Repost with Note | Ramola D | July 17, 2022
In a recent webinar with Teri Kealoha Sahm, the Washington State co-ordinator of the Washington State Assembly–the July 11 webinar, Anna von Reitz discussed a fact in law which many are waking to today, that driver’s licenses are actually permits to engage in commerce using a vehicle and don’t apply to most Americans with cars, a fact supported by numerous statements and citations from court cases including Supreme Court cases.
Traveling from Point A to Point B while not engaging in commerce of any kind (for instance as an Uber driver) is what most people use their cars and SUVs for on a daily basis, which means most people don’t need licenses–licenses themselves by definition comprising a permit to engage in something ostensibly illegal, in this case operate a motor vehicle within the “de facto” US-citizen government system, part of a long-seated fraud given the construct of all governments as corporations.
This is something many who have been exploring living privately and reclaiming one’s sovereignty have known for long; Anna has recently posted an article as well (reposted below) listing the court cases where judges have historically published the determination that Americans don’t need driver’s licenses if traveling non-commercially.
The frequent occurrence however of state and local police stopping travelers for random reasons (tail light blown out a common ruse) and demanding to see driver’s licenses has not stopped.
The thing that needs to be done, Anna suggests is to get private license plates — a sign of lifetime ownership of the vehicle as opposed to getting State license plates which register the car with the state government corporation. These are a Regulation Z “remedy” afforded to all Americans in the federal Highway and Safety Act, and the way to implement it is to ask the DMV/RMV for Z tags or private license plates, she says. Not all States respond readily, although Alaska does, reveals Anna. Yet it is a remedy available to all Americans, one which needs to be actively pursued as a right to be safeguarded, she recommends. As with all our rights and freedoms, she emphasizes, they need to be exercised in order to reign and remain.
In this short excerpt from the webinar, Anna prefaces her focus on licenses with how the Tennessee Supreme Court case Norton vs Shelby County from 1907 established that statutes and orders issued by non-elected bureaucrats in power–such as Public Health officials–comprise administrative hyperbole and do not apply to the public, and therefore do not need to be obeyed.
A plate and sign maker online specializing in notices and plates for American State Nationals offers to make private license plates for your state here. I would suggest further research however with your de jure state co-ordinator (whom you can find here) as to whether you need to get the plates from your state’s “de facto” DMV/RMV corporation, in effect notifying them as well that you are going to be using private license plates for your car.
Safe Driving: Cautionary Note For All
Further, I would note that understanding and keeping de facto traffic rules and laws is still essential since we all share the roadways while driving, and running regular safety and emissions inspections on cars as the “de facto” governments and DMVs require is also a good thing for the safety of your own vehicle and driving experience which includes others–but all of this is information for every American to individually dig deep into and comprehend themselves.
The great remedy of note here is that Americans who choose not to use driver’s licenses under the “de facto” system can safeguard the privacy of their driving with Regulation Z tag license plates–to prevent being stopped for no reason and challenged for no reason by patrolmen or women.
Stay Aware of Real ID and Digital Health Passports — Which American State Nationals Will Not Need
Something else to keep in mind is that Real ID–a sweeping attempt to further constrain Americans. digitize private information, and replace driver’s licenses as primary means of federal ID for traveling between states or on planes–is just around the corner; pursuing the reclamation of one’s birthright American status via becoming or reclaiming your American state nationality and ensuring you are seen as a free and clear American state national rather than constantly-exploited US Citizen–and thus stepping away from all corporate-enslavement attempts like Real ID and digital health passports to further tie you down–is becoming more and more important today.
Sunday, July 10, 2022
This Has Only Been “News” Since the 1890’s
By Anna Von Reitz
Yes, it’s true that if you are an American, you don’t need a Driver’s License to travel on our public roads. That’s the way it is, and the way it has always been. The recent flurry of excitement over the U.S. Supreme Court’s put down of Administrative “Law” in Virginia v EPA misses the whole point.
We, Americans, have never needed a license to travel around this country. Ever. That was decided over a century ago.
Since the 1890’s and early 1900’s, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court and by multiple County, State, and Circuit Courts, always with the same result, which is nicely summed up by Jeffrey Phillips in this compendium of cases proving this point beyond any possible doubt:
I am reposting his information for your convenience (below) so that you can literally see for yourselves how conclusively the issue of “needing or not needing a driver’s license” has been decided. This is by no means the first such compendium of actual court decisions in support of our freedom to travel and to use the public roads for private purposes without licenses. Americans need no “permits” to go wherever we want to go without obstruction or interference from private law enforcement officers aka “patrolmen” arresting and detaining people over “code infractions” that don’t apply to the General Public — and never did.
This is the absolute truth of the matter. The only question is — are you an American? A member of the General Public? And are you using the roads for private, non-commercial purposes?
Our law is simple. If you haven’t injured anyone else or injured anyone else’s property, there is no crime and no issue to be adjudicated and no reason for any Highway Patrolman to stop you.
The all-too typical situation of Patrolman Busybody stopping you because your left tail light is out and issuing you a $100 fine and “order” to get the tail light fixed, is in fact illegal, if you are Jane Doe on her way to pick her kids up from school, or John Doe on his way home from work.
They have no authority to stop you, no authority to fine you, and the only plausible and allowable reason for them to interrupt your day at all, would be to politely inform you that your tail light is out — much as a friend might tell you the same, out of concern for your safety. That’s all. No “tickets” and no “citations” of Motor Vehicle Code should ever be involved in a traffic stop involving a non-commercial driver.
Unfortunately, we have all been strong-armed into “registering” our automobiles as “motor vehicles” and as “public property” when they really aren’t. This forced registration extortion is really at the heart of this debate — not licensing, which has been decided for over a hundred years. It’s the forced registration of private cars and trucks that provides the Highway Patrol with the excuse to “presume” that you are engaged in commercial activities in the first place, even if you aren’t and even if that is perfectly obvious.
In order to pull off their otherwise illegal registration demands, the Perpetrators had to offer remedy to private non-commercial drivers, and that remedy is Regulation Z of the Securities Laws adopted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You and your private car are actually exempt from registration requirements and you can claim that exemption as long as you are an American who is not employed by the Federal Government corporations. In many States including Alaska, you simply need to ask for “Z tags” or “Private Plates”.
No, you don’t need a license to travel from Point A to Point B for your own private reasons and you never did need a license to travel. The entire idea behind licensing is rooted in the fact that some people drive as a profession and make their living off of the use of public roads, and some people drive very large and potentially dangerous loads on the public roads — the origin of Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) — as a business. The courts make a distinction between private use — Grandma going to the grocery store — and ABC Trucking, Inc. doing a double-decker long haul via semi-trailer truck from Georgia to Nevada.
And we think that is reasonable. What’s not reasonable is forced registration of our private trucks and cars and obstruction when we claim our Regulation Z remedy. What’s not reasonable is when we have to defend ourselves against Highway Patrolmen threatening us with bodily harm over broken tail lights. What’s not reasonable is when we are being “mistaken” accidentally-on-purpose as foreigners in our own country. And what’s really not reasonable is when our ability to travel freely is being impeded or prevented by rules, codes, regulations, ordinances, mandates, and statutes that don’t apply to us, because someone thinks that they have the right to redefine “interstate commerce”.
Read on for a nice fat list of court citations that absolutely and definitively deal with the issue of whether or not we need a driver’s license when we travel for private purposes — and the answer is “No!” just as it has been since the 1890’s. But be aware that the greater fish to be fried is the imposition of forced and largely false registration of private cars as “motor vehicles” and obstruction of our access to our Regulation Z exemptions.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “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 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “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 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “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 highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “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.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “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. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’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 Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
And there you have it, as nice a listing of appropriate court decisions as you could ask for. Now all you have to do is start educating the politicians and the police and claiming your Regulation Z exemptions, so that the “license plates” serve notice that you are not subject to licensing.
And, as always, be aware that the British Territorial Persons named after you and the Municipal citizens of the United States named after you as UNITED STATES CITIZENS are all subject to all the codes, rules, regulations and statutes.
You’re not, but they are.
So while you are educating the politicians and police, be sure to draw the distinction between you and these “hue-men” persons that have been created using your Good Name and Trademarks without your knowledge or agreement.
See this article and over 3700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com