The Right to travel is Guaranteed
Hierarchies create the problem FIRSTThis is one of the many example’s that show how hierarchies evolve power brokerage cartels. It’s all about control over other human beings. You have to know a whole bunch of useless information “laws” to “prove” that you have the “right” to exist and not bother anyone while feeding yourself and your family. In a non hierarchical , non bureaucratic, voluntaryist society, we would be expending our creative energies to make the world a better place. People would not be wasting their time writing or reading the following information and being concerned about having to pay or not pay our “tribute” for a “license” to do something that is as basic as eating or breathing. The ability to travel is long since documented a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. Now the BORG Agents (COPS) are programed to contract with those unsuspecting slaves the “pull over”. The courts can charge those a ‘penalty” for not following the rules, the unsuspecting slave agreed to follow when you got your “drivers license”. Basically when you go to “court”, it’s really an administrative hearing. They are not going to hear these arguments BECAUSE your car is titled with the state, you have insurance and you have a drivers license. You are operating in commerce and therefore you are “Driving” and you loose.
I suggest you read the following Transportation Stop Action Script. I have not used it yet however you are putting the BORG agent on notice that he is not following the rules. Its just another leg to stand on. It is HIGHLY recommended!
The Right to Travel Freely is Guaranteed
THE Sovereign individuals
have a Constitutionally Guaranteed and Lawful
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Freely throughout the United States
without the need of permission or a license
from any State, City or Political Subdivision
After the natural laws of the universe, the Constitution for the United [Sovereign Republic] States of America is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court decisions are the only authorized interpretations of that supreme law. Next to the Constitution, in superior authority, are all treaties made or which shall be made by the United States. Then, the fifty titles of the United States code are next in authority as law in the United States of America. Every state constitution is subordinate to and subject to these aforementioned Supreme Laws of the land.
If the Constitution for the United States of America and its Supreme Court decisions state you have the right to travel freely throughout the United States without the need or encumbrance of a “Driver’s License:” Then, NO state law can overrule or contradict that law and those decisions.If the United States code plainly states what a “Motor Vehicle” is, then NO state has the right to interpret it differently. Nor, can they ignore, usurp, abrogate, nullify or overrule the U.S. Code. If the United States is a signatory of an International Treaty or Convention, then every state in the union is a signatory of, bound by, subject to and are to uphold that treaty. Surprisingly enough, every state constitution and state law, which I have so far read, does comply with and acknowledge the “paramount authority” of the Constitution for the United States and federal laws, to their own states’ constitution, laws and statutes.Exactly what does the Constitution, supreme court decisions and U.S. Code say about the citizen’s right to travel?
Supreme Court Decisions which pertain to the Right to TravelThe Passenger Cases (7 Howard) 7 How. 283 (1849) “We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943) “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.  Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position…the privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution.”  Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the fifth amendment.” NAACP vs. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958) “Like the right of association [the right to travel freely] is a virtually unconditional personal right guaranteed by the constitution to us all.” Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US 500 (1964) “…a personal liberty protected by the Bill of Rights…Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association…the constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.” United States v. Guest 383 US 745 (1966) “The constitutional right to travel…is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution” Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 (1969) “…freedom to travel is an element of the “liberty” secured by [the due process clause of the fifth amendment.]” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969) [not: 373 US 262(63)] “…our decisions have made clear that a person faced with…an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right…for which the law purports to require a license.”
Constitutionally Guaranteed Right Cannot Be Converted Into A CrimeMiller v. US (5th Circuit) 230 F. 2d. 486 (1956) “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime” Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966) “Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Hale v. Henkel 201 US 43 (1906) “…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way…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’s powers are limited by law.” Byars v. United States 273 US 28 (1927) “…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.” Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803) “…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886) “An unconstitutional act is not law…it imposes no duty…it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887) “The supreme court of the United States is, however, the final expositor and arbiter of all disputed questions touching the scope and meaning of that sacred instrument [the US Constitution], and its decisions thereon are binding upon all courts, both state and federal.” Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908) “The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal constitution. And he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Staub v. Baxley 355 US 313 (1958) “…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 (1968) “If a law has ‘no other purpose…’ than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.” Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton) 19 US 264 (1821) “A law cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. The several state legislatures and judiciaries, are all bound by solemn obligation of an oath, to support the federal constitution;…willfully legislating in violation of that constitution…[is] guilty of perjury. ”
Without Willful Intent To Violate The Law There Is No Crime.United States v. Murdock 290 US 389 (1933) “The [Supreme] Court has recognized that the word “willfully” generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of wilfulness as “bad faith or evil intent.” Spies v. United States 317 US 492 (1943) “…the word “willfully”…generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known duty. It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank differences of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care” Sansone v. United States 380 US 343 (1965) “If his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty.” United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973) “The court, in fact, has recognized that the word “willfully” in these statutes generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as “bad faith or evil intent,” …if his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty…”< Evans v. United States 504 US 255 (1992) “[The] offense of extortion” was understood…[as] a wrongful taking under a false pretense of official right”  and citing White v. State, 56 Ga. 385 & 389 (1876) “generically extortion is an abuse of public justice and a misuse by oppression of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.”  ADDENDUM Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979) License (In re: Streets & Highways): “The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired by permission or license from the state or it’s political subdivision.” There are numerous decisions in state supreme courts throughout the United States on the right to travel. They all can be summed up best by the Virginia case: Thompson v. Smith 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 ALR 604 (1930) “The right of a 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 his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and pursue happiness and security. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and includes the right to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a privilege, like the privilege of moving a house on the street, operating a business stand on the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.” In Re: Charles Stark v. City of San Francisco Cal. Surpreme CT. (1914) “The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise.”
The United States code expressly defines the term Motor Vehicle:Title 18 U.S.C. § 31 (6) “The term ‘motor vehicle’ means every description of a carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes.”
Constitution for the United [Sovereign Republics] States of America Article VI paragraph II:“This constitution and the laws of the United States…; and all treaties made or which shall be made…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding…” Now that we have a much clearer understanding of what the Constitution, the supreme court decisions and the U.S. Code actually say on the subject; how can we apply this knowledge to our situation? First: If you “drive” a taxi, limousine, etc…or haul any kind of cargo for Hire; then you are required to have a “driver’s license!” But: If you are NOT engaged in “commercial” activity and do not “carry passengers and/or cargo for hire;” then you do NOT need a “driver’s license”!
- Because; you are not “driving,” you are “traveling.” Because; you are not operating a “motor vehicle;” you are traveling in an “automobile;” “horse-less carriage,” “truck,” “van,” etc…
- Because; you are not transporting “passengers;” they are your traveling “companions” or “guests.”
- Because; you are not carrying “cargo,” it is “private property;” (No matter what you do with it, when you reach your destination.)
- Because; the Supreme Court says you DON’T need any form of “license” or pay any “fee,”to enjoy your “liberty” and your constitutional rights!
And what if “your” way of working includes operating a “vehicle” that absolutely operates in commerce? I would say, one is required to posses a driver’s license for commercial use. But there is a distinction between when operating in commerce and when privately traveling and most don’t comprehend that and it’s up to each and every one of us to provide “identification” if requested to do so and it really does matter what sort of “identification” is provided. I think the point is being missed here, though, an Affidavit is not going to get ya through TSA at the airport … one needs more than just an Affidavit.
If you are not familiar with Carl Miller you need to be…
i would like to know the lay out for the right to travel so i can get it EMBOSSED so they will stop taking my AUTOMOBILE from me. thanks u LORENZO
Lorenzo, understand that when a “Cop” pulls you over THAT is your first court appearance and he, she or it is makes a presumption that YOU are a “public servant” and or a “Driver”. He has evidence that this is correct. Most people have License plates on their “Motor Vehicle”. The main reason that people have this Tax Identification device is to keep the crazed psychopaths (Cops) from: Harassing you, beating you up and stealing your property. Oh I forgot to mention that when you give title to the State THEY are the actual owner of the “Motor Vehicle”. Most individuals also carry in their possession a “Drivers License”. Also unless you live in New Hampshire you are “required” to have “Insurance”. With these three pieces of information he has a basis in law you are indeed a “driver” and fall under the guidelines of the “Motor Vehicle Act”. My suggestion is to follow all the laws as closely as possible and when you encounter a guy in a costume, carrying a gun proceed with caution and ask alot of questions. Understand that the only and I mean ONLY reason Cops are doing their “Job” is so when they do 20 years of service they get 80% of their pay for the last 3 years of “service”. Someone has to pay all the retirees, and that is YOU!
I need help with someone giving me these papers or where I could find them they are “SECURED PARTY DECLARATION, AFFIDAVIT AND NOTICE AND SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO OPERATE A PRIVATE VEHICLE. Thanks Lorenzo
you have to go to a notary public but lots of freemen don’t do it,they sometimes send an affidavit instead to various bodies including police forces,ministry of transport etc.
I was pulled over by an officer for “speeding” (going 71 in a 65 zone) and let them know I was not driving I was traveling. He started to get angry and called his supervisor. She let me know that if I did not provide my license and insurance she would arrest me. I told her that I would do so under threat, duress, and coercion. She agreed and issued the ticket. I have all of this recorded. What are my rights?
IMSHO you dont have any “rights”. The government has the “right” to beat you up and deprive you of your life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nothing will ever happen to them for doing anything to you. Getting “Angry” and the threat of violence is one of the methods that criminals in costumes use to coerce you to surrender the straw man for the government to interact with.
Governments Mafia a mass hallucination, they are only capable of conducting “business” with other hallucinations like your “legal person”. Being you have this recorded I would love to hear it.
Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (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 ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject 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. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . 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.
Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (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.
Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)
The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.
Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)
Although a driver’s license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since Driving is NOT a Constitutional Right, the individual States have the Power to Legislate whether or not a License or Permit is required
Sorry Guys… Someone is Blowing Smoke up your collective Asses.
When ever your automobile is taken from you the public servants themselves have broken the law. The 4th amendment of the constitution says your personal private property cannot be seized from you without due process of the law. Impounding your car is doing just that.