THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL!!!!!!

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS.  

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "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 law 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 directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?  

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."  

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or


2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.


3.  

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

===============================================================

Raymond Karczewski
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Thu Mar 29 14:52:35 2001


DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL

George Lee McElroy wrote:

Raymond Karczewski wrote:

rk: I received Mr. McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.

rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government.

rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of law. Such could not happen if the public "Traveller" who travels the public roadways in the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the
time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one's Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit.

rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.

rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over our lives?

rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?

rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.

Ray Karczewski

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clay Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

Mr. Johnson,

Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.

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. 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.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.

I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law.

At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator.

Sincerely,

George Lee McElroy

Cc: Oregon Department of Revenue
Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Representative Carl Wilson
Representative Jason Atkinson
Ray Karczewski
Illinois Valley News
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Josephine County Sheriff, Dave Daniel
Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers
United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft

============================

Raymond Karczewski
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001


Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:54:45 GMT

From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown)

unk: You're incoherent

unk: Why do you think only drivers of commercial vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any less dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of your claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in logic or law.

rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one at that!
In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the the legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim
Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., "It Speaks for Itself."?

rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and see what I mean, HERE IT IS AGAIN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)

807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.

(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.

(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:

(a) A Class A commercial driver license.

(b) A Class B commercial driver license.

(c) A Class C commercial driver license.

(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.

(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:

(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.

(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.

(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.

(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.

(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.

(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.

(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.

(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.

(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20

====================================

Raymond Karczewski
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001


Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???

unk: Here's your controlling law Raymond

Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT

From: Maybe you'd like to actually read it? (unknown)

unk: Here is the legislation duly enacted by representatives of the people. You'll notice, if you take the trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe of the license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental interest that is upheld by appellate review.

rk: You will also notice that such legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO "drivers" and commercially "driven" motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle") AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in noncommercial activities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)

807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.

(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.

(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:

(a) A Class A commercial driver license.

(b) A Class B commercial driver license.

(c) A Class C commercial driver license.

(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070
for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.

(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:

(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.

(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.

(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.

(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.

(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.

(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.

(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.

(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.

(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20

=================================

Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker
reply
Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 2001