U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT

AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nation’s highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

UCC PP § 9-109.14 “A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, it is NOT a type of automobile required to be “registered” and “use tax” paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax.”

 Bank of Boston v. Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14.

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.

Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

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 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

The United States Supreme Court has held that "the right of locomotion”, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty." Williams v. Fears 179 U.S. 270, 21 S. Ct.128; see Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164, 92 S. Ct. 839; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126, 78 S. Ct. 1113; see also Johnson v. City of Cincinnati 310 F.3d 484, 6th Cir. 2002 (Constitution protects right to travel locally through public spaces and roadways).

In California, a LICENSE is defined as -- "A  permit, granted  by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California, 158 P2d 199, 300.

"The license is designed to operate upon those who hold themselves out as common carriers, and a license may be exacted from such as a proper exercise of police power; but no reason exists why it should be applied to the owners of private vehicles, used for their individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion." City of Chicago vs. Collins et al., Supreme Court of Illinois. 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (Oct. 24, 1898).

ONLY government (municipal corporations) employees can pass legislate laws to limit themselves. State Citizens are NOT employees of government nor can they be forced into these political subdivisions against their will. These unnecessary and illegitimate regulations include driver licenses, vehicle plates, seat belts, traffic red light cams. These "codes" are for government revenue only.  Republic CANNOT put limits on the natural born state Citizens because they are SOVEREIGN and free.

No STATE may/can compel us to put our otherwise private property into use/service as commercial property. THAT transaction has to be 100% voluntary. And, it is, because it's evaluated by the "objective standard" associated with "this state" (a body of law that is counter-intuitive to us) rather than the "subjective standard" which is associated with the Law of the Land (also known as Common law).

You have the right to travel without a "license" or permission from the government, as long as you are not using the roadways to conduct commercial activity. 

If you are not engaged in commerce on the road you do not need to have a driver license because you are not driving, you are traveling. A driver license is only needed for the driver of a motor vehicle which is taking part in commerce. The act of obtaining a driver license (giving up you’re right to free travel) shall make one liable to the "vehicle code" of the state. 

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel. 

There is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."

- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"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.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· -

 Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no driver license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". 

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., 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". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."

If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.

Every police officer should keep the following court ruling; that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":

"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

You have the right to travel without a "license" or permission from the government, as long as you are not using the roadways to conduct commercial activity. If you are not engaged in commerce on the road you do not need to have a driver license because you are not driving, you are traveling. A driver license is only needed for the driver of a motor vehicle which is taking part in commerce. The act of obtaining a driver license (giving up you’re right to free travel) shall make one liable to the "vehicle code" of the state. 

LAW CODES/WORDS DEFINITIONS

STATE /FEDERAL

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.

A "vehicle" is something used for "transportation," which is a line of commercial activity that involves the removing of people and/or goods from here to there for profit or hire under a choice of law of the "place" called "this state."

"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., p. 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, p.2034.

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.

U.C.C.  ARTICLE 9. PART 1. § 9-109. -- Classification of Goods: “Consumer Goods”; “Equipment”; “Inventory”. Goods are;  “consumer goods” if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes; “Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of Employment was ``consumer goods ” Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).

USC Title 18 §31(6) Motor vehicle. The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

USC Title 49 §30301(4) ``motor vehicle'' means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on public streets, roads, or highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.