• 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"

The Truth About Being a Driver


Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2010
Planet Earth
The Truth About Being a Driver
on Sep 18 in Articles by David Barganier

Free people have a right to travel on the roadways which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people when taking on the restrictions of a license or permit results in the surrender of a right.

The driver’s license can only be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire. In other words, if you are traveling the roadways for private, personal purposes, you cannot be required to adhere to any law, regulation, statute, code or ordinance that places a restriction upon the free exercise of the right to travel (liberty). Such restrictions are unlawful, include a driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory vehicle insurance, vehicle inspections and any other type of license, permit or process, where non-compliance abrogates freedom and liberty by converting a unalienable right into a revocable privilege.

“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)

“Based upon the fundamental grounds that the sovereign States have the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power, they may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary right of the citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.” (Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516)

“For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the State, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.” (State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256)

“First, it is well established law that the highways of the State are public property and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit. There should be considerable authority on a subject as important as this deprivation of the liberty of the individual using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business. However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the State’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a privilege. Therefore, it is concluded that the citizen does have a right to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this right is not a privilege.” (Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313)

In order to understand the correct application of the statutes, we must first define the terms used in connection with these points of law. Many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes.

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as
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)

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

“The term motor vehicle is different and broader than the word automobile.” (City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232)

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31. Motor vehicle means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business or other undertaking intended for profit. Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes while a motor vehicle is a machine which is used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

A traveler is one who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health. (Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309) The term traveler refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, including those who use the highways as a matter of right.

However, a driver is one who is employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle. (Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940) Notice that this definition refers to one who is employed in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be traveling on a personal journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

And then there is the term operator. “It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms operator and driver. The operator of a car is a person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire, while the driver is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both.” (Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658)

To further clarify the definition of an operator, the court has observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the privilege of using the road for gain, therefore requiring a license.

The term license means permission, by competent authority, to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. (People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2,4)

A permit is granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police powers. (Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203)

“The essential elements of due process of law are…Notice and The Opportunity to defend.” (Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427)

“Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her right, let alone before signing the license “contract“. Nor was the citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty…” (Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356)

Carefully examine the contradictory language in the following so-called legal opinion; “Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed. (I.C. 49-307) Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the highways…” (Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11)

This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of right, must give up the right and convert the right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance of the government, to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not mere privilege which a city or state may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579)

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

Therefore, government has no lawful authority or power to abrogate the citizen’s right to travel upon the public roads by passing regulations forcing the citizen to waive his right and convert that right into a privilege. Furthermore, it is clearly established that said “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are conducting business on the roadways or operating for-hire vehicles.

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sect. 177; later 2d, Sect. 256)

Before you attempt to exercise your established right to travel, understand that the career criminals in your State government have usurped your liberty by establishing the MSO. The Manufacturers Statement of Ownership is a document you sign when you purchase a new automobile. This tricky contract acknowledges who owns the vehicle being purchased. Unbeknownst to you, it designates the State government as the official owner. Unless you get your name on that document establishing yourself as the owner, the State will always own that vehicle, even after the loan is paid off and you receive the certificate of title. Once the State has the MSO in their name, they can regulate how you operate that vehicle with whatever licenses, laws, permits and fees they deem proper. In the land of free enterprise, buyer beware.

So, while all of this information is true, the chances of finding a politician, a police officer, a lawyer or a judge to uphold their oath and protect your rights are as remote as finding a duck in a desert.

David Lynn



Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts."

People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”

Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
"One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act."

Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.833 "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the
Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.


heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Apr 1, 2014
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Gain: does not mean what you think it does, gain is in reference to using value to generate value, what is generated is GAIN. So you purchase one treasury note for 999.98 usd and your gain is .02%( I think?) Gain is commerce, commerce is regulated. Now I know some of you read that bible and I would like to cherry pick a verse if I may. And you most likely have never viewed this verse this way. ummm? sorry gona have to paraphrase it. It's in Matthew "What does it matter if a man "Gain" the whole world yet lose his soul." (Or something like that) Now the way it was explained to me was; value lent=value returned with gain, in other words value along with the gain......so the rich man loaned the whole world and then received his gain....he never lost his value....trippy is it not?

Now I would like to point out something to do with the law cites........But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the highways…” (Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11)......What this is saying is 'If you operate a truck as in own it or drive a truck that is used in commerce and are driving it while not in commerce YOU enjoy the privileged of freely traveling the right of ways.' So, I trucked some freight down to California in my pick up and am afforded the privileged of freely driving my truck back to Oregon. I know a bunch of hogwash but that is what this cite tells me.

I am not disputing anything just clarifying some points. I was kind of wondering on that certificate of origin, do you think there is a way to file an abandonment on the gumbeyment to get it in ones possession? Naw I didn't think so either.