• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Right to Drive No License

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
62,278
Reaction score
132,807
Location
Rocky Mountains
One wonders why the enforcers of traffic 'law' don't follow the law themselves....



Right to Drive No License

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets.

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)

“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” 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.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.

“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.

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

“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.

“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.

“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.

“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670

“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456

"The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." - Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

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

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle

"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969)

"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83

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

“RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.

“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.

“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).

“If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

"The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." (Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson).

EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.' Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186.

“Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14.

“The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.

“a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.” Justice White, Hiibel

“Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.” Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucky 15.

“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43

3-6e0063aec7.jpg


Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute."

A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle. Cecchi v. Lindsay , 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185.

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot , 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith , 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough , 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe , 116 Ark. 26, 28-29.
…automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages.
Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey , 92 S.E.2d 38, 42.

Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer , 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago , 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.

"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. "t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).

Other right to use an automobile cases:
- EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160
- TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
- WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
- CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
- THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
- U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
- GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
- CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
- SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
- CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)

Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
37,747
Reaction score
60,799
Location
Qmerica
Yeah, but is that the REAL LAW!?
giggle.gif
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
62,278
Reaction score
132,807
Location
Rocky Mountains

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
62,278
Reaction score
132,807
Location
Rocky Mountains
Screen Shot 2019-06-24 at 3.03.13 PM.png
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
When I drive a combine or a tractor OR operate a skidder, yarder or a cat I get paid to sit in that seat. I do not pay myself to operate a car or drive it anywhere and you nor the gumbyment pays me either.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
62,278
Reaction score
132,807
Location
Rocky Mountains
Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 7.15.40 PM.png
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,269
Reaction score
4,928
When was the Driver License first introduced? By what agency? To whom did it apply? Why? What purpose did it serve?




DYODD.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I cheated.... In 1886, German inventor Karl Benz patented what is generally regarded as the first modern car. Less than two decades later, in 1903, Massachusetts and Missouri became the first states to require a driver's license, although it wasn't necessary to pass a test to obtain one
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,269
Reaction score
4,928
I cheated.... In 1886, German inventor Karl Benz patented what is generally regarded as the first modern car. Less than two decades later, in 1903, Massachusetts and Missouri became the first states to require a driver's license, although it wasn't necessary to pass a test to obtain one

Nor was it required to “operate a motor vehicle”...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
To operate is to get apid….er...paid. So if'n I was miss Daisies chafure aka driver then I would need a/an ok from the state to engage in Lasciviousness.

k, just having pun with words.
 

MIavatar

Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
801
Reaction score
545
Considering fighting a $65 seat belt ticket. I know I can win in court and it would give me something to do. I like practicing my courtroom manner. That is an honor being invited to the court after all. Plus I can establish a precedence for all my future actions.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Considering fighting a $65 seat belt ticket. I know I can win in court and it would give me something to do. I like practicing my courtroom manner. That is an honor being invited to the court after all. Plus I can establish a precedence for all my future actions.
Get you motion to dismiss in front of the judge/court and fight it that way.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
62,278
Reaction score
132,807
Location
Rocky Mountains
Considering fighting a $65 seat belt ticket. I know I can win in court and it would give me something to do. I like practicing my courtroom manner. That is an honor being invited to the court after all. Plus I can establish a precedence for all my future actions.
I wear a seat belt.

What I don't understand is why it's required in a car, but not on a motorcycle....
 

MIavatar

Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
801
Reaction score
545
I say it's more then worth it to expose the color of law with a $65 penalty if I fail. Even though I have been held in contempt for an insurance ticket before. Because I refused to understand. She let me out about 20 mins later after being taken to teh holding cell.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
Goldhedge,

The cases that you cite above do not say that a person has a "right to drive a motor vehicle without a driver's license" and those are the only words that count. Instead, what you cite above is "SUBSTITUTE" case law.

"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 "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_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. 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_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, 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 [NOT the alleged right to drive a motor vehicle without a driver's license] 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:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
OH gheeeshit: talk about a wet fart.

Snoopie could you just stay on the trail? The trail is designated by "'NO' right to drive without a drivers license" Which is a certifiable mix up to get just you, yes you, charging down the lane for our amusement. I am surprised you have never or just not figured out the words of the title of the thread.

I'm laughing to much to put it all out there BUT this is one of those cheese in a mouse trap posts and you have been caught.
 

dacrunch

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,444
Reaction score
14,036
So it looks like we can hike down an interstate highway legally too...
 

Fatrat

Site Supporter
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
7,134
Reaction score
8,632
By the way, cops don't tend to bother people who follow the road rules, I only talk to cops when I speed or run a Stop sign. If I never broke the rules, I'd likely never talk to cops and the subject of a license would come up.
 

Voodoo

Midas Member
Midas Member
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,911
Reaction score
9,557
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
Driving or operating a vehicle is the commercial activity that requires a license. Just going about your business as a person doesnt requires liscense.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,971
Reaction score
5,117
There is one more little problem. We all signed away legal title to our vehicle, when we bought it.
They shove about 20 to 30 pieces of paper in front of you and you may read the first 1 or 2, but eventually you're just signing away and one of them papers gives the State legal title to your vehicle.

So we have to get back our legal title, before we can legally sashay down the road.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
37,747
Reaction score
60,799
Location
Qmerica
There is one more little problem. We all signed away legal title to our vehicle, when we bought it.
They shove about 20 to 30 pieces of paper in front of you and you may read the first 1 or 2, but eventually you're just signing away and one of them papers gives the State legal title to your vehicle.

So we have to get back our legal title, before we can legally sashay down the road.
Yeah, and naturally its all easier said than done so even folks like us who know dont follow through with it.
 

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
18,893
Reaction score
42,733
There is one more little problem. We all signed away legal title to our vehicle, when we bought it.
They shove about 20 to 30 pieces of paper in front of you and you may read the first 1 or 2, but eventually you're just signing away and one of them papers gives the State legal title to your vehicle.

So we have to get back our legal title, before we can legally sashay down the road.

If it goes as usual, those titles are being used as collateral for the flotations be of state issued bonds...
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,971
Reaction score
5,117
If it goes as usual, those titles are being used as collateral for the flotations be of state issued bonds...

Well (I think) we signed a power of attorney allowing the State to take control of our title to the xxxx.
Since there was no State signature or quid pro quo we can just void our signature and demand our title back.
 

keef

Пальто Crude
Midas Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
8,765
Location
House of Barbaric Relics tour guide
Jailhouse lawyers. Its all good and fine until swat kicks in ur front door.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
IDK? Din't you signature away your weapons rights by electing dimwits to run ur country? See that's the difference between dingo land and eagle land, here in eagle land the frogs never give up even when they are getting eaten.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,971
Reaction score
5,117
Jailhouse lawyers. Its all good and fine until swat kicks in ur front door.

How much does the govt pay you, when you declare that you are a US Citizen?

Like zilch, nada, a big fat nothing. Contracts are a two way street and if the other side isn't paying there is no contract.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,107
Reaction score
8,186
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
How much does the govt pay you, when you declare that you are a US Citizen?

Like zilch, nada, a big fat nothing. Contracts are a two way street and if the other side isn't paying there is no contract.
Have a friend who picked up an impaired contract in COURT. The city had an implied clause in that contract. The city refused to participate in said contract. Friend voided contract and saved $5K. City reciprocated on said $5K by issuing another $5K fine for something different.

While in court it went unnoticed that city/court had changed the charging document. Appeal is going nicely as respondent is arguing the appeals court has no jurisdiction,,,,,and, it is the appeals court.....

So contract law does matter.
 

keef

Пальто Crude
Midas Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
8,765
Location
House of Barbaric Relics tour guide
IDK? Din't you signature away your weapons rights by electing dimwits to run ur country? See that's the difference between dingo land and eagle land, here in eagle land the frogs never give up even when they are getting eaten.
thats for damn sure

You remind me of the logger/farmer in Marathon County WI who wanted to move his bobcat from his farm to the acreage he was logging. Had it on a flatbed and was moving it on a short section of county road.

Long story short, cops pull him over for having improper licience on the trailer for moving heavy equipment.

He is older guy just moving equipment from one of his properties to another and tells the young surly cop to (you fill in the blank old frog)

Next thing you know two more county cops show up with one of those attack dogs from Brussels Belguim they all have now. Huge german shepards that are trained in German and often have problems with english speaking handlers.

Dog attacks man. Takes all three cops to open the jaws of the dog when he fails to respond to 'release' command. The man needed several stiches in HIS HEAD.

How does a dog grab you by ur noodle, old frog?

Maybe just move the bobcat at night next time and live to hop another day.
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
18,893
Reaction score
42,733
Well (I think) we signed a power of attorney allowing the State to take control of our title to the xxxx.
Since there was no State signature or quid pro quo we can just void our signature and demand our title back.

The supposed "quid pro quo" is the implied safety aspect.... we give them MSO, they provide defensible legal title and patrol the streets making them in theory safer for all drivers....
 

engineear

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
5,529
Reaction score
8,733
Location
North of the Wall
Whether you need a licence or not, the city, county, state, will need to be paid....for something...we'll get back to you on what that is and how much.
 

keef

Пальто Crude
Midas Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
8,765
Location
House of Barbaric Relics tour guide
Most of you probably never get a newspaper. But front page USA Today:

"She went for walk and a police dog attacked"

"It was like being stabbed multiple times all at once"

Ever wonder what they will do when you refuse to take the vaccine? They will be chasing you like Cool Hand Luke. Make sure you have plenty of pepper spray on hand to throw off the hounds.