Click on the following link to access Dr. Dan's Freedom ForumClick Here to access Dr. Dan's Video Presentations
Right to Travel
This is being presented as an example of what one CAN do if one feels there is not a way to be free from the misuse of power by City, County or State government. This was developed as a response to the false jurisdiction assumed by our government at all levels. It is effective only when used as part of a complete package of affidavits and a comprehensive removal of the Strawman name jurisdiction which needs to be challenged in writing as well as other forms designed to completely remove ANY assumption of an adherence to any adhesion contracts or assumptions of jurisdiction based on your signature on the same.
This cover letter must be included as part of all other documents in this mailing. I am responding to your mailings dated (dates here). Your mailings are improperly addressed and the actions described therein are unlawful and fall outside of any direct or tangential “jurisdiction” implied or otherwise. Your actions are unconstitutional and as such are unlawful under Natural & International Law, the Laws of Nations and the Constitution of the united states of America. To disallow the right to travel by automobile is a violation of the Constitution and falls outside of any assumed “jurisdiction”. There is no authority for the unlawful suspension of constitutional rights. Further, you have no authority to make any such determination. Your actions CANNOT be ignored. As such herein is my response.
There is no authority in law for any State Department of Transportation to create, set, enforce, or prosecute law, or deliver ultimatums to individual American citizens. Pennsylvania Vehicle code Section 1786(d) is being misapplied to unlawfully include American citizens. These codes are unclearly written and are for COMMERCIAL USE OF THE ROADS ONLY. The mandate in Art. I, Section 8, Part 3, of the Constitution, “to regulate commerce… among the several States” was included so one state could not burden another with levies or taxes, etc, not as a blank slate for manipulation of federal power. Opinion can be manipulated to express everything we do as having an effect on interstate commerce. To allow this to become law is preposterous. The right to travel clearly falls outside this area or “jurisdiction”. This lawful right to travel is reinforced in Thompson V. Smith 154 SE 579
“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city [or State] may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he/she has [inherently] under the right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’.”
This right is further supported in Chicago Motor Coach V. Chicago, 169 NE 22
“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his/her property in the ordinary course of his/her business or pleasure,…”
American citizens, simply seeking “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” through travel must not have that right removed BY ANYONE, without “due process” of law.
As stated by Mr. Justice Sutherland in 1926:
“It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, … seeks to strip the citizens of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold. . . . If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner; compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.”
Further it is stated that;
“Private interests are to be evaluated under the due process clause of the fourteenth Amendment, not in terms of labels or fictions, but in terms of their true significance and worth.”
William W. Van Alstyne - Harvard Law Review, Vol. 81:1439
What’s clear is that American citizens have a right to travel by the standard conveyance of the times.
–“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among (not over) Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” -- Declaration of Independence.
This power does not descend from government, it descends:
This idea of rights occurring in this order is supported by our founding documents, wherein:
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – 9th Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States (discretion) respectively, or to the people (at their discretion).” – 10th Amendment
The right to travel has also been reinforced in briefs, affidavits and notices included as part of this mailing. You must adhere to this LAWFUL request. You must lawfully respond or face default. If you should default and not LAWFULLY respond, your non-response or inaction will be considered acquiescence. I am under NO legal obligation to notice you further.
This information is being presented to you without prejudice or malicious intent. It is given as a courtesy and done so lawfully. If you refuse to respond properly within ten working days from the time of receipt of this correspondence you will be in default and no further legal notice will be given. You will forfeit all right to defense of any kind and any violation may be prosecuted under federal law for crimes, including but not limited to, Title 18, §241, 242. You MUST respond properly to this request. The request is lawful and MUST NOT be ignored. You have TEN DAYS to respond.
Your Name Here
c/o Your Street Address
Your Town, Your State Republic (No Abbreviations)
P.S. – Return address must be copied EXACTLY as written. If there is ANY error in your response, it will be considered willful and UNLAWFUL and will be refused for cause and returned to you unopened. This requirement must not be ignored.
Your Name Here
I reviewed your link at crimesanddefense.com/history.html and found it to be pure garbage (and gibberish). It talks about ENGLISH COMMON LAW but has nothing to do with the common law as practiced by our founding fathers from 1787 - present. The only thing I agreed with was what was quoted at the END of the piece:
Gordon, Robert, Critical Legal Histories, 36 Stanford L. Rev. 57 (1984).
Noonan, that was a quick review to very extensive material. And therein lies our weaknesses. Did you go all the way back to the 1000s. American is not the only Common Law country. And yes, common law is relative to, usage and customs. But it didn't just pop up in America. There may be material in there that is not agreeable to you or me personally, but when it is based in fact and history, how you interpret, I guess is the end result on how you will use it.
My point is this, Tyranny is not a new concept. The usurpation of authority has been a pattern throughout WORLD HISTORY. What made America so unique was it's People. The love of "their Creator", their country, family, freedom, liberty, fairness, equality (with a few exceptions, which were later somewhat corrected).
Today Americans, IMO, have lost their way. And not by accident. This was a very calculated plan by a few wacked out people, going back, all the way back to the birth of America. The more we give them, knowingly or un-knowingly, the more "they" will take. And we are precariously close to giving away, let me repeat that, GIVING away, the last shred of freedom we have. Sad really.
It would seem that a 'job' begins when you 'clock in' not while driving on the way to work. I would say that People are NOT subject to contracting with the state under these circumstances.
Great answer Carla ; while I'm driving to work I'm definitely not working .
With some exceptions most citizens do not get paid for their "traveling to work" time, whether it be an hourly or mileage remuneration. So the license would not be needed in this instance as you are traveling for pleasure, until you get to your job, depending on how well you like your job/boss/co-workers, of course.
The DMV is a private company & not Government
An argument for a right to travel using public roads from the Declaration of Independence(life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is always a sound one. However, there is the free rider problem if someone doesn't pay their fair share of the costs for making and maintaining the roads. The present system is costly and unfair, so it is necessary to establish one's sovereignty using an affidavit. Maybe the affidavit should include a public policy for financing the roads and establishing their jurisdiction.
Not necessary Steve,
Gasoline taxes pay for the roads, not license fees.
That is right Morton. Fuel taxes are supposed to go for road repairs etc. The DMV is a revenue creating private company like the IRS. They are not Government & operate in statutes & codes & not laws.
Driver license fees do not fund the building and maintaining of roads, but they are an integral part of legitimatizing the system. The day will come when I will be pulled over by a "law enforcement officer" and he will ask to see my driver's license, registration and proof of insurance and instead I will show him my self made laminated ID with my affidavit declaring my sovereignty. I will then explain to him that I do not need a driver's license because of this. After he gets done laughing he is going to say 'say that to the judge' and write me a ticket. Of all people the judge SHOULD be the most knowledgeable about law and be a man of righteousness. As you know this is not the case. Many of the concepts conveyed in the CC such as allodial land title, Constitution for the united states of America vs Constitution of the United States of America, sovereign American under the Bill of Rights vs subject citizen under the 14th Amendment SHOULD be recognized in a court and have significance. To an uninformed judge or jury these truths alone will not carry the day in court. So when crafting my affidavit I have to think in terms of what is going to work in court.
Working on it Steve,
But it starts with you knowing the exact thing to say at each step, starting with the traffic stop the way you have described and following through into the building they call Court. You must always remember that the paperwork is just the beginning. There are very specific steps to take, or not take, that you must know and be responsible for along the way.
Not the least of which is never enter beyond that half wall they call the BAR in the room they call the Courtroom. The second of which is to ask for a Court of Record first, demand the witnesses and victims appear to testify against you, and when they cannot produce these, CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION of the "Court", by saying "I now challenge jurisdiction". Once challenged, jurisdiction must be proven before the "Court" may proceed any further.
If this falls on deaf ears, at least you have a court of record you can retrieve a couple days later as proof that your rights were violated and you can go after the judge's bond as described by Wayne Bachman. This is by no means a complete guide to success as each case and judge's responses will likely be completely different depending on the situation and the judge's understanding of and willingness to follow the "Law".
As I have not finished putting this together, I cannot guarantee anything yet. I can tell you this, that if we don't try we will never succeed.
I am thinking of an overall strategy from beginning to end that is centered on going after a judge's bond. I have done an internet search on Hartford Van Dyke and his method did work on a couple of occasions, but the article I read was unclear whether this was before or after his incarceration. If before I'm thinking that adjustments have been made to prevent his method from working again. This is uncharted waters for me and I am still exploring, but like you said we have to try to succeed.