Source: http://forum.globalgulag.com/index.php?PHP_SESSION_ID=eIctfrFQ8qT8wnFPnopcQt9gwu3&amp;topic=251.0
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:17:35+00:00

Document:
TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE"
TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "
3.1 The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.
"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..
6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways 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 RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.
7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.
7.4 . 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. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.
12.1.1 A motor vehicle is "property" and a person "cannot be deprived" of property without due process of law. The term: "Property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.
13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable "RIGHTS," among which are ....; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property .... (Emphasis added).
14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.
15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.
16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of America.
19.1 Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of America. I have an inalienable right to use those highways and byways.
20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: 3 Angel Highways 3.
20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway. -- The entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. See: Idaho Code.
23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Citizen travels upon the roadways, he does so, as a matter of "RIGHT" and not a privilege granted by the State.
The authority for such travel is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE RIGHT," an "INALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the "Constitution of the United States". Let us then examine the importance of these terms to this Citizen by defining their meaning.
23.2 "RIGHT" -- As relates to the person, "RIGHTS" are absolute or relative; absolute "RIGHTS," such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his or her personal liberty; "RIGHTS" which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.
23.4 Absolute "RIGHT" -- Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligation, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
23.5 Inalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
24. It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the "RIGHTS" of this Citizen to travel on the streets or highways. Furthermore, the State has the "duty" to refrain from interfering with this Citizens "RIGHT" and to protect this Citizens "RIGHT" and to enforce the claim of this Citizen to it.
25. Now, if this Citizen has the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The "Supreme Court of the State of Texas" has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.
26.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS." See: Spann supra.
28.1 The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law.
These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Citizen has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel. The definitions in Title 49 Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code positively declare the "RIGHT" of this Citizen to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways in Idaho.
30. MOTOR VEHICLE OR VEHICLE?
30.6 "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in " commercial transportation," or a combination determined by the Commission, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger "transportation" similar to street-railway service.
The Constitutions of the United States and of the State guarantees this Citizen the "RIGHT" to own property. The Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Texas have affirmed that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it while its use harms nobody.
If that property is an automobile, it is included in the definitions of vehicle and motor vehicle in the Idaho Code Title 49 Chapter 3. And in the same Idaho Code Chapter, streets or highways are defined as the place where vehicles are used by the public as a matter of "RIGHT." Thus, it shows that this Citizen has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways.
31. Now, if this Citizen has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways, to what extent can the State regulate or diminish that "RIGHT?" There are some who would maintain that "specific performance" is required of every Citizen who uses a vehicle upon the streets or highways. Therefor, Let us examine this contention in detail.
32. Specific performance is a term used to designate an action in equity in which a party to a contract asks the court to order the other party to carry out the contract which he has failed or refused to perform. Thus, if specific performance is expected, a contract must exist. The question then becomes: What are the "terms of the contract" and "when was it executed" and by "whom"? Since specific performance appears to be expected of every user of a vehicle on the streets or highways, the user of a vehicle seems one of the parties to the supposed contract. And since the State appears to be the party demanding specific performance, the State is the other party to the contract. So the supposed contract exists between the user of a vehicle and the State. When was this contract executed and what are its' terms? Some contend that when a user of a vehicle avails himself of the "privilege" of driving on public thoroughfares that he enters a contract with the State that requires him to abide with all the laws in the General Statutes. Others contend that the contract is executed when a driver's license is obtained. We now need to figure out what is a contract.
33.1 It "must" be an agreement.
33.2 There "must" be at least two parties to the contract.
33.3 There "must" be a consideration.
33.4 There "must" be an obligation or thing to be done.
36. There can also be unilateral and bilateral contracts that is "presumed to exist" under some or all the above headings. Let us examine each above types of contracts to see if the license obtained by this Citizen falls under any of the categories of contract.
36.2 A true "implied contract" is an agreement of the parties, arrived at from their acts and conduct, viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and not from their words either spoken or written. Like an express contract, it grows out of the intention of the parties to the transaction, and there must be a meeting of the minds.
37. With these definitions in mind, let us examine a driver's license to see if it is a contract. The driver's license itself is a small plastic card approximately 55 millimeters by 86 millimeters in size. It contains the words "Driver's license or Motor Vehicle Driver's license"; the name, address, signature, and physical description of the user; a pair or set of identifying numbers; a photograph; and the signature or stamp of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement or the Secretary of State. Obviously, this cannot be an express agreement because there are no statements to constitute an agreement. Are there two parties to the "contract?" There is only one signature, thus there are no "parties to the contract", therefore, "a contract in invalid".
Is there a consideration? What has the State given this Citizen in return for this Citizens obligation? Some may suggest that the State has given this Citizen the privilege of driving on the streets or highways. But this Citizen already has that "RIGHT" to drive on the streets or highways, and the State cannot require this Citizen to give up a "RIGHT" to obtain a "privilege".
39. It would be foolish for this Citizen to exchange a "RIGHT" for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible for this Citizen to do such a thing?
39.1 Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consentor of any inalienable "RIGHT." See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
40. Thus, even if this Citizen wanted to do so, he could not give up his "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways or exchange it for the "privilege granted by the State" of having a driver's license. Thus, in exchange for the supposed obligation of this Sovereign, the State has given nothing. Thus, there is no consideration.
It may be contended that the seal on the driver's license is sufficient consideration by the State. It is true that under the common law, the question of consideration could not be raised concerning a contract under seal.
The seal provided conclusive presumption of a consideration. North Carolina for instance, has abolished by statute the common law "presumption of consideration" and this statute is binding upon all officers and employees of the State.
Even though a seal may be present, it is "not evidence of consideration". Of course, the document in question is a contrived and copied document and lacks validity in any case as a contract.
As to an obligation, since the license contains no statement of agreement, and since there are no parties to any agreement, and since there is no consideration, there can be no obligation.
The driver's license thus, is "not a contract" since it fails to contain any of the "four essential and required features" that a contract must in fact contain.
43. Can the driver's license be an "implied contract"? The same elements must exist in an implied contract as exist in an express contract. The only difference is that an implied contract is not written or spoken and the elements of the contract are shown by the acts and conduct of the parties involved. With respect to this Sovereign, there was certainly no meeting of the minds else this brief would not result. It was never the intention of this Citizen to give up Constitutional "RIGHTS" to accept a privilege from the State. Such an action would be ridiculous. This could only be done in a socialistic state. There has been no implied agreement in a free society. Is it possible, that there were two parties to the supposed contract, i.e.-the State and this Citizen?. There was no consideration in the implied contract for the same reasons that there was no consideration in the express contract.
An obligation is the thing to be done. It may be to pay money, to do work, or to deliver goods; or it may be to refrain from doing something that the person contracting had a "RIGHT" to do. Some may say that the State was obligated to allow this Citizen to drive on the streets or highways and that this Citizen was obligated to obey all the Statutes contained in the General Statutes. It would be just as easy to say, that the State could not be obligated to allow this Citizen to travel on the streets or highways because they did not have the "RIGHT" or the power to prevent him from doing so.
45. If the State cannot prevent this Citizen from his or her travels on the streets or highways in, the State does not have any discretion in the matter and does not have the choice of whether to obligate themselves or not. Thus, the obligation of the State cannot be to grant this Citizen the privilege of travel on the streets or highways. The obligation of the State must be to refrain from prohibiting this Citizen from his travel on the streets or highways since the State does not have the "RIGHT" to do.
46. It is the contention of this Citizen that the only obligation that this Citizen incurs when using a vehicle upon the streets or highways is the Common Law obligation to refrain from any act that causes another person to lose life, liberty, or property. In complying with this obligation, this Citizen does comply with many Statutes of the General Statutes since they are, for the most part, only common sense rules by which this Citizen avoids doing damage to others.
47. Still, some Statutes of the General Statutes should not be construed as evidence of a contractual obligation by this Citizen. Neither should it be construed to all the Statutes of the General Statutes or to any of them always. Instead, it is merely evidence of a want of this Citizen to travel safely and to do harm to no one.
48. Thus, the actions of this Citizen do not supply unambiguous evidence of a contract with the State. Instead, the actions can, with equal weight, be said to be evidence of a material fact that this Citizen was complying with the common law requirement in that-he does harm to no one. The driver's license is not an implied contract because there is no consideration, there may possibly be two parties, but there is certainly no consideration, in addition, there is no clear evidence of an obligation. Three of the four elements necessary for a contract of any kind whatsoever, are missing.
50. The application form contains the signature of the applicant and the signature of the person taking the oath of the applicant. The reverse side of the Application contains the results of a vision test and rudimentary physical examination with the results of a driving test. These results are signed by the examiner and not by the applicant.
51. Thus the application takes the form of an Affidavit instead of a contract. But let us see if the elements of a contract are present in the application.
51.1 There is no agreement.
51.2 There are not two parties.
51.3 There is no consideration.
51.4 There is no obligation.
52. Since none of the necessary elements of a contract are present, the application does not constitute a contract.
53. The only other document involved in obtaining a driver's license is the document, part of which is copied to make the actual driver's license. It contains, besides the information that is used in making the driver's license, the results of a vision test conducted by the driver's license examiner.
54. The applicant places his signature upon this form, that is then copied by some photographic process. Other material is added including a photograph, signature of the Director of the Department of Law Enforcement or the Secretary of State and the driver's license is made of this composite.
55. Thus, the license itself cannot be a contract because it is a contrived document. The form from which the driver's license is made cannot be a contract because, again, none of the elements of a contract are present. So if none of the documents executed by the driver when obtaining a license is a contract, then no contract can exist between the driver and the State as a result of obtaining a driver's license.
56.1 Mistake either mutual or unilateral.
57. This Citizen obtained a driver's license upon the representation by the State, that one's travel upon the roadways of the United States of America was a privilege. This Citizen accepted this representation as to be true and because of that representation did obtain a driver's license.
But the General Assembly of the State who passed the Statutes contained in the General Statutes are knowledgeable persons, many of whom are lawyers, and they undoubtedly knew at the time that the law was passed, that an individual's travel was in fact a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. If this were the case, then the mistake would be unilateral. A unilateral mistake known to one party and not to the other party, is sufficient grounds to void a contract if one truly exists.
60. If the driver's license is a contract, a case can be made for the contention that it was an agreement obtained by the State by fraud.
61.1.1 A material misrepresentation created, by a statement, by a concealment, or by nondisclosure.
61.1.2 An intention to defraud. 61.1.3 Reliance on the representation by the defrauded party.
61.1.4 Damage caused to the defrauded party as the result of his acting upon the representation. See: Bergh Business Law p. 56.
62. In view of the many decisions by high courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, that one's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege, would be hard to defend the proposition that the General Assembly of the State was unaware of these decisions, particularly since many legislators are and were lawyers knowledgeable in such matters. In fact, when one considers the definition of streets or highways in Sections of the General Statutes, the Evidence is conclusive that the legislature knew and knows that ones travels is in fact a "RIGHT."
63. Therefore, the statements in the General Statutes that a travel is a privilege and that a driver's license is necessary before one can travel constitutes a "material misrepresentation of fact" to this possessor of a driver's license. And since the legislature is and was aware of the fact that an individual's travels was not a privilege, but a "RIGHT," the statement that one's travels is a privilege, when applied to this Citizen, constitutes a willful intention to deceive, and therefore, to defraud.
64. This Citizen did rely upon the representations of the legislature, that an individual's travels was a privilege when he obtained his driver's license, else he would not have obtained one.
65. This Citizen did suffer damage as a result of his acting upon the representation of the legislature at least to the extent of the license fee.
In as much as all the necessary elements of fraud are present, if the driver's license is considered a contract, the "contract" is void.
67.1 A party must consent to a contract of his own free will. Free consent is an essential element of an agreement. Consequently, if he is coerced into signing a contract by fear induced by a threat to cause personal injury to himself or to some close relative, the contract will not be a real agreement and it will be voidable at his option. The threat of personal injury must be a threat to inflict immediate bodily injury or to institute a criminal prosecution against the person threatened or some close relative.
68. Since it was essential to this Citizen in pursuing his occupation of common "RIGHT" to use a vehicle upon the streets or highways, and since the State threatens to and does prosecute persons in criminal actions for not possessing a driver's license, regardless of their status, this Citizen did obtain a driver's license under duress. If then the driver's license is a contract, the contract is unenforceable and invalid because of this duress.
69.1 Any material alteration in a written contract by one party without the consent of the other party, gives this latter party the option of treating the contract as discharged or enforcing it as it stood before the alteration.
70. If the driver's license is a contract, it is a written contract, at least to the extent that the Statutes of the General Statutes are written. Each time that the General Assembly amends or modifies or adds to any of the Statutes of the General Statutes, the terms of the contract are changed. Since this Citizen then has the option of considering the contract as discharged, he then chooses to do so as of the first change in the General Statutes following his application for a driver's license.
If it is contended that the driver's license is an implied contract, the "Statute of Frauds" comes into play.
72.1 An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.
and the contract is unenforceable.
74.1 A unilateral contract is a one-sided contract in the sense that only one side makes a promise, and the other side performs an act for which the promise was given. See: Bergh, supra..
75. Since the act expected by the State is obedience to the Statutes of the General Statutes, what promise has the State offered in exchange for this act? The only promise that the State could make this Citizen, is the promise to allow him to travel on the streets or highways. Since this Citizen already can do that as a matter of "RIGHT," the State can promise him nothing. Thus there is no consideration and a unilateral contract cannot exist.
Having shown that no contract exists between this Citizen and the State, let us now examine, the proposition that a quasi-contract exists between this Citizen and the State.
77.1 A quasi-contract is an obligation springing from voluntary and lawful acts of parties in the absence of any agreement. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
78.1 That the defendant has received a benefit from the Plaintiff.
78.2 That the retention of the benefit by the Defendant is inequitable. See: Woodward Quasi Contracts 9.
79. Thus, if it is contended that this Citizen must obey the Statutes in the General Statutes because of a quasi-contract, it must be shown that this Citizen has received a benefit from the State. But one's travels on the streets or highways of the State is not a benefit received from the State. It was a "RIGHT" that attached to this Citizen at the moment of his birth and cannot be removed by the State. In this respect, no benefit has been received from the State, and thus a quasi-contractual obligation cannot exist with respect to this Citizen.
80. It may be claimed that the Statutes of the General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State, and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them.
81. The police power is a grant of authority from the people to their governmental agents, for the protection of the health, the safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature, it is broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true, it is only a power. It is not a "RIGHT?"
82. The powers of government under our system, are nowhere absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are limited to their true intentional purposes. The fundamental "RIGHTS" of the people are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend Constitutional "RIGHTS." The police power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, and upon every power of government and its agents; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the Citizens, whose natural "RIGHTS" that are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it was ordained by the people.
existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen 's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS" that we have all sworn to uphold, fight, and give our lives for.
82.2 It is not a "RIGHT," therefore, over which the police power is paramount. Like every other fundamental liberty, it is a "RIGHT" to which the police power is subordinate.
82.3 It is a "RIGHT" which takes into account the equal "RIGHTS" of others, for it is qualified by the obligation that the use of the property shall not be to the prejudice of others. But if subject alone to that qualification, the Citizen is not free to use his lands and his goods as he chooses, it is difficult to perceive wherein his "RIGHT" of property has any existence. (Emphasis added). See: Spann, supra..
83. Where inherent, unalienable, absolute "RIGHTS" are concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways and the "RIGHT" to own and use property have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus, the police power cannot regulate the Citizens "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways.
84. If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate the travels of the Citizen on the streets or highways, and if, through the action of these regulations or Statutes, this Citizen is denied access to the streets or highways; a fundamental "RIGHT" of the Citizen has been abrogated.
85. The abrogation of inalienable "RIGHTS" by legislation or rule making is unconstitutional.
Since a fee is charged for a driver's license and since one's travels on the streets or highways is a "RIGHT" guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it is not constitutional for the State to require this Citizen to be licensed to travel.
"Let's see your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance," and not always politely, when the first question should be; "What is your status and are you required to have a driver's license?"
89. Can it be, that there is a conspiracy afoot within the State, to reduce all Citizens to a status of contract? Why else would a law enforcement person take a Citizen to jail without even trying to discover if that Citizen is exempt from the requirement of having a driver's license?
90. The question now becomes, whether this Citizen is required to obey any of the Statutes in the General Statutes? It has been shown that this Citizen has a "RIGHT" to travel on the streets or highways. So, any Statute that describes driving on the streets or highways as a privilege cannot apply to this Sovereign. Since the "RIGHT" of this Citizen to travel cannot be abrogated, any Statute the operation of which, would have the effect of denying access to the streets or highways to this Citizen, cannot be applied.
91. Since violation of any Statue in the General Statutes is classified as a "misdemeanor" that is punishable by a fine and six months in jail, and since putting this Citizen in jail because of his use of the streets or highways that harms nobody, would be an abrogation of his "RIGHT" to travel, none of the Statutes of the General Statutes apply to this Citizen. These contentions are supported by the "Supreme Court of United States".
This decision is consistent with that in Miranda, supra, in which it was stated that where "RIGHTS" are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. It is also consistent with the discussion in the following case. This case is a tax case, but the discussion on "RIGHTS" that it contains is appropriate.
.95. Since the Statutes of the General Statutes cannot apply to this Citizen, he becomes subject to the "Common Law" that maintains that he owes nothing to thepublic, so long as he or she does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS".
96. Is it the contention of this Citizen that because the Statutes contained in the General Statutes do not apply to him that the Statutes are unconstitutional? Absolutely not. There is a class of persons to whom these Statutes apply without reservation. Members of this class include corporations and those who do the corporation business on the streets or highways. A corporation is the creation of the State.
The Statutes in the General Statutes are designed to direct the activities of the class of persons of which a corporation is a member. Corporations are absolutely bound by these Statutes. It is imperative that a conscienceless entity not be allowed to roam the streets or highways and jeopardize the Citizens. It is for this purpose that the Statutes of the General Statutes were enacted and not for the control of a Free and Natural Citizen.
99. There is no Court in this Land that could lawfully execute an Order that would or could cause, or work to compel, One to become a servant or slave of any City, County or State without a conviction and with full Due Process of Law, and for any City, County, or State to pretend otherwise is an absurdity.
Re: TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE"
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. 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?
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
"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.
"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 not one word withstanding."
"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..."
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
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?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state 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 supersedes 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.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
rk: I received Mr. McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.
rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government.
time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one's Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit.
rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.
rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over our lives?
rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?
rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that 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 drivers 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 they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.
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 due process of law. 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.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.
I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law.
At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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 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.
"...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 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.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
"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.
"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.
"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.
2. 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, 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 as this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."
Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."
Hillsboro Police run away scared after trying to intimidate and harrass my sister.
Officer Scott Brennan of the Hillsboro Police department in Washington County, Oregon tries to illegally arrest my sister AGAIN! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFEBKd... The first time I was not as confident, but this time I might as well have been a super-hero riding up to save the day!
Want to learn your rights yet??? Visit http://freedomfromgovernment.us RIGHT NOW!!!
The term may originate from an order by the commander of a victorious army that they "will not quarter (house)" captured enemy soldiers. Therefore, none can be taken prisoner and all enemy combatants must be killed!!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.