FYI...Laws Requiring Licensure to Travel Are ILLEGAL. Case Law Included.

[A-Unit]

As I post this, let's get it out of the way that I'm about being controversial, about thinking waay outside the box, so that when I post these topics, obvious comments don't have to be made, and you the believer or opposed or pondered, can contemplate, research, or ignore WHAT is posted, rather than insult, debase, libel, or any other form of derision you prefer. What follows is TRUE and should be obviously factual...

The right of people to travel CANNOT be hindered or made law. Those people who are required by law to be licensed are either SLAVES or have made a BUSINESS of it. For the remainder of the population, licensure is not required. Are there many people In the know? HECK no. Because the only people who know anything about what goes on are Lawyers, if they even know. Operating anywhere In the World is ALL ABOUT KNOWING THE LAW, and perhaps less than 1% know the law, let alone the law that governs them, their money, their state, their country, and what we've fought and died for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

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. 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. courts for a
determination of this very issue. 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
restrictions or 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
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 not one word
withstanding. "
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is
bound by this Supreme Law:

"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:

by lawfully amending the constitution, or
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
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:

Cont'd...

 

[A-Unit]

Cont'd...

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.
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.

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.

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

Hopefully this isn't considered Political...


A-Unit

 

[Bible_Belt]

The right to travel freely between the states is different than the privilege of using the state's roads and highways. The right to travel relates to privileges and immunities, states' rights versus Federalism, which goes back to the Civil War and the Due Process Clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause

It is an odd and archaic legal argument that may have been used a time or two by creative lawyers who felt safe from bar association sanctions, but 99.9999% of the time, this would only piss off the judge and make him or her throw the book at the defendant. An attorney could face punishment for making an argument that has no reasonable chance of success. Even if you represent yourself and make this argument, you are still subject to contempt of court if the judge happens to be having a bad day.

Here is an example of how a court would handle this argument. This is a Wisconsin opinion, but it would be about the same in any state.

http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2002/02-0611.htm

9. We understand Ligon's argument to say the State may not require a person to give up his or her rights in order to operate a motor vehicle. He offers no authority for this proposition. Driving upon a public highway is a privilege granted by the State, not an inherent right. Kopf v. State, 158 Wis. 2d 208, 214, 461 N.W.2d 813 (Ct. App. 1990). As such, the grant of this privilege is subject to reasonable regulation pursuant to the State's police powers. See Milwaukee v. Kilgore, 185 Wis. 2d 499, 520-21, 517 N.W.2d 689 (Ct. App. 1994). One of these regulations is consenting to submit to chemical tests at a police officer's request. Upon refusing to submit, the person effectively withdraws his or her consent and cannot expect to retain his or her privilege.

¶10. Ligon argues it is irrelevant whether driving is a privilege or a right because the State may not punish a person for exercising a constitutional right. This argument, however, ignores the consent given by the driver either by applying for and receiving a driver's license or by operating a vehicle on Wisconsin's highways.3 It is assumed applicants for driver's licenses are fully cognizant of their rights and are also deemed to know that in the event they are later stopped for drunk driving, they have consented, by their application, to the chemical testing in Wis. Stat. §343.305. State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 201, 289 N.W.2d 828 (1980). We do not see why this proposition should not apply to those who have not applied for a driver's license in Wisconsin or have chosen to drive without a license. See Hurd v. Hall, 12 Wis. 125, 137-38 (1860) (every person is presumed to know the law). The State is not punishing Ligon for exercising his constitutional right. Any punishment Ligon suffered arose because he revoked his consent to be tested.

¶11. Further, there is no coercion in giving this consent. Ligon seems to suggest he must choose between his Fourth Amendment rights and driving an automobile. Although there is a constitutional right to travel, there is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. County of Fond du Lac v. Derksen, 2002 WI App 160, ¶7, --647 N.W.2d 922. A person can avoid consenting to chemical testing by not operating a motor vehicle. Further, Ligon does not contend the State in any way forced him to drive on Wisconsin's roads or obtain a driver's license. We cannot say Ligon was coerced into consenting to submit to chemical testing or that he was unfairly punished for withdrawing that consent.