• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS
Posted by Jeffrey Phillips


U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“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. “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.

This article first appeared on SomeNextLevelShit.com and was authored by Jeffrey Phillips.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#4
U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS Posted by Jeffrey Phillips

THIS IS A HOAX!

"IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
.
(Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).

THE HOAX:
Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

THE TRUTH:
As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

BACKGROUND:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver’s license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (divided legal jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (the jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

SIMPLIFICATION:
Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. As a result, FEDERAL and STATE governments DO NOT REGULATE THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECTS, THEY REGULATE THE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this constitutional division of powers was to ensure harmony between the FEDERAL and STATE governments by DIVIDING between them the LEGAL SUBJECTS that each was empowered to regulate. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here,
, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because FEDERAL law and STATE law regulate "OPPOSITE" legal subjects.

NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the these BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes&p=1174970#post1174970.

CONCLUSION:
If "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you WERE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THIS SUBJECT:

Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE!

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] 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 [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...mond+police+officer+opdyke&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued an officer who arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent DANGERS, renders the reasonableness and NECESSITY OF REGULATION apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11139644895432251605&q="Scalpi+v.+Town+Of+East+Fishkill"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a town and government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she '[THERE IS NO LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8394652662902108997&q="triemert+v+washington+county"+"the+gist+of"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY CODES WHICH DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH [a claim identical to what Eddie Craig also claims].'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested.." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8394652662902108997&q="triemert+v+washington+county"+"the+gist+of"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that... HE DID NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE because, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case before using an almost identical argument. In discussing that earlier case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15753721215922597120&q="spokane+v.+port"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license... six times. After she refused... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9860090939829240302&q="taylor+v.+hale"+"appears+to+contend"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5366104849800954068&q="Williams+v.+Rice"++"not+involved+in+commerce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams, an amateur legal theorist, filed a claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court conviction for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE... . . [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... ." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11456459803917680481&q="State+v.+Ferrell"+"not+engaged+in+commerce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL.... . [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]." But, the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q="State+v.+Williams"+"Freedom+of+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Appellant, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS [A WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], was [convicted by a jury]... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE... .[and]... WAS... SENTENCED... TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, [WILLIAMS]... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17551736594892331440&q="State+v.+Schmitz"++"not+engaged+in+commerce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him][a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him] [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed BOTH convictions. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1064768437589933279&q="State+v.+El+Bey"+"right+to+travel+documents"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but the Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS... . [The "Right To Travel" documents]... contained a birth certificate and documents which stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13848675425524872193&q="State+v.+O'Connor"+"not+engaged+in+commercial"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3561337147107818941&q="Schilling+v.+Swick"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17234956748209348154&q="Myles+v.+State"+"was+not+a+hired+driver"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND ... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

"SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme...-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/339...ment/339121150/Right-to-Travel-by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of "SUBSTITUTE" decisions which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK LIKE", "SIMILAR TO" "RIGHTS":

1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10017950490896899680&q="schecter+v.+Killingsworth"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7126151699700902691&q="Escobedo+v.+State"+20902+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Berberian v. Lussier, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10003377642086162533&q="Berberian+v.+Lussier"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14665237934868993736&q="Holland+v.+Shackelford"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10692694480240175303&q="Kent+v.+Dulles"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7020999794525483771&q="In+re+Barbara+White"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

1). Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366&q="Thompson+v.+Smith"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the RIGHT "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this case also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the very same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence AGAIN and AGAIN]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Virginia anyway.

2). Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10311383113122069229&q="adams+v+City+of+Pocatello"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The RIGHT of a citizen TO OPERATE a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER [citing Thompson v. Smith (directly above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right".]... ." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Idaho anyway.

3). Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3544987/teche-lines-inc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a specified minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off their customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides "for usual and customary purposes" and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the third case above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". But, TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER, this very same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of this so-called "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Mississippi anyway.

"CRIMINAL STOPS" v. "TRAFFIC STOPS":

AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE THAT AN OFFICER MUST ACTUALLY WITNESS A "CRIME" BEFORE HE/SHE MAY LAWFULLY MAKE A ROUTINE "TRAFFIC" STOP. But, this is not so.

Unknown to amateur legal theorists, THERE ARE TWO (2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF STOPS INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES. There are "CRIMINAL" stops and there are "TRAFFIC" stops. "CRIMINAL" stops involve "CRIMES" (like selling illegal drugs or possessing stolen property) which are NOT MERE "TRAFFIC" VIOLATIONS. On the other hand, "TRAFFIC" stops involve "TRAFFIC" violations (like speeding or having expired tags) which ARE NOT "CRIMES". So, while both types of stops involve motor vehicles and officers, "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" stops are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The law on "CRIMINAL" stops DOES NOT apply to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. Instead, "CRIMINAL" law applies to "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" law applies to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. So, while a "CRIME" is necessary in a "CRIMINAL" stop, no "CRIME" is necessary for a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (only a TRAFFIC violation is). But, amateur legal theorists get these TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT legal subjects CONFUSED and therefore mistakenly conclude that an officer must actually witness a "CRIME" (like selling illegal drugs) to lawfully stop a driver for a "TRAFFIC" violation (like having an expired tag). But, this is not so. See the cases below.

4). People v. Horton, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? =14369018876842461431&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 NOTE: This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like speeding or having an expired tag) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the officer here made a "CRIMINAL" stop of a car SOLELY BECAUSE IT CONTAINED YOUNG PEOPLE. The officer saw marijuana in the car (REFLECTING THE "CRIME" OF POSSESSION) and arrested the occupants. In holding the "CRIMINAL" stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL"CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case does has no application outside of California anyway.

5). People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like running a stop sign or driving the wrong way on one-way street) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the police here set up a roadblock SOLELY TO CATCH AN ARMED ROBBER (a "CRIMINAL") fleeing the scene of the "CRIME". The police made a "CRIMINAL" stop of every single car. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the "CRIMINAL" stop was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case (directly above) which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL "CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (in the 15th paragraph at about 85% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of California anyway.

6. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). In this case, the was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (like speeding). Instead, the police here set up roadblocks around a HIGH CRIME AREA after dark and effectively made "CRIMINAL" stops of every driver seeking to enter crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a satisfactory reason for entering the area, the police DENIED THE DRIVER ACCESS TO THE AREA. The court held that such a practice was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE UPON [ALL OF] THE PUBLIC STREETS... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF PUBLIC STREETS]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of the District Of Columbia anyway.

The case below explains it well.

Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15753721215922597120&q="Spokane+v.+port"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION ... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .' (quoting the SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, THE VERY FIRST CASE AT THE VERY TOP, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked, OR what most courts characterize as a "PRIVILEGE"). Regardless, because they mistakenly conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422&q="Shuttlesworth+v.+Birmingham"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a City Commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The City Commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham in protest of racial injustice twice attempted to apply for such a permit and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject LICENSE law.

The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH (not "driving"/"operating" a motor vehicle). The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as 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 [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). ...[A] person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] LICENSE." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" (not the alleged "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE".

Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

THERE IS NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT LEGALLY MATTER. "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS AND "SUBSTITUTE" RULINGS AND "SUBSTITUTE" CASES WILL NOT WORK.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#5
THIS IS A HOAX (CONTINUED)!

ROD CLASS AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL THE POWERS of Congress). READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "[INTERSTATE] COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause authorizes the FEDERAL government to require driver's licenses (ONLY) for drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW ALSO APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW governs the subject of driver's licenses OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See the Tenth Amendment here. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON "IS NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

MISUNDERSTANDING FEDERAL LAW:
Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). Class does not know that FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND THAT under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including drivers licenses for those who "ARE NOT" engaged in "interstate commerce".). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW (95-99%), NOT FEDERAL LAW. Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT and therefore MISTAKENLY concludes that, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS "ALWAYS SUPREME" OVER EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT IN THE LAW. But, this is not so. Unknown to Class, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE "SAME, EXACT" LEGAL SUBJECT. But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as driver's licenses FOR THOSE WHO "ARE NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE").

NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how totally irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to STATE driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the SECOND (2nd) comment here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax. Look for "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX".


THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL":

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...2&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] 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 [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" to require driver's licenses of all drivers who are “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" .

2). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...icensing+of+their+drivers"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE TENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States provides, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES... .' WITHIN THIS RESERVATION OF POWERS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, is what has been judicially termed 'THE POLICE POWER.' (citation omitted). '[SUCH A] STATE MAY RIGHTFULLY PRESCRIBE UNIFORM REGULATIONS... in respect to THE OPERATION UPON ITS HIGHWAYS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES... . And to this end IT [THE STATE] 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 [under the tenth amendment and NOT belonging to the FEDERAL government under the tenth amendment]... . (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 8th paragraph not including block indented portions at about 45% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for all vehicles and drivers "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

3). Chaoui v. City Of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...oui+v.+City+Of+Glendora"++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE USE OF STATE ROADS BY REQUIRING DRIVERS ON THOSE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, and that such regulation DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COSTITUTION. (citations omitted). 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 [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end IT [THE STATE] 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 [under the tenth amendment and not to the federal government] and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens... ." (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 31st paragraph, not including block indented portions at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for vehicles and drivers NOT engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

4). El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...88&q=MIZRAIM+MOHAMMED+EL,+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The Supreme Court has held that STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE THE USE OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. In Reitz v. Mealey, the Supreme Court stated: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of such regulation apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO register ownership of automobiles AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of ITS [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway IS CONSANANT WITH [means "complies with"] DUE PROCESS. (citation omitted). [And, contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe]... [T]he Supreme Court DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [ABOUT DRIVER'S LICENSES] TO COMMERICAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS." (at the 13th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

5). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5697942351825850984&q="257+MDA+2016"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]... ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

6). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=483036688545450484&q="966+A.2d+919"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

7). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

8). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...k+State"++"right+to+drive"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

9). Matter Of Allen v. New York State DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+TRAVEL+within+the+United"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

10). Matter of Matsen v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+TRAVEL+within+the+United"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

11). Matter of Gillman v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+TRAVEL+within+the+United"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

12). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ones+v.+Helms"+"U.S."+1981&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

13). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q="Saenz+v.+Roe"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

14). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ate+v.+Sullivan"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

15). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...="Miller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

16). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...th+Carolina+ex+rel"+Kasler&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

17). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

FACT: STATE requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

18). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...aoui+v.+City+of+glendora"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION... ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE [THE CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHILCE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

19). Robinson v. Huerta, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...inson+v.+Huerta"+++14-0451&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL... because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]... ')... ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE using other MODES of reansportation]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because... THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

20). State v. Williams,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ennessee+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE... . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. ... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense in a case]. Appellant is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH as Appellant [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]." Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW.

21). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel]... . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]... . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [under the tenth amendment], AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [which is something else entirely]." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

FACT: A person may freely exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

22. State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ATE+v.+SULLIVAN"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

23). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...="MIller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.


3 MINUTE VIDEO.

SNOPES:
http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/

ABOUT ROD CLASS:
Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. For an ENTIRE SERIES of HOAXES by Rod Class, CLICK HERE. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
 
Last edited:

Strawboss

America...Love it...or GTFO
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,295
Likes
6,956
Location
Metro Detroit area
#7
So if I say I am engaged on interstate commerce I don’t need a license?
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
2,046
Likes
1,608
#9
Of course the more you obey the traffic rules, the less likely you are to meet a cop. I have co-workers who swear they've never been pulled over.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#10
The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
We actually know better.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

FYI What this means, simply for those of you in Yorba Linda, is that the 'sovereign' creates the law via agencies of government which means the laws apply to the government agencies and their employees.

For starters...

One might research what a 'sovereign' is vs what a 'citizen' is.

Then ask which one you are.

Also, what constitutes a contract?
What constitutes duress?
What is a 'driver'? The legal definition from Blacks Law, or Bouvier's. (not Webster's)...
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,312
Likes
34,029
Location
Qmerica
#12
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#13
Unabridged Websters has a very good definition.
Maybe, but laws are defined using a legal definition... the kind you find in a legal dictionary, not a common usage makes it so dictionary.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#14
Maybe, but laws are defined using a legal definition... the kind you find in a legal dictionary, not a common usage makes it so dictionary.
Oh darn you hurt my feelings with that. Just kidding, IDK in an unabridged dictionary I find the legal as well as the obsolete. You know before I got into these computers and their instant wealth of fingertip knowledge I was going through that 5 inch thick dictionary to pass the time. As I din't make it all the way through I can honestly say my knowledge is incomplete.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#15
So if I say I am engaged on interstate commerce I don’t need a license?
Hello Strawboss.

Thank you very much for your question.

But, the answer is, NO.

FEDERAL law requires you to have a driver's license if you ARE engaged in interstate commerce.

STATE law requires you to have a driver's license if you ARE NOT engaged in interstate commerce.

EITHER WAY, A driver's license is required. Take your pick. The result is exactly the same EITHER WAY. It makes no difference.

Translation: "Commerce" is completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license. "Commerce" is only relevant in determining which sovereign (FEDERAL or STATE) requires the driver's license. But, EITHER WAY, a driver's license is required.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop

For more on this subject, see below.

THE HOAX:
Amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

THE TRUTH:
As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE".

BACKGROUND:
The original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver’s license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "[INTERSTATE] COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE".

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The U.S. Constitution divided the powers (divided legal jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (the jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION).

SIMPLIFICATION:
Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. As a result, FEDERAL and STATE governments DO NOT REGULATE THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECTS, THEY REGULATE THE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this constitutional division of powers was to ensure harmony between the FEDERAL and STATE governments by DIVIDING between them the LEGAL SUBJECTS that each was empowered to regulate.

Thus, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because FEDERAL law and STATE law regulate "OPPOSITE" legal subjects.

NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the these BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970.

CONCLUSION:
If "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you WERE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE", then you have just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle).

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#16
Oh darn you hurt my feelings with that. Just kidding, IDK in an unabridged dictionary I find the legal as well as the obsolete. You know before I got into these computers and their instant wealth of fingertip knowledge I was going through that 5 inch thick dictionary to pass the time. As I din't make it all the way through I can honestly say my knowledge is incomplete.
Laws are 'constructed' using legal dictionaries 'the earlier the better' meaning the latest versions have been changed (just like the history books),

Here is a link for Bouvier's 1856 and Blacks

A 4th edition Blacks and earlier (I own a 4th) is prefered.

Word meanings change over time which is why you want to use the dictionaries used when the law was constructed (before they altered the meanings) to know what they meant when they wrote the law.

Take the word "gay" for instance. If it was constructed into a law as meaning 'happy', then today, in a court of law that is what it would mean regardless of common usage.

If you remember "W" being elected by the SCOTUS back in the day and you listened to the court proceedings the supremes asked "What was the 'construction' of the law?" That's all they wanted to know and they based their decision on that.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#17
Hello Krag,

Thank you so very much for your inquiries. I will try to answer them individually below.

If you’re not a sovereign then what are you?
RESPONSE: You are WHAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE (in reality) under applicable legal definitions. You can be a "person" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "driver" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be an "owner" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "pedestrian" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "passenger" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "citizen" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "resident" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be an "adult" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "minor" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "patient" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. You can be a "consumer" if that definition applies to the facts and circumstances. The list goes on forever.

But, this is the point. As an INDIVIDUAL, you merely "declaring" what your claimed legal status is HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW. It is the ACTUAL facts and the ACTUAL surrounding circumstances IN REALITY that determines your ACTUAL legal status under the law, NOT WHAT YOU "DECLARE".

EXAMPLES:
1. If you are pulled over while "DRIVING" a motor vehicle, your merely "declaring" that you were a "TRAVELER" who was merely "TRAVELING" in your conveyance will not relieve you of the legal obligation to have a valid "DRIVER'S" license (because your ACTUAL status is that of a "DRIVER" under the applicable legal definition, no matter what you "declare"). Likewise, if you are pulled over while driving a "MOTOR VEHICLE", your "declaring" that your "MOTOR VEHICLE" is merely a "CONVEYANCE" will not relieve you of the legal obligation to have a valid "DRIVER'S" license to drive a "MOTOR VEHICLE" (because your vehicle's ACTUAL status is that of a "MOTOR VEHICLE" under the applicable legal definition, no mater what you "declare") .

2. If you are charged with murder under a statute making a "PERSON" liable for the unlawful killing of a human being, your "declaring" that you are not a "PERSON", but are instead a "LEGAL FICTION" or "CORPORATION" because your name as it appeared on the indictment was spelled in "ALL CAPITAL LETTERS" will not relieve you of liability for murder (because your ACTUAL legal status is that of a "PERSON" under the applicable legal definition, no matter what you "declare").

THE LESSON:
It is the ACTUAL facts and the ACTUAL circumstances and applicable legal definitions that determine your ACTUAL legal status.


TRANSLATION:
Your WORDS are 100% irrelevant to determining your legal status.


A legal fiction?
RESPONSE: No. Under the law, no natural person can be an artificial person and no artificial person can be a natural person. These terms are what the law calls "mutually exclusive" terms (if you are one, you cannot be the other).

Do you declare what you are or does a governing body do that?
RESPONSE: Neither. The ACTUAL facts and circumstances and applicable legal definitions that determine your legal status. Your own words are 100% irrelevant. In the unlikely event that there is a good faith dispute as to your legal status (like whether you were a "DRIVER" or a "PASSENGER"), then the "fact finder" makes that determination. In CRIMINAL cases, the "fact finder" is a "JURY of your peers" (ordinary people who are not you and not law enforcement personnel) who are actually picked by the parties to the case (you can't get more fair than that). The determination of your legal status is not determined either by you or by law enforcement personnel.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#19
What is this shit?
it's shit...

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
Yick Wo v Hopkins spells it out quite clearly. The people are the sovereigns.


and Snoop, you don't have to keep reposting the same BS... I read it the first time years ago...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#20
Maybe, but laws are defined using a legal definition... the kind you find in a legal dictionary, not a common usage makes it so dictionary.
Hello Goldhedge,

I see that you are both a moderator and a supporter. Congratulations.

Every state has a statute that requires a "DRIVER" or "OPERATOR" of a motor vehicle to have a license. Every such statute has ITS OWN DEFINITION of "driver" or "operator" for the purpose of a driver's license. According to each such statute, the ONE AND ONLY DEFINITION of "driver" or "operator" THAT MAY EVER BE USED in connection with the driver's license law of that state IS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THAT SAME STATUTE. Under the law, NO OTHER DEFINITION may ever be used in connection with the driver's license law of that state. This includes the definitions found in legal dictionaries. (They may not be used.). The definitions of words found in legal dictionaries DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.

Under the law, legal dictionaries are only used to determine the definitions of words if and only if there is NO DEFINITION PROVIDED IN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE and if there is no definition provided in the applicable case law of the state. Even then, the definition ultimately used must further the purpose and intent of the subject statute, not undermine it. Once adopted by a court, the definition of a word found in a legal dictionary will have the force of law, not because it came from a legal dictionary, but because it was adopted by a court to become law. But, again, every state already has a statute that defines "driver" or "operator" for the purpose of the driver's license law of that state.

Listen Goldhedge, if you will tell me your state, I will provide you with the REAL legal definition of the term, "DRIVER" or "OPERATOR" for the purpose of driver's license law of your state. But, that definition will not apply to other states or to other statutes.

Further, if you ever have a legal question, need legal research done or need a copy of a particular law, feel free to ask. I am always happy to help.

Best Regards,

Snoop

,
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#21
Dear Goldhedge,

Thank you so much for your views. I will respond below.

Yick Wo v Hopkins spells it out quite clearly. The people are the sovereigns.
RESPONSE: Yes. Agreed. You are absolutely correct. The PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY as the government of "We the People" are sovereign. But, an INDIVIDUAL person is not sovereign (a "government"). And, according to Thomas Jefferson (quoted in the case law I provided to you above) the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) exercise their (a PLURAL term) sovereignty by their (a PLURAL term) votes (also a PLURAL term).

And on a personal note, I am well aware that THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system is NOT POPULAR with amateur legal theorists, is NOT WELCOMED by amateur legal theorists and that it is INCONSISTENT with the belief system of amateur legal theorists.

But, none of that will make THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system false. THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system WILL STILL BE THE TRUTH. It does not matter that THE TRUTH is UNPOPULAR. ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS IS THAT IT IS THE TRUTH.

In my defense, please consider this. I did not write a single word of the REAL LAW to which I have provided you with links and quotes above. Do not let the REAL LAW upset you. It is the truth.

I may never be popular among amateur legal theorists for revealing THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW to them, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing I am providing THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW to those who need it most.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,737
Likes
3,795
#22
I have been stopped three times in the last month by cops who saw that my brake lights were not 100%, the rear lights worked but one of the double filaments burned out. One of the cops even said snidely, "you're not a murderer, are you?" Can you imagine if I was driving with no or faulty plates, etc. as a sovereign??
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#23
Hello Krag,

I am sorry to hear that the cops keep pulling you over for your tail lights.

I have no idea why one of the cops snidely asked you if you were a murderer. Perhaps he was making light of the fact that your having a faulty traffic light is the single most minor infraction of the law that there is (EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF MURDER, the most serious infraction of the law that there is.). In making light of how minor your traffic offense was, perhaps the cop was communicating to you that your having a faulty tail light was nothing to be concerned about in the way that having committed murder WOULD BE SOMETHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. In literature, this is called making a contrast in terms of two extremes to put things into perspective.

As to your final sentence, I would expect if you were to have committed a more serious offense, the cop would not make light of the offense at all.

What do you mean, "as a sovereign"?

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#24
Dear Goldhedge,

Since you are a site manager, supporter and moderator, perhaps you can help me with this.

1). Is there a way to remove the lines that appear to be crossing out the text in part two of my comment to you above?

2). Is there a way for me to provide financial support to the site anonymously? (I didn't see a donate button, much less a means to donate

anonymously.).

Thanks,

Snoop
 

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,737
Likes
3,795
#25
Hello Goldhedge,

I see that you are both a moderator and a supporter. Congratulations.

Every state has a statute that requires a "DRIVER" of "OPERATOR" of a motor vehicle to have a license. Every such statute has ITS OWN DEFINITION of "driver" or "operator" for the purpose of a driver's license. According to each such statute, the ONE AND ONLY DEFINITION of "driver" or "operator" THAT MAY EVER BE USED in connection with the driver's license law of that state IS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THAT SAME STATUTE. Under the law, NO OTHER DEFINITION may ever be used in connection with the driver's license law of that state. This includes the definitions found in legal dictionaries. (They may not be used.). The definitions of words found in legal dictionaries DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW. Under the law, legal dictionaries are only used to determine the definitions of words if and only if there is NO DEFINITION PROVIDED IN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE and if there is no definition provided in the applicable case law of the state. Even then, the definition ultimately used must further the purpose and intent of the subject statute, not undermine it. Once adopted by a court, the definition of a word found in a legal dictionary will have the force of law, not because it came from a legal dictionary, but because it was adopted by a court to become law. But, again, every state already has a statute that defines "driver" or "operator" for the purpose of the driver's license law of that state.

Listen Goldhedge, if you will tell me your state, I will provide you with the REAL legal definition of the term, "DRIVER" or "OPERATOR" for the purpose of driver's license law of your state. But, that definition will not apply to other states or to other statutes.

Further, if you ever have a legal question, need legal research done or need a copy of a particular law, feel free to ask. I am always happy to help.

Best Regards,

Snoop

,
I don't think Connecticut has any special rights compared to other states; I have read the state constitution. On "sovereign" I would just mean the colloquial def.; I have known a lot of people who fought for their "right" to drive, tried it a little myself, and it never works. One cop in court told me that in Vermont they even have jurisdiction on ice over lakes to cite people there!!!
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#26
Dear Goldhedge,

Since you are a site manager, supporter and moderator, perhaps you can help me with this.

1). Is there a way to remove the lines that appear to be crossing out the text in part two of my comment to you above?

Snoop
Yes there is. You have to select the post with lines and then you click the upper left 'eraser looking' icon. I think that's how it's done.

2). Is there a way for me to provide financial support to the site anonymously? (I didn't see a donate button, much less a means to donate

anonymously.).

Thanks,
Snoop
It happens about once a year. Scorpio will post a message to the board and you get your chance.

Colorado

and while you are at it also post where the State has jurisdiction over me. Also how does the state obtain jurisdiction over me if I refuse?

also post the law/ruling that overturned Yick Wo v Hopkins
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
181,388
Likes
43,796
#27
Can you imagine if I was driving with no or faulty plates, etc. as a sovereign??
Cops, prosecutors and judges generally take a vey dim view of sovereigns.

1). Is there a way to remove the lines that appear to be crossing out the text in part two of my comment to you above?
Go to the post and click edit. Highlight the stuff with the lines through it. In the header at the top of the post you'll see an S with a line through it. It's the 5th icon from the left. Click it and the lines should disappear.

Here's what you're looking for:

 
Last edited:

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
5,671
Likes
10,322
#29
What is a law anyway? Just some words on paper? One day I am allowed to drink a beer. The next we have prohibition and drinking can now land you in jail. Even worse, the police now can get a warrant, kick in you door , shoot your dog and you and your family if they feel you are a threat and thats now legal because someone wrote some words on paper.
How many laws are you subject to? How many laws do you have to read along with court cases to determine if you need a drivers license? How many hours spent? Now you can drive so congrats but then one day they write some more words on paper and boom, mandatory insurance. Yesterday if I had a junk car and didn't want to insure it, it was my busyness. If someone hit me without insurance I could sue them and get a monthly stipend from them. But now today I have to buy my own insurance to protect someone else?
And the kicker, you also have to buy uninsured motorist insurance in case someone hits you that doesn't have insurance. LMAo. :dduck:
Now your older, no mortgage, own your home, no car payments and no debt, no accidents. OOPs, no credit score now you have to pay more for insurance.......

So your a young adult just starting out. Go to your first job. Here, fill out this tax form. Huh??? Do you have a booklet or something on how to do it? Nope, just fill it out. Can I get a copy of the tax codes before I sign up for something like this? Even if you did and you were super smart and realized that income is a profit or gain from capital and you didn't have to fill out that tax form, the employer would fire you on the spot. No non taxpayers are allowed to work there apparently.
But the reality is someone would need to spend several years studying the tax codes and all relevant SC decisions to even come to that conclusion, all for a minimum wage job at McDonalds.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#30
First, you are correct about one thing: The term, "SOVEREIGN" is a term that ONLY applies to GOVERNMENTS, not to INDIVIDUALS.
U are so fucker-ed up. fuck me running there chode wtf are you going on about? Have you not read case law? The sovereign is the people.

we the people hover over the slaves.....fuck.

go ahead and let your servant tell you what to do as you seem to really, really need it. talk about bsmd or what ever it is.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,670
Likes
3,687
#31
Hello Krag,

I am sorry to hear that the cops keep pulling you over for your tail lights.

I have no idea why one of the cops snidely asked you if you were a murderer. Perhaps he was making light of the fact that your having a faulty traffic light is the single most minor infraction of the law that there is (EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF MURDER, the most serious infraction of the law that there is.). In making light of how minor your traffic offense was, perhaps the cop was communicating to you that your having a faulty tail light was nothing to be concerned about in the way that having committed murder WOULD BE SOMETHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. In literature, this is called making a contrast in terms of two extremes to put things into perspective.

As to your final sentence, I would expect if you were to have committed a more serious offense, the cop would not make light of the offense at all.

What do you mean, "as a sovereign"?

Best Regards,

Snoop
If you’re not a sovereign then what are you? A legal fiction?

Do you declare what you are or does a governing body do that?
 

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,737
Likes
3,795
#33
I try to follow a more Biblical ethic; I knew too many people who went to jail or visited stress and trouble on many other families when they drove with bad plates or no insurance.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#34
What is this shit?
Hello Unca Walt,

It is the REAL law itself on the subject of driver's licenses and sovereignty.

In my defense, I did not write a single word of the REAL law itself. I only pulled it up and provided links to it to make it easy to verify.

Look Unca Walt, I am well aware that THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system is NOT POPULAR with amateur legal theorists, is NOT WELCOMED by amateur legal theorists and that it is INCONSISTENT with the belief system of amateur legal theorists.

But, none of that will make THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system false. THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system WILL STILL BE THE TRUTH. It does not matter that THE TRUTH is UNPOPULAR. ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS IS THAT IT IS THE TRUTH.

I may never be popular among amateur legal theorists for revealing THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW to them, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing I am providing THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW to those who need it most.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#35
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
204
Likes
12
#36
it's shit...

and Snoop, you don't have to keep reposting the same BS... I read it the first time years ago...
Dear Goldhedge,

The REAL law in the "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED" is brand new material. I have never posted it here before. I finished it three days ago. The REAL law in the "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" is also brand new material too. I have never posted that REAL law here before. While I have posted an early version of the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" here before, Google Scholar made some changes to its own website during the interim that removed all of the highlighted text from the cases to which I had provided links. This change made it difficult for the critical reader to find the text to which was referring in the links. The new version I posted two days ago used actual "cut-and-paste quotes" from the law on Google Scholar to make up for the loss of the highlight feature on that website. By re-posting the amended comment (containing the new "cut-and-paste quotes), the critical reader would know which portion of the text of each case I was referring to in the comment.

I hope this helps.

Please let me know if you have more comments or concerns.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#37
Colorado

and while you are at it also post where the State has jurisdiction over me. Also how does the state obtain jurisdiction over me if I refuse?

also post the law/ruling that overturned Yick Wo v Hopkins
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,580
Likes
27,603
Location
third cove on the right
#38
Dear Goldhedge,

The REAL law in the "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED" is brand new material. I have never posted it here before. I finished it three days ago. The REAL law in the "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" is also brand new material too. I have never posted that REAL law here before. While I have posted an early version of the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" here before, Google Scholar made some changes to its own website in the interim that removed all of the highlighted text from the cases to which I had provided links. This change made it difficult for the critical reader to find the text to which was referring. The new version I posted two days ago used actual cut-and-paste quotes from the law on Google Scholar to make up for the loss of the highlight feature. In this way, the critical reader would know which portion of the text of each case I was referring to.

I hope this helps.

Please let me know if you have more comments or concerns.

Best Regards,

Snoop


Do you have a copy of this 'REAL LAW' that are talking about??

Any statutes to back you claims?
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,525
Location
Rocky Mountains
#39
Do you have a copy of this 'REAL LAW' that are talking about??
Patrinut nonsense...

Governments are corporations. Slavery is illegal.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,580
Likes
27,603
Location
third cove on the right
#40