Read outbind://4/ text version

Page 1 of 61

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

By Jack McLamb from Aid & Abet Newsletter. For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.

5/15/2007

Page 2 of 61

The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so? For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. determination of this very issue.

courts for a

In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictionsor limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. " Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. " Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

(1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted

5/15/2007

Page 3 of 61

and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two

groups of people in this category:

1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves. (2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words,by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer

by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being

advised by their government that it was mandatory? Privileges v. Rights

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.

U.S. Constitution - Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

Who within our government is bound by this Supreme Law, the U.S. Constitution? We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state

5/15/2007

Page 4 of 61

licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

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

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful Master" --George Washington

There is no slippery slope toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders .--Alan K. Simpson

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. -- Henry David Thoreau ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:

5/15/2007

Page 5 of 61

ARGUMENT If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government. RIGHTS The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

and further ...

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by

5/15/2007

Page 6 of 61

due process of law." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life. When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated: "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit. "...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), 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 516 It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the

5/15/2007

Page 7 of 61

road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision. "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 and ... "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 and ... "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946 Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. "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 and ... "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579 So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from? "... 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; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516 Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous. "Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 and ... "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864 What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also

5/15/2007

Page 8 of 61

noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is: "The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." and ... "This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra. This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts. "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 and ... "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 There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].) "Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987 As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point? "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." 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 So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between ... Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and ... Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege. "[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense,

5/15/2007

Page 9 of 61

and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra. "When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Thompson vs. Smith, supra. "[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith." Ibid. "We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain." Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra. There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a 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."

DEFINITIONS In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as: "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 While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated: "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

5/15/2007

Page 10 of 61

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 may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire. TRAVEL The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as: "The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717 "Traveler -- 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., Pg. 3309 "Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034 Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another. Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler. DRIVER The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as: "Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940 Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. OPERATOR Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case. "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 the service car being the 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 `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658

5/15/2007

Page 11 of 61

To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court 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. This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore: Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both. TRAFFIC Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic": "... Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state ... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear ..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26 Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain." In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business. "Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307 Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: "...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them." The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt: "The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

5/15/2007

Page 12 of 61

LICENSE It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied: "The 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 "Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118 In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.) In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is: "a permit, 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 power." Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203 This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets. Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor." "A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487 The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation. Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state? How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue. POLICE POWER The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power," infra.) Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

5/15/2007

Page 13 of 61

"1. Is there threatened danger? "2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right? "3. Is this regulation reasonable? People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power" When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge. First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business? The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy. It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.) "The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532 To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.) Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right? This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right. The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?" The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means. Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed. Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.) "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." Connolly 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 police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission,

5/15/2007

Page 14 of 61

294 US 613 "It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 "As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882

As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear: "No person shall be ... deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law." As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law. DUE PROCESS "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 and ... "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958) The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected. But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen. One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant: "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333 Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that:

5/15/2007

Page 15 of 61

"no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court," by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, Pg. 269) Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common." The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue: "The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized ..." and ... "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 travelling freely upon the highways ..." Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, Pg. 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. This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall. "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 Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles." The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation. REGULATION "In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260 and ... "Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." Davis vs.

5/15/2007

Page 16 of 61

Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra. One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees. First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions: 1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal? The answer is No! The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified." However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal. Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees. 2. Is the statute reasonable? The answer is No! This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.) But isn't this what we have now? The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property. These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state. We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation. "... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to

5/15/2007

Page 17 of 61

condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..." Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra. If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right? "To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15 and ... "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389 Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions. TAXING POWER "Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316 The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain. "... It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax ... a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars." Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46 and ... "If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation." Ibid., Pg. 47 Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail. CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This

5/15/2007

Page 18 of 61

amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime. Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from Pg. 5, and: "The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516 and ... "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda, supra. Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government. So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face. Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty. As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen's Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state. CONCLUSION It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form. "The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect ... the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661 and ... "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616 The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.) Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.) The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.

5/15/2007

Page 19 of 61

This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege. To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state. "Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660 and ... "Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee." Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81 and ... "Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526 Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People." Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as: "No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70 So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. Therefore, it must be concluded that: "We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power." Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra. and ... "The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain." Ibid. Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------In addition: Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways. The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights

5/15/2007

Page 20 of 61

knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities. Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case. No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, (1784)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Situation #1

Talk about messed up system. The Statutory Rape, and criminalzation of American Citizens simply for being poor.

In October of 98, I got stopped for having an expired plate on a car I was driving. I was taking it accross town, to get it repaired, as I finally had enough money to pay for it. The ticket was 65 bucks, but I was unable to pay it immeaditly. I did not have to sign for the ticket. I never got a notice to appear. After 3 months went by, a notice to make a plea was sent to my PO box. I replied that I was unable to make a plea, because I was without information necessary to make a plea, however, I would agree to pay the fine that the court was trying to impose. Then they sent me a 14 day notice. The notice was post marked 3 days after the 14 days had expired. The 2 boxes which indicated "order to appear" and "plea by mail" were not checked, or crossed. The form did indicate a late fee of 25 dollars was being added, making the fine a total of 70 dollars. I replied to this, stating that I was not working, could not plea, and would pay the alleged fine as soon as I found work and obtained a pay check. Needless to say, I did so at the first oppertunity. however, the court decided to suspend the licence (which is signed "under duress") and then imposed an additional 25 dollar fee for reinstatement. I called the court and they told me that they had indeed recivied the amount of 70 dollars, but that I still had to pay the 25 dollar fee. The notice of licence suspension was dated 36, days after I replied to them the first time, asking for any other information or additional penalties so that I could pay it all at once. They had that request for over a month before they decided to suspend the licence. Well, they said that I could have my sister drop off the payment, but it would have to be in check, money order or cash. I said I would get a Postal money order, and that Sis would drop it off at the court in the morning. The clerk also asked me to write a plea for the case. I said No. No plea. She then said that without a plea, they might not be able to accept the money. I told her "you already accepted the money for the fine (ticket). That matter is now mute unless you return it, at wich point I will use the returned money as proof of invalidity of your claim." and that " this 25 dollar fee is to get the licence reinstated, a seperate issue."

5/15/2007

Page 21 of 61

The lady implied that unless I agreed to "contract" with the court, by entering a plea, or going to trial, that she couldn't accept the reinstatement fee.. In other words, unless I volunteered to enter into contract with the court, where the results would probbaly be that I ended up being made a criminal, that the court would not allow me to reinstate the drivers licence. I.E. Fraud, and coercian. Man, these guys must make the Mob envious. Rackateering on such a grand scale.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Situation #2 My friends son was driving through a small town where he lived, got stopped by a cop who recognized him, and was cited for operating a dangerous vehicle because his son filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the statute needed to give him notice that his conduct was proscribed which it did not.

We looked up the statute he amended to and there was not mention of cracked windshield there either. I got to thinking about "what function does a windshield

My friends son was driving through a small town where he lived, got stopped by a cop who recognized him, and was cited for operating a dangerous vehicle because he had a crack in his windshield. My friend wanted to show his son that you can fight city hall and encouraged him to fight the ticket which he did. We went to the statute that he was cited with and looked the statute over for where he was given notice that that a cracked windshield constituted operating a dangerous vehicle. Guess what? No mention of cracked windshield whatsoever!

His son filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the statute needed to give him notice that his conduct was proscribed which it did not. Upon receipt of the motion, the prosecutor amended the complaint, without the court even ruling on the motion, to operating a defective vehicle.

We looked up the statute he amended to and there was not mention of cracked windshield there either. I got to thinking about "what function does a windshield perform?" We concluded that its primary function was to keep the wind off of the occupants which gave rise to the question "Did the officer that wrote the ticket have any first hand knowledge that the crack was letting wind into the car?" The three of us concluded that we needed to go to trial and find out. At the trial the son asked the cop, "Did you have any first hand knowledge that the crack was letting wind into the car?" Of course, the cop could only answer "No." It was trial to the judge. The judge asked the prosecutor, "Do you have a statute that makes it illegal to have a crack in your windshield?" The prosecutor didn't. The judge says, "I'm going to have to find for a---q---uit---al." It was like those were the hardest words to come out of his mouth. You should have seen that kid strutting by that cop with a big smile on his face.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5/15/2007

Page 22 of 61

Situation #3 - Court of Appeals - Opinion ~ Acquitted

Court of Appeals Fourth District of Texas (1997) Appeal No. 04-95-00650-C Daniel C. ARTEAGA Appellant V. The STATE OF TEXAS Appellee § § § § § § Court of Appeals Fourth District of Texas

REVERSED AND ACQUITTED DO NOT PUBLISH OPINION This appeal is taken from a conviction for unlawfully driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway during a period in which the driver's privilege to drive was suspended. Appellant, Daniel Arteaga, entered a plea of not guilty but was convicted in a bench trial. His punishment was assessed at ninety days confinement in the county jail and a fine of $300. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for six months. Appellant advances five points of error, the first being a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. On March 31, 1995, Balcones Heights Police Officer Danny Tomlison observed appellant driving a white 1980 Dodge pickup truck without a rear license plate. The officer initiated a traffic stop. Appellant was arrested and charged with driving a motor vehicle while his privilege to drive was suspended. The statute at issue provides: (a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a motor vehicle on a highway: (1) during a period that a suspension of the person's driver's license or nonresident operating privilege is in effect under this chapter; or, (2) while the person's driver's license is expired, if the license expired during a period of suspension imposed under this chapter. TEXAS TRANS CODE ANN. Sect. 601.371(a)(1), (2) (Veron Pamp. 1997) To obtain a conviction under this statue, the prosecution must show either that the accused had an unexpired license which was suspended at the time of the alleged offense or that the accused's privilege to drive was suspended at or before the time his license expired by its own term, and that the privilege remained suspended from the expiration date to the time of the alleged offense. See Allen v. State, 681 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Smith v. State, 895 S.W.2d 449, 452 (tex. App. Dallas 1995, pet. ref'd). The evidence in the instant case showed appellant's driver's license expired on November 2, 1992. This Texas driver's license was suspended on July 14, 1993, and again on January 1, 1994, for failure to comply with the Texas Safety Responsibilities Act. Thus, it is clear that at the time of appellant's arrest, his driver's license had been suspended after his license had expired. The State confesses error and agrees that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. Point of error is sustained. In view of our disposition of this point of error, we will not reach the other points of error.[Emph. add.] The judgment of conviction is reversed and appellant is ordered acquitted. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18 (1978); Green v. Massy, 437 U.S. 19, 24 (1979) JOHN F. ONION, JR. JUSTICE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5/15/2007

Page 23 of 61

Situation #4

Author/researcher unknown

relating to traffic laws: state govt can restrict driving on the public roads to drivers with valid current licenses, and restrict drivers to vehicles registered as having passed inspection, notwithstanding argument about a "right to travel". Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610 (a state may restrict the use of its highways to drivers who have complied with the license, insurance and vehicle registration laws of this state or, if the driver is a non-resident, of his home state)

1. This case isolates "right to travel" defense only... The court only addressed the very narrow "right to travel" issue. Not a valid case when Property Rights and other rights of choice are the issue.

Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535 (state statute which denies or suspends drivers license for failure to carry insurance or comparable financial responsibility does not violate constitution) (this authority to prescribe reasonable requisites for the "privilege" of driving on the public highways is inherent in state and local govts)

2. Where a state issues a permission, it is reasonable that such permission can be revoked by issuer for any reason it chooses. This case does not address any element of the right of an individual. It only addresses contractural elements of licensing and has no effect on a Rights defense.

State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ("the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures.")

3. This court addressed two elements; one. Right to travel. And two. Right to operate a motor vehicle. For #one see response 1 above. For #two,,,,,, we don't assert that a right to operate a "motor vehicle" (as defined federally and as this court is using the term) as a right that is protected by the constitution. The federal definition SW2d is using is;

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.

This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City. As a consequence to this fact, this court has not addressed the issue we promote on property rights.

5/15/2007

Page 24 of 61

Quackenbush v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 454, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 (state can require insurance for drivers licenses) ditto (state has legitimate interest in requiring financial responsibility of drivers) Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 87 RI 226, 139 A2d 869 (this crank, a lawyer who was evidently his own favorite client and eventually got himself disbarred for threatening to bomb the courthouse, Carter v. Berberian (RI 1981) 442 A2d 1263, later got his 13 year old son to sue over the age requirement for learners permits, see below) see generally essay, Validity of Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, 35 ALR2d 1011 & suppl.

See # 2 above

Guerrero v. Ryan (1995) 272 IL.App.3d 945, 209 IL.Dec 408, 651 NE2d 586 app.denied 163 IL.2d 556, 657 NE2d 621 cert.den 516 US 1180 (state can suspend license already issued if lack of insurance is discovered, drivers license not a basic constitutional right)

See #2 above

similarly State v. Turk (1982) 197 Mont 311, 643 P2d 224 ditto Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 87 RI 226, 139 A2d 869 (cannot evade insurance requirement by religious objections)

State v. Cosgrove (So.Dak. 1989) 439 NW2d 119 cert.den 493 US 846

similarly State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ("This is obviously a growing school of thought which had been misguided.... The notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways." The court made a point of discussing many of the crank arguments against requiring drivers licenses evidently the crank notion is not only are the licensing requirements inapplicable to them but also speed limits)

There is no Right to operate a "motor vehicle" to my knowledge. The privelege matter can be referred to #2 above.

similarly City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366 ("No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that ... every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operator's license.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads.")

4. more carefully worded language that does not address private property and individual rights.......

similarly City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981 ("Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures.")

5. This rhetoric is representative of the accepted thinking on the subjects herein addressed. Responding to each;

("Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. I agree, within the limit of this statement, however, adequate "restraint" exists as a byproduct of the constitution in two ways; first, restraint in the form of regulation (regulation of traffic is done with signs, lines, curbs, lanes, speed signs (informing what the expected rate of speed of other citizens fitting the "lowest common denominator" principle may be doing) all of which inform the individual about what is ahead and what they should reasonably be able to expect. This is a duty of government as a result of its mandate to provide for the health and welfare of the people. Regulation is the visible

5/15/2007

Page 25 of 61

product of that duty). Second, citizens have a constitutionally mandated self restraining responsibility to harm no other. When harm does occur, existing regulation is used to determine which citizen was at fault thereby providing the necessary elements with which to compensate the victim or untangle rights entangled. Regulation has no other purpose.

The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. Constitutions do not grant rights. Laws governing the use of public highways are unnecessary in light of the restraints described above. Consequently, vehicle codes that are being applied to citizens and their use of private property are unconstitutional based upon the fact that no compelling state interest exists due to the restraints already in place as described above.

The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. This, of course is propaganda spread by shallow men in support of aspirations of castles (how much marble do you have in your home?) Society is no better off as a result of vehicle codes. Accidents will happen at generally the same rate with or without such codes. Hence, these codes are a manifestation of an errant definition of the words "compelling state interest" which must exist before a state may exert a police power. And which don't exist here.

similarly ("The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and nothing in that document or in our state constitution has even the slightest appearance or an implicit guarantee of that right. The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel ... is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.")

See #2 above

Berberian v. Petit (RI 1977) 374 A2d 791, 86 ALR3d 468 (this case was a 13-year-old boy challenging the age requirement for learners permits, the court quoted from a 1958 decision involving his father's challenge to the requirement for motorists insurance) similarly Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338

similarly Azubuko v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st Cir unpub 9/3/96) cert.den 520 US 1157 ditto (state can require drivers license, vehicle registration, display of license plate, etc., notwithstanding argument about "right to travel") State v. Weisman (Minn.App unpub 11/1/88) cert.den 489 US 1080 ditto Maxfield v. Corwin (WD Mich unpub 3/17/87) ditto ("While there exists a fundamental right to travel, neither this court, nor our [state] supreme court, nor the US Supreme Court has ever held that there exists a fundamental right to drive a moter vehicle." State can require display of official registration tag, and that driver present police with valid license and car registration, even against purported religious objections, and can punish for use of homemade license plate)Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839

No compelling state interest. See #5 above.

ditto City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010 State v. Patterson (Kan.App unpub 2/14/92) review den (Kan. Supm 1992) 250 Kan 807 ditto US ex rel Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County (7th Cir 1995) 73 F3d 669

similarly Commonwealth v. Levy (1961) 194 Penn.Super 390, 169 A2d 596 see especially essay, Validity of statute making it a criminal offense for operator of motor vehicle not to carry or display his license or registration, 6 ALR3d 506 & suppl.)

similarly (right to "property" does not enable perp to drive his car

5/15/2007

Page 26 of 61

despite its lack of registration, safety inspection, license plate, drivers license, etc., nor to prevent it from being impounded until he complies with the licensing laws) Wisden v. City of Salina (Utah 1985) 709 P2d 371

This is perplexing language..... the first to mention Right to property. I suspect a definition of that right must be part of this decision and therefore I will get the entire case for assessment. In any case,,,,,, the decision, if it actually comes down to this is defective for the reasons stated in #5 above.....

similarly (perp already had an SSN but refused, supposedly on religious grounds, to provide it to apply for drivers license and thereby refused to renew or carry drivers license on religious grounds "The appellant advised [the policewoman] that he could not be arrested because her God was not as big as his God. He referred to her as 'an agent of the socialist govt ...", court held the state had sufficient reasons to require SSNs for drivers licenses and that, since driving without a license is a crime, religious fastidiousness could not excuse a criminal act) State v. Loudon (Tenn.Crim.App 1993) 857 SW2d 878 similarly (when cranks already have SSNs but refuse to reveal them for drivers licenses applications, supposedly on religious grounds) Penner v. King (Mo.Supm 1985) 695 SW2d 887

I need to get these cases as well, maybe it will provide the "compelling state interest" element we are looking for. And, I am yet to see the origin of the duty that a citizen has to the state to license. I can understand the potential duty to other citizens to have insurance...... but not license.

similarly (refused to reveal SSNs for drivers license on privacy grounds, citing various laws on non-disclosure of SSNs, court held that state could require disclosure of SSN on license application) Nowlin v DMV (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 if state law requires the SSN on the license application then the use of the SSN is not optional and an applicant who fails to provide his SSN will thereby be refused a license. Schmidt v. Powell (IL App 1972) 4 IL.App.3d 34, 280 NE2d 236 Ostric v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Policies (Mass 1972) 361 Mass 459, 280 NE2d 692

I wonder how this case would do before the US Supreme Court?

similarly (crank claimed to have unilaterally revoked his SSN and tried to invoke state law that would permit an individual without an SSN to obtain a drivers license upon submission of a federal govt document attesting to the lack of a Soc.Sec. number or account for that person, at least the individual's own assertion without the federal documentation was insufficient the court noted that driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right nor a contract, and the state may impose reasonable conditions upon that privilege and someone too fastidious to meet those conditions would not obtain the privilege) Hershey v. Commonwealth Dept of Transportation (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1995) 669 A2d 517 app.den 544 Penn 664, 676 A2d 1202

ditto Kocher v. Bickley (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1999) 722 A2d 756 similarly (state can insist on SSN to obtain a drivers license and apparently not required to offer alternatives to someone with religious objections to having an SSN) McDonald v. Alabama Dept of Public Safety (Alab.Civ.App unpub 4/9/99) ditto Miller v. Reed (9th Cir 1999) 176 F3d 1202 (and quoting from Bowen v. Roy, 1986, 476 US 693, which upheld an AFDC requirement that welfare payments would not be paid for children whose parents did not provide the child's SSN, notwithstanding the parents' religious objections to SSNs, and without offering an alternative) requirement of SSN to obtain a drivers license did not infringe on religious rights, because the "plaintiffs may preserve their religious scruples intact by foregoing this privilege [of driving on the public roads]. It is for them to balance the resulting inconvenience." Penner v. King (Mo. 1985) 695 SW2d 887

I'm not fully informed on SSN's so I will pass this one accept to say,,,,,,, where is the compelling state interest when #5 above is a consideration?

5/15/2007

Page 27 of 61

similarly, "The state of Missouri, by making the licensing requirements in question, is not prohibiting Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs or from traveling throughout this land. 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 a moto vehicle on the public highways without ... a valid operator's license." State v. Davis (Mo.App 1988) 745 SW2d 249

There we go again with the carefully constructed "motor vehicle" language. One has to wonder if this court recognizes the difference between their definition of a motor vehicle and that of the states?

(on the other hand, some states have made provision for issuing drivers licenses in special circumstances in which an SSN is unavailable, such as lawfully admitted aliens, with their green cards, who are ineligible for Soc.Sec.) Lauderbach v. Zolin (Cal.App 1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 578, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 434

similarly (accepting the IRS's Taxpayer Identification Number [TIN] as a substitute for the SSN) Devon Inc. v. State Bureau (Ohio App 1986) 31 Ohio App.3d 130, 508 NE2d 984

ditto (state would accept TIN as a substitute for the SSN and not obliged to create any more alternatives) Kocher v. Bickley (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1999) 722 A2d 756

[the state may also give applicants the option of not having their SSNs appear on their drivers license and the public registry but may stil require the SSN on the applications. Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Mass.Super unpub 6/8/93) 1 Mass.L.Rptr 156, 21 Media L.Rptr 2041 and if the drivers license does not display the SSN, a policeman stopping the driver may insist on seeing the driver's Soc.Sec. card when the SSN is required on traffic citations. State v. T.N. Hill (Ohio App. unpub 2/6/92)]

neither right to migrate nor right to a job implies a right to unlicensed driving. Maher v. State (Ind.App 1993) 612 NE2d 1063

(ditto, when crank sent the state letters "rescinding his signature" to all drivers license papers assenting to the state's statutory consent to breathalyzer test this had the effect of cancelling his drivers license, and he was charged with unlicensed driving moreover, the state's refusal to return his car until he presented a valid license and registration was not a taking without due process) Maxfield v. Corwin (WD Mich unpub 3/17/87) {Note: There are reasons, other than dangerous driving, that a court may use to suspend or revoke drivers licenses e.g. non-payment of taxes

Wells v. Malloy (D Vt 1975) 402 F.Supp 856 aff'd 538 F2d 317 failure to pay court fines City of Milwaukee v. Kilgore (Wis.App 1994) 185 Wis.2d 499, 517 NW2d 689 failure to pay child support Richey v. Richey (La.App 1997) 704 So.2d 343 generally essay, Revocation or Suspension of Drivers License for Reason Unrelated to Motor Vehicle, 18 ALR5th 542 & suppl.

Another essay deals with putting conditions upon the reinstatement of a suspended license, such as requiring proof of financial responsibility. 2 ALR5th 725.} ("The right to travel on public highways is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, pursuant to the police power granted by the Constitution. We have previously held that the motor vehicle codes are a valid use of police power. We have also previously held that requiring automobile insurance coverage and the registration of vehicles is a valid use of the police power and does not violate the due process requirements of the US Constitution.") State v. R.E. Wilson (Mont.Supm unpub 12/3/98) {The references to the "right to travel" in this propaganda turn out to refer to court cases that dealt with restrictions on passports, or on restrictions on out-of-state visitors or newcomers to a state obtaining employment or benefits such as food stamps cf. G.B. Hartch, Wrong Turns: A critique of the Supreme Court's right to travel cases, 21 Wm. Mitchell Law Rev. 457 (1995). The exercise of state and municipal police powers to regulate and restrict traffic on public roads predates the automobile by at least a half-century, when bicycle riding was

5/15/2007

Page 28 of 61

restricted to avoid frightening horses cf. R.D. Perry, The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law, 35 Amer. Business Law Jrnl 185 (1998). In France, the registration of automobiles goes back to 1893, before the first US automobile factory, and in the US, registration of cars dates back to 1901 and the licensing of drivers to 1916, and by the mid-1920s there were, in almost every state, age requirements and other limitations on who could be licensed to operate an automobile, even for personal use for example, see J. Simon, Driving Governmentality: Automobile accidents, insurance, and the challenge to social order in the inter-war years, 1919 to 1941, 4 Conn. Insur. Law Jrnl 521 (1998). As the US Supreme Court noted in 1915, "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [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. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens." Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610

See #3 above........ this case clearly makes the distinction between "motor vehicles" (per fed definition) and private property.

and in 1927, "Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents." Hess v. Pawloski (1927) 274 US 352.

See #5 regulations above. The states are taking this case completely out of context. Notice the court said "promote" not mandate.

There is nothing in the cranks' reliance on a "right to travel" to try to exempt themselves from driver license and traffic laws that limits their theory to wheeled vehicles and they might eventually claim an unregulated right to pilot aircraft over cities! Courts have already held that driving without a license or registration is, by itself, indicative of reckless driving

see essay, 29 ALR2d 963 & suppl.} (enforcement of traffic laws is not governed by the UCC speed limits and their enforcement is not a violation of the "right to travel") Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1994) 881 SW2d 838

very cleverly worded ...... see #'s 3 and 5 above.

ditto (UCC inapplicable to case involving driving unregistered vehicle) Gipson v. Callahan (WD Tex 1997) 18 F.Supp.2d 662 (state can require that vehicle be maintained with current inspection and registration stickers and tags) State v. Kuball (Minn.App unpub 8/15/89)

state can require that drivers carry a drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986) 224 Mont 84, 730 P2d 371 cert.den 481 US 1020

I suspect the entire case will provide a more specific statement here... as is,,,, this doesn't say anything as it does not carry necessary qualifications we see in other US decisions.

Nowlin v. Dept of Motor Vehicles (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 (state can require applicants for new or renewed license to provide their Soc.Sec numbers and refuse licenses until applicant obtains a Soc.Sec number) ditto Miller v. Reed (9th Cir 1999) 176 F3d 1202 ditto McDonald v. Alabama Dept of Public Safety (Alab.Civ.App unpub 4/9/99)

ditto Hersshey v. Commonwealth (Commonw.Ct of Penn 1996) 669 A2d 517 app.denied (Penn Supm unpub 6/4/96) 544 Pa 664, 676 A2d 1202

5/15/2007

Page 29 of 61

ditto (and also pretending that accepting a benefit from the state, in the form of a license, is against his religion) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839

ditto State v. Clifford (1990) 57 Wash.App 127, 787 P2d 571 review denied 114 Wash.2d 1025, 792 P2d 535 ditto State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ditto (claiming that his religious beliefs were against registering for a drivers lic) Schmidt v. Powell (IL App 1972) 4 IL.App.3d 34, 280 NE2d 236

ditto (and also pretending that violation of license and registration laws is a victimless crime) State v. Yoder (Ohio App unpub 6/7/95)

pretending? I see nothing in this page that would demonstrate just what manner of victim does exist in such crimes.

(police request that driver show them his license and registration and proof of insurance is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, the law requires a driver to keep these documents, and driver cannot insist on search warrant) State v. Reed (1984) 107 Ida 162, 686 P2d 842 (ditto, does not violate Fifth Amendment) Sherman v. Babbitt (9th Cir 1985) 772 F2d 1476 (ditto, does not violate First Amendment religious rights) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839

compelling state interest? Probable cause?

(as part of a justifiable traffic stop, the police can instruct the driver to step out of his car) Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 US 106 (thought that posting No Trespassing notices on his truck was a sufficient substitute for having license plates - and was surprised when the police had his truck towed away) Fenili v. Calif. Dept of Motor Vehicles (ND Cal unpub 6/16/98) (homemade license plate, saying "Freeman", not acceptable, and state may impound car until perp presents current and valid

license, registration, etc.) Maxfield v. Corwin (WD Mich unpub 3/17/87) (mere use of homemade license plates is indicative that car is not properly registered and is sufficient to justify police stop) Granse v. State (Minn.App unpub 7/1/97)

I recognize the problem to be in the judiciary and the legislature. As such, I see no need to educate every policeman about what is not correct about his state mandate. Always give the cop a break.... He really doesn't know any better.

State v. French (1994) 77 Haw 222, 883 P2d 644 (required to comply with license and traffic laws event though perp believes that Hawaii is still an independent kingdom, there is no federal legislation that overrides the state's authority to regulate driving) driving is a privilege not an inherent right and may be regulated by the state for public safety reasons: Jones v. City of Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338

There's that word Regulate again..........

(driving not synonymous with "right to travel") Azubuko v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st Cir unpub 9/3/96) cert.den 520 US 1157 ditto City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010 similarly (including driver license laws and requirement for vehicle registration and insurance) Goode v. Foster (D. Kan unpub 10/21/96) ditto Gordon v. State (1985) 108 Ida 178, 697 P2d 1192 ditto State v. Von Schmidt (1985) 109 Ida 736, 710 P2d 646 ditto Endsley v. State (1987) 184 Ga.App 797, 363 SE2d 1 similarly Lebrun v. State (1986) 255 Ga 406, 339 SE2d 227 ditto Humphreys v. State (Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188 ditto State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 (privilege of operation a motor vehicle on the public streets is "wholly separate from the right to travel"

duh

perp refused to identify himself to police, tried to present policeman with his own version of "Miranda warning" claims to be immune to license &

5/15/2007

Page 30 of 61

registration requirement as an "unenfranchised citizen of Tennessee", etc. held "No person in the State of Tennessee may exempt himself or herself from any law simply by declaring that he or she does not consent to its applying to them")

ditto State v. D.R. Gibson (1985) 108 Ida. 202, 697 P2d 1216 (perp claimed that as a "free man" who had not "accepted" a drivers license, he is exempt from all traffic laws) similarly Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839 similarly State v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 544 NW2d 158 similarly (including argument that his driving is not "commercial" or not connected to govt activity and therefore not susceptible to any state controls) State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ("That claim is baseless in Montana and we find no law in any other jurisdiction to support it either.") ditto (tried to argue that registration and licensing laws only apply if the vehicle is "for extraordinary use" "We see no reason why we should place any limitations on the application of the registration statute when the legislature decided not to.") Slye-Nelson v. State (Tex.App 1993) 862 SW2d 628

ditto ("completely frivolous and meritless") J.M. Anderson v. State of Michigan (WD Mich unpub 3/18/93) ditto City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010

ditto City of Belton v Horton (Mo.App 1997) 947 SW2d 104

I AM GETTING TIRED, AS MY LAST FEW COMMENTS SHOULD DEMONSTRATE... SO I WILL STOP HERE. I SEE NO BETTER CITES THAN THOSE I HAVE ALREADY CRITIQUED/DISPELLED IN THE FIRST 5 OR SO NUMBERS ABOVE.......

I will say, REGULATION (as defined above) is an appropriate use of state police powers, codes mandating the robbing citizens at gunpiont who have harmed no one is not.

Anyone,,,,,,,,, please feel free to provide compelling state interests in support of vehicle codes........ that are not already covered in #5 above....

This state police power really can't work any other way than is described here. If it did, the bill of rights would not have been necessary....... Not to speak of the constitution itself......... and while we are enumerating the unnecessary,,,,, the war of independence comes to mind...... I wish the states would get their heads out of their pocket books and really try to provide for the health and welfare of the people.........

wdd

ditto Humphreys v. State (Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188 ditto (claimed "it is a legal impossibility for the state or anyone to collect a civil penalty for non-registration of a private vehicle" and wanted $2.5M in damages "completely frivolous and meritless") J.M. Anderson v. State of Michigan (WD Mich unpub 3/18/93) ditto (also that this was a "victimless crime") City of South Euclid v. Carroll (Ohio App unpub 10/6/88) app.dism 42 Oh.St.3d 706, 537 NE2d 225 similarly (tried to argue that limiting driving to those able to afford car insurance was discriminatory) Maher v. State (Ind.App 1993) 612 NE2d 1063 ditto State v. J.S. Smith (Minn.App unpub 6/11/96) (tried to argue that he could not be required to pay a fine nor pay for a license nor for registration in the absence of gold and silver coiage) Lowry v. State (Alask.App 1982) 655 P2d 780

(tried to argue that a traffic ticket required the same tedious red tape, such as notarization or accompanying papers, as a formal indictment or a complaint in a lawsuit) State v. Gibson (Ohio App unpub 6/19/95) (seemed to think that by denying US citizenship could immunize himself from drunk driving laws and from traffic court) T.J. Johnson v. State (Ark.App unpub 10/7/92)

ditto (as "a 'free' man who is no longer a 14th Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his vehicle, wear a seatbelt or maintain liability insurance, ... also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws.") State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523, 51 Mont St.Rep 1149, 885 P2d 426 ditto State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304 ditto (argued that his unregistered truck was not a vehicle but a

5/15/2007

Page 31 of 61

"religious conveyance" and as a "natural citizen" rather than an enfranchised citizen he was exempt from licensing law) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839 ditto (also tried to argue that his unregistered automobile was not a "motor vehicle" unless and until it was registered) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953

similarly (altho alone in his truck, tried to deny that he was "driving a motor vehicle" but rather "traveling in a conveyance". "His reasoning for this premise ... is not based on any relevant statute or case precedent, and has no merit. [State law] defines an operator as a person ... 'who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.' ... Since Davis was in actual physical control of the pickup truck, he was operating a motor vehicle.") State v. Davis (Mo.App 1988) 745 SW2d 249

similarly (argued that traffic laws, even against driving the wrong way down a one-way street, violated the 10th Amendment ... and sent the traffic judge letters on the letterhead of "The Committee to Save the Judges from Hanging Even Though They Deserve It" with the printed marginalia that "oppressed people have never once regained their freedom until they had hung the judges and stoned the tax collectors to death." ) Freeman v. Town of Lusk (Wyo.Supm 1986) 717 P2d 331 similarly (awarded himself, as "a first class judicial citizen", a permanent lifetime "travelers authorization" ... "it also means that never again will he have to wait in line at the Dept of Motor Vehicles for a renewal") Estes-El v. Town of Indian Lake (ND NY unpub 5/11/98) (an international driving permit is not, alone, a sufficient substitute for a drivers license, and requires additionally a drivers license from that person's country or state of residence) Schofield v. Hertz Corp. (1991) 201 Ga.App 830, 412 SE2d 853 Dwyer v. Margono (1997) 128 N.C.App 122, 493 SE2d 763 review den (1998) 347 NC 670, 500 SE2d 85 Eskew v. Young (SD IL 1998) 992 F.Supp 1049 someone whose drivers license had been deliberately suspended or revoked here cannot resume driving by obtaining an international drivers permit. People v. Platts (1995) 274 Ill.App.3d 753, 655 NE2d 300 where an arrestee has an international drivers permit in a false name that is a strong indication of an inclination and ability to flee and adopt false identities for which a high bail may be demanded. US v. Himler (3d Cir 1986) 797 F2d 156

having organized a small mob to resist law enforcement efforts to arrest him, having denied his citizenship and denied being susceptible to the laws or courts, and having threatened the judge, all justify the court refusing to allow him bail or pre-trial release. US v. Kanahele (D Haw 1995) 951 F.Supp 921

{The international driving permit is issued under the authority of the UN Convention on International Road Traffic, and it serves as an authoritative multi-lingual translation and verification of the person's home drivers license, which means that it has no legal weight without that home drivers license (and, also, a driver's international permit has no weight inside the driver's home country). It is good for not more than 12 months (less in some countries) and the driver is still subject to all the traffic laws. In the US, they are available from AAA for $10. [AAA wants a SS#.] Apparently there is a lively Internet scam of selling unauthorized or fake permits and at prices up to $300 cf.

USA Today, 5 March 1999 Business Wire, 20 Jan 1999 Toronto Star, 5 Sept 1998.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5/15/2007

Page 32 of 61

Situation #5

Irving Isaacson was a former police officer, County Attorney, Municipal Judge and a Harvard Law School Graduate, wrote a book published by Legal Publications, Lewiston Maine, 1964. Second Edition was printed in 1969. The book was entitled, "The manual for the Traffic officer"

I quote you now, from page 32, Chapter 3, The operators Licence. "Section 31, General considerations. "Every state requires some form of operators licence to drive a motor vechile, and prescribes in some detail the method of procuring such a licence. If you will think about it for a moment, you will see that the system of operatorlicencing is one of the basic elements in the entire motor CONTROL SYSTEM. It enables the state to set standards and qualifications for prospective drivers, to check holders of liocences as to their present qualifications; and by revoking the licence, to eliminate undesirable drivers. It also serves as A BASIC IDENTIFCATION DOCUMENT for traffice purposes and all in all, is probably one of the most valuable peices of paper that the avarage American possesses -- at least he acts that way. "In order to allow the state THE BORAD POWERS OF CONTROL over the motor vehicles that it must have to keep the roads at all safe, the courts had to do some JUGGLING WITH OUR TRADITIONAL IDEAS AS TO OUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS CITIZENS After all, doesn't every tax payer help pay for the roads; and therefore shouldn't everyone have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO USE THE ROADS as he sees fit? Well, if this were the case, then we could forget all about any effective traffice control becaus such rights could only be controlled by very elaborate and complicated court procedures. To get around this, the courts set up the THEORY that the right to drive is a PRIVILEGE and not a constitutional right; PRIVILEGES ARE SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL with a minimum of formalities -- whereas RIGHTS are surrounded with CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS and can be moved only BY A LEGAL BULDOZER."

Words in all capitalization are emphasis by me, not the writer of the book. The word citizen appears in the book as written above, with a lowercase c.

The two interesting points about this article and page in Mr. Isaacson's book, is that he points out an interesting fact: Without such control, the only way to get jerks who can't drive off the road, would be thru a very lengthy, complicated, and expensive court process. On the other hand, the second point he made, is that privileges are subject to state control, where as rights are protected from state control, and that the courts knew at the time of the adoption of this "control system" that it was covertly acting unconstitutionaly by converting our rights, to privileges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Situation #6

5/15/2007

Page 33 of 61

Demand Letter to New York Court

By Pat Brady, New York JIC

5/15/2007

Page 34 of 61

5/15/2007

Page 35 of 61

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Situation #7

The argument is: Is driving a right, or a privlage? Below are arguments supporting the idea that driving your privately owned vehicle is a RIGHT.

Note 1: "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.

Note 2. "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

Note 3:

5/15/2007

Page 36 of 61

The RIGHT of the citizen to drive on a 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)

Note 4:

"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (could this be driving?) not a mere privilege but is a RIGHT or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

And more...

"The RIGHT to travel on the public highways is a constitutional RIGHT." Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787

"Constitutionally protected liberty includes ... the RIGHT to travel ..." as quoted in 13 Cal Jur 3d p.416

"Where RIGHTS secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)

"Constitutional RIGHTS may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the State are public property; that 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." - Stephensen vs. Binford 287 US 251 (1932)

"Users of the highway for transportation of persons or property for hire may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the highways for public purposes." - Richmond Baking Co. v. Dept. of Treasury 18 NE 2d 778

"Anything which cannot be enjoyed without legal authority would be a mere privilege, which is generally evidenced by a license. The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege, but a right. ...a license may be exacted for vehicles used in the transportation of goods and merchandise, or of passengers or for other purposes of traffic; but such license is an occupation license, and not one for the use of the streets." - City of Chicago v. Collins 51 NW 907 at 910

Note 5: "The license charge imposed by the Motor Vehicle Act is an excise or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ order to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state authorities; it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." - PG&E v. State Treasurer 168 Cal 420

5/15/2007

Page 37 of 61

"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. "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 Ok. Just a few examples... But let us take a look at the history of public roads. Before the invention of the Gasoline engine, all public roads were used eather by people on foot, or by horse. (See Note 1.) Sometimes these horses pulled carriges. At the time, people were not required to have any kind of licence, eather for themselves, ( operator of horse ) nor for their horse, or horses, as many had more than one. Everyone travled as they pleased. They used the roads, the roads were maintained by the public. Then, along comes the Automobile.. At first, they were so unusaual that horses did not recgonize them, and startled them. When an auto and a horse met on a road, it was usally the horse that went out of control, not the auto. Since people of the times thought that the new fangled stuff was a public nuisnence, they demanded the the law makers do something about it. So a law was passed, requiring people who operated the autos, to get a Licence, in order to operate them on the roads. This licence, or badge of privilage, ( see note 5,) was imposed, so that the law makers could then tell the public, that the autos were privlaged, and had paid a tax to the public, for use of the roads. It did not matter to the law makers, that everyone had a right to use the roads. So long as they did so in a reasonable mannor. ( see note 2. ). The law makers at the time, felt that using an auto on public streets was not "in a reasonable mannor", and thus declared that a licence would be required. It did not occure to them, that the term Driver, ( see note 3, ) applied to both horse drawn carrige and to auto's. Both have drivers, which are in fact, supposed to be in control over the power source. In one case the power source is the horse(s), the other, the Engine. Proper operation of a horse, or rather the proper riding of a horse, was not considered the same as the proper operation of an automobile. (See note 4.) But facts are facts..Both needed human guidence, which in my opinion is a deffinition of an Operator. Even in the old days, an operator of a commerical wagon, was not required by law, to have a licence, neather for the operator, nor wagon. Due to a clash of technologies, I.E. Horse drawn wagon, verses the Gasoline combustion engined automobile, a different set of laws were created to regulate the new techonology. It never occured to the people at the time that auto drivers were no different from the horse drivers. Save the idem for which they were driving. One was biological, the other purly mechinacial. Both had drivers. Both could be privatly owned. Both could be privatly operated. Both could be commericaly operated. So what is the differance? None. But due to the thinking of the times, people demanded that the new technology be considered something different that what it was. Something which needed regulations. The people at the time, without relizing it, gave up a common right. That right, being to travel, and to operate privatly owned property, on public roads, without the

5/15/2007

Page 38 of 61

need of a privlage licence. Along with the licence, came regulations, and taxation. Since the lawmakers were now controlling a "right" they had the right to dictate how an individual must act, in order to obtain that new "privilege" . Soon, taxes were added, and other requirements were added. In stead of just paying a tax to get a privilege tag for your property, you were now required to obtain another privlege tag for your self. It was called an Operators licence, or Privilege to operate. What does that mean? It means the congress decided to tell you what you could do with your own property! Isn't that slavery? Or at the least, involentary servitude? So, not only were you required to obtain a privilege tag for your own property, you were required to get one for YOURSELF!. In addition, later they decided to require you to obtain Insurance. If you did not, then you could not obtain the Privelege tag for yourself, and with out that, you could not get the Privilege tag for your property. Then, if you refused to get all of them, they would arrest you for violation of the law, because they feel that they have the authority to regulate YOU, Your property, and your money. ( Your driving, your car, your insurance.) Then, to add insult to injury, they started taxing your fuel supply. Called a gas tax. And they taxed your Tires, and oil, and other such supplies needed to maintain your property. All because someone thought that the government had the right to regulate someone's use of public roads, because they were using a mode of transportation, other than what was accepted by the general public. Too bad our law makers at the time weren't as smart as they thought they were.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5/15/2007

Page 39 of 61

Situation #8

OUTLAWS LEGAL SERVICE* Why Some People Need A Driver's License A Lecture by George Gordon Let me start off and explain to you why some people need a driver's license. There was a time when we didn't need one. When you didn't have one, and you were able to enjoy just driving along in your old car, your 1910 Peerless or your 1910 Model - T Ford. You didn't have or even need a driver's license. You were driving as a matter of right, exercising your Liberty under the Constitution to go from point A to point B. Then somebody came along and said, Gosh, wouldn't it be interesting or nifty or nice to. . .? I call this the insurance scam. Somebody went to this insurance company . . . let's say he was a salesman for the insurance company. He goes in . . . naturally all corporate business is interested in making money . . . he says, "Wouldn't it be nice to increase profits and cut costs?" "Let me make a suggestion. I'll tell you what we need. We need to insure all of these new horseless carriages. If we could insure all of these horseless carriages, boy there would be a huge market there. I predict that we're going to move from horses and wagons to automobiles." And so the man goes out and he starts selling policies on horseless carriages and automobiles. But, the more of these horseless carriages and automobiles that pack the roads, then the more accidents, and more claims, right? So somewhere around, let's say, 1910 . . . let's start out with them selling insurance policies in 1900 to people that have horseless carriages. By 1910 you go into the board room of the insurance company, and what do you see? Somebody is in there saying, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?" "You know?" answers someone else. "I noticed the biggest claims problems that we have are these automobiles that come to intersections and one of them doesn't stop or doesn't see the other one and he goes into the intersection, and bang!, there's a crash in the intersection. I think what we need is the stop sign law." "If we had a law that put stop signs at these intersections, I think that we could cut down on those accidents and that would cut down on the claims and losses at the insurance claims window, and that would cut our costs and increase our profits." "Well, how are we going to effect that?" someone else asked. "Oh, I know what we'll do. We'll go up to the legislature and we'll lobby these legislators up here and we'll show them a bunch of real pictures of death and carnage. We'll show them pictures of arms that are cut off by people that went through the windshield in these accidents. And we'll lobby and we'll tell them that for the health, safety and welfare of the people, under the police powers, we need these stop signs."

5/15/2007

Page 40 of 61

Pretty soon we've got stop sign laws. Now, that cuts down on accidents there. But, what else do you need? Well, about 1920, let's say, somebody comes in and they say, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?" So the insurance industry says, "Gosh, that's interesting. Let's see. What's the biggest single thing that costs us money?" "Well, these automobiles drive awful fast. So we need some traffic regulation. We've got to have a line down the middle of the road, and we've got to have speed limits, and we've got to have signs that show us curves, and we're going to call these 'traffic regulations.'?" "Oh, how do we get those passed?" "Well, we'll go to the legislature and we'll show them a lot of pictures of death and destruction and carnage on the highway. And we'll do it in the name of the people to protect the people's health, safety and welfare under the police powers. Oh, and we're doing it with the noblest of intentions." So now you go up to the legislature this is the insurance industry they show them the pictures and they have the public hearings and go through all the processes and pass these laws called regulations. Nobody objects too much to that and so pretty soon, somebody comes along and says, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?" "Well, we noticed that people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five have the most accidents. Some of the highest rates of claims. So what we need is a system where we can keep records on these driver's. What we'll do is we'll propose a licensing law. And we'll claim that people that aren't licensed are a menace on the road, and that what we need is the licensing to establish qualifications for competency." Who's going to argue about that? You don't want incompetent driver's out there on the road, do you? So, we passed the licensing law at some point in time and then we start to keep records. What we'll do to get people to go down and get these licenses is, we'll lower insurance rates to licensed driver's and raise insurance rates to unlicensed driver's. Well, ten years goes by and we come up to 1930, let's say, or something like that, and now we've got this uniform licensing law border to border, coast to coast. Now what we need to do is we've got to have stricter enforcement of the traffic regulations. So what we need to do is codify these, and call them misdemeanors, and we've got to dish out some punishment for these traffic offenders who are killing people by speeding and drunk driving and doing these violations of law. So we'll codify those. Here again is your insurance industry going in to the legislature and they go through the hearings. They never do this in the name of profit to protect the claims window of the insurance industry they always do this in the name of health, safety and welfare of the people under the police powers. "We're doing this to protect you, Mr. John Q. Public, from those drunk drivers out there. Those wicked evil terrible awful people." So, somebody in the insurance industry asks, "How do we increase profits and cut costs?" "The next step is, now that we've got everybody licensed, what we need next is a mandatory insurance law. The reason we need a mandatory insurance law is that there are these irresponsible people out there, and they drive their cars, and they run into people, and then they don't have any insurance, and they can't pay the medical bills, and they can't pay the hospital, and they can't pay for the damages they cause, so what we need is a universal insurance program. So what we're going to do is pass a law, and we'll put this in the traffic code."

5/15/2007

Page 41 of 61

Now let's take it a step further, you know, say about 1950 or 1960 somebody says, "Well, how do we increase profits and cut costs?" "What we need to do is educate our youth. We need to take traffic safety into the public schools and have a driver's education program. We've got to get to these young people and teach them how to get a driver's license, how to register their car, how to get insurance. In other words, we've got to train these young people to be slaves when they are age fourteen." And so you license the kid when he's fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen. You make the requirement to graduate from high school that they have this driver education, this driver training. He gets out of school, you've never taught him anything about the Constitution. You never taught him any thing about rights versus privilege. So what we've got now is the perfect slave. He's created and designed by his government to be a perfect tax-payer. Now, if he violates or breaks any rules or regulations, what happens? Oh, you take him into the traffic court and they fine him under a penal statute . . . under a contractual penalty for violating the terms and conditions of the contract. Now, on our streets and highways today, we have a virtual police-state tyranny. That's a fact. The police stop you. They can search your car. They don't need any Fourth Amendment warrant whatsoever. They can arrest you and throw you in jail for drunk driving and then you can worry about how you're going to prove that you weren't drunk, whether you are or not . . . and listen, I can categorize and tell you some of the most tear-jerking horror stories about people who've been entrapped, and charged with felonies, and thrown in the penitentiary. Now, did they hurt anybody? No. Nobody was damaged. Nobody was hurt? But here they are in prison for drunk driving, maybe the second or third time, and the guy has never had an accident. And, I'm going to talk to you about that in a moment, and show you how that works. The traffic court's sole function and purpose is to protect the profitability of the insurance industry. It isn't there for any other purpose. Now the professed goals are always altruistic and magnanimous, and of course, we don't want people killed on the roads. And so we've got this big kick now that we're going to put all these drunk drivers in prison and I've got to lay this story on you, because when it comes to logic, reason and common sense, sometimes what I hear up here in my legislature just befuddles me. Here are some statistics I heard up here in the legislature. I went up there, and here in Idaho, they're going to pass this strict drunk-driving law. The second time you're caught drunk driving . . . I mean, you don't have to kill anybody, get in an accident or anything . . . just go get a few drinks in you and drive down the road, the policeman stops you, gives you a ticket, you plead guilty, pay a $300 fine, come back . . .. Let it happen again and they're going to charge you with a felony. That's what they are proposing. Here's what some of the testimony was about. This one lady get up and she says, "Now listen, there were 52,000 killed last year, and 26,000 or those deaths were alcohol related. We've just got to do something about these drunk drivers because I'm telling you they are just killing people, there's just carnage on the road, and we've just got to do something about these lethal weapons called automobiles driving down the roads with these drunks in them and these alcoholics,

5/15/2007

Page 42 of 61

and these mean, wicked and terrible people." So I listened to all that. I listened to eighteen people testify in two hours and a half, and every one of those people had a financial interest in alcoholism. There were non-profit corporations that did alcohol and drug evalua tions. There was the Attorney General, who is part of the law enforcement growth industry he has about fifty prosecutors who prosecute drunk drivers. Then there's the prison out here. They've got to warehouse these criminals and they've got beds to fill so that they've got guards to employ to guard those people out there. There's the insurance industry, of course. And the medical industry is interested in these drunk drivers also. They make money off of alcohol evaluation. Then there are these alcohol clinics where you go in and dry out. Not one drunk came in to testify. Not one! I am sitting there just watching all this, and I think to myself, 26,000. I sat there for a little bit, and my mind works differently from bureaucrats. It works differently from politicians. And I'm sitting there and I'm saying, "Let me see if I understand this. For some reason we've got to pass legislation and call drunkenness a felony?" Now, we're going to lock this guy up in prison for five years, that's right. A felony is five years in jail. Do you know what it costs to put a man in prison for five years? In Idaho? $15,000 a year. Let's see how much that is . . . fifteen, thirty, forty-five, sixty, seventy five thousand dollars. My God! Do you understand how much money that is? You've got this drunk out here and some of these people are testifying that alcoholism is an illness, it's a disease. And we're going to put these sick people out here in the penitentiary for five years, for seventy-five thousand dollars. I'm saying, wait a minute. I could send that guy to Harvard twice for that kind of money and turn him into a medical doctor . . . or a lawyer, or something, for that kind of money. Look, if I've got a guy driving down the road drunk and I wanted to get him off the road, why don't . . . instead of paying seventy-five thousand to lock him in prison, why don't we give him fifty thousand dollars and tell him to go to Brazil? We'd save twenty-five thousand and we'd get rid of the guy! We'd make money, and he'd be happier down there. He'd have fifty thousand to blow. He could practically retire. OK. We've got to have law and order, and we've got to get these drunks off the roads; so we've got twenty-six thousand of them alcohol related. I sitting there, and I'm thinking; my father was killed in a head-on traffic crash in 1970. I'll tell you, I was really upset about that. This fellow crossed the center line of the road, about four thirty in the afternoon, in broad daylight, trying to pass a truck, and he didn't have enough clearance, and he ran right into my father and he killed him. My father went right through the windshield and broke his neck and it killed him. And I'll tell you what really galls me, the guy was stone sober! Didn't even drink! It didn't help my dad any. It killed him. So why do I . . . I'm sitting in this meeting and I'm listening to this diatribe, and I'm saying to myself, "Wait a minute. What is it? Twenty-six thousand were alcohol related. Well then twenty-six thousand were not alcohol related, are they?" "Why don't we fund a study for the twenty-six thousand that are non-alcohol related and find out how many of the twenty-six thousand drivers that were not drunk had blond hair and blue eyes. And find out if there is a correlation between blond hair and blue eyes and traffic accidents and death on the highway?"

5/15/2007

Page 43 of 61

It makes about that much sense to me. The one thing that was totally absent in all the testimony was, how many of those deaths that were alcohol related were caused by the drunk? You know, there was a famous Supreme Court case came down in New Mexico about ten years ago. This farmer was driving down the road in his old pick-up, just bombed out of his mind. He was so drunk that he couldn't walk. That's probably why he was driving. He had a bottle of whiskey about two-thirds empty in the truck bed tool box, and he's driving down the road and there's an accident, a head-on crash. A doctor, his wife and his two children, from Houston, Texas, who were going on holiday to Los Angeles were killed. The farmer survived. That's the way it usually happens. The drunk survives and this wonderful family, this man and his wife and his two children were killed. The problem here was that the doctor fell asleep, crossed the center line, and hit the farmer head-on. Now let me ask you: Is that wreck, and are those deaths, alcohol related? Oh yeah. You bet. The farmer's drunk. But is the farmer the cause of the accident, or is the farmer (who was drunk) the victim? What none of these people tell you is, who has ever funded a study to find out whether or not drunkenness is the cause of the accidents that cost these lives. They'll cite you a few cases where the guy is drunk, ran the red light, ran into this blond-haired, blue-eyed, twenty year old young woman just out of college, or whatever, and ruined her life, and how "we've gotta do something about this guy because it's the fifth time." Maybe so. But, that's one out of twenty six thousand. There's still twenty-five thousand nine hundred ninety nine that we've got to analyze. But for some reason we want to zero in on this one group over here. Why do we want to zero in on one group? To protect the claims window of the insurance industry. I don't care if you drive down the road drunk. My father never took a sober breath for the last twenty years of his life, and he never had an accident drunk. He had several wrecks sober and never had a wreck drunk. Now I'm not sitting here telling you that you should drive drunk. I don't know whether you should or not. I'm just telling you that I'm suspicious when I see people who testify before the legislature trying to get some kind of legislation passed, and they're sitting there railing against some particular group of people that have this or that particular financial motivation involved. Listen, if you're running a non-profit organization in Idaho, and it's to rehabilitate alcoholics, these people work for these organizations. While the organization is tax exempt, the people who run them get their salaries and make their livings doing that, don't they? Well, if they are getting their salaries and making their living

5/15/2007

Page 44 of 61

doing that, then they have a financial interest involved, don't they? John Q. Public, the average drunk, he doesn't make any money off of it so he doesn't go up a testify. Oh. Now I see how that goes. Let's carry this on a step further. The purpose for having driver's licenses is to regiment all the people into a little group that can be regulated under the police powers, separate from their Constitutional rights. Like I said, I'm not really concerned about you driving drunk. I've only got a fifty percent chance of being killed if you're drunk. I still stand the same fifty percent chance of getting killed if you are sober. And I'm just as dead whether you are drunk or sober. It doesn't make any difference whether a drunk kills me or a sober guy kills me. What you're going is creating this police-state environment giving the police these broad new powers to set up road blocks. I mean, these people are so off-the-wall when it comes to our constitutional guarantees, they're so emotionally involved in their religious philosophy, or their moral philosophy, whatever it is, that they want to set up road blocks to run all these drunks off the road. I'll bet you there are more people that drink in this country than don't drink. If all of your people out there that drink don't want to be involved in this massive police-state gestapo-type society where we're just going to create this communist one-world government right here in our own land, for the sole purpose of eradicating drunks. Well, let's think about that for a minute. The insurance company probably has figured that if they could get rid of a certain number of drinking drivers, they may save a little money. I don't know who came in, but somebody came into the board room and said, "I'll tell you these drunks over here are costing us a lot of money at the claims window. What we need to do is do something about them." So the President and a few of them get out there and they start beating the tom-toms and then they start going to the legislature, and they start getting these laws passed. Now, personally, I don't really care. I don't have a driver's license. I don't come under Title 49, so I don't have to be concerned about it. But, let me tell you that you licensed people out there better get real concerned about it. If I'm concerned about you with your hundred dollar car running into my thirty-thousand dollar Porsche, I don't need any legislation to protect me from you. If I'm real concerned about it, it is up to me to go out and insure my thirty-thousand dollar Porsche against irresponsible people who do not have insurance . . . who are poor and cannot pay for my thirty-thousand dollar Porsche. And if you are the poor guy, and you've got the hundred dollar car, are you really concerned about my thirty -thousand dollar Porsche crashing into your '62 Buick Skylark and wrecking it? You just go out, pay another hundred dollars and buy another car, right? You're not real concerned about it. Besides that, if I've got a thirty -thousand dollar Porsche, and the wreck's my fault, I probably have a hundred dollars and I can pay you, right? I don't where this logic of theirs comes from, but we citizens don't go out buying insurance policies for other people, or compelling them to buy insurance policies, for fear that when they die they might leave their family on welfare, do they? If the government can compel you to buy an insurance policy, can't they compel you to buy a water bed, or compel you to buy a certain type of carpet, or compel you to buy a TV set . . .. The government cannot compel you into a contract against your will

5/15/2007

Page 45 of 61

and over your objection, pursuant to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Well how do that do that by statute under Title 49 in the traffic code? That's easy. You volunteered to do that. You've got a driver's license in your pocket. How can the government come in and tell you that you've got to get a permit, and that you've got to build your house in a certain way by a certain method? That it's going to be inspected, and you're going to be regulated, and that if you don't do that you are a criminal and they're going to put you in jail? I don't know. A fellow went to jail for five days for building his own house without a building permit. Was there ever a time in America when you could go out a build something on your own property, and you didn't need your government's permission? Yeah, there was. It was when the citizens were responsible for their actions . . . and not someone else. When you are ready to become responsible for your own actions, then you can be free. Because incompetent people are not responsible for their own actions, are they? An incompetent person has a guardian, doesn't he? Don't your children at ten years old have a guardian. Don't you tell your kid that he'll come in at eight or nine o'clock at night, and if he doesn't, there is a penalty here called a belt which will be applied until he can get straight. Do you know that in America today, we have a police-state environment that we Americans bought and paid for? The Poles and the Chechs can complain about their slavery being imposed upon them at gun point by the Russians, but not us Americans. We didn't have anybody come over here with a gun and force us to go get a driver's license or tell you to go get a building permit or compel you into this mercantile equity. We volunteered for it. We bought and paid for it. We went to the insurance company and paid them dollars and cents to take our freedom from us. Now, let me show you how this words with Garrett Truck Lines. I like to talk about Garrett because they come in and out of Boise, and they are pretty much all over the United States. Here's how mercantile equity works. Outside here we have what's called a right-of-way. That's the road. That belongs to the people. Garrett is a paper entity. Garrett is a corporation, and they have no natural inalienable rights. So, when Garrett wants to use that road out there, remember the sovereign peoples representative is the legislature, the legislature created Garrett as a corporation and Garrett is using that road for profit and gain, aren't they? They are using it in privilege. If they use it in privilege, they have to pay us, the sovereign citizens, a tax for the privilege of using that road in interstate commerce. We the citizens own it. We don't have to pay for it. We own the thing. We don't want to pay for something that we already own, do we? You don't pay to park your car in your garage. You pay to park it in somebody else's garage because that's a privilege. But to park it in your own garage isn't.

5/15/2007

Page 46 of 61

When Garrett uses that road, it's a privilege for them and they pay tax on it. Well, let's go back to about 1900. When a man owned his house, he owned the land. He owned his car. He didn't have to pay tax on it. He owns it in fee simple or alodial absolute title. Today, we don't know many people that do that. People live now in equitable interest. They don't own their homes, they own an equitable interest in them. They call themselves home owners, but that's a misnomer. I don't know of very many actual home owners. When I was a youngster, nearly ten years old, almost everybody I knew owned their own home. I mean that house was bought and paid for. In 1940, three thousand dollars would build a nice three-bedroom house. When the man got three thousand dollars, he went out and built the house, and he owned the thing in fee simple. Now, we don't do that. Today, we put three thousand down, of our inflated Federal Reserve notes, and we mortgage that property for thirty years. Well, corporations have no rights and corporations can be taxed for the privileges, and those are called excises taxes. So the bank owns your house, or the mortgage company, or whoever owns it, and by contract they pass that tax on to you. That's right, when you signed that contract for thirty years, you agreed to pay the property taxes and you agreed to insure the house for the entire time, and if you don't, then the bank just does it for you and they add that on to your payments, don't they? The same thing on the highways. We don't own our automobiles, so therefore GMAC owns your car, and the legislature that has passed traffic laws, rules and regulations governing the use of automobiles. Well GMAC doesn't have any rights, and so the statute says that the car has to be registered, has to be licensed, and only licensed drivers can drive it. Go to Hertz and try to rent a car without a driver's license, and see if they'll rent you a car. Why is it that only a licensed driver can drive a Hertz car? Well, because the statute says so. Now those statutes attach to each and every one of those corporate entities. Every one of those persons in mercantile equity have to obey the statutes. You go down and you buy the car from the Ford dealer. The Ford dealer then sells the paper to GMAC. You've agreed in this contractual agreement that you'll obey all the rules and regulations and laws, etc. So you have to be licensed, the car has to be registered, and you also have to carry insurance. And that's all it attaches to. They cannot tax a right. The power to tax is the power to destroy. They can tax Garrett right out of existence, and there is nothing they can do about it. But you can't tax the individual out of existence because the individual is a sovereign. The individual has natural inalienable rights guaranteed by the common law under the constitution. So don't you see what happens to you? You go down and you buy the car. Now, by contractual arrangement, you have given up your constitutional rights for a privilege under mercantile equity. Now you come under the statutes because the corporation, through its contract, has imposed it upon you.

5/15/2007

Page 47 of 61

We have our government out here licensing free and natural persons as well as corporate persons. You don't have to be, but nearly everybody has volunteered. Now the poor policeman's out here trying to enforce the law. Look at his problem from his perspective. He's been to the government school. He doesn't understand the constitution or inalienable rights. All he understands is statutes and law. Police regulations. The guy's been in the army, he was in the Marines for a few years, and maybe he was an M.P., and all he knows is, "Sit down and shut up?" "Do this, do that, jump up, come here" and all that. He doesn't understand freedom. He's been a slave his whole life. That's all the military service is, voluntary servitude. You get in there and you sign the contract, and there you are at the Captain's Mast there on the bridge of the ship. Here's the way that comes down. You have two crewmen down in the engine room and they have a fight. Do they have any constitutional rights on the high seas? That's Admiralty jurisdiction, you take them up to a Captain's Mast. He just sits there and says, "Well who started this fight?" And he asks questions. Are their any Fifth Amendment rights? Are their Fourth Amendment rights? No. He just says, "I'm confining you fellows to quarters and I'm going to fine you so much, and blah, blah, blah." That's the end of the argument. Well what happens when a passenger on a ship gets into a fight with one of the crewman, and they haul the passenger and the crewman up to the Captain. Well, if they haul this particular passenger up, I'm going to say, "Excuse me, but you've got a problem here. I'm not one of the crew. I'm not one of the fellows you have jurisdiction over. You don't have jurisdiction over me. I'm challenging your jurisdiction. I'm a paying passenger. I'm a sovereign. You put me off at the next port and we'll talk about common law rights." And that's where you are on the road. You see, Garrett has to stop at the port of entry. Garrett trucks, and all these others trucks that are operating in interstate commerce for profit or gain, using our roads, have to pay tax. Let's try this on to the independent trucker. The independent trucker takes five thousand dollars, he goes down and he puts five thousand down on a truck, and now he owes GMAC, or somebody, a bunch of money, doesn't he? He doesn't own that truck in fee simple . Now he needs a load, right? So he goes down here to a broker and he goes out and he gets a job to haul stuff. He goes over to the, let's call it, Acme Lumber Company, and with a bill of lading, he takes a load of lumber from Idaho, and he's going to take it to Texas. So he's going to act in interstate commerce. He has a letter of privilege for profit or gain to use the roads. Don't we have to control him? How do we know that he's not going to steal the lumber and run to California and sell it? Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. And here's a fellow that acting in interstate commerce for profit or gain, and he's regulateable. And he'd better stop down here at the port of entry, and he'd better clear, and he'd better pay duties, and he'd better pay his taxes, and he better not be overloaded, and if he is he's going to go into the "Captain's Mast" or summary proceedings. He has to be licensed. His truck has to be licensed. He has to have insurance. We know how that works. It works that way day in and day out, doesn't it?

5/15/2007

Page 48 of 61

How would a man operate, then, if he wanted to PRIVATELY operate in the trucking business from Idaho to New York? Here's the way it works. The Constitution hasn't changed. The Constitution is still in force and effect. What we have to do is we have to correct our status to that we're no longer servants in bondage to free men who are responsible for their actions. Here's the way that works. You go down here and you buy a truck, and you pay cash for it, and you own it, and you throw the license plates away. Now you're claiming to own this thing in alodial fee simple. Now if you've got a driver's license, turn it back in by affidavit and stop driving as a matter of privilege and start driving as a free man as a matter of right. Now you've got no driver's license. You don't owe any money on the truck, so you're not affecting any corporate entity in any way. Don't insure the truck, because if you insure the truck, then the insurance company is the master and they're responsible for your actions. You've got to be responsible for your own actions. Now you go down and you want to haul a load. Oh, oh. Are you going to go over here to the lumber company with a bill of lading and haul that lumber? Uh huh. No. You can't do that. What you do is you go over and you tender or you pay properly in full for the lumber. Now you own it. You own the lumber. You own the truck. And you own the road. Can you drive your truck, with your property on it, on your road? Well certainly you can. Can you drive it in the several states? Absolutely. You can drive it in every state in the Union. Can you do it for private business? Absolutely. Take that load of lumber over to Los Angeles or Houston and sell it, and convert it to something, and go down and buy another load and come back. You can do that. That's what I do. Do you know of any people who do that? Well I don't know of any either. If you're a truck driver out there and you've been complaining about this police-state environment, if you want to operate as a free man you have to be prepared to be responsible for your actions. If you think about it for a moment -- If the insurance company is responsible for your actions, then you are affecting a public interest, and if you affect a public interest the police powers can come into play, and if the police powers come into play, then you're going to be regulated . . . and you're going to be taxed. Now I want to tell you about the Toby story. This is an interesting and a true-to-life characterization of the way our constitution works, the way it has worked in the past, and the way I hope it continues to work in the future.

5/15/2007

Page 49 of 61

Remember the story of "Roots"? It was on TV. Here was a fellow who was a natural person with inalienable rights living in his own land and his name was Kunta Kintay. He exercised all the rights of sovereign. He owned property. He was accepted within his community. He wasn't a slave. He wasn't obligated to anybody. He got up in the morning, he went out, and he came and went as he pleased. Then, he got captured. He became a part of the spoils of war, taken to a new land, his name changed from Kunta Kintay, the sovereign free man, to Toby the slave. Toby then was sold to the master. Look up the word slave in Bovier's Law Dictionary and you'll find that a slave is a person. A corporation's a person. A natural Citizen is a person. But there are different statuses. There are different powers, rights, obligations, duties, and capacities for different statuses of persons. Toby has no rights. He doesn't even have a right to live. He has no property rights. He has no right to expect life, liberty or property. He tries to escape. What do you do when you have a horse that keep jumping over the fence? What do you do when you have a cow that keeps breaking the fence, or a calf that you can't keep in? I used to have a bull that kept jumping over the fence. What did we do? Bored a hole through his nose, put a ring in it, and tied it to a twenty foot rope. That stopped him. You have to do something to stop your chattels from running away. Toby ran away. They cut his foot off. It stopped him from running away, didn't it? The master had a right to protect his property. Toby was property. OK. Now what happens? Toby goes out and he starts picking cotton and he stops running away and he becomes a good slave. The master wants to reward the slave with a privilege. So, What's the privilege? The master says, "Toby? See all those women over there? I'm going to let you take any of those women that you want for a wife." There's the marriage license. There's the privilege. Remember, the word "license" means the permission to do something that would be otherwise unlawful. I ask you, my friend, what's illegal about getting married? Did you go down to your government to get a license to get baptized? Do you go to your government to get a license to go to church? Don't you exercise your religious rights freely under the First Amendment? Our government puts out marriage licenses. Isn't marriage a religious business? What business has the government got in regulating marriage? I'll tell you friend, you go out and get a marriage license, and doesn't health and welfare then come into play? And doesn't compulsory education and compulsory attendance to school? And If you're not good,

5/15/2007

Page 50 of 61

we're going to take your kid away from you? Well, what happened to Toby and his wife when his first baby was born. Who owned that child? Toby and his wife? Unh-Unh. You got a bull and a cow. A calf is the offspring. Who owns that calf? That's right, the master owns that calf. Yeah. Remember, when the Constitution was formed in 1787, those people were all slave owners and most of them were religious guys. They understood law. They understood slavery. They understood chattels. They understood mortgages. They understood indenture. It was Benjamin Franklin who said it was better to go to bed hungry than in debt. He said you'd be better off to go to bed without your dinner than to borrow money to eat dinner and wake up to be in servitude the following morning. People understood debt. What does Scripture have to say about that? Isn't the debtor servant to the lender? Does it make you wonder why banks want you to be in debt constantly? You've got a house that free and clear. "Why, free up that equity, friend. Come on in and get a twenty five thousand dollar cash second mortgage and go to Hawaii and squander the money and become our servant for the next twenty-five years." Isn't that what they've been telling you? Now look where Toby is. He has a wife. He's tied to the plantation. He's a family man. He got permission to do something that a free man would do anyway. Have you ever heard of a common law wife or a common law marriage? Do you suppose that people always got marriage licenses from the government to get married? Well, was there ever a time when you could get married without a license? Why don't you ask yourself that one. Let's carry the story on just a couple of steps: The master came to Toby and said, "Toby you've been good. You've been picking cotton and you've got a wife and you're not running away. Tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna give you another privilege. How would you like to drive the wagon to town to get the supplies?" Now that's a cushy job. Truck driver's job is like that. Airline pilots job is like that. So he put Toby on the wagon. He trained him to the rules of the road, and there was the master's permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. You see Toby couldn't leave the plantation. He has to have the master's permission. That's the driver's license. There's your privilege. The master/servant relationship. The state licenses you to drive on the road. The master/servant relationship. Let me ask you this: Toby is driving the wagon to town, he has an accident, he hits another wagon and causes some damage. Who is responsible for the damages that Toby causes on that road? It isn't Toby. He's a slave. He doesn't have any property and can't possibly pay for any damage. The person who licensed him. The person who gave him that permission to go out there on the road. The master is responsible for Toby.

5/15/2007

Page 51 of 61

Well then, when you're out on the road in an insured automobile, in an insured truck, who's responsible when you have an accident? The insurance company is responsible. Well if the insurance company is responsible, isn't the insurance company going to make rules and regulations for you to follow? It makes sense to me. It makes sense to government. It makes sense to everybody. Because, you see, when you're insured, you're not responsible for your actions, the insurance company is. If you're going to be free, you're going to have to be responsible for your actions, and that's where the com mon law comes in. The common law acts after the fact. The common law does not act in equity prior to the occurrence. When the policeman gives you a ticket for driving eighty, he's trying to prevent an accident. That's equity. That's trying to prevent something. That isn't the common law. The common law acts when the damage has occurred. Then you sue and you get money damages back. It's when the guy gouges the other guy's eye out that you gouge his eye out, after the fact. That's the common law. Trying to prevent the eye from being gouged out is in the parameters of the insurance company preventing the loss so that they can protect the claims window. Now that's how your status works. That's how it works with Garrett. That's why you have a driver's license. Let's carry this on another step and look at your status when you're talking about building a house. You go out and you buy a house. You live in it a few years and you say, "Well, I think I'm going to convert the garage over into a family room." You are? Wait a minute. Who are you affecting? Who's house is that? Yours? Well, that's not your house. You have an equitable interest that house, but you're not a property owner. You are bound by contract to specific performance. You are a servant, a slave. A slave to the bank that lent you the money to buy the house. Now there is a $50,000 house. You have a $10,000 equitable interest in it. The bank has a $40,000 equitable interest in it. The house is insured for $50,000 and the insurance company stands to lose $50,000 if the house burns to the ground because you didn't wire it right when you added the room on. In addition to that, the bank is sitting over there saying, "We don't want just anybody adding rooms on, creating 'tobacco-road' tar-paper shacks, depreciating the value of our home that we own, that in case this guy dies or defaults we have to repossess and sell to somebody else." So the banks and the insurance companies and all the lending institutions go to the legislature and get zoning laws. They get building laws to protect their property. That makes sense. If I owned a house, and I sold it to you, I certainly want to be protected. I don't want you to add a room on to that house, wire it incorrectly and have it burn down. I stand to lose $40,000 and you lose $10,000?

5/15/2007

Page 52 of 61

If I'm the insurer of it, I certainly don't want to lose $50,000 because of your ineptness. So you see, a debtor is servant to the lender. The debtor is an incompetent. That's right. Now you're begin ning to see why God in the Scripture said, "The servant is debtor to the lender." You know in ancient times, if you went into debt and didn't pay specific performance they bore a hole in your ear and sold you for seven years until the debt was paid off. Today, we call that bankruptcy. In ancient times they called that slavery. And boy it could get real severe. You know if we were at law, and had substance at the common law all, I'll tell you the common law is pretty brutal. The common law doesn't leave any room for bankruptcy. You're gonna pay your debts or you're going to pay them off. Crime doesn't pay at the common law because we're not interested in the law enforcement growth industry, we're only interested in justice. You know you gouge a man's eye out, the old adage "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is based in the common law. Equity is, "We want to prevent that loss." Now, let's discuss this law enforcement growth industry because the police-state environment we have created around ourselves is really inexplicably bound up in this thing I call the law enforcement growth industry. This law enforcement growth industry, I don't know how big it is, but let's start with a few parameters and let's take a look at what we're talking about with the subject matter. You've got a lot of policemen out here, nationwide, don't you? I don't know how many policemen there are, but there are thousands and thousands and thousands of policemen. There may be two or three million, right? Now, how do they make their living? They make it off of crime. Don't you have to have lawyers to defend those criminals? And don't we have to have lawyers to become prosecutors to prosecute those criminals? Don't we have to have prisons to house those criminals? Don't we have to have jails? Don't we have to have sheriffs, judges? I don't know how many people that are involved in law enforcement, but I'll bet there are four or five million. Let's try it this way. Let's suppose that everybody in America, starting tomorrow morning, refused to disobey any more laws and nobody would drive drunk, and nobody would build a room on their house without a permits, and everybody obeyed all laws. We would have chaos by the middle of the week. What would we do? Why, we'd have five or six million out of work law enforcement people. I don't know how many there are. I wish somebody would let me know. But, I'm telling you that these law schools are graduat ing law students all the time. Every time a lawyer comes out, he's got to have a job somewhere. So he has a real interest in law enforcement and law, prevention and crime, and punishment. So, I've been in jail a couple or three times, and when I go out there people like to ask me:?"What are you in here for? What did you do?"

5/15/2007

Page 53 of 61

I say, "My government puts me in here every once in a while because I don't have a driver's license, or because my car's not registered, and because they don't understand my status. I'm in here because I'm a real bad fellow, and I'm a criminal, and society needs to be protected from me because I want my rights and I want my freedoms, and for demanding these rights and freedoms my government locks me up every now and again to protect you from me." And I find that there are other people in there also . . . I asked a young fellow, "Why are you in here?" He said, "I'm in here because I've been convicted on a felony." "A felony?" I asked, "What did you do?" He said, "Well, I drove drunk." "You drove drunk? What happened?" I asked. "Last year, I was out driving drunk and the policeman caught me and took me over in front of the judge, and I plead guilty and that was one. Then six months later I went out and I did the same thing and that was two. Then about two months ago I was having a big party over at my apartment, and we were all drunk and having a good time, and we were making too much noise, and the police came up and recognized me and they said, 'Is that your car down there?'" I said, "yeah." They said, "It's parked a little close to a fire hydrant, go down there and move it.?" So he went down to move it, and as soon as he started the car, they arrested him for drunk driving. He fell within the statute, didn't he? He had the driver's license. He was acting in privilege. He went down and started the motor. The statute says, " . . . in control of an automobile under the influence." So they arrested him. Why did they do that? Did you need to be protected from that fellow? No, they entrapped him because they need business. You know, in our county it costs thirteen dollars and sixteen cents a day to keep a man in the county jail. Now, while you're in this county jail, you're locked up in this room and there are ten other guys in there. Ten times thirteen-sixteen is a hundred and thirty dollars a day for that little tank. They have to feed you every day, and so they have these uniformed bell boys running up and down the halls and they bring you your food. If they didn't have those beds filled with people, what would you need those jail guards running up and down the halls bringing their meals for, and guarding them? The jail guards would be unemployed if they did not have people inside those jails go guard. If the prison wasn't full of people, there wouldn't be any need for the guards, now would there? Now I'm not telling you that there are not some bad people in jail. There's some people, I suppose, that need to be locked up. But my guesstimate is that about ten or fifteen percent of the people that are in the jails here in Idaho are there because they are entrapped. They are not there because I need to be protected, or you need to be protected from them. The guy that's driving down the road drunk . . . unless he runs into me and causes a damage, I don't have any beef with him. Hasn't crime always grown by five percent a year?

5/15/2007

Page 54 of 61

Well, I was born in 1939, and all I know like Will Rogers always said, is what I read in the papers. Here's the way this comes down. From the earliest time that I can remember reading the paper, I can see where crime increases by a certain percentage. About five percent a year. Isn't pretty much that way wherever you are; in Cleveland or Philadelphia or New York? That's the way it is here. So, in order to combat that crime, what do the police department and the FBI and the officials that are in charge of crime prevention, and the people that deal in crime, what do they tell you? "We need more police, more laws, and more money." Now isn't that about what you hear in Cleveland, Philadelphia or wherever you are? Well, I don't know what they tell you there, but that's what they tell us here. Here in Boise, Idaho, let's say we have a hundred policemen, and crime is at a level . . . let's call it level fifty, OK? We want to reduce crime from level fifty to zero. We want no crime. We want every policeman, every sheriff, every lawyer, every judge in the state of Idaho unemployed. That's our goal. I want every single law enforcement officer off the payroll and out doing something that's productive. We want absolutely no crime whatsoever. We want every citizen obeying every law. To do this, to achieve this goal, to combat and to curb crime, we're going to educate people in the schools and churches, we're going to educate them on television, and we're going to educate them in our jails, and we are going to convert everybody to one hundred percent obedience to all laws at all times without any exceptions whatsoever, and throw every law enforcement worker out of a job, in a certain period of time. Alright. That's our goal. To accomplish that, we've got to increase the police budget by five percent. So let's say we're spending ten million dollars a year, and increase that by five percent. We've got to increase our police force from one hundred to one hundred and five, so that's five percent. We have one thousand laws, so what we're going to do is increase the laws by five percent. That's so the police will have more tools with which to combat crime. And we're going to give them five percent more police cars. Now, instead of a hundred policemen out there on the road, we've got a hundred and five. Next we tell the policeman that in order to justify his job, he has to make, in an eight hour shift, four contacts with the public. In order for the guy to justify his job, doesn't he have to write four tickets, or doesn't he have to arrest four criminals, doesn't he have to do something to justify his job? Now, doesn't that sound like we're creating crime? Aren't we really, in fact, doing this: Every time we increase the budget by five percent, the police by five percent; aren't we really increasing crime by five percent? Because if there are some real criminals out there who are bad types then we've got to have other issues like drunks on the road so that the policeman can have something to do. Don't they have a vested interest in this the sheriffs and the jailers and all these law enforcement people? Don't they have a vested interest in trying to keep crime going? You know, I don't want to pay seventy five thousand dollars to put somebody in prison for five years because he's drunk. Or because he's an alcoholic, because he's sick.

5/15/2007

Page 55 of 61

But for some reason, we've got it in our minds that that's what we've got to do. You know really, all I want to do is to be protected from criminals. I don't need any policeman to protect me from criminals because I carry a gun. I know that right away you're going to say, "Oh! He carries a gun." That's right, our Founding Fathers understood crime. That's why the Second Amendment's in the Constitution. The police cannot prevent crime. Tell me of one rape that the police ever prevented. Policemen catch rapists after they've committed the crime. I'll tell you how to solve the rape problem. They did it down in Florida. They did it up in Minneapolis one time. What they did is they went on a campaign and started arming women. I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: "You put a twenty-five automatic in the purse of every woman in America and there will be no more rape." That's the end of the argument. One of two or three things has to happen. Number one, the women kill all the rapists. If women killed all the rapists there wouldn't be any more rapes, would there? Isn't that logical? If there's ten thousand rapists in America . . . I don't know how many there are, let's say there's ten thousand. If we killed all then thousand of them, there wouldn't be any more. If we killed five thousand of them, I'll bet the other five thousand would become reformed rapists and we wouldn't have any more rapes. What we do is we disarm all the citizens. We tell them, "You've got to have a gun permit to carry this gun." We take all the guns away from the citizens. Now the citizen can't protect himself, and the policemen is not there. How many rapists run out and say, "Officer, come on over. I'm gonna rape this woman and I want you here to catch me." When did that ever hap pen? I never saw that. So rape goes up every year, and armed robbery goes up every year. I remember down in Oakland, California, there was a liquor store owner down there. He had a gun and he killed three robbers; bang, bang, bang. He kept getting robbed all the time. He got a gun. He killed three. He's not getting robbed any more. You know, there was some blood there for a while. And I'm sure that some of these ladies will shoot their feet off, and shoot their husbands, and have some accidents and there will be some blood and the bleeding hearts will come out and say, "My God, we've got to take all these guns away from people." Well, the problem with people is that they don't know how to handle guns. I'm not here on some kick to get you to arm yourself, because I don't really care. What I want to do in this segment is I'm trying to show you what crime is and I'm trying to show you what your status is. I'm trying to show you what the root cause of our problem is. And then as we progress with these lessons, how you go in on that courtroom floor and how you win every time. Because, if you are going to go in there and you are going to lose every time, then there is no advantage in going into the courtroom. Citizens that go into the courtroom go in there in stark terror. I mean literally. The average guy going in to a traffic court, he says, "Uh, I want to plead guilty, you honor, with explanation. Let me tell you why I'm guilty and why I'm sorry and why this happened so you'll give me a twenty-five dollar fine instead of a thirty-five dollar fine."

5/15/2007

Page 56 of 61

Why doesn't he go in there and say, "I haven't committed any crime and I'm not going to plead to this. I am standing mute. If the government wants to spend two thousand dollars convicting me, then so be it." "My attitude is, sir, that any crime that's important enough for my government to prosecute is important enough for me to defend." Now, that's my attitude. I carry a gun because I don't need policemen to protect me. I don't need to spend millions of dollars of tax money out here for people to drive up and down the streets with badges on their chests, and nifty uniforms, carry ing guns on their hip, acting as hired guns. I don't need any of that. Why would I need it? I dare you to come rob me. I'll tell you one thing, robbing me could get real hazardous to your health. If we had two hundred million red-blooded Americans all carrying a gun under their shirt, there wouldn't be any armed robberies. There wouldn't be any armed robbers! The only reason you've got armed robbers is because you've got citizens that don't have guns and can't kill 'em. That's why you've got armed robbers. You know there was a time, about 1900, I think every man in the country carried a gun. I came from a family . . . I can't remember a how many guns my dad had. He must have had ten or fifteen. I can't ever remember living in a house that didn't have a gun in it. My house has got ten guns in it now. You know, I talk to people all the time that not only don't have guns, are afraid of them. I'm sitting there going, "You're afraid of a gun? Don't you know how to use one? Haven't you been in the army. Didn't they teach you in the army how to use a gun?" People come back from the army and they don't have guns. Women don't have guns. Women get raped all the time, they get abused all the time. Well let me tell you . . . you know our Founding Fathers knew how to solve that problem and they wrote that right into your Constitution. Because that's a right, it's inalienable and it can't be taken away from you. You can give it up, you know you can give up a right but it cannot be taken away from you. Now that's the difference between status at law and privilege under contract. I would say that starting about 1900 we began to shift away from our natural unalienable rights. I remember falling into that syndrome about 1965, somebody got it in my head that the way to make money and be successful in life was to get into debt. Borrow money, pyramid, buy, sell, trade and become kind of a business man. Boy let me tell you all I had was misery the entire time. I was in debt and I was a slave and I was a servant and I paid taxes. My government was after me constantly for not paying my taxes. Gosh I couldn't afford to pay my taxes. I could barely afford to keep ends meeting and I think that most of you all have the same problem. Then one day I began to find out what was the root cause of my problem. Well the root cause of my problem was my status, I was a slave,

5/15/2007

Page 57 of 61

a servant. I was in the Constitutional sense a subject and a member of society. Not a sovereign and a natural person who is a law maker instead of a law obeyer. You know law has to be made for people who cannot govern themselves. You have to have rules for Toby when he's driving the horses to town. Don't whip the horses, don't speed, and stop for ladies as their crossing the road. Isn't that the rule for of the master concerning Toby the slave? So the insurance company does that to us they say, don't you whip the horses in that car and drive over fifty -five because there's a possibility that you might cause an accident which would then make us liable and we'd have to pay these damages. You see where you're at. The master/servant relationship? You know the root cause of our problem then is whether or not we're willing to be responsible for our actions. I think that's where the bottom line is. Most people want limited liability for debt. They want limited responsibil ity. And the insurance agents, boy let me tell you, they can't preach a sermon about well you know what'll happen to ya if you get in this accident, well you could lose your house, you could lose this you could lose that or one thing and another. Well certainly you could. Why don't you go out and learn how your courtroom works? What's wrong with learning how to be a responsible person when you cause a damage, you have to pay for it. But if you don't cause a damage, why should you be paying money into an insurance fund to cover the dam ages and the irresponsibilities of other people? That's what the insurance fund is all about. The insurance company pays out about five percent. So you pay ten million dollars in and they pay what...about five hundred thousand out. I think that's about what the ratio is. Somebody once told me that the insurance companies pay out about five percent, and take the rest in as profit and commissions, etc. I say "poppycock"! I can spend that money on myself just as well as they can. I don't need anybody to spend my money. I was thirty-seven before I learned how to count. Once I learned how to count I fired my accountant. I try to encourage other people to learn how to count also. In review, when you get in on that courtroom floor, and if you want common law rights, then you have to be responsible at the common law. We're going to talk about the scene of the crime and we're going to get into the nitty-gritty. I'm going to show you classroom scenes here of arraignments, probable cause hearings, felonies, misdemeanors, traffic tickets. We're going to show you in detail how you go into the courtroom to learn that language. There's some words, terms, phrases; there's rules and regulations that you have to learn. But, the way I see this, it's about the equivalent of learning how to fly. If you can learn how to fly an airplane, you can learn how to be a free common law man. You can learn courtroom strategy and procedure, you can learn how to get into that courtroom and demand your rights at the common law. In order to do that, the first thing you have to do is change your status at law. I'm going to show you how to win if you've got a driver's license. I'm going to show you that even if you're wrong, you can still win. I don't recommend that. I'm not saying you should get on the wrong side of the issue and then go into the courtroom and win your case. I'm

5/15/2007

Page 58 of 61

not telling people to go out a get drunk and then drive down the road and, even if you've got a driver's license, I'll show you how to win . . although I can do that. I've done it and I've demonstrated it for a long time, for about five years. We don't have any students here that have lost a case. Not a one. Every graduate from this school knows how to win; because, he knows how to conduct the scene of the crime. For instance in taxes: Do you know how many people the government's laying away every year on income tax evasion and willful failure to file a return, etc.? I can teach you how to win those cases, but wouldn't it be better if you corrected your status and didn't even owe the tax. You know, some years ago I dropped out of the income tax system and I've never even had an audit. I go to audits all the time. I go with people that have tax problems that just want to make you cry. I mean they are attaching their property. Attaching their homes and leaving them with barely enough money . . . in some cases I don't even think they leave them with enough money to buy food, and they've got wives and children. I don't know how they can do it, how those government agents can do that. It makes you sad. So, what I want to do, and I've told people this and I'm going to tell you now: You should start in, not with a drunk driving case that's coming to trial next week. Because if you're going to trial next week, and you are a novice, and you don't understand what you're doing, and you status is wrong, and you've got a driver's license and you've already made admissions and confessions, and they are going to use them against you, and you are on the video tape down at the police station, and you've made these confessions; its going to be tough. It's going to be awful hard for you to win. What I like to see is a student who comes in and says, "Yeah, I'm a tax payer now but I want to stop paying taxes." You get the deal set-up for next year. You go ahead a pay your taxes this year. You get rid of your checking accounts and your credit cards and your obligations. You start paying off your debts and you get clean with the world and then you drop out of the system in a logical systematic way and they don't even miss ya. You're just gone. All of a sudden, from tax payer to non-tax payer, from paying twenty-five percent of your total productivity for your government to squander on Poland guaranteeing the Polish debt that your international bankers made. Put the money in your sock, or buy gold or silver or do whatever you want with it. You don't have to send your money to Poland. You don't have to pay your money out in property taxes. You don't have to pay that money unless you want to. You don't have to have a driver's license. You don't have to be a slave to the traffic cop. You don't have to run down the road in fear and trepidation. And judges understand law. You know, your Supreme Court understands law. The problem is that I don't believe a lot of the citizens out here understand the Constitution. And the first building-block to becoming a sovereign is to get your status straight. Once you get that status squared around you're gong to find that about seventy-five percent of your legal problems are just going to evapo rate and disappear. Now that doesn't mean that the government isn't going to harass you. That they're not going to charge you falsely, because let me tell you that when you become a competent pro se litigant, and you become a what they call "Constitutionalist."

5/15/2007

Page 59 of 61

You go out here and jail and they call after you: "Hey, he's one of those Constitutionalists." I heard them say that the other day when they were booking me, or trying to book me. "You mean you're not a Constitutionalist?" The conversation broke right down. The cop didn't want to admit that he wasn't. But, I'm one of those. You know, they call me a Constitutionalist like I'm a Communist or a Nazi or a queer or a sex pervert or something. They have to hang a label on me. Slaves are that way. They have to hang a label so they can identify you. They don't know what a free man looks like. They've never seen one before! And so they don't know what a free man is, and it's a strange and foreign doctrine to them, this thing of driving without a driver's license. Driving a car without license plates. Building a house without your government's permission. Holding something free and clear and absolute alodial free-hold fee simple. How many people do you know like that? When I was a kid, there was a lot of them. But there's not very many of those any more. I'll bet you there's not but a million or two Americans left in the United States who aren't in debt. Show me a farmer somewhere who isn't in hock. You know these farmers out here, they owe five hundred to seven hundred thousand to a million dollars. I used to be in the cattle business. I remember, I used to be in debt back in the fifties and sixties. You know, it used to be, when I was a young man, the objective was: You borrowed thirty thousand for production credit and you tried to bet it paid off within the terms of your first lease and you were free and clear and you were out making money. Something's happened. You know, our land is mortgaged to the government. I don't know if there's very much land . . . I'll bet you not only does the government own over a third of all America well they claim to, but that's another subject matter but I'll bet you that the government probably owns ninety percent of all the land in America. We like to think of ourselves as property owners. Why, we're not a nation of property owners. We're a nation of people who are indentured in feudal serfdom. We've done it to ourselves voluntarily. We have voluntarily taken on this debt and squandered it. Look at the national debt. Look at our mortgages. Look at our local debt and our government debt. Nobody complains about debt. Why, people have been led to believe that debt is wonderful and good. Let me tell you, debt it slavery. It's just that simple. Debt is slavery in Scripture. Debt is slavery in practical every-day application. Debt is slavery in law. When you walk in on the courtroom floor, that judge assumes that you are a merchant and trader in equitable debt. He doesn't assume you are a free man walking in there demanding your common law rights. He assumes you are a merchant in trade or in equity that has an equitable interest in some piece of property or some issue, and you're coming into the courtroom to throw yourself on the mercy of the court to have them decide how to divide up you marriage. Have you ever seen a divorce at common law? Show me a divorce with a jury. Have you ever seen one of those? Well, you're starting to see one or two, once in a while. They're called "palimony" suits. You know when this fellow Lee Marvin broke up with his common law

5/15/2007

Page 60 of 61

wife, you had a common law divorce. That is so strange and bizarre, so foreign, the news media picked that up and said, "Here's a milestone in law in America." That's nothing new. That's the common law working. The woman had a right to what she claimed . . . abso lute alodial free-hold right and claim at law to what his property was. He's sitting there going, "Well this can't be right. We weren't even married." Right? He said, "I'm not even married to her." We've got people here that can get married without a marriage license. I just heard of one the other day. A young fellow went out with this lady and had this nice wedding. They couldn't get a preacher to come over there and marry them because you know preachers are licensed. Do you want to talk about separation of church and state? Don't believe it for a minute. We don't have separation of church and state. Government licenses all preachers! You show me a preacher in America that's not licensed by his government. I don't know of any. I'm not saying there aren't any. There's probably some of them out there. But as a general rule the churches are all corporate organizations. Where do you get corporate privilege? Well, from the government! The churches are corporations and they are regulated by then by the government. All the preachers are licensed by the government. They're doing something that would otherwise be illegal. Since when has it been illegal to be a preacher without the government's permission? I don't claim to be a preacher, but I'll tell you one thing: I sure as Hell don't need my government's permission to tell me whether or not I can or can't be. I don't need my government's permission to do anything. I'm the sovereign, not the government. When you learn to be the sovereign, then you can learn to be free. When you go into a court in your county, you're going to find this to be true. The first time that you walk in there, those judges are going to be shocked out of their gourd when you walk in and demand all of your rights at law. Watch this: "Your honor, I demand all of my rights at law, and I don't wave any of my rights at any time. I'm not coming in here to grovel before you, or to explain to you that I'm guilty. I'm here to tell you that no crime has been committed and I'm not going to plead to this cause of action. There is no cause of action before this court. Driving eighty miles an hour down the road is not against the law. I haven't broken any law. There's no corpus delicti. There's no loss to anybody involved here. There's no contract. There's no penal clause." Well the poor judges are sitting back there and wondering what sort of foreign and bizarre behavior is this of this fool coming into this courtroom, who doesn't plead guilty. Not one person in a hundred and pleads not guilty. If you took a hundred people who plead not guilty, there's not one of those in a hundred that could go in and competently argue his position at law. He goes in and argues, "Well, I didn't do the act." What's he saying? He's saying, "Well, yeah I was driving the car and I've got the driver's license and the government commissioned me to go out there on that road, but I wasn't going eighty, I was only going sixty-five. I wasn't breaking the speed limit by twenty-five miles an hour, I was only breaking it by ten, and it's for that reason that I'm pleading not guilty." He can't even shut up and keep his mouth shut. He's got to spill the beans and go into the courtroom and show the judge that he's guilty of

5/15/2007

Page 61 of 61

doing something even if it isn't what he really did. That's the problem that our citizenry has. In the last eights years we have moved from status to contract. We are all of us operating in equity. We've got marriage licenses and so we have children that are owned by our government and controlled. Take your ten year old kid out of school and find out what your government does to you. Start educating, training and teaching your own kids in your own home and find out what your government is going to say to you. I'll bet you that you haven't got the nerve to go in there to that school and tell the principle, "I'm taking my kid out of school, dummy. I don't think you are doing good job here. I think I'll just take him home and teach him myself." Try that one. Your government tells you when to come in and it tells you when to go out. It tells you when to get up and it tells you when to go to bed. You know that's true and I know that's true, we've all lived through it. We've all been raised, educated, taught and trained by the educational system. They taught you how to use the legislative and executive branches of government. They taught you that redress of grievance come by writing letters to the editor and picketing up and down at the state house to get redress of grievance, and writing letters to your congressman. Poppycock! Balderdash! Bon phooey! You get redress of grievance, if you are a free man, on the courtroom floor, by being a belligerent claimant in person and demanding it. You walk into that courtroom and you demand your rights. You don't go in there like a groveling slave named Toby to plead and beg and whine and wheedle before the master and say, "Oh please, massa. Don't beat me, don't whip me, massa." Isn't that what a slave does? He understands and recognizes the status. He isn't ignorant. You know, we citizens of the United States think we're free, and we tell each other we're free, and we kid ourselves that we're free, and our government propagandizes and tells us that we're free. But I'll tell you, the status of a free man is the man that doesn't have to show his driver's license to some officer on the road, to drive. The status of a free man is a man that can work and earn a living and doesn't need a number or somebody's permission to work. The free man is the man that educates his children at home or sends them to school, or to any school that he wants to, whether the government likes it or not. A free man, then, having assumed full responsibility for his actions, acts as a matter of right, not as a matter of privilege. THE END

5/15/2007

Information

outbind://4/

61 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

224539

You might also be interested in

BETA
untitled
The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Manual:
Microsoft Word - 2-Philippine citizenship.doc
Constitutional Law II Outline