Vehicle Code and Driver's license--Help!
Submitted by Gnarlemagne on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 08:59
in
Most of you are familiar with the argument for driving without a license or registration, and some of you have shown the section of your state's vehicle code that shows that the license and registration laws don't apply to you.
I live in North Carolina, and I have not found in the vehicle code a similar clause. Maybe I am not interpreting the legalese properly. Could someone help me out?
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML...
Also, I figure this is a good place to post similar clauses in your state's vehicle code for the benefit of others.
»
Like everything else these
Like everything else these days, there is what the law says, and then there is the way it is. You can be 100% correct with all the court sites on your side yet end up in prison. There are people who do this but you must live with the life style you must adopt to survive it. It means being in court defending your self on a regular basis, never owning a vehicle worth more than 300 bucks, or what ever amount you can afford to absorb when they confiscate the car, and be prepared to be arrested regularly. It requires more time, education, and effort than most people can afford. Still if you want to learn it from people who have been doing for many years check out "George Gordon's School of Common Law". I learned how to handle all my own legal cases from these people and had a 90% win ratio, better than most college trained attorneys. I had to practically camp out at the law library, and it had it's rewarding moments. But I will tell you this, if I had it to do over again, I would just get the damned license and spend my time on more important issues.
------------------
Get a cool Campaign For Liberty bumper sticker or decal for your windshield.
Support Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty project. Go to --- www.CampaignForLibertyStuff.com
------------------
Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
Why Supreme Court opinions matter.
States are allowed to give you MORE freedoms than the federal government, but not less. So with that said, it is important to know some of the Supreme Court cases concerning your "right" to travel, because since the Court has ruled many times that traveling is a right, it is a violation of your right to license you. How can a state "permit" you to do something that you already are allowed to do without them? No rights can be licensed. See?
“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.
“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.
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
***These are important cases, because this is your defense in why a state cannot infringe on your right to travel by demanding you carry a license. This also goes for your vehicle. It is your private property for your right to travel and therefore the state does not have the authority to make you register your property that you rightfully own. See?
you are right on..but,it
you are right on..but,it isnt a violation to license a "driver", as a driver is defined as "a person in physical control of a commercial vehicle"
this is why we need to make a stand against these states misapplying these codes for the benefit of the fee!
Tacit Procuration. That is how it is done
Obtaining concise, meaningful answers from public officials is an unparalleled and age-old challenge. Bureaucrats, after all, view their office as the last bastion of liberty - and from this lofty perch they unashamedly claim the right to remain silent.
"A [public] servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer." Proverbs 29:19
Dilemma: How does one converse with a deaf-mute? Solution: Adopt a technique of your adversary. Remember that certified letter?
"THIS IS THE VOICE OF DOOM SPEAKING! It has been determined that you are a [taxpayer, neo-nazi, pinko, commie fag], and thus subject to [an awesome statute is inserted here], and shall [pay up, stand liable, etc.]... THIS DETERMINATION BECOMES FINAL 14 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE UNLESS WITHIN SUCH TIME A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR HEARING IS FILED WITH THIS OFFICE, SETTING FORTH YOUR OBJECTIONS IN DETAIL."
Nice choice. To do nothing admits guilt, and the penalty. But to object makes you the Plaintiff, with the burden of proof. Welcome to the proverbial rock and a hard place - craftily concocted by an agent of the Civil Law. A determination - yours - was entered by tacit procuration. Why not submit your own, to correct the record - thereby introducing a third option?
"PROCURATION. Agency, proxy; the act of constituting another ones attorney in fact. The act by which one person gives power to another to act in his place, as he could do himself." Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 1086
The world abounds with procurators - lawyers, guardians, trustees and legislators who generally obtain our EXPRESS consent. Courts and other government agencies, on the other hand, use the IMPLIED, or tacit procuration. A plea of not guilty on behalf of a mute accused by a magistrate is such an example.
"An express procuration is one made by the express consent of the parties. AN IMPLIED OR TACIT PROCURATION TAKES PLACE WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL SEES ANOTHER MANAGING HIS AFFAIRS AND DOES NOT INTERFERE TO PREVENT IT." Blacks supra, p. 1087
You can continue reading of you follow the link below
http://www.svpvril.com/vehicle.html
One cannot export Democracy at the barrel of a gun.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
You right to travel is an absolute right!
A license is for participating in an illegal activity.
Go here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/right_to_travel.html
correct, and look at
correct, and look at California Vehicle Code section 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."
arguments are important but...
the easiest way to deal with this issue (for me anyway, and I admit I have not had time to read all the posts below, I'm sure there's some good info in here) is to just get the damn license and properly reserve my rights w/the signature (UD without prejudice UCC1-207) so that I may claim and defend them if need be. there's alot of methods/arguments out there that will do nothing for you other than get you convicted and labeled by the court as a PAy exTRa idIOT (problem with arguments is that they dismiss them on technicalities even when they are valid, because they are not there to follow the law they're there to collect revenue for the state), if you get a ticket whack 'em on the head with a good motion for discovery (one that is well written will usually end it right there), you also have the right to a trial by jury no matter what the charge is, claim it, if they try to deny you your due process they are in violation of the law and you can get 'em on that...
it can be done, good example here:
http://jusbelli.com/drivers_license.html
good resources for research include the no drivers license forum on yahoo and nojurisdiction.com, and as a rule of thumb I never follow anyones methods until I have proof (notice of dismissal) that it didn't get them labeled a pay-triot or worse, a free stay at the crow-bar hotel...
just fyi, 1-207 was changed
just fyi, 1-207 was changed to 1-308 in 2004
I looked at the back of a
I looked at the back of a Michigan Registration card today...It says "The vehicle owner must sign this registration certificate before using it"
then in small font print it says:
"I certify if I operate or employ persons to operate this commercial vehicle, the operator will be knowledgeable of the Federal and State motor carrier safety regulations."
this is the only registration you can get in Michigan, and it ONLY refers to "this commercial vehicle", this is more proof, that by registering your car, you are declaring it is a commercial vehicle!
License
(17) License. – Any driver's license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under or granted by the laws of this State including:
a. Any temporary license or learner's permit;
b. The privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not such person holds a valid license; and
c. Any nonresident's operating privilege.
but operating a "commercial vehicle" is another issue since registering it was an admission that you are using it for commercial use and is subject to all these laws. under the "commercial vehicle" definition, it looks like you can take care of that by registering it out of state.
I dont get what this is?
I dont get what this is? are you saying "driving" is a privilege? if so, I agree...however, as established here on the Dailypaul, and more importantly by the courts, Driving a motor vehicle is vastly different than conveying oneself by automobile, as one is commercial and the other is private, and therefor un regulated.
you don't own your car! The state owns it.
Do You Know Who Owns Your Car?
On February 10, 1987, Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor Denise Rottero told Judge Geer how Tennessee's auto registration works.
The process begins with the "surrender" of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO) by the auto dealer to the Department of Revenue in exchange for Certificate of Title. Asked if a MSO is proof of ownership -Legal title -to the automobile. Ms. Rottero said, "Yes"
"Are you telling me that the ownership of an automobile is NOT title; it's merely evidence that title exists. Your car's legal TITLE is the MSO, which the dealer surrendered to the state. Ms. Rottero said the MSO is put on microfilm for permanent keeping, the original destroyed.
After the trial, spectators expressed shock that their personal automobiles were actually owned by the state. "No wonder state law officers stop people for no reason!" said a housewife. "If your car's got a Tennessee plate, it's theirs, and they can do anything they like to you." That's the law, but it's volutary, No one but Judge Greer has dared say that if you don't surrender your car to the state in exchange for plates, you go to jail.
Ed. Note : This is true not only for Tennessee, but for the other 49 states as well. When purchasing a new automobile, the buyer is required to sign fine print which authorized the dealer to obtain plates and registration for the vehicle. Purchaser need only to read this fine print to see that by doing this they are authorizing the dealer to act a power of attorney, and by doing so the prospective buyer is signing away his rights to that vehicle. When buying a used vehicle, the title already has been signed over to the state.
-From The Investigative Reporter, October 1996
How then does one claim real ownership to ones vehicle?
If right now the state owns my vehicle and I do not wish to continue to allow them to claim ownership, how would one go about claiming real ownership?
If there is already a forum for my answer then I apologize. I've been searching, but have not stumbled upon it yet. Please point me in the right direction. Thank you
Release and terminate your
Release and terminate your registration!
if they do not accept your release and termination, send them an affidavit, and re-claim your ownership.
umm.. why is it on my car's
umm.. why is it on my car's title, where it says "owner" it has my name?
--
"Master Blaster runs Bartertown!"
--
"Jeffy likes apples." -Jeffy
--
BUY CHINESE!®
--
Osama is your enemy not mine! Leave me out of your little spats!
I get the impression you
I get the impression you dont like this topic. The beauty of this country is that you have the right to give up your rights if you want. You can move to D.C. where the constitution doesnt apply, join the service, where you also have NO rights, and so on.
But, just because it is your opinion that everyone has to be licensed doesnt make it so.
If your church is too far away to walk, and you must take a vehicle to get there, even a horse or a bicycle, according the vehicle codes, you need to be licensed. This means you need a license to go to church. Does that seem American?
Did you apply for a license? or was it forced on you?
look at your deed to your house...it will say you are the "tennent",
Your title says you are "owner"
here is the california definition of "owner"
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/460.html
An "owner" is a person having all the incidents of ownership,
including the legal title of a vehicle whether or not such person
lends, rents, or creates a security interest in the vehicle; the
person entitled to the possession of a vehicle as the purchaser under
a security agreement; or the State, or any county, city, district,
or political subdivision of the State, or the United States, when
entitled to the possession and use of a vehicle under a lease,
lease-sale, or rental-purchase agreement for a period of 30
consecutive days or more.
Not real cut and dry huh? It doesnt say "owner is the one who owns something"
or you could get a bunch of
or you could get a bunch of people to run for state leg. on the premise of getting rid of the DMV and licensing laws, along with amending the constitution to guarantee the right to travel?
i'm against driver licensing, don't get me wrong. new jersey has millions of licensed drivers, but there ain't a damn one of them that can drive, so it proves just how pointless licensing is!
while you mention the subject, why is it you guys are ranting over something as frivolous as driver licensing? did you get yours taken away for blowing stop signs?
--
"Master Blaster runs Bartertown!"
--
"Jeffy likes apples." -Jeffy
--
BUY CHINESE!®
--
Osama is your enemy not mine! Leave me out of your little spats!
The prescient aspect of this discussion...
is not about skill,"..there ain't a damn one of them that can drive...", but about permission. The Constitution establishes that the government recognize an individuals aprioir right to freedom of travel along the byways. However, in a ruse to collect revenue, the states have mislead, through legal language, individuals into asking permission (licensure) to do that which they can already do without the state's, or anyother's permission. In effect the ruse creates an adhesion contract in which you resolve to relinquish your right to free travel and accept permission to drive. The state accomplishes this ruse by having individuals voulenteer, agains their clear understanding, that the purpose of their travels are not personal, but solely for commercial purpose.
This discussion is important because all rights, no matter how seemingly small, are equally important. The means by which one discovers Liberty cannot be defined; and all avenues to that discovery should be closely scrutinized and understood.
If you find this topic flustering or worthless, I'd suggest that you go DRIVE down to the movie theater and waste your time in some other way. If not, some research time at your local law library might help licudate the topic to your liking.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
The constitution already
The constitution already guarantees the right to travel!
and this has been upheld by the courts:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"...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, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
and look at this:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. Driving means making money from the road. we are NOT drivers, we do NOT need a license to transport ourselves.
how is the drivers license frivolous? It is a fundamental right to travel from one place to another without permission from the government. I personally have never been arrested, in jail, charged with a crime in any manner, and still I know that the 'requirement' of a license to go from one place to another is erroneous to say the least.
All of our rights are slowly being turned into privileges and sold back to us through a license. Now I admit, that there are more important issues, but to clear this issue is as important as property tax, income tax, or mandatory vaccines as far as Im concerned.
All of which are violations of our sovereignty!
keep on peeling the onion.
A few thoughts on the subject.
NC § 20‑7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
The Division shall not issue an identification card, learners permit, or drivers license to an applicant who fails to provide the applicant's valid social security number.
Then how can it apply to someone without or no claim to a SS#? We are conditioned to register with the state instead of claiming our right to travel. (it's easier to claim the SS# then to claim the right to travel, only because that is what we are taught)
NC § 20‑57. Division to issue certificate of title and registration card.
(h) Certificates of title need not be renewed annually, but shall remain valid until canceled by the Division for cause or upon a transfer of any interest shown therein.
Why can't we just make public record that it is ours?
What if you already have a SS#?
What can you do if you already have a SS# and you currently have a license? Do you have to wait until it expires to be free of the contract?
the legal way to close a
the legal way to close a contract is by using the phrase "release and terminate"
I am in the long process of releasing and terminating my SS number...I just received my letter from Social Security Administration telling me it will be 26 bucks to get a photocopy of the original contract.
Please keep us informed of
Please keep us informed of your progress. A (free) blog with the letters filed, responses, costs, timeline would be useful for everyone here. Will they refund the social security taxes?
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
nice find
nice find
Here in Washington
I know a guy who had his kid take the driver's exam and get confirmation he passed, then take the test and leave. His kid drives around with his proof of competency and nothing else in his glove-box. Good 'ol Chuck knows what it is to be a RESPONSIBLE Sovereign. We can accomplish the goal of keeping the roads safe without the Fascist show-your-papers status quo. Just because the system IS does not mean there isn't another way.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Anybody Got a VA Link?
Are there any Virginians that have found a link to get the VA motor vehicle code?
Roanoke, Virginia
http://www.facebook.com/Roanokers4RonPaul
http://law.onecle.com/vir...
http://law.onecle.com/virginia/
Thanks
You're the best!
Roanoke, Virginia
http://www.facebook.com/Roanokers4RonPaul
I wonder if there is a way
I wonder if there is a way to get out of renewing tags for cars. It is such a rip off... but we got to keep them non productive dmv employees employed..pfffft..
http://www.meetup.com/RP2012GrandJunctionCO
you have the Right to travel
you have the Right to travel by whatever means, including walking, roller skates, automobile etc.
you give up that right by applying for license, and registering vehicles. No one ever forced you to get those things, we choose to.
http://muckrakerreport.com/id18.html