28 votes

Candidate For Governor In Florida Arrested For Driving Without A License

"this is something he has been TRYING to make happen for three years."

In protest of the Real ID Act! Awesome! I wish the candidates I've worked with in the past had listened to me when I wanted them to get arrested for civil disobedience! My hats off to Adrian Wyllie and his team!:)

Florida Libertarian Candidate for Governor Adrian Wyllie has been arrested for driving without a license. But wait, because this is something he has been trying to make happen for three years.

Adrian Wyllie has been making big headlines in Florida where he is taking on Republican Governor Rick Scott and former Republican Governor turned Democratic candidate Charlie Crist. Wyllie has been polling as high as 16%, high enough that just over a week ago he was invited to Florida’s largest Gubernatorial Debate.

Last week, Wyllie was interviewed on the Ben Swann Radio Show where Ben asked him specifically about the fact that he openly drives with no license.

Read the rest of the story at -

http://benswann.com/exclusive-libertarian-candidate-for-gove...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

STOP USING THE COMMON STREET VERBIAGE

This is for the few who still are uninformed of these "words" / "terms".

"Driving" a "motor vehicle" is not "Traveling" in a 'car' nor an 'automobile' That is the entire key. One is a privilege the other is a Right.

That is why we purchase 'car insurance'. Though the insurance paperwork has been changed to indicate 'motor vehicle' insurance, the originality of it's purpose / common name "car insurance" has been passed down to us from decades of use.

Because it was never called, "Motor Vehicle Insurance". And, the reason is obvious.

As was having your 'car' registered. Its original intent (from my understanding) was because as the auto industry grew, accidents occurred (hit and run), some thief. Most all cars looked the same, and in black, so 'cars' were 'registered' so they had a 'number' for people to report 'who dunnit'.

May peace always be your journey

Owning a car

and driving it is not a privilege, it's a right. It is made a privilege by those in charge so they have control over us, just like now they are starting to say speech is a privilege. Buying a car is a private purchase and driving it is traveling from one place to another. It's no different than when people use to own horses to travel from one place to the next. I don't remember reading about horse licenses in the 1800's.

There is no benefit making an issue out of

what a thing is called when constitutional questions arise not because of what things are called, but how and why they are used.

here are 2 cases, that he could use to bolster his case

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.

LOL, what meaningless b/s

LOL, what meaningless b/s that accomplishes nothing cept waste time.

As meaningless as the fla lp which did not even have legalization or decrim of cannabis anywhere showing in what it does support. Was a member for years. No more. No place left to go cept...........lewrockwell.com

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

maybe not the lp

but I can tell you Adrian has made it an issue during his campaign. Last year I organized South Florida String Festival and invited Adrian to come speak to a crowd of young half intoxicated folk-punk loving hippies. At the time, there were petitioners collecting signatures for 'United for Care'. Adrian wasn't on board with the bill because he felt it didn't go far enough, and he would like to see a recreational style bill passed similar to washington and colorado. He also mentioned this in his interview with Ben swan the other day (just before he was arrested for driving without a license).

His comments on legalization are around the 16 minute mark:

http://youtu.be/OyCJrGUDDKI

- Grow Mushrooms at Home
http://subfarms.com

Adrian is the real deal.

Adrian is the real deal. Excited to see him debate Crist and Scott on Oct 15 (if you're in south fl you should attend, its at Broward college).

- Grow Mushrooms at Home
http://subfarms.com

I'm from out of State

And I really want to help his campaign...any ideas on how? I will look to donate but would love to roll up sleeves to help someone who is really deserves the help!

Donate to his money bomb!

Please donate to his money bomb to gain ballot access and help purchase campaign materials! As you know, Libertarians will not take corporation donations with strings attached, therefore it is up to us to make sure he has the funds to challenge the duopoly's machine

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/2zeuvDSp/Wyllie-For-Governor...

Contact his campaign manager Jim Burkiewicz

Jim is a great guy. Send him a message on FB (if you don't use fb let me know and ill try to get you in touch with him some other way).

https://www.facebook.com/jim.burkiewicz

One thing I can suggest is to come to the debate in October if that is at all an option. If not I'm sure there are phone calls that need to be made etc.

- Grow Mushrooms at Home
http://subfarms.com

here is his campaign info

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/candidate/CanDetail.asp?acco...

contact him and see what you can do to help!

Adrian Wyllie has my vote!!!!

Not happy with Rick Scott or Charlie Crist.

I do hope

Adrian at least consults with some people who have taken up the fight of travel and have personal experience.

There is a lot of case history for right to travel that can be filed as evidence but let's take a real world example of how a judge would work to undermine it. A judge would ask something like ... that is a fascinating legal history of cases and rulings but do you know of any case that has held driver licenses unconstitutional?

That right there is a crux of the matter. How would you respond to such a question? It is a good question no doubt. Putting it in context. Let's say the legal history is correct and driving is using the public highway as a place of private gain. In that context a driver license would regulate using the public highway as a place of private gain or profit. The very question, do you know of any case that has held driver licensing unconstitutional is a sword. How could it be unconstitutional if it is constitutional to license the commercial use of highways? See what I am getting at? The judge just asked you a question where the only logical answer would appear to validate driver licensing as constitutional if it is valid under any set of circumstances.

Furthermore the Florida Constitution states: "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property;" It doesn't identify "use" of property as an inalienable right. Open carry is possession, discharge is use. The only uses which are expressly prohibited to the state are uses enjoying and defending life and liberty, or pursuing happiness.

So ... why could driver licensing be unconstitutional? One argument is a lack of full and honest disclosure. There is no due process of law for mandatory registration of anything without a full and honest disclosure of the right(s) or privilege(s) being secured by law. There is no due process of law when any mandatory registration lacking a full and honest disclosure is enforced. An element of due process is notice. It must be notice that fully informs.

Consider the following language from Florida Statutes:

(1) “Motor vehicle” means:
(a) An automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state, used to transport persons or property, and propelled by power other than muscular power, but the term does not include traction engines, road rollers, special mobile equipment as defined in s. 316.003(48), vehicles that run only upon a track, bicycles, swamp buggies, or mopeds.

Does it say:

(1) “Motor vehicle” means:
(a) An automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle, used.

or

(a) An automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle, used within the State of Florida.

It is not all uses, it is a very specific use, "used to transport." It is also very specific transport uses which only include "persons or property."

I do not care what version of Black's Law Dictionary or other legal resource you want to reference because they will all lead to the same place:

Transport, v. To carry or convey from one place to another.

Carry. To bear, bear about, sustain, transport, remove, or convey. To have or bear upon or about one's person, as a watch or weapon; locomotion not being essential. As applied to insurance, means "possess" or "hold."

Carrier. Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire.

Bear. To support, sustain, or carry. To give rise to, or to produce, something else as an incident or auxiliary. To render, to manage, or direct, or to conduct; to carry on, or maintain. To produce as yield; e.g. "bear" interest. One who believes stock prices will decline; opposite of a "bull."

Convey. To transfer or deliver to another. To pass or transmit the title to property from one to another. To transfer property or the title to property by deed, bill of sale, or instrument under seal. Used popularly in sense of "assign", "sale", or "transfer".

The lack of full and honest disclosure is all about a specific type of use (ie. "used to transport") because the statutes do not govern all uses or they would simply say "any motor vehicle used." They do not say that and the reason is something I already cited: " ... inalienable rights ... to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness" Regulating enjoying and defending life and liberty or the pursuit of happiness are the only uses prohibited to legislatures. Otherwise it probably would say "any motor vehicle used."

The federal constitution is constructed according to delegated powers. If it is not expressly delegated it is prohibited. State constitutions are constructed in a manner if it is not expressly prohibited it is permitted. So regulating uses is allowed except for regulating enjoying and defending life and liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Money can not buy happiness. This appears to be the principle or rule which measures whether a use is for pursuit of happiness or not. If you were getting paid to step in shit it can not be said you stepped in shit pursuing happiness. Clearly defense of life and liberty has a different rule. I know of no rule to distinguish enjoyment of life.

Is what I am articulating the reason all uses are not regulated? Is what I am articulating the reason statutes only regulate specific uses of transportation because the state constitution expressly prohibits regulating any use enjoying and defending life or pursuing happiness? Is an express exemption and prohibition against government for enjoying and defending life or pursuit of happiness a reason for all of the ambiguity in statutes and legal dictionaries?

I am of the strong opinion it is. Now, I didn't invent this system or think up any of its rules. I am merely pontificating on its observable patterns. If you have the resources to challenge something like constitutionality of driver licensing, which hopefully Adrian does, then challenge it well. There can be no doubt merely traveling somewhere by any means to obtain food can be nothing other than enjoying life or pursuing happiness, yet the application of driver licensing trespasses against these uses which are expressly prohibited.

There is clearly a deficiency of due process notice by the ambiguity of language regulating any transport use without a full and honest disclosure of what actually constitutes uses to transport.

Example of Practical Application ...

Put an officer and every superior official in his chain of command in the entire executive branch on the witness stand:

Q: When enforcing motor vehicle or driver licensing statutes, how do you distinguish between uses to enjoy life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, inalienable rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, versus uses to transport?

LET'S TRY THIS.....

Q: What is the difference between a "Motor Vehicle" and a "car / automobile"?

Q: What is the difference between "Driving" and "Travelling"?

Q: Define the "terms"; "Passenger", "Traffic", "Public Highway".

Q: Do Citizens have the Right to use the public highways in their car without obtaining "Drivers License"?

May peace always be your journey

RE: Your Questions

Q: What is the difference between a "Motor Vehicle" and a "car / automobile"?

A: A motor vehicle is any car, automobile, etc. (ie. just about anything with a motor or not propelled by human action) "used to transport persons or property."

Q: What is the difference between "Driving" and "Travelling"?

A: Driving is operating a motor vehicle that is "used to transport persons or property." If one is traveling in a motor vehicle under their control "used to transport persons or property," they are driving.

Q: Do Citizens have the Right to use the public highways in their car without obtaining "Drivers License"?

A: Citizens have been guaranteed inalienable rights to enjoy and defend life and liberty, and to pursue happiness. Citizens do not possess any written guarantees to an unlimited or inalienable right to use public highways.

So ...

Q: What does it mean "used to transport persons or property" and more importantly, how is its enforcement distinguished from any use to enjoy life or pursue happiness? It really doesn't matter what the use to is called because if there is nothing to distinguish it, it can not be constitutional when there is an express prohibition against regulation of any inalienable right to enjoy life or pursue happiness. The only thing that could make it constitutional is a rule, which can be equally applied to all persons, separating uses to transport persons or property from uses to enjoy life or pursue happiness. The only uses which can be regulated by complete prohibition are uses impossible to enjoy and defend life and liberty, or pursue happiness. Is that not the legal reasoning behind a war on drugs which are bad for you?

He's been at this for a few years

I would imagine he's pretty well versed!

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

Adrian is a great guy!

If you want to help him win, please email me at curt@superbrochure.com to get info. He has over 100 people actively phone banking and walking neighborhoods. When we have a great candidate, we have to make sure we support them.

Here is Adrian fighting Real ID:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOTOenwxsQI

In Liberty,

Curt

Super Brochure: "Right To Bear Arms"
http://www.SuperBrochure.com/

I

LOVE IT! Great story, more civil disobedience please :)

Silk30