Right to Travel - Driving is a Profession - Forum 2.0 - Constitution Club

Right to Travel

Driving is a Profession

There shouldn't be any confusion on this issue, but as we are always getting new members, I feel it prudent to remind EVERYONE of the information we have posted on this subject.

No offense, the confusion does exist; in the u.S. as a whole. The Patriot Community; at least on this site should have already been educated on the subject of travelling without a license. But just in case you missed them I present the following for your perusal:

If that's not enough to satisfy anyone, you can always go see Driving is a Profession, posted in Public Comments & Discussions or even check out how to defend this right of Travel by going to the Guru himself, Rich Iverson.

You can also check out Right to Travel from Keith.

I think it is prudent to include a link to Rule of Law Radio with Randy Kelton to help iron out your procedures.

It is important to understand that all the trial courts that have authority over sovereigns have been closed since the 1950's. The only courts that have jurisdiction are judicial branch [ common law ] courts.

The current courts are all legislative branch [ statutory ] courts.

The gov acts as the plaintiff in its own name in all things in these courts. They do not represent the people but only the interest of the particular legislative body.

These courts have full authority over 'citizens of the United States' / US citizens / 14th amendment citizens. If you are not such a person, then via a jurisdictional challenge, the first move is to deny the plaintiff has standing because you deny being a 'citizen of the United States'.

Even if you are, they do not dare present the proof. Absent that, the judge commits a crime if he allows the case to move forward. If the judge does, the judgement can be attacked with a writ of error on the grounds the plaintiff never entered proof of standing into the record and absent that, the court knowingly moved forward without authority / jurisdiction.

The case history and the written law is very clear about this.

Replies

1juwmyipthhs5 August 15, 2015 8:57

All laws apply to 'citizens of the Untied States'. It has never been ruled that the 14th secures the common law right to use the public highways for motor vehicle travel of any kind. Thus, under the claim that everyone is a 14th amendment subject, commercial laws are being imposed upon the non-commercial activities of our every day lives. This is the little secret that courts will not discuss for fear of rebellion since not everyone is a 'citizen of the United States'.
- 1t86gqh56um92 > 1juwmyipthhs5 October 8, 2017 5:44
  
  Sorry Bill I am not an american citizen. I may have claimed such once upon a time, but that was in my ignorance. I don't even have a bond/birth certificate. I do claim American National status but not the slave called citizen.
  - 1juwmyipthhs5 > 1t86gqh56um92 October 8, 2017 9:29
    
    American National is a totally different form of citizenship.
    
    One of the territories or possessions has their citizens listed on their passports as 'American National'. No one under direct fed jurisdiction has access to the common law rights associated with state-only citizenship.
    
    The highest level of citizenship is state-only. Such people are constitutionally exempt from almost all fed legislation and 80% of current state legislation. Here is something I discovered: there are no longer any trial courts with the constitutional authority to hear a case involving a state-only citizen. There were all closed back in the 1950's.
    
    Today the official gov policy [ communist policy ] is to impose 14th amendment citizenship upon everyone without regard for their true constitutional status. This means the gov is in a declared war upon state-born whites.
    - 22towhgimqi9g > 1juwmyipthhs5 October 8, 2017 11:33
      
      I would only say, YES
      
      The war HAS been declared. Now what are we going to do about it?
      
      Just Say No?
      - 1juwmyipthhs5 > 22towhgimqi9g October 8, 2017 20:44
        
        It is important to understand that all the trial courts that have authority over sovereigns have been closed since the 1950's. The only courts that have jurisdiction are judicial branch [ common law ] courts.
        
        The current courts are all legislative branch [ statutory ] courts.
        
        The gov acts as the plaintiff in its own name in all things in these courts. They do not represent the people but only the interest of the particular legislative body.
        
        These courts have full authority over 'citizens of the United States' / US citizens / 14th amendment citizens. If you are not such a person, then via a jurisdictional challenge, the first move is to deny the plaintiff has standing because you deny being a 'citizen of the United States'.
        
        Even if you are, they do not dare present the proof. Absent that, the judge commits a crime if he allows the case to move forward. If the judge does, the judgement can be attacked with a writ of error on the grounds the plaintiff never entered proof of standing into the record and absent that, the court knowingly moved forward without authority / jurisdiction.
        
        The case history and the written law is very clear about this.
  - 22towhgimqi9g > 1t86gqh56um92 February 5, 2019 8:14
    
    Patrick,
    
    It's ok to use the term American National Citizen. It is not correct to use the term citizen. You are correct in stating that you are not a (14th Amendment) citizen.
    
    But if you are an American National you ARE a Citizen, but not a citizen. Changing ANY part of a word is license to change the meaning of the word. So Citizens ARE NOT citizens.
    
    Hope that clears it up a little for you.
    - 1juwmyipthhs5 > 22towhgimqi9g February 5, 2019 11:33
      
      Clear as mud. The problem is that there is more than one type of citizen so it is important to deny the obvious presumption. When you are being processed in a legislative branch court, the presumption is: 1] you are a 'citizen of the United States because such courts lack authority over state-only citizens. or 2] we are under communist fed military occupation and the constitutions and the rights they secure have been suspended.
      
      You can deny we are under fed military occupation, which the judge will happily agree with. Expect back lash when you cut the other leg out from under him by denying being a 'citizen of the United States'.
      
      These corrupt judges like to argue the case on the part of the gov. Don't let them because it is illegal unless we are under military occupation.
      - 22towhgimqi9g > 1juwmyipthhs5 February 9, 2019 6:10
        
        I'm sure you're familiar with Judge Anna Von Reitz.
        
        However, you may not have heard of Patrick Devine, (now deceased), and his step by step process to secure your American National State Citizenship and the unlocking of the "securities held in due course" in the IMF in YOUR NAME.
        
        Google him.
1juwmyipthhs5 October 8, 2017 20:47

When the judge ignores the law and moves forward, he is ripe for the perfect question. Accused moves to have the following question answered. Since the judge is moving the case forward absent authority, is the judge making a personal declaration of war against me?

This reply was deleted.