Login form

"It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state."
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924);  Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

If you have the "inalienable right" to use the streets, why bother to enter a contract with the DMV and request the "privilege" to "drive" when it is perfectly legal to use the streets in the first place?

You have the right to travel without a "license" or permission from the government, as long as you are not using the roadways to conduct commercial activity.

A right cannot be converted into either a privilege or a crime by the state
Until you contract with the federal Government
You have rights, not privileges

If you drive for a living, and are engaged in commerce on the road, you are are required to have a driver’s license under statutory law. If you are not engaged in commerce on the road, say you are only traveling to work, not actually doing your work while driving, then you are not engaged in commerce on the road. If you are not engaged in commerce on the road you do not need to have a drivers license because you are not driving, you are traveling.

Under Common Law, humans have the right to travel freely and these days, that includes using a car when travelling.   The Legalese people want to persuade you that you are no longer a "Traveler" under Common Law, but instead, you are a "Driver" subject to their statutes, and they demand that a "Driver" must have a driving licence, car tax, car insurance, and anything else that they can think up.   If you wish to live in freedom and somebody asks to see your licence (which would have been issued by your 'begging' for the supply of one and so subjecting yourself voluntarily to their authority by doing so), then the question is "Why would I want one of those?". 

In California, a license is defined as  "A  permit, granted  by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power."
Rosenblatt v. California, 158 P2d 199, 300.

A drivers licence is only needed for the driver of a motor vehicle which is taking part in commerce.   It is very important not to give your name, address or (supposed) date of birth or to show any form of ID as that places you in a position of voluntary submission by:
(a) Obeying the command of another human being (who is of equal standing to you) and/or 
(b) Associating yourself with, and consequently representing, a strawman who is automatically subject to all statutes, being itself, a legal fiction and part of that fictional world. 

So, if you are not carrying a passenger who is paying for the journey and you are not stopping off on the journey to sell things, then you are not a "Driver" with a "Passenger", but instead, you are a "Traveler" with a "Guest".   Travelers do not need a driving licence. 

We have a right to freely travel on the land.

We also have the right to use our own possessions free of charge. We are not obligated to register anything that we own. This is why many freemen/sovereigns do not register their automobiles or renew their drivers’ licenses. It’s not because they want to speed and not stop at stop signs and cause havoc on the road, it’s because they are responsible adults who demand their freedom to travel where they like in their automobiles and to be responsible for their own actions.

You are NOT required to register your vehicle.

Why would you want to?

Most people believe that when they buy a car, they are required to register it with the DMV (DVLA in Britain). (After all the government wants to TAG your vehicle with a license plate, and keep it in a police database so, you are only making it very easy for them to identify you.)  Very few people realize the fact that applying for a registration actually transfers the ownership of the car from you, the purchaser who paid money for it, to the DMV.  Why would anyone willingly give up ownership of their car? This is a blatant fraud! There certainly was not full disclosure on the terms of this contract.  If you were told the truth, you might have second thoughts. 

The change of ownership is shown by the fact that you, the previous owner, are now sent a document stating that you are now "the Registered Keeper" of the vehicle which you have just bought.   You are left to pay for maintaining the vehicle which you do not own, and the actual owner can, and will, destroy the vehicle (which cost the owner nothing) if you, the 'Registered Keeper' do not keep on paying for the use of the vehicle.   Destroying the vehicle would be unlawful if the vehicle did not belong to the company doing the destroying.  So you pay the taxes, title transfer fees. You pay for the license plate. You pay to renew your driver's license, and you pay any fines you incur.  You pay to renew your registration, and you pay for inspections, emissions inspections, and whatever else may exist in your state/country. 

"It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state."
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924);  Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

When they procure this "privilege", they also confer upon the state the right to require those who drive the vehicle to use a license. A automobile that is not registered can lawfully be operated by a free human being, without the need for a driver's license. To travel is a right, not a privilege! The act of obtaining a license shall make one liable to the "vehicle code" of the state.

Look at the back of your license. You will see "CLASS C". This is a COMMERCIAL LICENSE. "I"m not doing anything commercial" you might say. Well, as a "taxpayer" and a "public office" doing "trade or business" with a domicile on federal territory the government presumes that you are.








"ALL codes restricting the right to travel go against the highest fundamental and founding laws of the land, i.e. Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the Declaration of Independence and the intent and success of the American Revolution. 

These unnecessary and illegitimate regulations include, drivers licenses, vehicle plates, seat belts, traffic red light cams. These "codes" are for government revenue NOT safety. If "safety" could be used as a legitimate reason for legislation, you would be a slave, 
which we are.

ONLY government (municipal corporations) employees, can legislate laws to limit themselves. State Citizens are NOT employees of
government nor can they be forced into these political subdivisions against their will. A true and honest republic CANNOT limit the natural born state Citizens because they are SOVEREIGN and free.

A "vehicle" is something used for "transportation," which is a line of commercial activity that involves the removing of people and/or goods from here to there for profit or hire under a choice of law of the "place" called "this state."

A "vehicle" is something made "transportation ready" via the scam by which we're suckered into trading a "full title" (the MSO) for a "legal title only" (the "certificate of title"). In other words, no STATE may/can compel us to put our otherwise private property into use/service as commercial property. THAT transaction has to be 100% voluntary. And, it is, because it's evaluated by the "objective standard" associated with "this state" (a body of law that is counter-intuitive to us) rather than the "subjective standard" which is associated with the Law of the Land (also known as Common law).

A "vehicle" IS something that may very well be subject to regulation by the state/federal regulators, because it's "commercial property" that may be "in use" for "transportation" activities.

A "car" or a "truck" is private property.

No state or federal agency has any authority to regulate private property. But, they may/can regulate property in which they have an ownership interest, which happens every time we trade the "full title" (the MSO) for a "legal title only" (a "certificate of title"), which transactions happen because "we" have been "taught" to think that the STATE may regulate whatever it wants to regulate. Thus, we are purposefully distracted from the legal reality, which is based, fundamentally, on using our signature against us.

[The] STATE may/can regulate "commerce." But, [the] STATE may never compel us into "commerce," and [the] STATE may never compel us into any agreement. [Think Thirteenth Amendment] So, if "we" have "voluntarily" put our "car" or "truck" into trust, which is what happens when we "voluntarily" trade our MSO (which most people never even knows to exist) for the "certificate of title," we've "voluntarily" made our otherwise and formerly private property into "transportation ready" property in which [the] STATE has an ownership interest (as a beneficiary).

If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of people throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary , 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated: "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

"..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

"So long as one uses his private property for private purposes and does not devote it to the public use, the public has no interest in it and no voice in its control.Associated Pipe v. Railroad Commission, 176 Cal. 518 

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

"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 public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.

So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between... Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) it is stated that The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution of America is null and void.

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (19) "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1963) "If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity." Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2nd. 486, 489 (5th Cir. 1959) Id. at 489-490


In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle.

An automobile has been defined as:

"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.


"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; the 'operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both 'operator' and 'driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain. This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore: Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both. The next term to define is "traffic":

"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as:

"Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain." In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

"Traffic Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.

It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:

"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.

"The license is designed to operate upon those who hold themselves out as common carriers, and a license may be exacted from such as a proper exercise of police power; but no reason exists why it should be applied to the owners of private vehicles, used for their individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion." City of Chicago v. Collins et al., Supreme Court of Illinois. 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (Oct. 24, 1898).

In order for these two definitions to apply in this case,
the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law.

The Spoonfed Truth Facebook
All Laws Exist In A Fiction
Gullibility Factor Test
Who Is Running America
The Truth About The British Monarchy
Requirement For Consent
Corporate Government
Dispatch of Merchants
A Primer On Martial Law
How We Give Our Power Away
The Mark of the Beast
Freedom From De Facto Laws
  • Build Freedom
  • Freedom School
  • Four Winds
  • Sovereign Education
  • Foundation Of Truth
  • Search
    Copyright MyCorp © 2023 Create a free website with uCoz