0 votes

Im surprised how few of you are researching this!

DO you wonder why you have no constitutional rights?

as all of us know, anyone who resides in the District of Columbia have no constitutional rights.....well,

guess what?

(keep in mind that in title 26 "United States" means "any Federal zone", ie. military base, port, D.C., Puerto Rico, Virgin islands, etc.)
(keep in mind that "resident", "citizen" or "U.S. citizen", or "U.S. Person" means a "citizen of the Federal government"

USC Title 26 7701 link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_000077...

(39) Persons residing outside "United States"
If any "citizen" or "resident" of the "United States" does not reside in (and is not found in) any "United States" judicial district, such "citizen" or "resident" shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—

in other words,
If you claim to be a "citizen" or "U.S. citizen" or "resident" on any govt. form, (which we all have) you are declaring under penalty of perjury, that you are a "citizen" of a Federal zone, and the above sec. (39) applies to you.

This means if you claim to be a "citizen" or "resident", and you live in Michigan, Ohio, Kansas, Arizona, California, Alaska, etc...according to 7701 (39) you will be treated as if you live in the District of Columbia.

It gets no clearer than this.

YOU ARE NOT A "citizen" or "U.S. citizen"

ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE

read here why you are NOT a citizen.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAN...

anyone born in one of the 50 states and residing in one of the 50 states is legally a "national" or "state national" NOT a "US National"

do nationals pay income tax? NO, even according to IRS, nationals are NOT required to file.

This is because income tax on anyone who does not live in D.C. (for the most part) is un-constitutional! This is why they say in 7701 (39), if you claim to be a "citizen" we will treat you as if you live in the District of Columbia!

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAN...

Comment viewing options

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

NEW DAY RULES

IT is only on paper, which now days is worhthless..
you-no

LEFT vs RIGHT

YEA well KEEPING a person ignorant of the law is NO excuse either..
you-no

Stop looking at the trees

And see the whole forest before you.

1st, you have the rights you're willing to demand, stand up for, and defend. Don't take my word for it, research what the US Supreme Court has to say about that.

2nd, the US Constitution grants you nothing. It was written to limit the authority of the government the people who wrote it wanted and created. The men who wrote it, agreed to it, and witnessed it are all long since dead. From a legal perspective, explain how can you possibly believe you're bound to it, please.

The whole damned system is nothing more than a bunch of people who are willing to kill you to keep their system of living off of all the productive members of society in place.

Threads like this....

keep me coming back for more.... gotta luv the DP ;)

me too

me too

Bump for today's crowd. Very informative.

Please keep adding your thoughts on this subject. Thanks.

double bump

double bump

I added a link

below Mikes' comment about losing his "drivers license" for 5 years. :)

I think many of you are NOT

I think many of you are NOT getting the point of this thread. This isnt trying to get anyone to do anything, it is merely pointing out why you are treated a certain way, and it is backed up with fact:

For example, I suggest that by one applying (asking for) for a drivers license, they are entering into a contract, and declaring that they will then follow the statutes of the code.

heres the proof

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17460.html

CVC 17460
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.

IF you dont have a license, you dont give consent for a summons.

Also, if you register your vehicles, which is NOT MANDATORY, again, you ask to sign up to give away your rights!

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17459.html

CVC 17459
"The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate
of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or
any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall
constitute the consent by 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 the
ownership or operation of the vehicle."

and just as all of the Anti Drivers license people have been saying,
the license is for employees of the state

CVC 21052
The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of
vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while
engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district,
including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions
granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

Who DOES have to register a vehicle???

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/4155.html

Registration under this code shall apply to any vehicle owned
by the United States government, the state, or any city, county, or
political subdivision of the state, except in the following
particulars:
(a) A license plate issued for a vehicle while publicly owned need
not display the year number for which it is issued, but shall
display a distinguishing symbol or letter.
(b) The registration of the vehicle and the registration card
issued therefor shall not be renewed annually but shall remain valid
until the certificate of ownership is suspended, revoked, or canceled
by the department or upon a transfer of any interest shown in the
certificate of ownership. If ownership of the vehicle is transferred
to any person, the vehicle shall be reregistered as a privately
owned vehicle and the special license plates shall be surrendered to
the department.
(c) An identification plate used for special construction,
cemetery, or special mobile equipment need not display a
distinguishing symbol or letter.

summons

A summons is not an invitation you can decline.

The passages you cite here relate to waiver of certain defenses to the way in which process is served or personal jurisdiction in matters relating to your driving. But you can't avoid the court's jurisdiction or ignore a properly served summons no matter WHAT you do.

This is just more talismanic word wrangling based on a lack of understanding of the legal system.

There ARE some circumstance in which you can challenge a court's jurisdiction, but they relate to the facts of where the "incident" took place and the like.

If you drive around your town in an unregistered vehicle with no driver's license, and get caught, I guarantee the local municipal court is going to find that it has jurisdiction.

mwhaaaaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa!

this thread is........obvious troll is obvious, i thinxs
i mean common man. we all know the income tax is unconstitutional.
we all know this man,,,,,,,,,,
the real question is..........
are you swat proof?
are you bullet proof?
are you a free mason?

well then dont resist the tax,,,,,,,1234.

just look at what happened to ed and elane brown????????????

B.R.O * M.I.K.E.

9/11 Lessons From Star Trek-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CyjD6Ulf6s&feature=channel_page

'9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0&feature=dir
B.R.O * M.I.K.E.

'Ghost Dance Me Outside …

… this police station,' he declared.

Tripping the light fantastic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m15iMQyY0tU

“During the battle of Wounded Knee (1890), in which 200 Sioux warriors, women, and children were massacred, many wore "Ghost Shirts" emblazoned with eagle, buffalo, and morning-star decorations. They believed these symbols of powerful spirits would protect them from the soldiers' bullets.
The tragedy at Wounded Knee effectively put an end to the Ghost Dance, …”

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/6029/Wolf/gdanc...

“’Worthless words’ was the description given to the Ghost Dance in 1890 by Navajo leaders.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance

Try Augmenting …

… your forms with some substance.

;-)

I like this thread:

I want to do this......I know you are right. M.L. knows your are right. I can remember reading in some of his comments that he doesn't like being locked up, and I can certainly appreciate that. Been there, done that. My problem with the whole thing is that most of the officers have absolutely no clue what the devil you are talking about and will slam your tail in the back seat of their cruiser as soon as look at you.
I have something in the works for my life that will put me in a position of not much to lose. When I am settled, I really want to learn about, and do this. I am not very good at research and don't know if I could retain this information in my head good enough to stand in front of the robe and articulate. Mike, I certainly understand your frustration. I'm with you, I get it. I don't know if I would try this for the first time in the state of MD. though.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government

"What you readin' for?"

"Anti-Intellectualism" = a Serious Problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvs2g5Nj0NI

Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica

Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica

haaaaaa

haaaaaa

Boy oh boy, being free sure requires lots of paperwork

Seems pointless to me.

it only requires a lot of

it only requires a lot of paperwork, because for the past 10 years (or longer) you, me, and everyone here have been "declaring" fraudulent info to be true!!

If from birth, you knew the law and were never tricked into getting a SS number, birth certificate, marriage license, selective service card, drivers license, w-4, w-2, 1099, passport, voter registration, etc, and instead declared your sovereignty, there would be no need for repairing your status.

This is why the amish are sovereign. They never got in this mess in the first place.

Remember Mr. Lawson, It is not mandatory to correct your status...you can stay a "citizen" of the federal government till you die...you will collect social security, wellfare, medicaid, and several other benefits of the federal government, but you will be a hypocrite if you dislike the income tax, and lack of constitutional rights, and everything else that comes with receiving those benefits by virtue of being a citizen of the federal government instead of a citizen or national of a state!

You can not expect those services without giving in to the system!

All of us here do have the "Right of Election" according to the supreme court, to decide if we wish to be governed by common law with no benefits from the country, or statutory law, and be bound by all of the statutes and acts of the UCC and every other code of the states!

"you will be a hypocrite"

I am willing to bet everyone breathing has some aspect of their life where they live in hypocrisy to what their ideals are. I find it VERY useful to seek out those places in myself, far less useful to point that finger at others. Especially others who are fighting hard for truth. I ask people to love truth, seek truth, defend truth, I do NOT ask them to be perfect.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

What difference does it make?

Find a case where any "correction of status" means diddlysquat. I don't understand how just being considered a citizen will somehow compell me to collect social security or participate in medicare or any of those things. It's ALWAYS an individual choice.
You're either doing it or your not, paperwork--one way or the other--will not change anything.
Don't you see how all the proclamations and corrections are just as meaningless as the original paperwork?
I'm not trying to sway anyone, but what is the final goal of doing this? Freedom right? How the hell does loading the government up with paperwork and bringing a bunch of attention to yourself help you achieve the goal of being free?
I'm getting close to thinking this whole thing is just a tricky way to identify a class of people for heavy oppression later.

With that said, I'm sure it's all true and billionaires probably have access to it.

Good point

How many forms does Liberty require?
If you are completing forms, you are still playing their game. Isn't that hypocritical?

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

This is all well and good

This is all well and good but the problem is the non article 3 courts do not recognize any of this stuff and you will end up in jail if you pursue this line in court.

This method is probably the safest method of stopping the payment of income tax: http://www.anti-irs.com/

-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

you MUST question the

you MUST question the jurisdiction of the courts.

failure to do so confirms jurisdiction.

http://rense.com/general85/form.htm

You've never tried that

Don't show me some crazy speeding ticket either. Walk in a courtroom and question the judge's jurisdiction over you. Hope you like bologna sandwiches and pints of milk, cause that's probaly what's for lunch in the holding cell.

A court "summons" is only an

A court "summons" is only an "invitation", if you agree to the summons, which is NOT MANDATORY you are again declaring you are in their jurisdiction.

for example:

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17460.html

"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."

You are just retarded. I'm sorry I've given you every chance

You are CLUELESS. I'm speechless right now.
Do this TONIGHT ok?
Go out to your local police department and shoot out a window of the building next door. Shoot two more windows out and put your gun down in front of you and S-L-O-W-L-Y walk away.

I just want to see if they send you an invitation to answer for it in court. If they do, come back for further instructions.

you are dumb! shooting out a

you are dumb!

shooting out a window is a LAW, we're talking about statutes, codes, acts where there is no 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.

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

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

Im NOT suggesting you can go around and break "laws" and "get away with it", What I am telling you, is that by you, having a license to drive, and registration for example, instead of just traveling with a writ of travel is maintaining a contract that basically says :I give up my rights, and will submit to your jurisdiction"

here is PROOF from california vehicle code, with links:

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17459.html
CVC 17459
"The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate
of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or
any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall
constitute the consent by 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 the
ownership or operation of the vehicle."

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/17460.html

CVC 17460
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.

how about this one:

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/4.html

CVC 4
No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect,
and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code,
but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the
provisions of this code so far as possible.

so is traveling in a car a right? see below

and this:

http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/21052.html

CVC 21052
The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of
vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while
engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district,
including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions
granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.

NOW, you find me one case (Supreme Court Case) that says that traveling is not a right.

here are some that say it is!
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
"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.
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.
"Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941).
"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 stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. - licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.)
"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.
"The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."
"Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment."Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.
"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along 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 vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).
"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).
Public roads belong to the people, since we pay for them, therefore exercising one’s liberty upon them is a natural right. The right to travel, or to locomotion, is upheld in the constitution, and actually predate the constitution;
"These are rights which existed long before our constitution, and we have taken pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land."
"Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,—to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. . . .
"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 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 JTM) 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)
"The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.
"...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.

"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:
"Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
"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 U.S. 22, 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 U.S. 436, 491.
"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.
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 driver’s license, registration or insurance, and save for criminal activities involving an injured party, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime."
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163.
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law. Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, U.S. 356 (1886)
"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-6O.
"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.

Would you like to speak to someone who fought this very battle?

I have a buddy in town, he lives this life you describe. His car quit on him one day. He called for help and he was going to walk away but his passenger said the ride would be there soon, and convinced him to stay. Well, a cop got there first. No license, no registration, and no liberty. His court date got pushed back, so he is still out, but he fully expects to go to jail over this.
I respect this guy a LOT. He knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, and he has not whined a bit about going to jail to live by his convictions. However, I cannot do it. I have my life and my reasons for the choices I make. Being ready and willing to head to jail when my car breaks down does not fit the "pick your battles" criteria for me.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

OK. Then go down there with no license plates

Have a few beers and drive around in circles in the police station parking lot. Oh, and don't tell them your name.

again, I do enjoy debating

again, I do enjoy debating with you which we have done in the past, but you are not researching anything. This is a nation of laws, not opinions:

The supreme court ruled that "traveling while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is NOT a right",

also, the police station is on private property, I do not have the right to travel on their property.

What I will do, and do everyday, is travel without a license plate, front or back, and I have a "Michigan" drivers license (Im in California)"under protest 1-308" written on it, if Im in a hurry and dont feel like messing with cops, but when I am stopped, usually for talking on the phone, I present my "Secured Party Declaration and Notice", 9/10 times the officer doesnt even bother with it, I have had officers have to call their sergeants etc, but I have ONLY 1 ticket out of 15-20 stops for talking on the phone which I won, by questioning the jurisdiction of the court, me being a licensed "driver" from Michigan (this was early on when I had no plates and gave my michigan license and the secured party declaration)

Mine is VERY similar to this, I included a Picture, and a little more info:
http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html