Driving Without A License / Sovereignty etc

i saw thomas crowne touch on this topic in another thread...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Here is something that most citizens do not know, something that makes the above constitutional argument invalid.
WEre you travelling in your private means of conveyance, the UCC (Uniformed Traffic Code) would noty apply to you. You'd be a citizen who was simply excercising your right to travel. AS it is a right, you need no license.
License, Black's Law Dictionary: The permission by competent authority to do an act, which, without such permission, would be illegal, a tort, a trespassor otherwise not allowable.
Excerising a right obviously needs no license.

So why is "driving" a privilege? Because it is a commercial term, not a constitutional one. When you buy your brand new automobile, one of the first things you do is get it registered, like a good little servant, right? You purchase the tag and proudly bolt it unto the bumber of your shiny new ride. You've done two things when you bought and hung that tag. First, you gave the state your car, and they in turn redifined it. It is now a "motor vehicle". Motor vehicles must be "operated" IAW the UCC. Therefore, the second thing you did was entered their jurisdiction, and made yourself accountable to the UCC. Since it is now their motor vehicle, and it is their UCC, if you transgress you must pay the fine.

Have a good day, fellow servants. Don't gripe about them taking your rights anymore since you willingly give them up all day long!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

now i've read about sovereignty before, as well as a lot of real life cases of people using a constitutional basis for not needing a license or not paying their taxes, and can't find one that's been argued successfully. new case in point. www.cjmciver.org... the website of someone who's trying to 'live without numbers'. he lost his case.

some additional text about sovereignty...

Because of Amendment X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.

DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY

Before ratification of the Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved that problem.

"Free the slaves," was the rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the way, so could any of the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV made possible the voluntary relinquishment of personal sovereignty.

It was also during the mid 1800's that the various governments took control of the school systems. The curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common law) to American government (the study of civil privileges and statutory law). Emphasis was also refocused on "good citizenship". To blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were called civil rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching "civil rights" took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's). During the 1950's the school systems changed the courses named from "Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now is aware of the subject of civics as a school course.

taken from www.chrononhotonthologos.com...

Edited due excessive quoting/large quote. One-four paragraphs with a working link will suffice.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Seekerof]

Good info and good research. I guess the question here for me would be, would it be worth the thousands of dollars you would spend in court versus the few dollars you would slap down for a license if you were arrested for driving with out a license or tag.
But still good info, something to keep in the back of your mind...just in case

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who honestly believe they are free"

It is true that we so often contract our rights away for privileges and immunities from the state. Getting your drivers license is one prime example. A license is only required while using the roads for private gain. The government is the king of �play on words�. Think about how the state can restrict your RIGHT TO TRAVEL�..it is because you gave them that ability by doing what you thought was necessary, getting your license, registering your car etc. An inherent human characteristic is trust. We trust thousands of humans on a daily basis, mostly inadvertently through concepts we never acknowledge (lug nuts tight after getting new tires, roof on your house, ingredients in your food etc). This carries over into our trust for our government. Although they have �hoodwinked� us time and time again. There is one thing they forget, and that is that there are way more of us than there are of them. If enough of us demand a new government (government isn�t a bad thing, too many just give it a bad name) we can get one. Isn�t it time? Isn�t it time to stop being taken advantage of, to take back our given rights? Isn�t it time for the truth?

another interesting group is 'we the people'...

www.givemeliberty.org...

September 23, 2004

Update:
We The People v. United States

What a difference 60 days makes: from 6 to 2,000 Plaintiffs.

Thousands of Americans are now learning the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment and are exercising their Right to Petition the government for Redress of Grievances relating to:

The war powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution.

The �privacy� and due process clauses and the USA Patriot Act.

The taxing clauses and the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor.

The money and �debt� clauses and the Federal Reserve System.

On July 19, 2004, four People and two organizations filed a Complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Complaint seeks an Order (quote):

�Granting declaratory relief to the Plaintiffs by constraining the defendants to meet their obligations under the law and relevant rules by entering into good faith exchanges with the Plaintiffs and to provide to the Plaintiffs documented and specific answers to the reasonable questions asked of them by the Plaintiffs and to address in their respective official capacities each of the issues raised by the Plaintiffs in their Petitions to representatives of the United States Government, namely: grievances relating to violations of the U.S. Constitution�s war powers, taxing, money, and �privacy� and due process clauses.�

On September 16, 2004, the Complaint was amended. (1 MB right-click to donwload)

Nearly 2,000 people from every state in the Union have now been added to the list of named plaintiffs.

The caption of the Complaint is now 64 pages in length.

taken from www.givemeliberty.org...

Those were popular among the great "Republic of Texas" folks (insert eye-rolling and an emoticon with a tinfoil hat, here) several years ago. As it happened, I was doing some contract work for a police department, and got a blow-by-blow account of one of the little darlings trying this and the other tactics on the court and legal system.

The bottom line is that he spent a LOT more money and spent a lot more time in jail trying to do the "sovereignity" thing than he would have gotten if he'd just said "ooops. Forgot my license."

So yeah, I saw the "never argued successfully" bit in person and can verify that it meets with a lot of hilarity. Almost no lawyer will touch these kinds of cases. This leads to some of the NUTTIEST documents being filed (with the defendant as their own lawyer) that you've ever seen.

I saw them (the real documents.) Heck, I'd have laughed them out of court if I was a judge!

Originally posted by NetStorm
I guess the question here for me would be, would it be worth the thousands of dollars you would spend in court versus the few dollars you would slap down for a license if you were arrested for driving with out a license or tag.

i totally agree...that's why i'm interested to find a case that actually won. the givemeliberty.com site i posted about above links to a case in CA right now...

November 1, 2004

USDC Releases Tax Protest Employer
Who Refused To Sign Perjured Tax Forms

Late last week, (October 28th ) the USDC in Sacramento ordered the release of business owner Al Thompson who had been held in Sacramento County jail since August 9th on a federal civil contempt warrant issued for Thompson's refusal to sign false tax forms for his business.
Several years ago, Thompson, an outspoken California business owner, ceased withholding taxes from his employee's paychecks and steadfastly refused to file income tax forms or returns because, according to Thompson, the law contains no specific provision that requires him to do so. Many attorneys, former IRS agents and legal researchers -- (including this Foundation), are on the public record as agreeing with Thompson's claims.

Despite being arrested earlier last April on the same issue, Thompson refused to fill out the tax forms the federal judge ordered him to submit asserting that, given his understanding of the law, he would be committing perjury for providing false information under oath.

Despite motions to the District Court requesting the IRS to provide a formal certification, sworn under penalty of perjury, that Thompson was an �employer� and a �person� liable under the income tax laws, none was ever produced. (continued... www.givemeliberty.org...)

they let this guy out of jail, but he's still not off the hook.

We carry driver's licenses because there is an assumption that we are using our cars and vehicles for commercial means when we aren't. As well, we are using our own private car.

The problem as I see it is that we are using roads owned by US inc. that are for commercial purposes. So, I guess while you are on their property, you are forced to play by their rules.

Byrd has touched on the tyranny of our government somewhat.

The way I understand it is, you can drive all you want without a license on your own property. When you pull onto a public road you need a license.


� 46.2-300. Driving without license prohibited; penalties.

No person, except those expressly exempted in �� 46.2-303 through 46.2-309, shall drive any motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth until such person has applied for a driver's license, as provided in this article, satisfactorily passed the examination required by � 46.2-325, and obtained a driver's license, nor unless the license is valid.

A conviction of a violation of this section shall constitute a Class 2 misdemeanor


From: leg1.state.va.us...

While this is from Virginia, I am certain there are similar laws in the other states. You still have the right to travel but to operate a motor vehicle on state roads you need to comply with the law.

I've read enough to realize that there is a "Common Law" that was once used in the United states. And yes, income tax is voluntary, you can get rid of your S.S. # and you don't need a license. I wouldn't recommend trying this NOW. They can't allow one of these cases to win or else there would be one helluva domino effect. Imagine if everyone figured out the income tax was the WWII tax and was and still is voluntary. Or if everyone figured out you could get back all your Social Security money. There would be none left to siphon off. Imagine how much money they make from tags, registration, licenses and renewal. I'm sure they could afford better seats at the DMV.

Makes you wonder though why people who drive a tractor, (which to me would be commercial use) do not need a license

"No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a road roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of the Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance purposes. No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for the purpose of operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle defined in �� 46.2-663 through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or propelled on the highways. The term "road machinery" shall not include motor vehicles required to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

You also don't need one for a backhoe

"No person shall be required to obtain the registration certificate, license plates, and decals or to pay a registration fee for any backhoe operated on any highway for a distance of no more than twenty miles from its operating base. "

Now...in theory from the wording of this, if you lived 15 miles from your job, you could drive your backhoe to work......

The driving licence is a form of self-induced slavery is not a new idea. There was a man named Sam Keen (I think that's what I recall it to be) who would speak about all the ways we give away our rights.

"No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license to operate a road roller or road machinery used under the supervision and control of the Department of Transportation for construction or maintenance purposes. No person shall be required to obtain a driver's license for the purpose of operating any farm tractor, farm machinery, or vehicle defined in �� 46.2-663 through 46.2-674, temporarily drawn, moved, or propelled on the highways. The term "road machinery" shall not include motor vehicles required to be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles.



Kind of answers your questions

Originally posted by Byrd
Those were popular among the great "Republic of Texas" folks (insert eye-rolling and an emoticon with a tinfoil hat, here) several years ago. As it happened, I was doing some contract work for a police department, and got a blow-by-blow account of one of the little darlings trying this and the other tactics on the court and legal system.

was his argument basically what i quoted from thomas crowne in my first post? did he use a different angle? just curious.

Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. The government has the 'right' to protect it's citizens.

Do you believe that a blind person's 'right' to 'Freedom of Movement' has been violated if he/she is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle?

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. The government has the 'right' to protect it's citizens.

Do you believe that a blind person's 'right' to 'Freedom of Movement' has been violated if he/she is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle?

Thank you U.S. Government for clearing that up for us. I thought they had enough mouthpieces with owning all the media. Guess not. Oh, and nice use of the "blind" non sequitur. I doubt anyone that knows this information would advocate getting rid of police or laws. Your argument appears nonsensical.

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. The government has the 'right' to protect it's citizens.

Do you believe that a blind person's 'right' to 'Freedom of Movement' has been violated if he/she is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle?

Thank you U.S. Government for clearing that up for us. I thought they had enough mouthpieces with owning all the media. Guess not. Oh, and nice use of the "blind" non sequitur. I doubt anyone that knows this information would advocate getting rid of police or laws. Your argument appears nonsensical.

You're very welcome!

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. The government has the 'right' to protect it's citizens.

Do you believe that a blind person's 'right' to 'Freedom of Movement' has been violated if he/she is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle?

you remind me of one of those people who makes the argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to people wanting to marry their dog. am i right?

seriously though, making people get a license is not a privilege, or else you'd have always needed one to drive, and that's not the case. i believe it is a right that has been modified into a privilege by our government...whether we like it or not.

in addition, getting a license today is really no indication that you're a safe driver...considering that most of the time your road test consists of a few right turns in the parking lot of the DMV, pay your little fee and you're off and driving. on top of that you're never retested...and anyone living in the south florida area can tell you there are plenty of 80+ year olds on the road that should not be operating a blender, no less a towncar.

Originally posted by enomus

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. The government has the 'right' to protect it's citizens.

Do you believe that a blind person's 'right' to 'Freedom of Movement' has been violated if he/she is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle?

you remind me of one of those people who makes the argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to people wanting to marry their dog. am i right?

seriously though, making people get a license is not a privilege, or else you'd have always needed one to drive, and that's not the case. i believe it is a right that has been modified into a privilege by our government...whether we like it or not.

in addition, getting a license today is really no indication that you're a safe driver...considering that most of the time your road test consists of a few right turns in the parking lot of the DMV, pay your little fee and you're off and driving. on top of that you're never retested...and anyone living in the south florida area can tell you there are plenty of 80+ year olds on the road that should not be operating a blender, no less a towncar.

Operating a motor vehicle IS a privilege that can be suspended and/or revoked. We are not 'made' to get a license. We 'choose' to get a license. However, in order to operate a motor vehicle 'legally' we do need a license.

I do believe we have way too many unsafe drivers out there! (A snowplow backed up into my Mercedes recently. I saw him backing up - without even checking his rearview mirror - and slammed my car into reverse, he still hit me. That will cost the 'unsafe' operator of the snow plow $770 to replace my grill. I'd say he is not a safe driver! He probably can't even operate a blender! Argh, good thing he's not my bartender!)

As far as 'gay marriage', I believe it should be decided between the Judge and/or Church which the couple belong to. (IMHO)

My take on it, is if you buy the car, then you have every right to use your property.

As I said before though, the problem comes into play when you are using government property, ie roads and the land they are built on. The government can decide rules for that land, similarly to establishing a land patent. Anyone can patent a piece of land and declare whatever rules they want for that land.

Roads are not public property, but rather that of the "United States" de facto corporate government....to be technical...somewhat.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by enomus

Originally posted by Byrd
Those were popular among the great "Republic of Texas" folks (insert eye-rolling and an emoticon with a tinfoil hat, here) several years ago. As it happened, I was doing some contract work for a police department, and got a blow-by-blow account of one of the little darlings trying this and the other tactics on the court and legal system.

was his argument basically what i quoted from thomas crowne in my first post? did he use a different angle? just curious.

Yes, he used those arguments (this was before the "man this is a lame trick. Don't try it" websites went up.)

At one point early on he did have a lawyer who apparently stayed on through a couple of rounds of this, but eventually he fired the lawyer. My (uneducated) guess is that it was because the lawyer wouldn't add Biblical verses into the appeal and would just strictly see that Justice Was Done. Motions filed after the lawyer left included goodies like the Bible was sovereign over the law of the US and lengthy citations from whichever verses he felt sustained his point.

He filed from jail several times (at least once, and I think more) using the Bible as his lawbook.