Driver license and registration please?

[Purge]

You guys are going fast... so let me slow you down.

Originally Posted by aksis

“The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "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, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

All we have to do is find the definition for automobile, record it as such, and live by it.

[weishaupt1776]

Camino, you've been admonished more than once to prove up by the one who started this thread.

I , as moderator, am ORDERING you to prove up now Camino, and if you wish to continue with this position form this point forward; start another thread and post a link to it from here

Camino, in the thread you are going to create, post any scans of documents you have made which have the court's file stamp on them, in which you have this type of material you have been discussing on it.

Please post any transcripts or sheets from the court saying DISMISSED which would reference the ticket number/case number as indicated on your scanned docs.

Please respect SansRecourse and read the first post. He said that HE was going to ask some questions. So if you think this thread is useless or off point, then start a thread called "Contractual Nature of Traffic" or something and then say, "Sans, I disagree with you, and here's why" and then post a link to your new thread.

You need to prove up your claim and not take this thread off point, as you are about 1 post away from me determining you as being disruptive to this topic at hand

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

He doesn't know, let alone care that you think you're driving "in commerce." What you think of what you're doing is irrelevant.

The "in commerce" drivel is a meaningless concept in traffic court. Use it and you'll just make a fool of yourself in the process.

Fortunately, the scheme has been around long enough that most people won't pay some Internet scammer for a package of misinformation on how to make a fool of himself with it.

Unfortunately for those who wander off into the legal weeds with this stuff, it's been around long enough that most courts have seen and dealt with it before. Some have seen it often enough that they have little or no patience left and they get annoyed at having to explain it over and over when a bunch of cases seem to come up all at about the same time. It's like someone had a seminar and all of a sudden, five or ten cases crop up in a couple of weeks. Either that or someone had their buddies over and showed them all this neat BS on the Internet about not having to worry about traffic laws or licenses any more.

Some of the stories are truly funny; honestly, some people can't quite grasp the ideas or understand the verbiage and they manage to confuse themselves as well as the court. Others are less funny when the perp winds up paying fines he really can't afford. Really unfortunate things can happen when the case is cut-and-dried and they demonstrate no remorse for doing what they did, and even deliberately try to irritate the judge with silly jurisdictional rantings. Those can be expensive lessons.

You also, are a very good government apologist and play both sides well. I have learned some valuable things from your posts though, keep the good work comin'.

[SansRecours]

Camino says: "As a sovereign, any law that requires a performance on my part...is a contract! No LAW can harm a man....or require anything of him."
Camino, the following IS NOT directed at you. There is truth in your posting.

I would like to believe that I am a sovereign, but the best that I can ever be on this earth is the son of the Sovereign. Having said this, I move on.

There is myriad fact, by way of constitutional declaration, and by way of decision and opinion in almost every higher judicial branch court that we can all say that "sovereignty resides in the people," that the people are sovereigns as the king of England yet having no subjects, and that the people as sovereign act through their organs established by their organic documents. Furthermore, that when the government becomes destructive to the people’s purpose for so establishing it (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, acquiring property, etc.) the people have the right to identify the destructive force, isolate, and eradicate it. One of our founding fathers made the statement that the Constitution was written for a moral people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

I am paraphrasing the above and not directly quoting because I am posting from a location not my home, where my library, and my research resides. If it becomes necessary, I can post them and quote exactly, but for now I do not believe that any one can reasonably dispute the foregoing.

So who and where are these sovereign moral people? When one wakes up in the morning one is "homeowner," "taxpayer" "parent or guardian" "person" "resident" "victim" "driver" ad nauseum. We need an administrative category to classify us or else we cannot vote, get a job, a car, a "line of credit" (snicker). Are these sovereign's servants doing this to us, or is everyman alone and every other man his enemy? Is it really just a voidable contract? Let's all void and get on with it! But wait-HOW do we do that?
Pick a theory, follow that guru (tender those reserve notes!). Now in my twenty years or trying to "regain" my sovereignty, all I see is an iceberg moving imperceptibly forward, loaded with people of my ilk, and its going south. A lot of teachers saying that we need to get off the iceberg, but no one with the materials to get off the berg. (If I don't watch out I might get cynical or something!)

Anyone declaring themselves sovereign must of necessity have an ability to exercise, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, acquiring property, etc. Anyone declaring themselves sovereign must of necessity have the ability to throw off those chains that bind. Where are these sovereigns??? All I see is living souls recognizing problems with government gone awry, and trying their best to AVOID interface with, and destruction of this omnipresent beast (I include myself).

Truthfully speaking, we who would like to believe that we are sovereign, act in a manner that belies the opposite. We know that the government is destructive to our ends. We know it is out of control. We know that, for the most part, we are POWERLESS to stop the inevitable suicide of the United States of America. We also are trying to regain that which we have come to realize has been lost, or stolen, depending upon the theories one relies upon to articulate how this mess came into existence. We act in a way tantamount to hiding from governmental powers. Even my first objective is not to "get in trouble with the law." We all know that the powers that be are exercising power without authority.

This is not the condition of sovereignty, it is the condition of involuntary servitude, at least, and slavery at most.

Can one honestly say one is sovereign when his very existence (food supply, travel, work ) depends upon tendering for discharging evidences of servitude to a foreign master? I speak of the ubiquitous federal reserve note. Our land has a tie to a property tax that gambles against the insurmountable debt, places property as collateral without permission, and "pays" for the manufacture of good little so******t enemies (schools systems), financing it own destruction through that property tax. I see my children (are they really my children) having to confront these issues and having no choice but to venture into the same bondage for which there is no solution (except national repentance). And I say that I am a sovereign, and one of those posterity?

If I conclude that the best way to live, as a sovereign is to own nothing; no car, no house, no land, put it in trust, whatever, am I now a pauper and/or a vagabond for whom justice is excepted acoording to the Articles of Confederation?

Jesus help us!! Oh wretched men that we are. Please save our nation. Return us to our Godly heritage and help us all to repent and overcome our contrary walk to your statutes, commandments, and judgments.
I am forever Sans Recours. AMEN

[Shoonra]

Of the quotations from court decisions offered by AKSIS, two of them speak of a "right to travel" but NOT of a right to be the pilot of a vehicle that's on the public streets; the "right to travel" is satisfied by being a passenger or a pedestrian. Two of the cases explicitly distinguish between a right to travel and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. This distinction is crucial.

I would like to suggest that this thread is becoming redundant, since it plows the same ground as another thread running simultaneously.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would like to suggest that this thread is becoming redundant, since it plows the same ground as another thread running simultaneously.

Nope, there are posts which are irrelevant to what the original Poster's Premise is/was.

Sans intention was not what you referred to above.

People need to just ask questions WHICH RELATE to his material in this thread or study what he is posting

I am starting to get annoyed at how this topic is starting to go South

[aksis]

Camino, the point in my previous post was to answer two questions:

"If a license is as the definitions say, then WHOSE license is it?"
"In Arizona, who is the authority for its issuance?"

The point/jist of this thread is looking at: What a "drivers licence" & "trafic ticket" really are, and, backing it with facts.

Originally Posted by shoonra

the "right to travel" is satisfied by being a passenger or a pedestrian.

Not to me or anyone else that didn't twist the cites. The cites I posted included more then just being a passenger or a pedestrian.
In fact, did any of them even include the words passenger or pedestrian?
Do you lack the ability to read? Or are you purposly ignoring the facts?
Your comment upon this is made in ignorance and in vain.

The "distinction" made that is "crucial" (and that you obviously ignored) is:

“[F]or 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. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion ....” See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140

This thread is not about establishing that the Right to Travel exists or what it includes. This is already established (in this thread & other places).

Again, this thread is about looking into the factual nature of a "Drivers licence" and a "trafic ticket" and backing it with evidance from the creators/authority/issueers/enforcers of them (the "drivers licence" and "ticket") so that we can better defend aginst a "type of attack" upon our unalienable rights from a "domestic enemy".

At this point in the thread the questions:

"If a license is as the definitions say, then WHOSE license is it?"
"In Arizona, who is the authority for its issuance?"

were asked, and, have been answered (compleatly?), bringing us closer to a clearer view of the reality of what a "drivers licence" is (we havent gotten to the "trafic ticket" yet), and dispelling what it appears to be...
Does anyone have more to add to this?

Camino, and others, when is the last time you traveled without a drivers licence, registration, proof of insurance.... got a ticket for it and were able to defend your Right to Travel successfuly? I know it can be as simple as how KITCHIE (and others) are dealing with it... yet

"Prepare for the worst, hope for the best."

This thread is preparing people for when it isn't that simple.

"All we have to do is find the definition for automobile, record it as such, and live by it."
Purge, I would agree that this is a part, but not all of the steps.


"Can one honestly say one is sovereign when his very existence (food supply, travel, work) depends upon tendering for discharging evidences of servitude to a foreign master?"

Sans, yes. Our sovereignty is evidance by the simplest act of changing our mind and redirecting our will. As to "bartering paper and ink".. what does that have to do with one being, or, not being a sovereign? Is sovereignty based on outer things or is it the source of outer things? Is it an inherent state, or is it something that must be aquired?
Is your post I am quoting from "on topic"? ;-)

Back to the thread....

The source of Authority of the "licence" is ultimatly We the People.

Lets break the chain of command in this particular matter.

Do "We the People", even as a majority group, have the authority to infringe upon the unalienable Rights of anyone? [right and ability arn't the same]

If the People (either alone or in a group) don't have something, can they delegate it to "servants"?

Is the servent at fault, or is it the group of People mis-using them who are the real source of the violation? Is it both?

How do We get the "servents" to recognize, that they are not obligated to allow "sovereigns" to compel them to infringe upon the unalienable Rights of the People, even if the People putting them up to the act are the majority?

Untill then, how do we defend aginst the People's tool... the Department of Transporatation, Motor Vehicle Division?

Would understanding how it (the Department of Transporatation, Motor Vehicle Division) works be of benifit?

Is the police officer an Authorized third party of the DOT,MVD?

What is the true relationship between the police department and the MVD/DMV?

What is a "traffic ticket"?

[Shoonra]

Numerous court decisions on the "right to travel" have held that the right focuses on the ability to leave one place and arrive at another, but does NOT embody a "right" to insist on a particular method of transport, much less be the operator of the vehicle.

For example, Miller v. Reed (9th Cir 1999) 176 F3d 1202, 163 ALR-Fed 739:
http://<br /> http://caselaw.lp.fin...ase&no=9717006

Miller contends the DMV violated his fundamental right to interstate travel by depriving him of the use of his primary means of travel, driving an automobile. Miller provides no precedent supporting his contention that ... denial of a driver's license is tantamount to a denial of a constitutional right. ....

We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel. See Monarch Travel Services Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs Inc. (9th Cir 1972) 466 F2d 552 at 554, 19 ALR-Fed 946, cert. denied 410 U.S. 967 ("A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate but it is not unconstitutional.") .... [quoting a Rhode Island decision:] The plaintiff is not being prevented by traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or 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, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.

Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive".

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Numerous court decisions on the "right to travel"

Cool, but that post belongs in the right to travel court citations thread for a reasonable debate on that topic.

Sans Recourse has not taken the "right to travel" position.

Please keep your posts (shoonra, me, or anyone else) focused on the Premises put forth by the originator of this thread

[SansRecours]

I have some items to share, but I am not yet at my regular computer. When I next post, most likely Saturday or Sunday night, I’ll get more meaty, because I will be back. I am hoping those having a location in a geographic region I do not, might do some research in their area, cross referencing if possible.

Aksis, and Others, thank you for getting me back on track. I had to go off on that tangent. Sovereignty is about the highest form of authority, and I will eventually relate that tangential post to this topic.

"If a license is as the definitions say, then WHOSE license is it?"

If the license is permission, issuing from a lawful authority, to do or forbear from doing, something that without the license, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort, then we must investigate the following:
The lawful authority and the nature of the illegality, trespass or tort, i.e the damaged party.

Can one actually damage a thought, concept, or idea?

Here is a bizarre thought. What if it is the sovereignty being trespassed against????

The state and its definitions are not much help regarding the nature and the character of a license. Although we can glean that it is permission from a lawful authority, it does not identify what that authority is, or that which is illegal, or a trespass, or a tort.

So this is a general definition of license.

I hope someone besides me, and my children, goes to the DMV and tries to get copies of the documents that one must of necessity sign to obtain a license. Since I have never had a license, I figure I might go there on the premise that it is my "first time." One should pose the question that one wouldn’t want to sign a "contract?"(small ribbing at Camino) without reading it first now would one? I also hope that if the useful idiot registrarian behind the desk refuses to let one read these items relative to the signing and obtaining, that one might counter-offer to obtain a copy of the items with VOID written across to prevent forgery or bad faith, or a letter from the Registrar explaining the reason for the refusal. Like I said in my first posts, events happen in the regular course of our day to day business, and their day to day business, where we just take for granted Step A, because we want the solution at step D.

Also read the posted various statutes and info on the walls. You know, the selective service ones applying a federal nexus to the obtaining of a driver license, and the posted acceptable forms of identification, and such.
What I am saying is to familiarize the formality of the experience. The more one knows about the process the more one can articulate exactly either why one cannot "get a license," or articulate a really well done, simple administrative letter to the "lawful authority" that is screwing up the works.

At the very least, if one needs it, it will build confidence and lessen fear and trepidation. A sovereign should fear none but God. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

Can you imagine the impact of state commissioners of motor vehicles getting similar letters laying major federal groundwork from 16 to 18 year olds across the country? (Sans, you starry-eyed dreamer) Now I know that y’all have to be older, but I want the youngsters who undoubtedly will have the task of finishing the job to understand this thread too. I care about the posterity.

Too much work? Well the chains are still warm and fuzzy, and the cage is still big.

"In Arizona, who is the authority for its issuance?"

Aksis: Go to your post #101 herein, and read section 28-602. It’s there big as life.
I will give you a hint: It IS NOT the governor. He is a subservient lackey in this regard. His only authoritative act is contracting. If he contracts, he is a proprietor and the state is exercising a proprietary function. If the state acts in a proprietary function it is not sovereign.
This I will show to be true.

So much for Shoonra’s contention that traffic tickets and licensing is merely a state affair.

Anybody know why the states started changing their procedures regarding traffic offenses right around 1966 to 1968? Ohio adopted Traffic Rules in 1968 or thereabouts. New York about the same time. West Virginia about the same time.

Aksis what about Arizona?

Remember this statute, I will reference it because of its succinctness. Other states are more or less vague. When I next post we’re going to investigate authority.

SansRecours