Right to Travel Part 100

[mystic one]

does having your car "registered" require a licensced driver?

I suppose if you dont want your car towed, dont have it registered with the state to begin with, because the "travel/not in commerce strategy" will not work if you have a plate on your car... they will just say, well sir,this car is registered and requires a licenseced driver.????? Tell me what yout hink..

[Shoonra]

The registration of an automobile provides some assurance that, relatively recently, the car passed inspection for road worthiness, and that its proper chain of ownership has been documented.

A car without a license plate is not entitled to be put on public roads, regardless of who is behind the wheel. The lack of a license plate raises the suspicion that it did not pass inspection and is not safe to drive. It also raises the suspicion that it is a stolen vehicle and is not owned by the person behind the wheel even if he has all his proper identification. In such a circumstance, the police may impound the car, and possibly arrest the driver - but in any case not let him drive that car away, until the car's bona fides can be established. Knowing how some police departments work, this could take days.

[test]

I once read the following article, I think it is interesting:

http://www.svpvril.com/vehicle.html

[mystic one]

i guess i didnt ask my question correctly.. What i was trying to ask wasnt about the plates at all. What i was saying, is lets say you currently have the car "registered" in your name. I know your going to say, dont register the car to begin with to have a strong foundation. but lets say you currently have it registered, they pull you over, run the plates, and ask "is this you" ? Will the "this is not me, I am not in commerce today strategy work????? Is there any law that states a vehicle/hence the "registration" requires a operator at all times??? theres not legal obligation by having it registered to be licenseced as well is there? I hope that clarifies my question.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The registration of an automobile provides some assurance that, relatively recently, the car passed inspection for road worthiness, and that its proper chain of ownership has been documented.

A car without a license plate is not entitled to be put on public roads, regardless of who is behind the wheel. The lack of a license plate raises the suspicion that it did not pass inspection and is not safe to drive. It also raises the suspicion that it is a stolen vehicle and is not owned by the person behind the wheel even if he has all his proper identification. In such a circumstance, the police may impound the car, and possibly arrest the driver - but in any case not let him drive that car away, until the car's bona fides can be established. Knowing how some police departments work, this could take days.

Guilty until proven innoccent? Who eles is claiming the vehicle (property), other than the state? If there is no one eles making a claim, where is the probable cause for the state to take action?

What about due process? The state often sells the car, without a trial, isn't this legal, or illegal, plunder?

It seems that these codes attempt to overrule the various constitutions and a number of suspreme court decisions regarding freedom of travel, is this just?

It seems that the state feels that it gets its authority to take this sort of action, of failing to protect rights under the constitution, by forcing, under threats, duress, and coercion (TDC), people to volunteer. By using TDC to get people to sign for driver license, vehicle registration, there is no voluntary action. Just the point of a gun.

Where is the Life, Liberty, or Property rights?

What freedom is there? Freedom to be a slave?

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING IS A RIGHT”



SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.



For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:



Case # 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, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)



"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."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.



It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:



"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.



Case # 4 - "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 l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/dr...is_a_right.htm

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by mystic one

i guess i didnt ask my question correctly.. What i was trying to ask wasnt about the plates at all. What i was saying, is lets say you currently have the car "registered" in your name. I know your going to say, dont register the car to begin with to have a strong foundation. but lets say you currently have it registered, they pull you over, run the plates, and ask "is this you" ? Will the "this is not me, I am not in commerce today strategy work????? Is there any law that states a vehicle/hence the "registration" requires a operator at all times??? theres not legal obligation by having it registered to be licenseced as well is there? I hope that clarifies my question.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
For starters in your case chances are it wont be registered in your name at all. But instead in the name of a "legal entity". And indeed, it might be most truthful to say when asked "is this your car?" to say "No." unless, of course, you are the legal entity. Here is a question that ought to bear some good fruit:

Why not register it in the name of a trust or foundation instead?


Is it vanity? Fame? Fortune? The reason I say that is because its a lot easier to say no when asked are you "JOHN HENRY DOE TRUST"? Actually, they probably wont ever ask you that. Also, how you sign the registration papers might have relevance.

[squirrel]

The registration of an automobile provides some assurance that, relatively recently, the car passed inspection for road worthiness, and that its proper chain of ownership has been documented.

A car without a license plate is not entitled to be put on public roads, regardless of who is behind the wheel. The lack of a license plate raises the suspicion that it did not pass inspection and is not safe to drive.

What a crock of s#!t !!

So tell us, whats the excuse they use when the STATE of ILLUSION you DONT live in does'nt have inspections for road worthiness ?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Guilty until proven innoccent? Who eles is claiming the vehicle (property), other than the state? If there is no one eles making a claim, where is the probable cause for the state to take action?

What about due process? The state often sells the car, without a trial, isn't this legal, or illegal, plunder?

It seems that these codes attempt to overrule the various constitutions and a number of suspreme court decisions regarding freedom of travel, is this just?

It seems that the state feels that it gets its authority to take this sort of action, of failing to protect rights under the constitution, by forcing, under threats, duress, and coercion (TDC), people to volunteer. By using TDC to get people to sign for driver license, vehicle registration, there is no voluntary action. Just the point of a gun.

Where is the Life, Liberty, or Property rights?

What freedom is there? Freedom to be a slave?


http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/dr...is_a_right.htm

Ok, I think this is an easy scenario to respond to.

The question is

When does and must a citizen shed their sovereign covering and give obedience to the state and the acts of legislature?

Never. There is NO Act of Legislature to which we must give obesience to. NONE.

All the Law that WE *must* obey *IS* that which our father in heaven proclaimed and wrote in his covenant to us;

That is, the ten commandments in the former covenant, and the two commandments of the newer covenant.

and which can be stated in the language of the day as

1. harm no one;
2. damage no property.

All acts of a sovereign which violate those two points are torts only, and not acts in violation of any act of legislature.

[squirrel]

Again, no answer.

[Shoonra]

As far as I know, every state of the Union (and definitely including DC) requires some sort of inspection for the issue or renewal of license plates; ditto Canada. So the police of one state will be satisfied if they see the plate that shows the car has passed inspection in another state.

As for that bundle of court decisions regarding "right to travel" or even "right to use the streets", someone ought to read the cases before quoting them. None of them involved a so-called right to operate a car on the public roads without a license. At least one involved an application for a passport and some of the others involved the question of a city granting a monopoly to one bus or trucking company to the exclusion of any competing companies.