Right to Travel Part 100

[RickA]

Your credibility goes to zero when you wander off into the lunatic law lounge.

With your seat at one end of the round table and Shoonra at the other. The reat of us are twixed and tween.

Just goofing.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Once again (for the millionth time), travel is distinct from the operation of a motor vehicle. People have a right to travel but it doesn't translated into a "right" to be the operator of the vehicle. Decisions upholding the right to travel didn't even assure the litigant the right to a particular mode of travel much less the distinction of being the person at the steering wheel.

Again, we have citations and quotations of cases dealing with passport issuance, monopolies for bus and trucking companies, but not for getting to operate a motor vehicle without having a valid driver's license.

Sorry to diappoint you, but there are others that travel in their automobiles without driver licenses and do not get bothered. The cops know who they are. That document I posted in an earlier thread is from one of the men that I am talking about. You can spout all you want about "operator" and "motor vehicle," But all those terms as you are using them are commercial and deal with CDLs. Truth is truth whether you or Beany believe it or not. Pehaps you over looked this cite from the Washington State Supreme Court, which is in the document I provided, eh Shoonra?” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)

Take a look here and you will see why Ms Port lost her case. The Washington Supreme Court is a valid decision that is used all the time in Washington to win.

[squirrel]

For the millionth time you spew spitting traitors.
Who is Driving a motor vehicle ?
Who is an operator ?
What is a person ?
What courtroom ? there is no such thing, they are chambers of commerce.


What Judge ? their all magistrates.
where is your license to practice Law ? oh thats right, YOU DONT HAVE ONE !!

where is the Verified complaint ? one more time, YOU DONT HAVE ONE !!

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by squirrel

For the millionth time you spew spitting traitors.
Who is Driving a motor vehicle ?
Who is an operator ?
What is a person ?
What courtroom ? there is no such thing, they are chambers of commerce.


What Judge ? their all magistrates.
where is your license to practice Law ? oh thats right, YOU DONT HAVE ONE !!

where is the Verified complaint ? one more time, YOU DONT HAVE ONE !!

Good Questions.

[Shoonra]

I bothered to look up International Motor Transit Co. v. City of Seattle (1926) 141 Wash. 194, 251 P. 120. Nothing to do with driver's license, but one more case involving a city's attempt to give business monopolies to certain bus or trucking companies. In this case an interstate bus line, whose driver had the appropriate state-issued license "authorizing him to drive on all hightways of the state", was being vexed by a city ordinance that specifically required an additional local license with a lot of red tape and expense. And, presumably, if he didn't put up a fight about it, other cities on his route could adopt similar local licensing laws, which would cripple his bus company's business.

The court held that compliance with the state DL laws was sufficient, the city had no authority to encumber interstate commerce with its own, superfluous, local ordinance.

This case did not deny the state's authority and responsibility for requiring licenses of anyone driving on the public roads.

-------

Squirrel, you live up to your name.
I have no idea what some of your questions mean, or their relevance to the matter at hand.

folks, pay attention to shoonra, hes telling you exactly how a judge will defeat every case law argument you put before him about drivers license. they will do it everytime. attack the criminal nature of traffic court,THATS when they start getting nervous and try to force you into the fraud. attack that part, THEN BRING IN YOUR CASE LAW TO BACK UP THE CIVIL NATURE OF WHATS REALLY GOING ON. shoonra is giving invaluable experience on how the system will attack. keep it up shoonra.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by kgod999

folks, pay attention to shoonra, hes telling you exactly how a judge will defeat every case law argument you put before him about drivers license. they will do it everytime. attack the criminal nature of traffic court,THATS when they start getting nervous and try to force you into the fraud. attack that part, THEN BRING IN YOUR CASE LAW TO BACK UP THE CIVIL NATURE OF WHATS REALLY GOING ON. shoonra is giving invaluable experience on how the system will attack. keep it up shoonra.

Fraud is exactly what we are talking here Kgod. I do not think I ever said it was not. No one ever said that "This case did not deny the state's authority and responsibility for requiring licenses of anyone driving on the public roads," as Shroona impies. The state does have the authority to require that a "driver for hire" be licensed, but not for receational purposes.

The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the “drivers license” is intended to apply only to “for hire” vehicles. (Emphasis added.)

“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ ...”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by rentiap

Try this Document on for size.
To travel is a right
http://www.outlawslegal.com/driving/travelright.htm
Shoonra and Fudge Boy Spleen.
Please! dazzle us with your BULL$*!+

Cheers,
Craig.

It seems that there are those upon this forum that aren't capable of following a link given to documents or material.and therefore act as if it wasn't presented and then ignore it.
Well for those that can't seem to follow a link I will cut and paste and quote it for them.
Here goes.
Part.1)

TO TRAVEL IS A RIGHT

YOU DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE"

1. The issue is whether this Sovereign is required to obey the provisions in the state statutes. It is the contention of this Sovereign that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the legislative enactments and statutes do not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Sovereign that travels upon the streets or highways in any state of America by this Sovereign is an unalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by any "State" of the united States.

2. Let us first consider the contention of this Sovereign that travels upon the streets or highways in America is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. (Emphasis added) See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

3.1 The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads -- any road which the public have a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. (Emphasis added). See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

4. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

5. "Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

6.2 Citizen's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Sovereigns of the states have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

7.1 .... [T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways 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 highways his place of business and uses it for private gain .... (Emphasis added) See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

7.4 ...... [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 .... (Emphasis added). 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 and other cases too numerous to mention.

8. The Washington State Supreme Court stated:

8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. (Emphasis added). See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

9. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873:

9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. (Emphasis added) See: ? Ind 455, 461

10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

10.1 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. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

11. The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled:

11.1 In this connection it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of the privilege. (Emphasis added). See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

12. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado discussed the issue in the following way in 1961.

12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, §3 provides that:

All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be reckoned the "RIGHT" .... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; ....

12.1.1 A motor vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term: "property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.

12.1.2 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. (Emphasis added). See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210

13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:

13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain unalienable "RIGHTS," among which are ....; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property .... (Emphasis added).

14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, §1, states as follows:

14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM.Dec. 677

15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.

16. Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:

16.1 The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:

16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[rentiap]

Part Number2)

17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, §36:

17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of America.

19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, §2:

19.1 Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of America, I have an inalienable right to use the highways and byways.

20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. (Emphasis added). See: 3 Angel Highways 3.

20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

21. I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this common point:

21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway. -- The entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. (Emphasis added.) See: Idaho Code.

22. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:

22.1 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 Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. (Emphasis added). See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Sovereign travels upon the streets or highways in North Carolina, he does so as a matter of "RIGHT" and not privilege. The authority for such travel is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE RIGHT," an "UNALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the Constitution of the United States. Let us then examine the importance of these terms to this Sovereign by defining their meaning.

23.1 "RIGHT" -- In law,

(a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever;

(b) one's claim to something out of possession;

(c) a power, prerogative, or privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation. See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary

23.2 "RIGHT" -- As relates to the person, "RIGHTS" are absolute or relative; absolute "RIGHTS," such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his personal liberty; "RIGHTS" which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth in the kings dominion, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.

23.3 "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 ..... (Emphasis added). See: Bouver's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2916

23.4 Absolute "RIGHT" -- Without any condition or incumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligatio, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or incumbrance .. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

23.5 Unalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

24. It shows from these definitions that the State has an obligation to acknowledge the "RIGHTS" of this Sovereign to travel on the streets or highways in North Carolina. Further, the State has the duty to refrain from interfering with this "RIGHT" and to protect this "RIGHT" and to enforce the claim of this Sovereign to it.

25. Now if this Sovereign has the absolute "RIGHT" to move about on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.

25.1 Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added). See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513

26. These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;

26.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS." (Emphasisadded). See: Spann supra.

27. PROPERTY

27.1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines;

27.1.1 Property -- The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is not a nuisance in itself. See: In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623

28. The United States Supreme Court states:

28.1 The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law.

28.2 Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the "RIGHT" to acquire, use and dispose of it. (Emphasis added). See: Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 74

29. These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Sovereign has an absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel. The definitions in Title 49 Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code positively declare the "RIGHT" of this Sovereign to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways in Idaho.

[rentiap]

Part number3)

30. MOTOR VEHICLE OR VEHICLE?

30.1 Motor Vehicle -- Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled or which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (6)

30.2 Vehicle -- Vehicle means a device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by human power or horse drawn or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. See: Idaho Code 49-301 (14)

30.3 Street or Highway -- Street or Highway means the entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular traffic. (Emphasis added). See: Idaho Code 49-301 (13)

30.4 The term "Motor Vehicle" may be so used as to include only those self-propelled vehicles which are used on highways primarily for purposes of "transporting" persons and property from place to place. (Emphasis added). See: 60 Corpus Juris Secundum §1, Page 148; Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machine Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432

30.5 It seems obvious that the entire Motor Transportation Code and the definition of motor vehicle are not intended to be applicable to all motor vehicles but only to those having a connection with the "transportation" of persons or property. (Emphasis added). See: Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352

30.6 "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in "transportation," or a combination determined by the Commission, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger "transportation" similar to street-railway service. (Emphasis added) See: Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. §10102 (17)

The Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Carolina guarantees this Sovereign the "RIGHT" to own property. The Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Texas have affirmed that the "RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it while its use harms nobody. If that property is an automobile, it is included in the definitions of vehicle and motor vehicle in the Idaho Code Title 49 Chapter 3. And in the same Idaho Code Chapter, streets or highways are defined as the place where vehicles are used by the public as a matter of "RIGHT." Thus it shows that this Sovereign has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina.

31. Now if this Sovereign has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina, to what extent can the State of North Carolina regulate or diminish that "RIGHT?" There are some who maintain that specific performance is required of every Sovereign who uses a vehicle upon the streets or highways in North Carolina. Let us examine this contention in detail.

Contract?

32. Specific performance is a term used to designate an action in equity in which a party to a contract asks the court to order the other party to carry out the contract which he has failed or refused to perform. Thus, if specific performance is expected, a contract must exist. The question then becomes: What are the terms of the contract and when was it executed and by whom? Since specific performance seems expected of every user of a vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina, the user of a vehicle seems one of the parties to the supposed contract. And since the State seems the party demanding specific performance, the State is the other party to the contract. So the supposed contract exists between the user of a vehicle and the State of North Carolina. When was this contract executed and what are its' terms? Some contend that when a user of a vehicle avails himself of the "privilege" of driving on public thoroughfares that he enters a contract with the State that requires him to abide with all the laws in the North Carolina General Statutes. Others contend that the contract is executed when a driver's license is obtained. We need now to figure out what is a contract.

33. A contract may be defined as an agreement enforceable in court between two or more parties, for a sufficient consideration to do or not to do some specified thing or things. Thus, a contract has four essential features:

33.1 It must be an agreement.

33.2 There must be at least two parties to the contract.

33.3 There must be a consideration.

33.4 There must be an obligation or thing to be done.

34. Several types of contracts exist, but all must contain the essential features listed. Contracts can be classified under three principal categories:

34.1 Express

34.2 Implied

34.3 Quasi

35. Quasi contracts, while being called contracts are not really contracts, will not be considered in this discussion of contracts but will be considered in a separation section later.

Unilateral & Bilateral Contracts

36. There can also be unilateral and bilateral contracts that is presumed can exist under some or all the above headings. Let us examine each above types of contracts to see if the license obtained by this Sovereign falls under any of the categories of contract.

36.1 An express contract is one in which the agreement of the parties is fully stated in words, and it may be either written or oral, or partly written and partly oral. See: Bergh Business Law 30

36.2 A true implied contract is an agreement of the parties arrived at from their acts and conduct viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances, and not from their words either spoken or written. Like an express contract, it grows out of the intention of the parties to the transaction and there must be a meeting of the minds. See: McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)

36.3 License -- Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful. See: Bouvier's Law Dict 37. With these definitions in mind, let us examine a driver's license to see if it is a contract. The driver's license itself is a small plastic card approximately 55 millimeters by 86 millimeters in size. It contains the words "North Carolina Motor Vehicle Driver's license"; the name, address, signature, and physical description of the user; a pair of identifying numbers; a photograph; and the signature of the director of the Department of Law Enforcement. Obviously, this cannot be an express agreement because there are no statements to constitute an agreement. Are there two parties to the "contract?" There are two signatures, but both are copies, thus invalidating the "contract" so there are no parties to the "contract." Is there a consideration? What has the State given this Sovereign in return for this Sovereign's obligation? Some may suggest that the State has given this Sovereign the privilege of driving on the streets or highways in North Carolina. But this Sovereign already has the "RIGHT" to drive on the streets or highways in North Carolina, and the State cannot require this Sovereign to give up a "RIGHT" to obtain a privilege.

38. An Iowa Statute that requires that every foreign corporation named in it shall, as a condition for obtaining a permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court certain suits that it would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to a permit dependant upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186:

38.1 The full significance of the clause law of the land is said by Ruffin, C.J. to be that statutes that would deprive a Citizen of the "RIGHTS" of person or property without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law would not be the law of the land. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677

39. It would be foolish for this Sovereign to exchange a "RIGHT" for a privilege since it would mean giving up valuable property in exchange for something having less value. Is it possible for this Sovereign to do such a thing?

39.1 Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consenter of any unalienable "RIGHT." (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.