TRAFFIC" VIOLATIONS. On the other hand, "TRAFFIC" stops involve "TRAFFIC" violations (like speeding or having expired tags) which ARE NOT "CRIMES". So, while both types of stops involve motor vehicles and officers, "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" stops are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The law on "CRIMINAL" stops DOES NOT apply to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. Instead, "CRIMINAL" law applies to "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" law applies to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. So, while a "CRIME" is necessary in a "CRIMINAL" stop, no "CRIME" is necessary for a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (only a TRAFFIC violation is). But, amateur legal theorists get these TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT legal subjects CONFUSED and therefore mistakenly conclude that an officer must actually witness a "CRIME" (like selling illegal drugs) to lawfully stop a driver for a "TRAFFIC" violation (like having an expired tag). But, this is not so. See the cases below.

4). People v. Horton, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 NOTE: This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like speeding or having an expired tag) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the officer here made a "CRIMINAL" stop of a car SOLELY BECAUSE IT CONTAINED YOUNG PEOPLE. The officer saw marijuana in the car (REFLECTING THE "CRIME" OF POSSESSION) and arrested the occupants. In holding the "CRIMINAL" stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL"CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case does has no application outside of California anyway.

5). People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like running a stop sign or driving the wrong way on one-way street) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the police here set up a roadblock SOLELY TO CATCH AN ARMED ROBBER (a "CRIMINAL") fleeing the scene of the "CRIME". The police made a "CRIMINAL" stop of every single car on the road. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the "CRIMINAL" stop was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case (directly above) which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL "CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of California anyway.

6. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). In this case, the was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (like speeding). Instead, the police here set up roadblocks around a HIGH CRIME AREA after dark and effectively made "CRIMINAL" stops of every driver seeking to enter crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a satisfactory reason for entering the area, the police DENIED THE DRIVER ACCESS TO THE AREA. The court held that such a practice was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE UPON [ALL OF] THE PUBLIC STREETS... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF PUBLIC STREETS]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of the District Of Columbia anyway.

The case below explains it well.

Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION ... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .' (quoting the SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, THE VERY FIRST CASE AT THE VERY TOP, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked, OR what most courts characterize as a "PRIVILEGE"). Regardless, because they mistakenly conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a City Commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The City Commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham in protest of racial injustice twice attempted to apply for such a permit and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject LICENSE law.

The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH (not "driving"/"operating" a motor vehicle). The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). ...[A] person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] LICENSE." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" (not the alleged "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE".

Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

THERE IS NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT LEGALLY MATTER. "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS AND "SUBSTITUTE" RULINGS AND "SUBSTITUTE" CASES WILL NOT WORK.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,190
Likes
5,703
Location
right here right now
Just tell the truth.
YOU wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your empty head.

You are so full of CRAP it's coming out of your ears.

It's morons like you who allow the deep state to poliferate and fuck over the people of this great nation. :thumbs down:
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Some people will stand for nothing, nothing other than standing for what they are told to stand for.

ur busted snoop. ur busted because there is a federal transportation law that explicitly denotes that a truck driver after finishing his drive does not need a license ala drivers license for the return trip home; meaning deadheading home.

You and your friends are totally blow-ing-it!
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
36,443
Likes
52,041
Location
Rocky Mountains
YOU wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your empty head.

You are so full of CRAP it's coming out of your ears.

It's morons like you who allow the deep state to poliferate and fuck over the people of this great nation. :thumbs down:
Exactly correct.

Snoop is correct too... 'Drivers' need a license to drive. States regulate commerce. Driving is a commercial activity regulated by the states.

So far, Snoop hasn't provided us with anything we don't already know.
 

edsl48

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
2,046
Likes
3,466
Just thinking if we have a right to travel then why do signs ate the entryway to interstate highways here say pedestrians are not allowed?
Just askin
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,190
Likes
5,703
Location
right here right now
Thank you.

Snoop is correct too... .
Yeah is true except but he comes here to try to rub it in our faces to somehow justify the devil, deficating all his CAPITOL LETTER WORDS of ad hominum hatred of true republic law, and of people, that is us, and attempting to deficate with his fancy lier lawyerese unenacted pretend law public policy bullshit all over some other folks who are true patriots attempting a return to the true law of the republic.
He is defending the devil, and he either is a overt troll representative of the devil, or he is just incredibly stupiddung:
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,621
Likes
5,922
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Just thinking if we have a right to travel then why do signs ate the entryway to interstate highways here say pedestrians are not allowed?
Just askin
I just go around the signs on a horse . Ohhh I got one, ya develop a flat do you become a pedestrian when you walk to the phone? just think back 20/30 years ago.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
WOW, it seems that the courts don't share your interpretation of the law!!!!



Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969.
Cigarman,

You just earned ANOTHER A+ on your homework!

You are, by far, the best legal scholar on this website.

Nobody even comes close to you.

This quote above is ANOTHER amateur legal theory FAKE QUOTE that appears NOWHERE in this case OR IN ANY OTHER CASE.

I offer a $10,000 reward to the first person who finds the actual quote above in the language of this case. Shapiro v. Thomson, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6690948768913204766&q="Shapiro+v.+Thompson"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

The world of amateur legal theory IS A WORLD OF LIES AND FRAUD.

Every amateur legal theory is EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE TO THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW.

It is hard to believe that some amateur legal theorists still mindlessly parrot this delusional nonsense with all of the conclusive proof to the contrary out there in the REAL law.

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Does the state drivers licensing scam violate Article 13 of the United Nations "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.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Freedom is the absence of regulation & taxation!
BarnacleBob,

Did you know that the "right to freedom of movement" IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?


Other amateur legal theorists make this same amateur mistake when it comes to the:
1. "Right to TRAVEL" which IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?
2. "Right to LOCOMOTION" which IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?
3. "Right of FREE PASSAGE" which IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?

4. "Right to USE THE ROADWAYS" which IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?
5. "Right to USE THE USUAL AND ORDINARY CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" which IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?
6. "Right to USE AN AUTOMOBILE" which IS NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?
7. And other "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK ALIKE", "ALMOST THERE" RIGHTS.


Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Freedom of movement does not include the freedom to be unlicensed and operate a vehicle on public roadways.

Lots of other options for movement besides driving a vehicle.
Area51,

This is another A+ answer.

Wow! We now have TWO (2) legal scholars on this website.

Cigarman has some serious competition for top legal scholar.

Congratulations!

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Yes, it does touch on the subject of one's right to travel..
You have to dig for it, but it is there




"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 239 U. S. 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional

Footnote 2/1]

"[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment."

United States v. Guest, supra, at 383 U. S. 760, n. 17. [Footnote 2/2] As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. [Footnote 2/3] Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama,357 U. S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, [Footnote 2/4] guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.

It follows, as the Court says, that

"the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible."

And it further follows, as the Court says, that any other purposes offered in support of a

357 U. S. 463.

The Court today, therefore, is not "contriving new constitutional principles." It is deciding these cases under the aegis of established constitutional law. [Footnote 2/5]

[Footnote 2/1]

By contrast, the "right" of international travel has been considered to be no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 357 U. S. 125; Aptheker v. Secretary of State,378 U. S. 500, 378 U. S. 505-506. As such, this "right," the Court has held, can be regulated within the bounds of due process. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1.

[Footnote 2/2]

The constitutional right of interstate travel was fully recognized long before adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seethe statement of Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 48 U. S. 492:

"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States, and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

[Footnote 2/3]
TRYNEIN,

Where in your quotes above is the language that you contend supports THE NON-EXISTENT "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"?

As you already know, the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has nothing to do with "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
To be clear the meaning of 'driving' should be defined.

We all believe it means 'traveling' by any conveyance one chooses, however, there is the rub.

According to Bouvier's 1856 legal dictionary it means:

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.​
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.​
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.​

Of course, we don't 'drive' with horses, mules, or other animals these days, but the term has carried forward with the same meaning of one being 'employed for hire'.​
Blacks Law
The 'violation of human rights' occurs out of ignorance of the law from all parties involved.​
Challenging the assumption that the law applies to everyone is 'challenging' and one must know the law better than those who practice it.​
Goldhedge,

Every state has its own statute that defines "DRIVING" (or "operating") a motor vehicle for purposes of that state's own driver's license statute.

That statutory definition is the one, and only, definition that can be ever used in connection with that state' driver's license law.

Definitions found in legal dictionaries are irrelevant and do not apply in connection with driver's license law.

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Your comments on this subject are baseless and
completely asinine.

The right to travel without restriction does not include the right to drive without a licence.

One is a right, one is a privilege. But you've decided to try an insist they're both rights. What a ridiculous position. Almost as laughable as that totally unrelated case you referenced from nearly half a century ago.

No US court in the past century has struck down the requirement of a drivers licence to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. Take a good look if you want, but you're not going to find one. Because the difference between a right and a privilege understood by the courts - - as it is by most reasonable people with half a clue.

Reference the case of Miller v. Reed:



http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html
Area51,

Still another A+ answer from our new legal scholar!

And, the case cited is DIRECTLY ON POINT!

Who is this new guy?

How does he know how to do his own legal research and find a case that is directly on point?

Look out Cigarman!

Snoop
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,546
Likes
7,849
Location
Instant Gratification Land
The question is, why should it be a privilege to be able to operate a motor vehicle upon the public right of way?

Also, the legal definition of "license" is official permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Where is the law originally making the operation of a motor vehicle illegal, for it to thereafter require gov permission to continue to do so?

Also, our Rights are not dictated by technology. Therefore if ones great granpa did not need special permission to operate his horse powered car of the day upon the public easements, we shouldn't need to either.

That said, I do believe there is a public safety factor to this, but I can also see how having lots of horses all over the roads like in the old days, also has it's own safety concerns. Horses can get spooked and go running out of control into people. They can kick someone. There's lots of ways to be injured by a horse and no one ever thought to require testing and licensing to ride/drive horses. They'd have likely strung ya up just for suggesting it.
....but even the safety argument is pretty bogus because the testing and other requirements aren't effective in weeding out bad drivers who are more prone to injuring others with their cars. Pretty much anyone (including the idiots in society) can pass a simple written test, drive around the block and pay $30 to get a license to drive.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Cigarman,

It is too bad that you did not actually look up the cases that you cited above. That is what a legal scholar of your caliber would have done. There really are cases that say similar things to what you quoted above. But, the cases that you cited above (by cutting and pasting the "We Are Change" article) ARE NOT USUALLY NOT AMONG THEM.

The REAL cases that say these things are below. But, note that the author of the "We Are Change" article INTENTIONALLY OMITTED the most important words in these cases. I did not. I included them. Now, they make perfect sense. See the WHOLE TRUTH BELOW.

"SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme...-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/339...ment/339121150/Right-to-Travel-by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of "SUBSTITUTE" decisions which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK LIKE", "SIMILAR TO" "RIGHTS":

1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10017950490896899680&q="schecter+v.+Killingsworth"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7126151699700902691&q="Escobedo+v.+State"+20902+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Berberian v. Lussier, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10003377642086162533&q="Berberian+v.+Lussier"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14665237934868993736&q="Holland+v.+Shackelford"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10692694480240175303&q="Kent+v.+Dulles"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7020999794525483771&q="In+re+Barbara+White"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

1). Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366&q="Thompson+v.+Smith"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the RIGHT "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this case also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the very same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence AGAIN and AGAIN]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Virginia anyway.

2). Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10311383113122069229&q="adams+v+City+of+Pocatello"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The RIGHT of a citizen TO OPERATE a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER [citing Thompson v. Smith (directly above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right".]... ." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Idaho anyway.

3). Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3544987/teche-lines-inc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a specified minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off their customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides "for usual and customary purposes" and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the third case above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". But, TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER, this very same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of this so-called "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Mississippi anyway.

"CRIMINAL STOPS" v. "TRAFFIC STOPS":

AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE THAT AN OFFICER MUST ACTUALLY WITNESS A "CRIME" BEFORE HE/SHE MAY LAWFULLY MAKE A ROUTINE "TRAFFIC" STOP. But, this is not so.

Unknown to amateur legal theorists, THERE ARE TWO (2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF STOPS INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES. There are "CRIMINAL" stops and there are "TRAFFIC" stops. "CRIMINAL" stops involve "CRIMES" (like selling illegal drugs or possessing stolen property) which are NOT MERE "TRAFFIC" VIOLATIONS. On the other hand, "TRAFFIC" stops involve "TRAFFIC" violations (like speeding or having expired tags) which ARE NOT "CRIMES". So, while both types of stops involve motor vehicles and officers, "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" stops are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The law on "CRIMINAL" stops DOES NOT apply to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. Instead, "CRIMINAL" law applies to "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" law applies to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. So, while a "CRIME" is necessary in a "CRIMINAL" stop, no "CRIME" is necessary for a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (only a TRAFFIC violation is). But, amateur legal theorists get these TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT legal subjects CONFUSED and therefore mistakenly conclude that an officer must actually witness a "CRIME" (like selling illegal drugs) to lawfully stop a driver for a "TRAFFIC" violation (like having an expired tag). But, this is not so. See the cases below.

4). People v. Horton, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? =14369018876842461431&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 NOTE: This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like speeding or having an expired tag) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the officer here made a "CRIMINAL" stop of a car SOLELY BECAUSE IT CONTAINED YOUNG PEOPLE. The officer saw marijuana in the car (REFLECTING THE "CRIME" OF POSSESSION) and arrested the occupants. In holding the "CRIMINAL" stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL"CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case does has no application outside of California anyway.

5). People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like running a stop sign or driving the wrong way on one-way street) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the police here set up a roadblock SOLELY TO CATCH AN ARMED ROBBER (a "CRIMINAL") fleeing the scene of the "CRIME". The police made a "CRIMINAL" stop of every single car. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the "CRIMINAL" stop was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case (directly above) which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL "CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (in the 15th paragraph at about 85% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of California anyway.

6. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). In this case, the was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (like speeding). Instead, the police here set up roadblocks around a HIGH CRIME AREA after dark and effectively made "CRIMINAL" stops of every driver seeking to enter crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a satisfactory reason for entering the area, the police DENIED THE DRIVER ACCESS TO THE AREA. The court held that such a practice was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE UPON [ALL OF] THE PUBLIC STREETS... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF PUBLIC STREETS]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of the District Of Columbia anyway.

The case below explains it well.

Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15753721215922597120&q="Spokane+v.+port"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION ... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .' (quoting the SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked, OR what most courts characterize as a "PRIVILEGE"). Regardless, because they mistakenly conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422&q="Shuttlesworth+v.+Birmingham"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a City Commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The City Commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham in protest of racial injustice twice attempted to apply for such a permit and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject LICENSE law.

The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH (not "driving"/"operating" a motor vehicle). The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). ...[A] person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] LICENSE." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" (not the alleged "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE".

Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

THERE IS NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT LEGALLY MATTER. "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS AND "SUBSTITUTE" RULINGS AND "SUBSTITUTE" CASES WILL NOT WORK.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
11,223
Likes
16,018
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Yea, yea, yea... All drivers licensing & subsequent penalties are enforced via the states private "law merchant" jurisdiction. This is self evident especially in the State of Florida where the States Constitution & Statutory schemes provide the Circuit Court with original "exclusive" jurisdiction in all matters relating to delinquent acts & violations of law by juveniles. To wit:

Article V, section 20 (3) Florida Constitution.

The Circuit Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction *****in all cases in equity including all cases relating to juveniles.

http://m.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution

985.0301 Jurisdiction.—
(1) The circuit court has exclusive original jurisdiction of proceedings in which a child is alleged to have committed:
(a) A delinquent act or violation of law.
(b) A noncriminal violation that has been assigned to juvenile court by law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0900-0999/0985/Sections/0985.0301.html

IOW every underaged user of an automobile that is cited with a violation of Floridas DHSMV's regulatory scheme & subsequent statutes would fall under the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, not the County or Traffic Courts. Hence all juvenile persons under the age of 18 charged with a violation of Floridas traffic regulations could not be adjudged by any courts inferior to the Circuit Court.

I argued this very point to a County/Traffic Court judge when my 17 yoa son was charged with several moving violations. The judge refused to dismiss the case on lack of subject matter jurisdiction grounds.

The only means of defending ones self from the states traffic scam is using the written codied UCC & the unwritten law merchant.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
194
Likes
10
The question is, why should it be a privilege to be able to operate a motor vehicle upon the public right of way?

Also, the legal definition of "license" is official permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Where is the law originally making the operation of a motor vehicle illegal, for it to thereafter require gov permission to continue to do so?

Also, our Rights are not dictated by technology. Therefore if ones great granpa did not need special permission to operate his horse powered car of the day upon the public easements, we shouldn't need to either.

That said, I do believe there is a public safety factor to this, but I can also see how having lots of horses all over the roads like in the old days, also has it's own safety concerns. Horses can get spooked and go running out of control into people. They can kick someone. There's lots of ways to be injured by a horse and no one ever thought to require testing and licensing to ride/drive horses. They'd have likely strung ya up just for suggesting it.
....but even the safety argument is pretty bogus because the testing and other requirements aren't effective in weeding out bad drivers who are more prone to injuring others with their cars. Pretty much anyone (including the idiots in society) can pass a simple written test, drive around the block and pay $30 to get a license to drive.
Hello Joe King,

The question is, why should it be a privilege to be able to operate a motor vehicle upon the public right of way?
RESPONSE: The "public right of way" is not just for driver's and operators. It is for "the public". This "public" includes passengers without driver's licenses. Even passengers without driver's licenses use the "public right of way" while being transported in a car. Contrary to what you imply, there is nothing inconsistent about this.

Also, the legal definition of "license" is official permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Where is the law originally making the operation of a motor vehicle illegal, for it to thereafter require gov permission to continue to do so?
RESPONSE: The general definition of the term "license" found in generic legal definitions is irrelevant in the law. Such a definition is not the law. Such a definition does not apply and is such a definition not binding on anyone or anything. For purposes of a driver's license, the term "license" is defined solely by the driver's license statute of every state. Further, even the generic definition of "license" itself does not say that an act must be illegal FIRST before it is licensed. That generic definition simply authorizes an act that would be illegal without the license. The act authorized by the license need not be made illegal FIRST. An act can be made illegal at the same time the state provides a licensing statute.

Also, our Rights are not dictated by technology. Therefore if ones great granpa did not need special permission to operate his horse powered car of the day upon the public easements, we shouldn't need to either.
RESPONSE: If all motor vehicles today were limited to one horse power carriages like your grandfather's carriage 100 years ago, then you might have a point. But, they are not. Passenger sedans now have up to 800 horsepower (new Camaro), weigh up to a ton and travel at up to 260 miles per hour (Bugatti). A fully loaded, eighteen wheel, tractor trailers weigh up to 80,000 pounds can approach 100 miles per hour and travel through busy commercial streets, residential areas and school zones, up and down steep mountain grades, during rain, sleet and snow. Such a vehicle can level a multi-story building. The injuries and damage that a horse could do 100 years ago pales in comparison to the damage modern road vehicles can do in a collision on today's roadways and highways.

Besides, where you stand on the law depends on where you sit on the law. If your own wife and two daughters were killed by an uninsured, uninsurable, legally-blind, habitually-drunk, 5 time DUI offender, under-age, child driver and if you then lost your home, car and life savings due to hospital and funeral bills and the loss of your dead wife's household income, you would be the first one to DEMAND of our ELECTED lawmakers the requirement of insurance, driver's licenses, driver's tests, vision tests, revoking driver's licenses from habitually-drunk, 5 time DUI offenders, refusing to allow blind, drunk children to drive and so forth. Where do you think all these laws come from? Mars? No. They come from the DEMANDS of "We the People" who are innocent victims of the ABSENCE of these safeguards.

That said, I do believe there is a public safety factor to this, but I can also see how having lots of horses all over the roads like in the old days, also has it's own safety concerns. Horses can get spooked and go running out of control into people. They can kick someone. There's lots of ways to be injured by a horse and no one ever thought to require testing and licensing to ride/drive horses. They'd have likely strung ya up just for suggesting it.
RESPONSE: Ya' think there might be a public safety concern here? Naw. No way. Not me. I believe that all uninsured, all uninsurable, all legally-blind, all habitually intoxicated, 5-time DUI offenders and all under age child drivers should be able to drive anything on any road in any way they please. Let them inflict any harm on society they please. Force the innocent people in society to pay for all their mistakes. The innocent, safe drivers on the road should have no say in the matter (at the ballot box or otherwise). It is only the rights of the wrongdoer that we should be concerned with, not the rights of the innocent drivers out there on the road ways.

....but even the safety argument is pretty bogus because the testing and other requirements aren't effective in weeding out bad drivers who are more prone to injuring others with their cars. Pretty much anyone (including the idiots in society) can pass a simple written test, drive around the block and pay $30 to get a license to drive.
RESPONSE: The purpose of driver's licenses is not to make society auto accident proof. That is impossible. All driver's licenses do is to help keep the most dangerous people from getting behind the wheel and killing innocent people on the roads (the uninsured, the uninsurable, the legally-blind, the physically infirm, the habitual, 5-time DUI offenders, underage child drivers, etc.).

Driver's licenses are not perfect. But, they are far better than doing nothing at all. Whatever the harm is inflicted on society by the requirement of driver's licenses, that harm pales in comparison to the harm that would result from the absence of the requirement of driver's licenses. The absence of driver's licenses would sentence millions of innocent people to their deaths and cost society billions of dollars in needless medical bills, funeral bills and property damages.

Snoop.
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,546
Likes
7,849
Location
Instant Gratification Land
RESPONSE: The general definition of the term "license" found in generic legal definitions is irrelevant in the law. Such a definition is not the law. Such a definition does not apply and is such a definition not binding on anyone or anything.
The heck it ain't. A ticket to a show is actually a license. It allows one to do what would otherwise be considered trespassing.
Ie: you have official permission to occupy a seat at a certain time and date. Try doing it without the license and you're committing a crime. With the license you are not committing a crime.
....and the same applies to a drivers license. It is in fact official permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Or do you not agree that it is considered to be illegal to operate a motor vehicle on the public right of way without a license?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,546
Likes
7,849
Location
Instant Gratification Land
RESPONSE: The purpose of driver's licenses is not to make society auto accident proof. That is impossible. All driver's licenses do is to help keep the most dangerous people from getting behind the wheel and killing innocent people on the roads (the uninsured, the uninsurable, the legally-blind, the physically infirm, the habitual, 5-time DUI offenders, underage child drivers, etc.).
It doesn't even do that. All the law does is provide an official way to punish someone if they are caught doing something the law says they shouldn't.
 

Fatrat

Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
1,617
Likes
1,167
I remember a "Cops" episode where they pulled over a driver who hadn't had a license in 37 years, if your careful, you can get away with it for many years. I get stopped every 5 or 6 years for speeding or something so it wouldn't work for me.