The Right to Travel

I have placed this in the General Conspiracies section for two reasons. One, I think that there absolutely is something amuck when a nation doesn't bother to explain the framework of it's Legal system to it's citizens; I may even go as far as to say there is a conspiracy to keep the citizens impotent and ignorant. Two, I wasn't exactly sure where to put this post. That being said, moderators feel free to move it as you see fit.

Now for a little background on the situation.

I live in the United States. I purposefully let my Driver's Lisence expire as I do not believe it is right to be forced to contract. In fact, we are protected from being forced into contracts. To be forced to contract is called entering a contract Under Duress and is in fact a feasible defense to void a contract entered into in such a manner. I recently got my Driving Without a Lisence ticket, truth be told; I was waiting for the day. Now it is time to go to court. I suppose I am making this post to hear other's opinions on the situation, and perhaps; for advice.

Now for some background on why I am choosing to fight this battle.

I think it is a gross injustice to force the Citizens of a State to Lisence themselves and their respective conveyance(s). In a sense, they are charging us extra to travel on our roadways. The road work in my State is funded by taxation of the fuel we use to propel our conveyances. That being said, simply by purchasing fuel we are paying for the Right to use the roadway. We should not be forced to do any sort of registering to use the roadways we fund. The Government, without regard to what body, has no right to know what conveyances I own, and therefore I am making the choice to stop registering my conveyances. I also am able to provide them with identification beyond that of a Driver's Lisence should they need it via a Passport or a State Issued ID.

I have court in early December. It is a Municipal Court as the Law I broke was in fact an Ordinance. An Ordinance is a Law enacted by a Municipal Corporation. Yes, a Corporation. A Municipal Corporation only has the power to conduct business within the private sector. They only have the right to contract with you, and if you know anything about Contractual Law, that means they must have your consent. A consent I refuse to give them.

So now for my defense.

When I am asked to plea, I will reply;

“I do not plead to courts of contracts. An Ordinance is a Law enacted by a Municipal Corporation. A Municipal Corporation only has the power to conduct business within the private sector, in which case I am not a Corporation but a natural born person and I am reserving all rights and benefits without prejudice provided for me under Uniform Commercial Code Book 1 Section 1-207, whereby I can reserve my Common Law Right to not be compelled to perform under any Contract or Agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally, and that reservation serves as notice to all Administrative Agencies of Government, Nationally, State, and Locally, that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the "Compelled Benefit" of any unrevealed Commercial Agent. I am here today under protest and duress as I have only appeared under threat of imprisonment and refuse to allow you to create a joinder between myself, the natural born person, and ****** **** ****, the Corporation created for me at birth.”

I am thinking this alone should have the case dismissed, but should the "Judge" wish to carry on I will ask for the courts to provide an Injured Party with a Verified Complaint. Should the "Judge" fail to come forth with an injured party I will remind him/her of Uniform Commercial Code 1-103, "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." I will remind the "Judge" that the Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action, which I took by reserving my Rights under U.C.C. 1-207.

If the "Judge" tries to carry on with a charade I will state, "Sir, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to restore my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this Ordinance in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."

That statement should be the game breaker if all else fails.

Any questions, comments, concerns; feel free to reply. No post is too large or too small. Except maybe one liners?

that money for your license is to pay the people who make them, the computers that run the databases, and the cameras that take the pictures as well as the people who make the driving exams.

I dont know about your state but mine has free driving school for cars and motorcycles that gets you a lifetime insurance discount. So I am guessing some of the money for a license goes towards that. Also in my state you only pay one time when you get it and never again, you dont pay when it expires that is free, well taxes or something probably. Or if you lose it, then to get it right away its like 15$ or you can wait for it in the mail which is free too.

If your state is doing it wrong its probably just because they dont know how to manage their finances due to there being noone smart enough to fix the problems in your state. You should move!

Also the UCC doesnt apply to louisisana,

reply to post by tigpoppa


I don't think my State is doing it wrong. I'm saying ALL States are doing it wrong by subjugating us to Lisencing, be it Driver's, Marriage, Hunting, Fishing, et cetra ad infinitum. I refuse to allow the Government to attempt to Govern me when I am more than capable of Governing myself.

I understand where you are coming from, but without Lisences we would not need the Lisence Fees to pay the workers involved with said Lisencing. If you remove the Lisence, you remove the fiscal issue.

reply to post by Namaste


There have been court rulings that state a Drivers License is NOT required to operate an automobile, and that as Automobiles are common methods of transportation it's a Constitutional violation to withdraw the natural right of travel if the operator of the automobile was not, at the time, endangering the lives of fellow citizens on the road.

It also meant you didn't need a license plate, insurance or anything else that can prohibit driving according to state laws.

If you do a few in-depth Google searches you'll see cases of people, many who have won, using your same argument.

Our Government has no right to regulate our automobiles.

Have you heard about the Freeman Society??
It sounds alot like the same ideas you have.
From what I understand(which isn't alot)they don't want drivers licenses either and have had some success fighting for what the believe in.

Here worldfreemansociety.org...

reply to post by tigpoppa


How does the U.C.C. not apply to Lousiana? It's a Federal issue.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I had reviewed a rather large amount of case Law regarding this issue and many others before I had even dreamed of allowing my Driver's Lisence to expire. In essence by allowing it to expire instead of losing I made good on my end of the contract and am no longer Legally bound by it.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


I am vaguely familiar with the Society of which you speak, and have in the past briefly reviewed some of the material on there. From what I saw much of it is very informative, but with all things; do your homework afterwards.

reply to post by Namaste


I starred and flagged this for you for giving it a try.
Let me know how you make out...this is an interesting concept to me.
Good luck in court.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Thank You very much for your sentiments.

Originally posted by Namaste
reply to post by tigpoppa

 

... but without Lisences we would not need the Lisence Fees to pay the workers involved with said Lisencing. If you remove the Lisence, you remove the fiscal issue.

... and you also remove any and all accountability and the reasonable presumption that the person driving understands what the plethora of road rules and signs mean.

Can you imagine, that you actually have to take a TEST that shows that you know what the majority of road signs mean, what the different types of lines and lanes are for, why you can't turn left on red, why must yield to oncoming traffic when in a left left lane, and what you are supposed to do at a 4-way intersections when 4 people arrive at the stop sign at the same time?

The government certainly doesn't prohibit anyone from driving, they just prohibit anyone from driving when they haven't proved they know how via a written and ride-along test.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


How do you remove all accountability exactly? In a situation where accountability becomes a neccessity the parties involved are generally parked on the side of the road and the situation is generally preceded by an accident of some sort.

Also, Education and Lisencing do not necessarilly go hand in hand. You can have one without the other. The Public School System provides Driver's Education, and as a previous poster mentioned, some States will put you through classes free of charge courtesy of the DOT. Maybe make the classes mandatory for High School graduation and skip the lisencing?

You're right, they don't prohibit us from driving, but they do however mandate the manner in which we are "allowed" to do so. Actually, now that I think about it, how can they "allow" us to drive unless there is some form of prohibition in the first place?

First off let me say I give you a lot of credit for actually following through with this and wish you the best of luck. I have done a lot of research on the subject of sovereignty as well and I plan to follow through with it as well. I would like to point out though that you are planning on citing UCC 1-207 which is found in many older documents as a means to reserve your rights but i do believe it has actually changed to UCC 1-308. It may be worth your time to figure that out so you don't cite the wrong law I'm sure they changed it for the sole purpose of trying to set a trap for people because thats just how our corrupt tyrannical government works. I am interested if you have revoked all of your contracts (e.g. Social Security, Marriage License, Birth Certificate, etc...)? If not you may want to consider doing that to eliminate any presumption that you are a "U.S Citizen" or domiciled in federal zone because that gives them jurisdiction over you.

reply to post by xSe7eNx


Thank You for that valuable information. The 207/308 issue is a rather nasty debacle. Cornell has an online U.C.C. and lists both 207 and 308 as the same article with the same wording. Some sites state that 207 is the new 308 and that 308 is the new 207. It seems like this rabbit hole is rather swamped with disinformation just as one might expect. Though I still have two months to finish my preparation and intend to go down to the Public Library to read through the U.C.C. adopted by my home State.

As far as revoking my other Lisences and absolving the Corporation under my name; I have taken no steps. I decided to do the Driver's Lisence first as I could allow it to lapse and exit the contract without any issue beyond defending my right to Travel without a Lisence.

reply to post by Namaste


I think you have a sound understanding of the law, and my only concern would be that by reciting what you intend to recite you may fall into a trap. You are correct that you can not make a plea, but to offer up the explanation you do as to why you are not making a plea is offering up more information, initially, then you have to, and by doing so, instantly shifting the burden of proof from them to you.

It seems to me that it would be stronger to refuse to make a plea because you do not understand the charges brought against you, and insist that this needs to be clearly explained before you can make an intelligent and informed decision on how you should plea.

It is one thing to challenge the jurisdiction, it is another thing entirely to assert that the court has no jurisdiction. A challenge of jurisdiction forces the court to show on record they have it, asserting they don't shifts the burden of proof to you, which is an untenable position since in matters of law you can't prove a negative.

A license, by definition, is a grant to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Thus, if you are required to have a license, and of course you are not, then there must be some law that has made traveling illegal.

If the charge is driving without a license, then the it is incumbent upon the court to show what law has made driving illegal. I do not mean an ordinance requiring all people who drive to obtain a license, I mean a statute that has prohibited driving. Without such a statute the requirement to obtain a license has no legal basis.

It is probably stronger to insist that you do not understand the charges brought against you and cannot plea until you do understand the charges, and then as the judge attempts to pigeonhole you into making a plea, let what you know and understand about the law trickle out step by step.

This has a twofold effect. First, by handling it this way, you avoid falling into any traps, and by traps, I mean making legal assertions that force you to prove those assertions. Secondly, by slowly questioning the legality of the process, your challenge of jurisdiction is clear enough, but it also places the judge in the untenable position of falling into legal traps, and subsequently it is he who has to be careful what he say's and not you. It is best to inextricably bind the judge to his own assertions, rather than inextricably bind yourself to yours.

For this reason, the only assertion you should make, in my humble opinion, (void of any legal advice as we are just having a discussion), is that you do not understand the charges that have been brought against you and you cannot plead until you do understand those charges, and from that point out do your best to frame all points of law in the form of a question that has to be answered by the court.

That said, the best legal strategy, in my humble opinion, would be to lose this case so you can appeal it to a higher court where the likelihood of having the law struck down as unconstitutional is much more likely. However, intentionally loosing a case in order to win it later in a higher court of appeals requires quite a bit of legal finessing, and failing any ability to finesse in such a manner, it is probably best to just help the judge of the municipal court understand he has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Originally posted by Namaste
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

How do you remove all accountability exactly? In a situation where accountability becomes a neccessity the parties involved are generally parked on the side of the road and the situation is generally preceded by an accident of some sort.

They are responsible, but hardly accountable if the state never required them to get any type of license in the first place. Like a misfit kid in a drug-infested home... he is responsible for his first line of coke, but probably not accountable.

Also, Education and Lisencing do not necessarilly go hand in hand. You can have one without the other. The Public School System provides Driver's Education, and as a previous poster mentioned, some States will put you through classes free of charge courtesy of the DOT. Maybe make the classes mandatory for High School graduation and skip the lisencing?

What would be the point of making the classes mandatory when high school itself isn't mandatory?

You're right, they don't prohibit us from driving, but they do however mandate the manner in which we are "allowed" to do so. Actually, now that I think about it, how can they "allow" us to drive unless there is some form of prohibition in the first place?

Public roads are constructs. You don't travel on public roads. Travel is from point a to point b, with only natural elements as obstacles. On public roads, there is a complex system of artificial signs, lanes, guides, markers, traffic control devices, other vehicles, and "judges" (police) that are all traversing the artificial obstacle course that you've so naively confused with traveling.

Private property is a different story.

reply to post by Namaste


Good Luck in court man give em hell!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Oh Jean Paul how I have been patiently waiting for your response, and was most ecstatic when I finally saw you had replied. As always it was both enlightening and informative.

You have a very valid point when suggesting I allow the "Judge" to find his own pitfall instead of building my own metaphorical punji pit. I did not think about how my oratory would most definitely place the burden of proof squarely on my shoulders. Thank heavens for your foresight. Any suggestions on ammendments I might make to my original oratory?

As far as appealing it to a higher court; it is definitely something I am willing to do, and in fact would like to, but it is also something I don't think the Courts exactly want to allow. I definitely could see the "Judge" dismissing the case solely on the grounds of keeping the information I would share in the Court; out of Court and off the Record.

Be sure and let us know the cell number so we can send cookies!

Seriously, I make great cookies! LOL

At any rate, I was thinking, did you have to have insurance in order to Register your vehicle with the State? Both of these instances "speaks" as a motion in accepting such entitlements which encompass "Laws". Such as it being the law to have a driver's license to own a vehicle.

I am sure I am wrong and I am not citing law, but I always thought that was the "Catch 22", that by Registering the vehicle and putting a plate on the vehicle that you agree to such terms. I don't know, I am just spouting off from my thoughts!

I do make great cookies!

reply to post by RestingInPieces


Now you're just arguing semantics. Especially considering responsible is an acceptable definition for accountable.

Touche. You've raised a very valid argument. Perhaps make the classes compulsory in a grade that is itself compulsory. I do think that this is rather beside the point however; as I, and many others, had a good understanding of the street signs and how traffic functioned well before we were even eligible to obtain a Lisence.

On the note of Traveling vs. Driving. Is a trail a construct? Or must it be paved? Am I not traveling A to B when I go to work? Or on my way home? Is being detoured by a stop sign any different than being detoured by a rock on the trail? Is being detoured at a three-way intersection any different than coming to a fork on the trail? When I'm jogging the mountain path here in town and see a sign indicating a fork I should then deduce that I am "driving" because I saw an artificial sign? Hardly. Also, I understand that I am in fact currently arguing semantics after calling you out on doing the same, but you must understand; it has purpose, and is not just for the sake of argument. Within the Legal system words are binding. They mean everything. Driving vs. Travelling is a Legal pitfall in and of itself. Driving implies travel for commercial use, such as a delivery boy, or cab driver; in which case you do need to have some sort of Lisencing as there is an exchange of currency involved. Travelling does not denote commercial purposes. That is why the Law Enforcement Officer that detains you on the side of the road almost always asks "Where you were driving to, or driving from." The use of Drive is intentional for court purposes whether the LEO was consciously aware of it or not.