A thread in which we "talk" about our right, as American Sovereign Citizens, to Travel by your self-propelled horseless-carriages. Your right to travel extends to automobiles. You do not need a license to Travel. You DO need a License to Drive/Operate Motor Vehicles.
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, ...it is NOT a REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code “Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation o profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles” “a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.” and; Not the type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tag is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. And;
“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.
“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. And;
Aaron Price
Please stop making these threads. You're embarrassing yourself
Sage
Jackson Adams
“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
FAQS, FACTS and COMMON MISTAKES ECT AKA """TL;DR""" of older threads
>Its an old precedent! Does not matter. The older the better and more valid in court of law in America. Look it up before shitposting.
>Its a STATE precedent These are fine and may be applied in any state. All founded precedents can be referenced from any state at any time period as a means of binding on or persuading the court to agree to your case
>The case was about X Depending on context, it may or may not matter depending on what the paragraphs the sentence being quoted is from. Knowledge of its original case and reading it is 100% suggested to anyone wanting to use it in arguement. It also has to be deemed on lawful precedent.
Wyatt Moore
>What is a Motor Vehicle A motor vehicle is defined and backed by these precedents; Title 18 USC 31, 26 CFR 301.6323(h)-1. Any judge setting another definition for "Motor Vehicles" basing a court ruling without his attention being drawn to them had made an UN-reasonable ruling that is immediately dismissed in court. Aka Your judge made a mistake in his ruling because he was ignorant of them. "REGISTERED self-propelled vehicle" "(6)Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo." (6) Motor vehicle.—The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. >motor vehicle is interchangeable with automobile! SC Ruled this! That judge ruled that particular instance upon unfounded precedence. The definition of "motor vehicle" was well defined in our federal LAWS. In LAW Motor Vehicle has a STRICT definition.
David Cooper
Title 18 USC 31 is a LAWFUL DEFINITION NOT MERELY SC QUOTES. Title 18 USC 31>flimsy SC quotes "A precedent does not bind a court if it finds there was a lack of care in the original "Per Incuriam"" "Title 18 of the United States Code is the main criminal code of the federal government of the United States.[1] It deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure." >the main criminal code Motor Vehicles, as defined in Title 18 is "(6) Motor vehicle.—The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."
That is an irrefutable law that can not be over ruled by local and state judges.
Nathaniel Ortiz
>The police have the right to detain you for questioning. Only on probably cause, if it is unfounded the case is dismissed as it is in violation to your rights. [1] It is of course true, as respondent maintains, that the provocation required to permit a police officer to temporarily detain a person for questioning is not the same as that required for a valid arrest or a lawful search (People v. Mickelson, 59 Cal. 2d 448, 450 [30 Cal. Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658]). Nevertheless, the right of a police officer to stop a motorist or detain a pedestrian for questioning is not without constitutional restriction. The applicable rules were succinctly summarized by Mr. Justice Tamura in Williams v. Superior Court, 274 Cal. App. 2d 709, 711-712 [79 Cal. Rptr. 489], as follows: "Thus, although circumstances short of probable cause to arrest may justify an officer's act in stopping and temporarily detaining a motorist or pedestrian for questioning, there must be some suspicious or unusual circumstance to justify even this limited invasion of a citizen's privacy. (People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe, 62 Cal. 2d 92, 96 [41 Cal. Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706]; People v. Henze, 253 Cal. App. 2d 986, 988 [61 Cal. Rptr. 545]; People v. Perez, 243 Cal. App. 2d 528, 531 [52 Cal. Rptr. 514].)
An Individual carrying a Driver's License, or, Driver,(an Individual under any class of license to operate motor vehicles) is commercial. You may not drive or operate any Motor Vehicle as a Commercial Driver
Joseph Edwards
Set your definitions, your precedents, ect in the beginning if taken to court over the unconstitutional enforcing of a permit on your right to Travel. Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
You can not and will not find a case that will prove me wrong. I have the right to operate my private automobile on public highwaystreets as an unlicensed/unregistered Traveler. I do not need a permit to travel. I am found on no grounds to be guilty of endangering the public by on the grounds of operating a private selfpropelled automobile as a means of my private travel.
Try to keep the shitposting down this time. Damn thread is always a mess, and remember your words, "sweeties".
Lincoln Bennett
The only one embarrassing is you.
Camden Sanchez
>he is literally this autistic lmao
Leo Wood
SUPER SUPER TRAVELER IM SUPER TRAVELER
Cooper Murphy
KEK
Gavin Johnson
>I have the right to operate my private automobile on public highwaystreets as an unlicensed/unregistered Traveler. I do not need a permit to travel. then do it, mr knowitall
Jayden Young
I can't tell if this is unironic or not.
Chase Cruz
:^) Why don't you prove I'm wrong based on our established laws user, or is this a bit too heavy for you and you are not ready for another round of ass raping?
Zachary Cox
It ironic there are people arguing against their right. If thats what you mean.
Blake Hughes
>three days and the autistic sovereign law faggot still cannot show a single case where the unlicensed 'operator' of an unregistered 'automobile' won lmao
Joshua Cooper
Point me to one where one lost.
Josiah Bennett
>cluster fuck of out of context quotes taken from cases with zero relevancy to your bullshit >"im undeniably correct! youre wrong, everyone in the country is wrong! im so smart for knowing muh freedumbs!" L M A O
Lucas Wilson
>no argument Typical Commercial Cuck proud of his privilege.
Cameron Foster
>he cant come up with anything LMAO, you suck hard kid
Camden Jackson
>damage control btw whats the point of wasting all this time in your mothers basement if you dont even have the balls to do it? because you know you cant, lmao!
Josiah Collins
see and Was Title 18 USC 31is a collection of a description of LAW and LEGAL DEFINITIONS. And its not gone, still valid. You're the one who's being retarded.
Carson Bell
But neither can you? :^) A lack of a court case and law is not indicator of illegality.
Jaxson Kelly
Rangeban Americans
David Miller
oh wow now i know what motor vehicle means :^)
>three days and the autistic sovereign law faggot still cannot show a single case where the unlicensed 'operator' of an unregistered 'automobile' won lmao
Levi Ortiz
>three days and commercial cucks are still unable to prove i am traveling my self propelled automobile by illegal means as long as i am not a commercial driver
Carson Roberts
youre the one making these threads, burden of proof is on you :^)
>A lack of a court case and law is not indicator of illegality "pls pls believe me even though i dont have any proof you can use an unregistered car on public roads withour a license!"
LMAO, are you this desperate because you arent allowed to get a license because of your diabetes and chronic ibs? LMAO
John Green
>literally damage controlling this hard >literally cannot prove his claims LMAO
show me a c ourt case where someone did that and got away with it :^) >you literally cant
Hunter White
I've posted plenty founded on precedence in my opening posts. And state SC orders are a valid means of precedent in ALL states.
Zachary Wilson
*precedents
Aiden Morris
>UUHH DUURRR HURRR THERE'S NO CASE SAYING I CAN SNEEZE IN PUBLIC SO THAT MEANS SNEEZING IN PUBLIC IS ILLEGAL
europoors on full damage control
Adam Walker
>I've posted plenty founded on precedence in my opening posts and none of them are about an unlicensed person using an unlicensed car on public roads and getting away with it. keep trying, and maybe post another case where it explicit states that the city can permit use of private vehicles as long as there are no arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions? LMAO
Xavier Sanchez
LMAO, youve literally hit rock bottom now
>still cant prove his bullshit >still doesnt have the balls to test it for real LMAO
Mason Reed
>explicit states that the city can permit your right to travel cannot be permitted
try reading.
Ryder Harris
>your right to travel cannot be permitted unreasonably or arbitrarily try reading more than just what you want to see :^)
Luis Cook
I hope the retards argueing against the OP realize in the court the more you are backed back precedent, legal deffinitions, ect is how you win court in america.
The threads read like an extremely autistic and clusterfuck of a court case, but he is winning and better yet hes winning on an objective basis.
As it still stands based on the threads, and especially the opening posts ITT. Stay btfo for eternity bootlickers.
THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST PRIVATE SELF PROPELLED TRAVEL BY PRIVATE NON REGISTERED AUTOMOBILES ON PUBLIC ROADS IN AMERICA
Ryan White
Its' pretty sad really. They either aren't american or extreamly ignorant of their own rights and legal systems and apparently go through loops to justify the taking away of them.
Xavier Ward
Holy shit. Mad mods bump locked the thread. OP IS TOO DANGEROUS LMAO
Noah Johnson
Ahahaha Make a new thread OP they mad.
Austin Ortiz
Hm... Considering.. But it was a pretty decisive victory based on precedent. The user's argument that there is no law allowing the topic of the thread and thus it is illegal(even though there is evidence of precedent being in the favor of the OP) would not hold water within our court of law as it is not backed by precedent, laws, legal definitions, ect ect
To put simply, he would be invalidated in court.
Ayden Walker
Whats the point of you being here if you haven't been able to win any arguments based on precedent and legal definitions? Do you enjoy it when i absolutely rape you asshole with this amount of information?
You're backed into your sad litter corner and you will remain there, cuck.
Jaxson Russell
What the fuck. This user is legitimately onto something.
Isaiah Gray
MODS CONFIRMED TO BE TRIGGERED AMERICAN RIGHTS RELATED TO AUTOMOBILE USEAGE
user PULLING ALL THE STOPS
Juan Foster
Speed limits should be doubled
Isaiah Robinson
Then appeal to your city council with a petition. The City has the right to decide things like that, not to infringe on a constitutional right.
Ayden Diaz
Basically, they are on grounds that don't violate the constitution if they decide their speed limits, certain laws and ordinances basically.
You're right to travel privately by a self-propelled automobiles for personal business is a constitutional right is objectively backed by precedent, constitution and laws
You're privileged to be a Driver(employed(by the DMV) individual of a commercial vehicle) of a Motor Vehicle(referring to T-18). This is also backed by precedent, legal definitions and law.
You can do anything you want with a privilege, but not a right.
One would have to argue driving automobiles has become unsafer when this is an objectively false stance and can be proven with the comparison of the original Model T and current(00s+) automobiles. Anyone familar with cars would know this.Faster=/=more dangerous when speedlimits are a thing. You can not travel legally in top speed on public road in most modern cars.
Elijah Carter
That was a lot of hurdles to jump through just to come to the conclusion that you litterly have no proof you can drive without a license in a modern car.
Kayden Ramirez
Because the government owns the highways and public roads they alone determine the requirements and grant the permissions needed to operate a motor vehicle on them.
You do not need a license, registration insurance or anything to operate a vehicle on private property.
You have a right to travel but also an obligation to pay taxes for the roads and thats what licences and registration are really there for.
Ethan Butler
Move to California. Plenty of illegals drive around. You'll see how fun it is to have non registered and insured drivers when they hit you and take off. Police can't do anything because of their "sanctuary" status.
Jack Kelly
you know these laws you quoted are form the 1800s right. they no longer apply like trying to quote the Constitution it no longer applies. There have been new laws written and new court cases tried. laws are always changing. Right now the USA is still in a war on terror so there are even more laws that cancel out previous laws. The only way your driving without a licence is if your an illegal Mexican in California and even that law changed after prop 187 and the new ab-60. Now they just get licence d insurance for free.
Jacob Roberts
>faggots that don't know the US is a common law jurisdiction
The historical and active enforcement of speed limits and driver's licenses is enough precedent for any court in the United States to tell you to fuck off.
>b-but muh specious interpretation of the constitution
Juan Carter
>Plenty of illegals drive around. You'll see how fun it is Yeah no shit. Nigger spics in my country isn't "fun"
You are a DESPERATE bootlicker if this argument is what you're resorting to
Adam Wood
Ya actually you need to register your off road vehicle in Oregon to drive on your own property. Then in fire season you get a ticket if you ride it around on your dirtbike track that isn't a designated Rd or driveway. This is the governments land your just leasing it from them why do you think you pay taxes.
Parker Reed
I pay taxes through other means, my registrations at the DMV is not the strict mean by which a government funds its public highway streets. Most of the taxation from me via DMV is to overhead to nerds cucks on cumputers, not building or maintaining public roads or law enforcement. Tickets are. You may still be penalized with a ticket but you may not have your right infringed. They do not have a right to enforce a permit on my right to travel by self propelled automobiles on public roads on the ground it is a right backed by some of our oldest, and even in recent, precedents known in law.
>you know these laws you quoted are form the 1800s right. Factually incorrect. Older precedents hold more viability in the court of law.
>There have been new laws written and new court cases tried Cite them.
Zachary Martin
It's not about boot licking it's about being nonconfrontational the Bundy ranch tried to fight the government and look how that's working out for them. they were aquited in the Oregon case but still in jail waiting trial for 2014 NV case. just how much time in jail and money for lawyers and fines do you have to fight the government?
Jose Perry
By what SCOTUS precedent was that justified as constitutional? Or did that faggot let the state rape his constitutional right like that?
Funny thing when you get pulled over the cop doesn't have to cite shit and has full legal authority to use his decretion when enforcing the law. So he can let you break the law or he can arrest you for whatever he wants throw you in jail and let the prosicuter figure out what to charge you with. You asma citizen don't even have a right to protest. free speech is a group right in a organized event. try standing on a sidewalk with a sign and see how quick you end up in jail. you are not free but you can hide out in the woods and pretend. until the Government comes knocking.
John Ross
>Wow don't you see you have to put an effort into defending your rights? Put the dicks back into your mouth user. Its ok most americans pay 150$+ a month in a mandatory insurance fees ect to DRIVERS(see; legal definition of DRIVER) when closing their accounts and unregistered their vehicles could save them tens of thousands upon thousands in their lifetime >Everybody! Have another dick for your asshole! >Who wants to bother making a coherent case because i sure hate Liberty!
Lucas Reyes
>cop I don't worry about defending my rights to a cop, retard. Find your balls sailor.
Sebastian Richardson
You must live in a shitty flyover state. I'm happy for you that you are not around law enforcement try driving without a licence and insurance in a city now your dealing with federal state and local municipality laws. we are all fucked with no freedoms but because a few people made videos arguing constitutional law with some Podunk cop who didnt want to waste his time doesn't make them right.
Alexander Martinez
Barney is an excellent children's show
Isaiah Flores
The laws are contradictory as usual one says you need registration for private land the other says you don't. but if your in county city townsip they also have laws about the operation of motor vehicles. for instance I'm not even allowed to rice a dirtbike on my 5 acres in city limit on my own property.
Does my OHV need to be registered (identified)? If you are operating it on lands open and accessible to the public for OHV recreation, whether public or privately owned, it must have either a highway license or an OHV sticker. OHV stickers include "Green Stickers," "Red Stickers," and California Nonresident OHV Use Permits. The terms "registration" and "identification" are interchangeable.
Are there any exemptions from the Green or Red Sticker requirements? Yes. The CVC contains a variety of exemptions including racing events on a closed course, motorized wheelchairs, tractors used for agriculture, golf carts on golf courses, vehicles owned by a non-resident which are registered in their home state, and vehicles owned by government agencies. (13)
Dylan Murphy
I bet op printed out a free world global citizen passport too and thanks he has a right to travel through other countries.
