6 votes

How to Drive without a drivers license. Form to fill out

Comment viewing options

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

Back Seat Lawyers

Jack of all trades--libertarian motivated

I have read through most of these on a sovereign individual and thereby constitutional rights and sounds like back seat lawyers to me.

1.Being a rebel and that is what a Patriot is and honors the Constitution comes with a price. Knowing the law extensively.

2.One contracts their rights away with many signatures and must always be on the alert that they do not sign into an agreement with the state. That one signature will have broader reach then many think. Such as signing a drivers license covers more then that. Or a Socialistic Card agreement. There is about 15 agreements that must be avoided.

3.Signing under duress only makes that ticket questionable not void. A person still has to address it before the courts as a sovereign. It starts with a reply to that ticket. Same is true with any court summons from the government.

4.There are those in the IRS, Judges, Attorneys, and etc. that give not a damn about the constitution and know the law an how to trap you into failure.

5.Once signed into these agreements it takes a process with no errors to get out. Or your still not a sovereign.

Yes, sometimes one can get off the hook on minor's like fishing as it is not worth the courts time. Over time, they will either have enough or you run into one that decides you are their ticket to advancement and they do their best to catch you by the law.

When this happens you better hope you have at least one in the jury who is informed. Not only in the law. But knowing constitutional rights as a juror that a Judge will not inform them of. They will recognize the law in conflict with the constitution and reject it. This has been the greatest error of losing our constitution. Not knowing our constitutional rights as a juror.

One of the best I have on this is from Save-a-Patriot org. to inform jurors on theirs constitutional rights as a juror. This alone would end this shang-high by the courts. As Jurors not only rule on the breaking the law it also rules on the law. Paine was guilty in the courts by the law but the jurors let him go as they saw the law as not fit. Of course you know what Paine did for our constitution.

If one wants to see the complexity of these matters they may want to check out, http://famguardian.org/

Jack of all trades--libertarian motivated

Driving or traveling

Julius, if one were to declare themselves a national, exercising their right to travel by not submitting to licensing, would that individual be considered a contractual driver while operating a registered vehicle ie. motor vehicle, and thus warrant licensing?

thats a good question. a

thats a good question. a few friends and I have been trying to determine this for a while. I personally think that there is a seperation between "driving for work" and "traveling for leisure", but your question is basically, "can I turn off my license while in my private capacity?" Im not sure how one would do this, because the license requires you to terminate your right, perhaps a license for a trust created by you would be a way around this. Create a legal trust with all all of the characteristics of a "person", and have the license in that name....not sure the requirements for a license.
the constitution guarantees you the right to contract in this way, just not sure about the application.

"Your comment has been

"Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval."

why has my comment been

why has my comment been deleted?


Anything I can do for these two parking tickets? One for not having registration (it arrived the day after in the mail), and the original reason why my car got noticed in the first place--didn't move my car before 11pm in a spot.

I have not signed the ticket or sent anything in yet!

Im not sure where you are

Im not sure where you are licensed, but usually your license IS your consent...ie;
"The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a
driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code,
shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons
may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he
is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts
of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of
his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state."

all this means is that you must address the situation, you cant just ignore it, which you could if you had no license.

But, there still is no injured party. And since a "citation" is an "infraction" and since an "infraction" is a "crime", then there must be an injured party:

"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

I had something similar a while back for having a "for sale sign" in my window...I fought it and won, it took two times, as it always does, because the first attempt, court, hearing, etc. is to weed out the weak, and get their money.
see below:


2530 Arnold Drive suite 350
Martinez, Calif. 94553

RE:Citation No.: 72-00428169

Thank you for contacting me regarding this issue, and I agree to the terms through this conditional acceptance.

Upon your acceptance of this conditional acceptance, and your response on a point by point basis to the eleven items below, under penalty of perjury, I will submit payment for the alleged violation.

Condition 1. Provide me with the enforcing statute, code, or act allowing for the SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT jurisdiction over a non-resident, sovereign, from the republic of Michigan.
CVC: 21052
CVC: 4155
CVC: 17459
CVC: 17460

Condition 2. Provide me with an affidavit of injured party, or why you are not required to provide one upon request.
"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Condition 3. Provide evidence that the SAN RAMON FEE SCHEDULE for 2008/2009 assigns a $50.00 fine for this offense.

Condition 4. Provide evidence that a conflict of interest is not occurring, even though the SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT (or a political sub division thereof) is responsible for issuing a citation, investigating the dispute, and deciding the verdict of the dispute.

Condition 5. Provide evidence that the automobile allegedly "for sale" was parked in the street "for the purpose of selling" as required by the code allegedly violated.

Condition 6. admit or deny that a man or woman has the right to sell their private property.

Condition 7. admit or deny that the streets are for the purpose of the public.

Condition 8. Provide the enforcing section that allows the SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT to diminish the rights of individuals in the state.
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
see also:
CVC: Sec 4

Condition 9. Provide me with any evidence that I have knowingly entered into a contract with SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Condition 10. Provide me with a copy of the actual citation, or any contract, that I have signed, and agreed to the terms of therein.

Condition 11. Provide me with the evidence used to establish the ruling of "UPHOLD" on the "first level agency review" form.

ADDITIONAL CASE LAW BELOW: Reiterating the RIGHT (See CVC Sec. 4) to use the highways.

Public roads belong to the people, since we pay for them, therefore exercising one’s liberty upon them is a natural right.

It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674.

Every citizen has an inalienable 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, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62

A word about administrative law and statutes.
In California, the meaning of statutes has been diluted. Subject matter which might better be relegated to regulations and been elevated to the status of statute. “While in practical effect regulations may be called “little laws” they are at most but off-spring of statutes.” See United States v. Jones, 345 U.S. 377, 73 S.Ct. 759, 97 L ED.. 1108. The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only to together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other. See U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 80 S.Ct. 459

The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v U.S., 230 F.2d 488, 489.

Please respond, on a point by point basis, to all of the conditions of this conditional acceptance, under penalty of perjury, within 15 days of receipt of this letter, or forever be estopped from pursuing any action regarding this alleged violation. Failure to respond will result in the filing of a certificate of dishonor, and eventual certificate of default, and may result in the filing of a UCC-1 lien against the SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT for the amount of $2,500.

With exception of this conditional acceptance, I am not interested in contracting with SAN RAMON POLICE DEPARTMENT.


Defendant pro se

They of course dropped it!
good luck

Would you please repeat this?

lol, just kidding.

I love this stuff

I wish I had the balls and time to understand the law....well, I'm working on it ...thanks for the post.


Thanks a bunch man!


Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

So how would this work if

So how would this work if your vehicle was financed and because of that the lender requires insurance and then in turn of course it has to be registered right?Then to be registered I'm assuming you would have to have a license right?
Would this work;if it did, only on vehicles(property) owned outright?
Sheesh, I used my debit card at Popeyes tonight and they wrote down my drivers license number on the receipt and you want me to believe I can just "travel" around without one?
Not that I don't think it's a great idea to flex the muscles of lberty I just don't think it would work for most people in the situation of having a vehicle financed.
They have gamed the system to the point that to not have an ID on you you're pretty much screwed.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

CORRECT! it wont

CORRECT! it wont "work"
there is always a negative that goes with a privilege...
here the privilege is you get to buy a car you cant afford, and in return, you dont actually 'own' your car until you pay for it.

it is always this way. This is the heart of the "nothing is free" thinking.

even the privilege of a state "marriage license" which isnt mandatory, is that you get benefits for certain purposes, insurance, tax, loans, etc...but the downside is that if you get divorced, then you have to use the state to do so, and follow their rules, court, child support, spousal support, fees, etc.

for healthcare, for example, once you 'use' 'free' healthcare, you will NEVER be able to claim that you dont owe an income tax, unless you pay back the amount you received....

the request of your 'personal numbers' is optional.
When I opened up my blockbuster account, they said they needed my SS number i said I didnt have one....she looked at me weird, and I said "just use 000-00-0000" she did, and I got one.
last month my friend moved into a new apt. When he called comcast they requested his SS number, he said he was uncomfortable giving it...so they said 'ok, then we'll need a 100$ deposit"

BUT, once you give them these numbers, it becomes another battle for if you ever dispute, or wish to release and terminate these contracts.
All of these things become evidence of your actions in the commercial world.

it is VERY easy to function without all of these things. It is when we want corvettes and 3500 sq. ft. houses we cant afford that it becomes appealing to use these numbers to achieve credit.
I always hear people saying eating healthy and organic is too expensive.
but, Hunting, Fishing, gardening is the CHEAPEST way to live.

Thanks for the reply.That

Thanks for the reply.That was my point.I understand the thinking but I was just unsure how it would function with a financed vehicle(which I really don't own).BTW don't own a corvette or a 3500 sq.ft home lol...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

Regarding your debit or credit card

Debit is paying with cash not credit and you must know the pin to use it so you do not need an ID to use it, unless you have a visa/MC debit card then those companies policy apply and do not allow the writing of private information on receipt's , if they refuse, then they can either not get paid or accept it.

credit card with no name or number on it, uses only pin; https://www.revolutioncard.com/Login.aspx


Here you can find some information of state/card network companies policies and statutes, the poster's name is JMX http://www.cardratings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19030

Thanks.I thought it was

Thanks.I thought it was pretty strange and yes it is a visa debit card.I questioned at the time and the manager told me it was because they ran the cards as credit instead of debit.
EVEN though I signed the receipt for the purchase they wrote down my drivers license #.Wish I would have known the visa policies I would have caused a scene.
As a matter of fact I'm gonna go back today and get some answers.
Thanks for the info.I also live in Florida so I'm pretty used to the police state,in the south anyway.Thanks again.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

Is Driving a Right or a 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.)

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 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:

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 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.


As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.
Continue here-- http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DrivingRi...
Here-- http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105758
Video's explaining the OP--
1, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA
2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcVnzaUduZU&feature
3, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4bfPc4xJM&feature

The only thing I would add

The only thing I would add is that "driving" is different from "traveling" and "motor vehicle" is different from "automobile" or "private conveyance"

so be careful when you say "driving is a right", because "driving" means to operate a commercial vehicle, which is NOT a right...this mistake has been made,,,if you go to court and say "driving is a right" you will lose, if you say "traveling alone, behind the wheel of my private automobile is a right" you will win.

Driving is a privilege, Traveling by whatever private conveyance is a right.

That is the title of the article I posted

Here also from the article:


The courts state that a Citizen has an unalienable right to travel freely. This includes the right to travel freely for one's own private need and enjoyment in an automobile on the public right of way. However, the term "motor vehicle" has a special meaning in the law, as does the term "driving". "Motor vehicles" are self-propelled devices used for "transport of persons and/or property on the highway". "Transport" means to move something in commerce. "Driving" is the act of controlling a "motor vehicle". All of these terms relate to specifically defined commercial use of the public right of way, and commercial use of publicly maintained property is not a right, but a privilege that can be taxed through licensure and registration.

Same thing you said.

I see that....it was just

I see that....it was just the first paragraph that your position wasnt very clear.

"...traveling by "motor vehicle" upon the roadway was a privilege..."
"...that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege..."

because "traveling by 'motor vehicle' IS a privilege.
and "driving IS a privilege"

Were on the same team here!

i dont think it will work,

i dont think it will work, check out DOT form 150, you could be a non commercial travler registered with the DOT, if you read title 18, section 31, i believe it spells out very clear commerce drivers. If you can figure out how this would work together, you could see a remedy I think, Im meeting with a state patrol about this in October.

I think the police will roll over this, unless you knew how to enforce it. Possible get the officials in a contract first, exhaust an administartive process.

the truth is, it doesnt

the truth is, it doesnt "work" the way some of us are thinking...what it does do, if done correctly, such as making sure to release and terminate any State contracts such as Drivers License, Registration, etc, is to allow you to have a foundation in court, and/or to stay out of court.

FROM EXPERIENCE, I know that some police will leave you be, while others dont care about the law. Ive had some officers, after presenting a secured party declaration, and citing dozens of codes from the CVC to back up my argument, tell me to drive safely....Ive had others say things like "the constitution doesnt apply" see:

but EVEN in the case where the officer told me the Constitution doesnt apply, I used my position and knowledge of contract law, cvc, and other codes, to avoid going to court....

believe it or not, "tickets" are "citations" and they are "notices to appear". A notice to appear is a "summons" and NOT mandatory.

NOW, if you think you have the "right" to get in your automobile, get drunk, drive around at 100 m.p.h. and do donuts in the police parking lot, then you are dead wrong.

one of the REASONS this secured party declaration works is here:
Cal Penal Code 853.5
"In all cases, except as
specified in Sections 40302, 40303, 40305, and 40305.5 of the Vehicle
Code, in which a person is arrested for an infraction, a peace
officer shall only require the arrestee to present his or her driver'
s license or other satisfactory evidence of his or her identity for
examination and to sign a written promise to appear contained in a
notice to appear."

other satisfactory evidence is a "notarized" document with your picture, info and signature. In fact, a notarized I.D. is stronger than the State issued, non-notarized doc.

I am currently using a "secured Party Declaration" to fish. see below:

State of California
County of _______________

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____
day of ____________, 20__, by________________________,
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.


The united 50 States of America

Secured Party Declaration And Notice of
CLAIM OF RIGHT under both the FEDERAL and CALIFORNIA Constitutions.
Under Uniform Commercial Code and Constitutional Law

Name of Sovereign:
City: ____San Ramon_____ Sovereign Nation/State:__California__ Zip: [exempt]

Date of Birth: __7-31-1975__ Male: __X__ Female: ______ Eyes: _Brown_ Hair: _Brown_
I Declare Myself a legal Sovereign, Operating Under Common Law, Title 4, U.S.C, 1, Flag of Peace and secure all my rights under U.C.C 1-308. I am NOT a corporate being dealing in commerce requiring a license of any kind. I fish by RIGHT, not by Privilege. Anything you say or do in violation of my Rights, can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Signature of Sovereign: ______________________________

Sovereign Right to Fish in California Waters
TO PUBLIC SERVANTS intending to violate my free rights under law:
The Bearer, being an un-enfranchised Sovereign, is authorized under statute at large, First Congress 1789, Session 1 Chapters, page 52; Articles of Confederation, Article 4-3-1-1781; MC 38: Title 18, Section 241, USC Title 42, Section 1983, 1985, 1986, of the unhampered use of all navigable waters and all common law highways, roadways, and byways which are used for transport either private, public, or commerce anywhere in these united 50 States of America. Said angler/fisherman is affirmed in obedience for the protection of the Constitution for the united States of America and may be detained only upon sworn complaint of an injured party as per the Bill of Rights, Article IV, and common law. The undersigned claims his rights at law as a Sovereign citizen (NOT a resident) of California state, and rejects, and is not subject to, the contract obligations in equity known as the California Fish and Game Codes of the respective states, via U.C.C. 1.

Constitution of the united States of America:
"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 notwithstanding. 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..." Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

If you, the "acting officer", recognize that fishing is a right in the state of California, yet continue to cite me for "fishing without a license" then you will be guilty of depravation of my rights under USC TITLE 18, 242, as RIGHTS can NOT be licensed or diminished.
"...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

If you, the "acting officer", believe that fishing is a privilege in the state of California, yet continue to cite me for "fishing without a license" then you will be guilty of deprivation of my rights under USC TITLE 18, 242, as the FISH and GAME code excludes a certain class of citizens (those under 16 years of age) from being licensed, which is a violation of Article 1, sec 7(b) of the California Constitution.

ART I, SEC 7(b)
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or

Furthermore, the CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE does NOT affect my rights, including but not limited to my absolute right to fish:

California Fish and Game Code
Section 3:
The provisions of this code, insofar as they are substantially
the same as existing statutory provisions relating to the same
subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations
thereof, and not as new enactments. This code shall not impair any
privilege granted or right acquired under any of the laws of this
State prior to the date it takes effect.

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Case Law supporting my rights:
(emphasis mine throughout)
Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously fishing.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

"Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889).

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.

There is no question that there is NO injured party involved here, and a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, or jail/incarceration for any cause including no valid fishing license, and save for criminal activities involving an injured party, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime."

Any officer attempting to cite, fine, detain, or arrest me for "fishing without a license" or any similar charge, must file a "valid cause of action" containing the four elements required in a "valid cause of action". Those elements are:
1) Duty
2) Breach of Duty
3) Injury
4) Causation
Furthermore, the officer must have and provide his bond number upon request:
Government Code 1303
"Every person who exercises any function of a public office without taking the oath of office, or without giving the required bond, is guilty of a misdemeanor."


"License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
"The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.
"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).
"A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.
"A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege...River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.
"A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.
"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

Compelling me, a sovereign individual, into a contract with California by securing, for money, a "Fishing" license, or face fines or imprisonment for non-crimes, is a direct violation of my rights under law. My rights have been secured via my use of Uniform Commercial Code 1-308
The Claims will produce forensic evidence showing how the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION issues LETTERS OF MARQUE via California de facto Laws, Statutes, Public Policies, Codes, Rules Administrative Procedures etc., to Agencies and the Agents in turn function as the Insurgents committing hostile and warlike acts of blatantly, directly, forcible, employing intimidation, fear, threats, actions such as coercion, terrorism, racketeering, privateering under the Color of Law and Color of Right, conspiring against, abridging and depriving the Defendants, and access to the Rights and Constitutional Exemptions of the Defendants and that are Secured and Protected by Law from such actions.
1. Belligerency – the status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. The international status assumed by a state (i.e. nation) which wages war against another.
2. Belligerent – One who is hostile or combative which as a state is hostile, combative and wages war hostilities and aggression against its own citizens by a body of insurgents by which their war hostilities are presumed legalized.
3. Privateer – A vessel owned, equipped, and armed by one or more individuals, and duly commissioned by a belligerent power to make war upon the enemy, usually by preying on his commerce. A vessel is commissioned by a state or a nation by the issue of a letter of marque to its owner to carry on all hostilities, presumably according to the laws of war. Formerly a state issued letters of marque to its own subjects, and to those of neutral states as well, but a privateersman who accepted letters of marque from both belligerents was regarded as a pirate. Piracy and Privateering are Federal offences 18 USCA §-1692 et seq. See Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 1195
4. Letter of Marque – An authorization formerly granted in time of war by a government to the owner of a vessel to capture enemy vessels and goods. See Article I §-8 US Constitution.
5. War – For there to be a war a sovereign or a quasi-sovereign must engage in hostilities. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., C.A.N.Y., 505 F.2d 989,1005.
6. Piracy – Those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which if committed on land, would have amounted to a felony. Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life. 18 USCA §-1651. Piracy and Privateering are Federal offenses 18 USCA §-1692 et seq. Blacks Law Dictionary

Further potential crimes by officer:
-Title 18- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, §-241 Conspiracy against private property rights.
-Title 18- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, §-242 Deprivation of rights under color of law.
-The 4th Constitutional Amendment; Deprivation of security of the Private Property Right from government invasion.
-The 5th Constitutional Amendment Deprivation of Liberty and Private Property without Just Compensation.
-The Theft of the Personal Private Property by Taking without Just Compensation.
-The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I §-1985–Conspiracy interfering with Private Property Rights.
-The United States Code Annotated Title 18 §-1651 et seq Piracy and Privateering activities conducted on vessels at dry dock under commercial law by a body of insurgent Privateers.
-The United States Code Title 18 §-152 and §-3571 provides fine up to $500,000.00 or imprisonment for up to 5 years for the presenting of fraudulent claims, fraudulent indictment, fraudulent evidence.
-The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter II obstructing the evidence in the witnesses through the modification of language creating Federal Racketeering; Influenced and Corrupt Organizations activities extorting financial means creating economical damage point beyond recovery.
-The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter III deprivation of the evidence in the witnesses through modification of language creating acts of Federal Racketeering; Influenced and Corrupt Organizations; Terrorism; Privateering.
-The United States Code Title 42 §-1986 For knowledge and the right to stop and correct a wrong,
-The United States Code Title 28 USC §-1746 and Title 18 §-1621 Perjury and conspiring to commit perjury.
-The United States Code Title 18 §-1001 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b). Extorting private property through the modification of language.
-The United States Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 95 §-1651 Interference with commerce by threats or violence.
-Acting without establishing as a matter of record, Proper Jurisdiction over me.
-Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Upholding the "Oath of Office" and Upholding the Office of Public Trust.
-Acts of War against the United States Government Treaties and Organic Constitution Constituting Treason.
-Violation of Substantive Rights and Private Property Rights Secured and Protection by Constitutional Law.
-Employing Intimidation to affect Identity, Nationality, Birthright. Theft Using a Fiction, Artificial Person Name to Impersonate and Steal the Sovereign De Jure Identity.
Federal law 18 USC § 1961 bans engaging in a pattern of crime. When state and local officials in essence extort money, they are committing federal felonies and are in essence "racketeers" as per the law.
Under penalty of perjury, I affirm that the information contained in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. All Specific Rights are explicitly reserved, without prejudice, U.C.C. 1-308, Common Law, Law of Nations.

Signed:______________________________________ Date: ________________

State of California
County of _______________

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____
day of ____________, 20__, by________________________,
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.



"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Let us know how that works for you....

As I always say, with any of these 'try this' theories concerning driver's licenses, court room techniques, etc.... if anyone had documented proof that their theory or technique actually works, please let me (and everyone else) know because we'd love to believe you but this sort of stuff has been out the for decades and I don't know of one person who has been successful in doing any of it.

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

How do I provide court

How do I provide court documents for a case that never goes to court?
Nothing I do, or have ever done, is "jail" worthy. Telling the officer that you dont want to sign the ticket, isnt going to land you in jail, it will simply make him.her tell you that you must sign it....which becomes duress. ANY contract signed under duress is void. Returning this ticket to the police station and the court with "refused for fraud' written across it, ALSO, isnt a jail worthy offense.

I understand what you are saying, Im just adding that attempting to void out illegally applied tickets by questioning their authority, legality, etc, is what EVERY citizen should do, I would never try, or suggest doing something that might land you in jail, but I always ask questions.


Not trying to be rude here, but last summer I was pulled over and given 3 tickets. One ticket was for expired tags, another was not having my drivers license on me, and another was not having insurance paperwork on me.

I had the license and the insurance. Just not with me. But they had me on the expired tags. It was a vehicle that I hadn't driven in over three years, and I was getting it ready to sell it.

Anyway's, I did not want to sign the tickets. I asked the "officer/extortionist" what would happen if I refused to sign. He promtly told me that if I didn't sign, I was going to JAIL. How do you get around that?

let me answer that by asking

let me answer that by asking another question:
what if someone came to your house and said he would kill you and your family if you didnt sign over the deed?...the answer is, a signature under duress is void. I would have signed the ticket "UNDER DURESS, Your Name"
then, made a copy, and sent the original back to the police station, and a copy to the court, within 72 hours preferably, with a letter:

"I wish to release and terminate this contract as my signature was under duress. I declare that No portion of this contract is valid, and all attempts to act on behalf of this contract are void, and lack acceptance."

They would probably have still sent you some sort of defacto summons, and again you respond.

In contract law, there is honor and dishonor. When they present you with a "ticket", which is a bill essentially, and you dont respond with the amount, you become in dishonor. (you are NOT allowed to pay it on the spot, in most states, Ohio use to allow it)
If you are recording the conversation, it would be a good idea to ask the officer if you are allowed to settle this debt now, when he says "no" he becomes in dishonor, as you have attempted to honor his offer.

again, in contract law, each person gets 3 dishonors, before they get a judgment. For example, if I send you an invoice for $30,000, through a notary mailing service, and you ignore it, that becomes one dishonor...if I send it again, you ignore it, dishonor 2, then I send it one last time, and you ignore, I get a certificate of default, I can go to a court and get a judgment against you for that amount....same with these tickets. The ticket is 1, the notice to appear, aka "courtesy notice", or the mailed copy of the ticket, is dishonor 2, and finally the order to appear. When you show up to court, you already have a defacto certificate of default, and you are there to get your judgment.

this is a little simplified, but I hope it helps

The same hand you use....

....to fill out that form will be used to sign the ticket that the police will give you for driving without a license or it'll be the same hand you'll use to make your "one call".

go to jail on what

go to jail on what charge?

Two sections of Califoria code address this:

California Penal Code 853.5 and CVC 12805.1(e)

it says any person "arrested"..."driving without a license is NOT an arrestable offense"...may be arrested for failing to sign the citation...in other words, if you are busted do something arrestable, you can either go to jail, or sign the notice to appear.


see (e)...

I think the "one call" thing is a hollywood creation

Anytime I've been it's zero calls until you're processed into the population and then you can make as many $2-$4 per minute collect calls as you want. Just thought I'd mention that.