By: David-William | TLB Staff Writer
A COMMON LAW RIGHT TO TRAVEL?
U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933. FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word “without” to citizens “within” the United States to cover the debt in 1933 and future debt.
“any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
It was here that every American citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration.
This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was
invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution. Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency.
12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was “An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”.
According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, we have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain.
This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know whywe no longer receive allodial freehold title to our land… as enemies, our property is no longer ours to have.
The only way we can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license.
So who initiated all of these emergency powers? FEDERAL RESERVE! The Zionist Crown/Vatican Banksters “declared” that people are the ENEMIES OF THE STATE! You know, the same excrement who will call you DOMESTIC TERRORISTS if you dare say that they are the FOREIGN TERRORISTS.
On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and “the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6.”
The corporate government determined and established the value of the future labor of each incorporated individual in its jurisdiction to be $630,000. A bond of $630,000 is set on each Certificate of Live Birth. The certificates are bundled together into sets and then placed as securities on the open market. These certificates are then purchased by the Federal Reserve and/or foreign bankers. The purchaser is the “holder” of “Title.” This process made each and every person in this jurisdiction a bond servant.
The new result: Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the Constitution is automatically abolished. “We” are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. “We” are under a system of War Powers. The Zionist Banksters ABOLISHED the Constitution. Don’t you dare call them Zionists, or they’ll call you anti-Semitic, even though they aren’t Semitic, or descendants of the Israelites. Not only do they lie, they lie about their lies. FEDERAL RESERVE is a Rockefeller-Rothschild Zionist, Satanic overthrow of America, and the purveyors of DEBT.
Who is “we?” U.S. citizens. What is a U.S. citizen? A “PERSON, VESSEL, CORPORATION, INDIVIDUAL, CHILD, INFANT, DECEDENT, WARD, INCOMPETENT, IMBECILE…”
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce,” as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
If these Zionist jackasses can get you to be stupid enough to claim that you’re a U.S. citizen, which you could never be, then they have you as war booty in the brig, on their Pirate VESSEL, and they’ll get their B.A.R. Agents in their Admiralty “courts” to imprison and enslave and press-gang you.
“America is a BANKRUPT NATION — it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State Governments.
Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your Court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction — call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.”
Are we U.S. citizens? No! Can we be? No! We would have to renounce our State Citizen status. Did you? How could you? Mostly, people aren’t aware of the difference.
Are you traveling with your property in your car, your private conveyance, household hardware, or are you DRIVING/OPERATING a MOTOR VEHICLE in COMMERCE? Well, the Zionist Banksters, and their Zionist Crown Temple B.A.R. operated Admiralty Courts say that if you registered to vote, that they have the right to arrest you or shoot you if you don’t like it.
18 U.S. CODE 31 – Definitions
(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.
(10) Used for commercial purposes.—
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Who are the DOMESTIC and FOREIGN TERRORISTS? The Zionist Banksters, the Zionist Courts, and the Zionist controlled meat puppet mercenaries called CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS are!
22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.
Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).
Title 22 USC (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents, as stipulated under Title 22 USC, chapter 11, section 611, loss of national citizenship – Public officials are no longer US Citizens, but rather are foreign agents and must register as such.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state.
Title 28 USC 1602-1611 ( Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated.
That the International Organization Immunities Act of 12-9-1945 – – Congress relinquished every public office over to the UN. Local governments up to the president fall under UN jurisdiction. Congress gave the UN the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States.
That 28 USC CHAPTER 176 – FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE.
The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.”
That in 1950 81st Congress investigated the London Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.
Who is calling you a domestic terrorist!?! Foreign agents!?! So when you complain about them, you’re the terrorist! They took the Constitution from “U.S. citizens” and now you can see you are not a U.S. citizen, but they still don’t want you to have rights?!? When you come in peace, and they come in war, and that means they’re TERRORISTS.
DECEIT-LACK OF DISCLOSURE-COERCION
When you go to a dealer to buy a car, there are several problems which you might believe you comprehend, but in reality, you might not. When asked, “Is that your car?” quite often, you’ll say or hear, “Well, me and the bank own it.” This means or might mean you actually believe that you took a bank loan for the car (which you didn’t), that the bank has money to loan (which it doesn’t), that the bank can loan credit (which it can’t), that if you walk into the dealer with enough cash to buy the car that you are in possession of the money (which you are not), that FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES/Instruments of Debt are real money (which they are not), and that if you use a SSN, a Driver’s License, or a Motor Vehicle Registration, that you may own property while being a “U.S. citizen”/State Employee under presumption.
They do not tell you that when you get a car that they’re sending the real Title, the MSO, Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin, to the STATE OF…, so that they own the Title, when you signed the papers giving the dealer power of attorney. They didn’t tell you that a U.S. citizen cannot own property. They don’t tell you that your Title gets destroyed after it’s copied and that their copies become negotiable instruments to be traded on the open market, and that you can never get it back from them. You never get to pay down a debt with instruments off debt, so its wise not to expect such. The monetary system is designed to enslave you, keep you in debt, and rob you of your birthright, all with sneaky concealments crafted by B.A.R. Attorners, who hold offices of trust, unlawfully. They are Foreign Agents and hopefully you’ll come to this realization. If you wish, contact the manufacturer of your car and get an authentic copy of the MSO, because yours was stolen by the Bankster’s B.A.R. Brokers/Attorners, simply because you think you need to use FRNs.
UNITED STATES is under U.N./I.M.F. organization, owned by the Crown/Vatican/Swiss Banking Cabal, and all their Attorners work for them. If you think long and hard, you’ll see that you are under Martial Law Rule, with armed thugs running about waiting to harm you as if they own YOU. All stinking Zionist Crown Agents are the TERRORISTS forcing you into submission, and why not, when 99.99% of the population chooses to worship their captors by cooperating with them. B.A.R. Agents and the DUMB police who do as they’re told are the enemies of the people, not us. I hope my posts here give you the material you need to silence these criminal whores. As you learn, you’ll see that I am not exaggerating. Those who worship their captors exist as buffoons with Stockholm Syndrome.
“… the term `citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.” State v. Manuel 20 NC 122 14 CJS section 4
“…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.”
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
Please see this video by Glenn-Winningham here:
UNITED STATES IS A CROWN COLONY
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has learned that The Banksters and their B.A.R. whores and their armed mercenaries will continue to blackmail people with frivolous suits in kangaroo corporate courts irregardless of what their own courts rule, specifically the Supreme and Federal courts.
U.S. Supreme Court says NO LICENSE NECESSARY to drive automobile on public highways/streets
“The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “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 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “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 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(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…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 “
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” 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, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “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 highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’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 Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
Sovereign Not-a Citizen:
Officer told my friend in secret that if you are traveling and get pulled over we are suppose to let you go as soon as you announce that you are not for hire. He said that every state legislature has early bills that clearly state the “for hire” requirement to invoke the motor vehicle code. He then added that the statutes, which are not law, just reference to law, has conveniently removed /dropped the “offered to the public for hire” language.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word automobile.'”; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as:
“The term ‘travel’ and ‘traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense…so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.” [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.
“Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.” Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., 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.
Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
otice that in all these definitions the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler” is defined as:
“Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle…” Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be “travelling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.
“It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms ‘operator’ and ‘driver’; the ‘operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the ‘driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both ‘operator’ and ‘driver.'” Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.
This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:
“…Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state…will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear…” Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”
In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
“Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money…”; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the word “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
“..in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
“The word ‘traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.” Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
It seems only proper to define the word “license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
“The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.
“Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:
“a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the “licensor” which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the “licensor.”
“A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her “blender” or “mixer?” They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
Please visit article here:
DRIVER’S LICENSE VS. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
I David-James: Doe (hereinafter plaintiff) appearing specially (pursuant to FRCP 120(a) as the man /(Natural person) and Non-Resident, and a citizen of the several states (“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873). Plaintiff Hereby deposes and states the facts herein. [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID:chapter_txt-5] [[Page 73]] Nationalities, etc.
5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the
following forms will be used. Indianan is among the terms to be used for the American people on the land known as Indiana. As such plaintiff is an Indianan for the duration in which plaintiff makes Indiana plaintiffs domicile.
“US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia (A US Citizen) becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” and does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
IC 9-13-2-78 “Indiana resident”
Sec. 78. “Indiana resident” refers to a person who is one (1) of the following:
(1) A person who lives in Indiana for at least one hundred eighty-three (183) days during a calendar year and who has a
legal residence in another state. However, the term does not include a person who lives in Indiana for any of the following purposes:
(A) Attending a postsecondary educational institution.
(B) Serving on active duty in the armed forces of the United States.
(C) Temporary employment.
(D) Other purposes, without the intent of making Indiana a permanent home.
(2) A person who is living in Indiana if the person has no other legal residence.
(3) A person who is registered to vote in Indiana or who satisfies the standards for determining residency in Indiana under IC 3-5-5.
(4) A person who has a child enrolled in an elementary or a secondary school located in Indiana.
(5) A person who has more than one-half (1/2) of the person’s gross income (as defined in Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code) derived from sources in Indiana using the provisions applicable to determining the source of adjusted gross income that are set forth in IC 6-3-2-2. However, a person who is considered a resident under this subdivision is not a resident if the person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is not a resident under subdivisions (1) through (4).
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in
one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the
federal government as an “individual entity.” Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298
U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
These rulings & statute make it clear the Resident or US Citizens are
Government Employees, who have no constitutional protection, like the citizens of
the several States. Thus plaintiff cannot be a part of the body politic, and plaintiff
further swears that plaintiff is not a part of any body politic, nor has plaintiff ever
promised to abide by the body politic.
Plaintiff bases plaintiffs claim of not being a person but in fact a natural
person on these supreme court rulings.
” ‘In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, (citizens of several states) and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
The sovereign people(citizens of the several states) are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v.Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
On or about_______ around ______ A.M./P.M. plaintiff was attempting to travel in plaintiffs automobile when plaintiff was stopped assaulted by an officer and had the offense of battery committed on plaintiff body as plaintiff was arrested and assaulted due to a lack of the officers knowledge of law.
Plaintiff will show those who need a drivers license doesn’t include people traveling in their private automobile but in fact only pertains to the subject matter of those who use the highways and roads as a place of business. Please see (Exhibit A) For Case cites on the people Right to travel.
Plaintiff directs the courts attention to the following facts of law Automobile.
Automobile. Defined this definition fits most definitions found in law.
Every motor vehicle of the type constructed and used for the transportation of
persons for purposes other than for hire or compensation. This shall include all
vehicles of the station wagon type whether the same are called station wagons, or
ranch wagons, van wagons, except those used for commercial purposes, suburban’s,
town and country, or by any other name, except when owned and used as a school
bus or motor bus by a school district or a religious corporation or society as
elsewhere provided by law.
This is in direct agreement of Constitutional law stating
Automobiles, cannot be included in the definition a Motor vehicle, a motor vehicle
is commercial in nature. However it does clearly state a Automobile is
used, for purposes other than for hire or compensation such as travel.
The people have and retain always, a Constitutionally protected Right to travel.
American Jurisprudence, Constitutional-Law, section 329, page 1135
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere
privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which
he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
constitutional guaranty 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.” Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 (Also)
“16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty: “Personal
liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one
pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for
the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn 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. And in American jurisprudence Elements we find the same
conclusion of law.
American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 § 359 Elements
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. Under this constitutional guaranty 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. Pg. 686 (Also)
“II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
and further … “Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of
changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination
may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of
law.”Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777
This is because automobiles have long been deemed house hold
effects repeatedly by the Courts and the UCC. Automobiles have also been noted
as a Consumer-good. The people’s right to travel is unalienable meaning it cannot
be taken away. (See Case law)
“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct.
241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects,
and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir.1907).
“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]” U.S. v
Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent
Edition (West) pocket part 94.
“[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a
motor vehicle[.]” United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir1983).
The Use of an automobile determines the automobiles, classification
“In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression
household effects, Matter of Winburn’s Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 592],
stated the test to be “whether the articles are or are not used in or by the
household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family”.” In re Bloomingdale’s
Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).
“The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics,
determine whether it should be classified as “consumer goods” under UCC 9-
109(1) or “equipment” under UCC 9-109(2).” Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc.,
23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
“Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for
personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive
and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as
determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d
384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden
v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md
601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
“The classification of “goods” under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of
fact.” Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836
P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992).
“The definition of “goods” includes an automobile.” Henson v Government
Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273,
516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).
“The term “household goods” … includes everything about the house that is
usually held and enjoyed therewith and that tends to the comfort and
accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21
Ariz.App. 75″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part
94. Cites Mitchell’s Will below.
“Bequest … of such “household goods and effects” … included not only
household furniture, but everything else in the house that is usually held and used
by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of the
household. State ex rel. Mueller v Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d
863, 867, 226 Minn. 346.” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West)
“All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for
Non-commercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to
receive the benefit from such exemption.” Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2.
“Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an
activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by
government sufferance of permission.”Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are
being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the
legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are
reasonable and non-vocative of constitutional guarantees.
Travel is among the peoples constitutionally protected rights as one of their
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for
what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” – City of
Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910
“16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and
when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it
necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel
upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn
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.
American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 § 359 Elements
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. Under this constitutional guaranty
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. Pg. 686
“II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 and further … “Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed.,
This is even further amplified in the following.
Generally [7A Am Jur 2d § 9 AUTOMOBILES AND HIGHWAY TRAFFIC]
Ordinarily, every traveler has an equal right in the highway, and every part thereof, with every other traveler. 65 The public is entitled to the full and free use of all the territory embraced within a public roadway. 66 Hence, a traveler, as such, may occupy and use any part of the public highway he or she desires, when not needed by another whose rights thereto are superior to his or her own. 67
Here the state denotes a driver a commercial entity as one who is
“Commercial driver’s license”
Sec. 29. “Commercial driver’s license” has the meaning set forth in 49 CFR 383.5 as in effect July 1, 2010.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.9-2010, SEC.5.
“Commercial driver’s license learner’s permit”
Sec. 29.5. “Commercial driver’s license learner’s permit”, for purposes of IC 9-24-6, has the meaning set forth in IC 9-24-6-0.5.
As added by P.L.188-2006, SEC.1.
Added by Laws 1961, p. 316, § 1-114. Amended by Laws 2013, c. 259, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2013.
Indiana Code 9-24-6-0.5. “Commercial driver’s license learner’s permit”
Current as of: 2014 | Check for updates | Other versions
Sec. 0.5. As used in this chapter, “commercial driver’s license learner’s permit” means a learner’s permit that allows an individual, unless otherwise disqualified, to operate a commercial motor vehicle only when accompanied by a person:
(1) who holds a valid commercial driver’s license for the type of commercial motor vehicle being driven; and
(2) who occupies a seat beside the individual in order to give instruction to the individual in driving the commercial motor vehicle.
As added by P.L.188-2006, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.125-2012, SEC.185.
IC 9-24-6-0.8 “Downgrade”
Sec. 0.8. As used in this chapter, “downgrade” has the meaning specified in the definition of CDL downgrade as set forth in 49 CFR
383.5 as in effect on July 1, 2010.
As added by P.L.45-2011, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.125-2012, SEC.186.
As the above aforementioned is (Vague, & Ambiguous,) at best though having a clear commercial interest, one must look up the definitions of the words to get its true meaning. So here we start with what a driver is. As well as What a Drivers license is for and who must have it.
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” – Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273
The people always retain a right to travel; so the license couldn’t be for people traveling as it’s a right there is no right or power to confer. The people however, do not retain the right to drive which is a commercial interest, here a license is to confer a right, or power in commerce, which does not exist without it.”.
Now we will examine what a driver is by law, and keep in mind the oldest of maxims. (The inclusion of one is the exclusion of all else 11 CO. 58).
Driver – Black’s 3rd
One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car .See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.
Here we see a driver is employed this cannot be a travler and the maxim above would clearly exclude a travler. The courts have been crystal clear that the people traveling cannot be considered a driver. The words ‘operator’ ‘owner’ ‘driver’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.” Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83
Now one clearly sees there is a commercial aspect to the drivers license and to what a driver is in the Indiana motor vehicle code.
Registration; state residents
Sec. 1. (a) A person must register all motor vehicles owned by the person that:
(1) are subject to the motor vehicle excise tax under IC 6-6-5; and
(2) will be operated in Indiana.
(b) A person must register all commercial vehicles owned by the person that:
(1) are subject to the commercial vehicle excise tax under IC 6-6-5.5;
(2) are not subject to proportional registration under the International Registration Plan; and
(3) will be operated in Indiana.
(c) A person must register all recreational vehicles owned by the person that:
(1) are subject to the excise tax imposed under IC 6-6-5.1; and
(2) will be operated in Indiana.
(d) A person must register all vehicles owned by the person not later than sixty (60) days after becoming an Indiana resident.
(e) Except as provided in subsection (f), an Indiana resident must register all motor vehicles operated in Indiana.
(f) An Indiana resident who has a legal residence in a state that is not contiguous to Indiana may operate a motor vehicle in Indiana for not more than sixty (60) days without registering the motor vehicle in Indiana.
(g) An Indiana resident who has registered a motor vehicle in Indiana in any previous registration year is not required to register the motor vehicle, is not required to pay motor vehicle excise tax under IC 6-6-5 or the commercial vehicle excise tax under IC 6-6-5.5 on the motor vehicle, and is exempt from property tax on the motor vehicle for any registration year in which:
(1) the Indiana resident is:
(A) an active member of the armed forces of the United States; and
(B) assigned to a duty station outside Indiana; and
(2) the motor vehicle is not operated inside or outside Indiana. This subsection may not be construed as granting the bureau authority to require the registration of any vehicle that is not operated
These statutes clearly out lines all commercial vehicles, if an
automobile isn’t used for (commercial Nature) then the automobile or truck is
exempt from licensing and Registration. Remember the above maxim.
(The inclusion of one excludes all else 11 CO. 58)
( These statutes are commercial in Nature) plaintiff doesn’t operate plaintiff’s
automobile/truck in a commercial nature. Plaintiff’s auto is used as a household
good, as a convenience of life, to travel, to and from work for wages, Groceries etc.
The following constitutional law makes it clear in (32 Moreover, while a
state may be pre-empted from establishing its own standards, it is not pre-empted
from enforcing the federal standards), Federal standards are all commercial in
nature. This clearly shows the state is bound (Meaning shall or must obey) to Title
18 sec 31 which we will examine later.
[7A Am Jur 2d § 17 AUTOMOBILES AND HIGHWAY TRAFFIC] Pre-emption of state and local regulation
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act 28 does not generally pre-empt the field of
regulation of motor vehicle safety, 29 but it does pre-empt state standards
relating to the same subject that are either more or less stringent than the federal
standards. 30 Only state statutes that conflict with federal safety standards are pre-
empted. 31 Thus, pre-emption should only occur where compliance with both the
federal and local regulations is impossible. 32 Moreover, while a state may be
pre-empted from establishing its own standards, it is not pre-empted from
enforcing the federal standards. 33 Thus, federal safety standards on motorcycle
helmets do not pre-empt state laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets,
34 but the state cannot prescribe helmets that differ from those in the federal
regulations. 35 State laws requiring proof of compliance with federal standards
before automobiles not originally designed for the United States market may be
licensed and registered are also not pre-empted by the federal regulations. 36
We see here Indiana Interstate: Follows Federal Regulation Part
390.21. Intrastate: Same as Federal Regulation Part 390.21 Pertains to
all “qualified” vehicles as defined by Federal Regulations 390.5.
Indiana abides by and uses Federal Definitions For what a Motor-
Vehicle is. Motor vehicles are defined at Title 18 sec 31 definitions.
Title 18 sec 31 Definitions
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
The word and in law means- required so must include the definition of (used for commercial purposes).
Title 18 sec 31 Definitions
Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial
purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge
or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or
other undertaking intended for profit
Now one clearly sees there is a commercial aspect, in what a motor
vehicle is, and a motor vehicles use is a commercial use. This is who must
be licensed register & plate their cars (Commercial Drivers), those who
operate a business upon the highways and roads.
This concept becomes is set in stone in the following constitutional law.
[7A Am Jur 2d § 12 AUTOMOBILES AND HIGHWAY TRAFFIC]
Vehicles engaged in transportation for hire
The use of highways for the purpose of transporting persons or
property for hire, by the ordinary means, is incidental to and consistent with the
primary purpose of their establishment, and is therefore a proper use, in the
absence of any restrictive regulation. 75 Such use is not, however, one which may
be exercised as of right, but is a special or permissive use, 76 which may be
prohibited, restricted, or conditioned by the controlling public authority. 77
Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated there was no crime, plaintiff could not be
obstructing justice, for not providing what plaintiff wasn’t required to have. In the
nature and intent, of Terry V Ohio there must be a Crime or criminal intent proven. Also You may not be arrested solely to ascertain your identity. Arrington v Mcdonald 808 F2d 466 (1988)
This constitutional law makes it clear who can be regulated, people who carry on a business on the highway and roads for personal gain..
You may refuse to provide police information or ID under the Fifth Amendment on grounds of self incrimination. United States v Brown 731 F2d 1491 (1984). Before one must ID themselves to any officer… There must be a criminal intent with reasonable articulate facts.
This is a lie that travelers must be licensed, but plaintiff will address this false allegation as the officer’s false arrest/ kidnapping constitutes a battery upon the plaintiff. (see Following)
An illegal arrest is assault and battery & one has the same right to use force in defending themselves as they would in any other assault & battery. STATE V. ROBINSON 72 AH. 2D 262 (1950)
Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has
committed or is about to commit a crime and frisk the suspect for weapons if they
have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous without
violating the Fourth Amendment Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) . &
U.S. v. Briggman, 931 F2d705 (1991) (Supreme Court) “Detention must be
based on specific, articulable, facts (SAF) and rational inferences. Unparticular
zed suspicion and inarticulate hunches alone are not good enough. A valid
Investigative stop must be based on “reasonable articulable suspicion” (RAS) also
In the following one will see the penalties of violating a constitutionally protect
right of a citizen of the several states can be severe.
Trezevant v City of Tampa, 241 F.2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984) 23 minutes of illegal
Confinement for an illegally applied traffic citation he was awarded 25,000 dollars
Mandonado -Denis V. Castillo Rodriguez 23 F. 3d. 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.
“Officers of the court are deemed to know the law. Therefore they have no immunity when violating a constitutional right”. Owen v. Independence 100 S. CT. 1398, 445 U.S. 622
There is yet one more matter at hand a traffic violation is a civil matter and civil matters are not an arrest able offense.
CIVIL DISPUTES CANNOT BE CAUSE FOR ARREST
Allen v City of Portland 73 F.3d 232 (9th cir. 1995) (Citing cases from
U.S. Supreme Court, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits) By definition
PROBABLE CAUSE can only exist in relation to criminal conduct; CIVIL
disputes cannot give rise for arrest. Cummings V Missouri, 71 U.S. 277
Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1990): BoP officials liable for damages.
Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993): no immunity for wrongful imprisonment.
(“information alleging that the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a highway without a license was insufficient for arrest because Drivers License is not a law”). W. Lee Hassell v. The state, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; S.W. 2D 400
“Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3,step 1, 123 Cal.Rptr. 636,639.
“Pretextual traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Amendment.” U.S. v. Eldridge, 984 F2d 943 (1993)
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of law under which he presumes to act. Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F 417
“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz
Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist
without it.” Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.
In closing plaintiff states the following questions to be answered
1. Where is the proof of a commercial activity requiring a license?
2. What crime did plaintiff commit which constituted an arrest?
3. Why did the arresting officer arrest plaintiff from the start?
Plaintiff swears to all herein is truthful and accurate to the best of plaintiff knowledge.