1WTMF  wrote: 

RaymondKarczewski wrote

 Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:29 pm
 
1WTMF   >    Raymond: don't you recall that letter that you posted from the DA regarding the answers to your questions about drivers licenses and automobiles? In the event that you forgot I am attaching it here. As you can see he answers your questions. Just because you dont agree with it doesnt mean that it isnt true or that it doesnt pertain to you.

rk:  He certainly does not answer my question.  As a disinformation agent, you are attempting a misdirection here. 

rk:  The fact is that TIM THOMPSON, acting as a "fictional" District attorney for the "fictional" County of Josephine serves and implements the "Color of Law" (Not Law) regulations and policies (police powers) imposed on all those engaged in commerce while using the Oregon Roads for gain, along with those have been schnookered into waiving their rights to Travel in return for government permission to
" drive" along with all other who fall into the "black hole" category of 14th Amendment Citizens who are presumed to be subject (slaves)  to all of the rules, regulations and legislation of the Corporate Agency, masquerading as "color of law."  None of these satanic, lawyerly  terms apply to a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man who is not subject to the Corporation over whom, fictional government has JURISDICTION OVER.  

rk:  That is the question of Law that has STRUCK THE GOVERNMENT DUMB!!

rk     I am not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, nor a corporate member of the private State of Oregon, Inc. or Josephine County Corporation.  Therefore, such corporate administrative rules, regulations, and legislation do not apply to non-corporate natural persons who stand in Common Law and in full legal capacity as one of the sovereign people.  The law states: "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.  He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."  CRUDEN v NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. 

1WTMF   >    One other thing...it is very funny how you are so big into this UCC stuff even though it is a bunch of laws and rules created by man.

rk:  I use THEIR OWN LAW to expose them in their disregard for THEIR OWN LAW.  Pretty much like how I mirror you when you attempt to pull off one of your disinformation misdirections.  Hell, isn't it???  There can be no argument when such clarity of corruption is brought into focus.

1WTMF   >  Why are those laws good enough for you to follow but not other laws such as drivers licenses??? It is also very funny that your flukie GMac49 won't even completely follow your guidance as he still has his license plates. Obviously he finds some fault to your so called "truth".

rk:  Its called Free Will.  Free men have it.  Slaves do not!

rk:  When it comes to understanding and the clear lack of connection between you and I in these silly disinformation encounters of yours, , it is because you are a puddle wader while your are attempting to take on an ocean swimmer.  Come back when you've gained the spiritual  capacity that now eludes you beyond the manipulative " letter of the word" level.  .

rk:  My proof is my liberty and freedom answering you in the comfort of my home  even though the JURISTIC PERSON was convicted in two Trials.   Your level or grasp of law allows you to manipulate conversations via the letter of the Word level,   What is absent is your deep understanding of  that of which you speak. 

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Communication between Josephine County Oregon District Attorney Timothy R. Thompson and Raymond Karczewski on September 24th, 1999

From: "TIMOTHY THOMPSON"

District Attorney, Josephine County Oregon

To: Raymond Karczewski

Subject: Response to Questions re Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr Karczewski:

tt: I am in receipt of your e-mail inquiry re driver's licenses and motor vehicles. Your inquiry to me contains three questions. The first deals with an "unalienable right to liberty being converted into a privilege" by the State of Oregon. The second question refers to possible distinctions between automobiles and motor vehicles for licensing purposes. The third question relates to possible distinctions between non-commercial versus commercial uses of motor vehicles for licensing purposes.

tt: I do not have the time to adequately research, brief, or explore the intricacies of constitutional law with you, but I will try to provide some guidance.


tt: If you proceed upon your stated course of action, perhaps the opportunity will arise to develop some appellate law in this state.


tt: As a matter of historical background, the right to travel is not expressly addressed in the US Constitution, though its nature has been recognized through various analytical processes in a variety of cases.


tt: Its source has been discussed in connection with the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause, among others, depending upon the precise issues raised.


tt: All powers not exclusively delegated to the federal government, or expressly prohibited by constitutional limitations, are reserved to the states (per the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution). Since the federal government has not passed uniform national legislation re driver competencies and rules of the road (i.e. the federal government has not "occupied the field") and constitutional prohibitions are not express, all fifty states have adopted legislation impacting motor vehicles and driver competency standards to promote public safety and welfare on their public roads.

tt: With regard to your first question, I am not sure what your precise question is, since you are blending phrases from the Declaration of Independence with those from constitutional sources.. In the context of your letter, however, I am assuming you are questioning whether or not a state can adopt regulations or pass legislation which can impact what you characterize as an "Unalienable Right to Liberty." If you are referring to a right to travel, the answer is "yes." The issue, and similar licensing issues, have been raised in many jurisdictions and most reported decisions have supported limitations on the right to travel. Appellate decisions addressing these issues can be found in decisions from many state courts, the various federal courts, and the US Supreme Court. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. 610 (1915) is an early US Supreme Court case recognizing the "privilege" of driving a motor vehicle on the public roads of a state. The case further recognizes the state's interest in regulating, and even restricting, the "privilege" of driving in order to promote the safety and protection of the public on its roads. In accord are a 1938 Opinion of the Oregon Attorney General, at page 632, City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P2d 981 (1987)( Supreme Court of Utah), Berberian v. Petit , 374 A2d 791 (1977) Supreme Court of Rhode Island), and City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P2d 945 (1986) ( a Washington Court of Appeals decision), to name a few. The privilege of using public highways and roads can be regulated by requiring driver's licenses, competency testi of drivers, proof of financial responsibility, minimum equipment standards for vehicle safety and operation, etc. There is no constitutionally recognized right to travel by motor vehicle on public roads without complying with a state's legislatively created regulatory process. If you disagree with the decisions of your legislators, you should contact them.

tt: Your second question (generally) asks whether or not Oregon law considers use of a private automobile for non-commercial purposes to be the same as use of a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. The answer is "yes." with regard to licensing issues and restrictions.


tt: First, the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code defines "motor vehicle" to mean " a vehicle that is self- propelled or designed for self -propulsion." ORS 801.630. "Automobile" is not part of the lexicon, nor is it defined,


tt: but an automobile certainly falls within the definition of a motor vehicle. Definitions exist for "commercial driver license," "commercial motor vehicle," " commercial vehicle," "driver license," "driving privilege," and "vehicle" in Chapter 801 of the Motor Vehicle Code. In general, the commercial aspects of driving activities result in more stringent regulation than private, non-commercial activities. Each driving activity, however, is subject to legislative and administrative regulation.

tt: The answer to your third inquiry is "yes" for the same reasons as specified in the previous paragraphs. The policy reasons are set forth in ORS 801.020. Exemptions from coverage of the Vehicle Code are set forth in ORS 801.026 and ORS 801. 030. these exemptions do not appear to apply to your hypothetical situations.

tt: If you choose to let your drivers license expire, your right to travel in this state will not be impacted so long as you choose to travel on foot, by horse, by bicycle, as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a duly licensed driver, by common carrier, or in or upon some other conveyance not requiring you to have a valid license to operate that conveyance. Your right to travel is only impacted when using a motor vehicle on public roads.

tt: If you choose to drive a motor vehicle in this or any other state, it appears as though you will be subjecting yourself to the applicable licensing requirements of that state.

tt: I hope this response has been helpful to you. I apologize for the brevity of the response, however, time constraints and the press of other matters limit the time I can justify spending on such issues.

Very truly yours,

Timothy R. Thompson District Attorney







"godsmystery" <godsmystery@impulse.net> wrote:

Raymond Karczewski wrote;


gm: > Dear Ray,

gm: > Ask the judge how can I serve the "code," when
it is not LAW, and it is in conflict with God's LAW
also, for "we can't serve two masters" Mat.6:24,
the "god of this world" 2Cor.4:4 or the Creator
Jesus our Christ Eph.3:9.

rk: I have asserted such claim at one of the Trials. The courts don't give a whit for God's Law, let alone following their own law.

gm: > God's LAW is much "higher" law than our Constitution, or any of man's law, no to mention the "code" which is only an "instruction" or "commands" in the absence of law or "lawlessness" we live under, the Bible calls "INIQUITY" Mat.7:23.

rk: Tom, there is no question of that. Living Law is set aside for "dead" fictional policies which operate as Corporate "Color of Law. The public has been conditioned out of their Intelligence and trained toward Pavlovian "Stimulus/Response techniques which cause them to respond to authority blindly. That is the nature of the Satanic mind control which rules civilized society since the beginning of Time.

gm: > Since the Judge is also required to "obey" law, or
he is an Idolater, which has the automatic penalty
of "death" Rom.6:23, he is in mortal danger of His
life even now, for JUDGMENT is on us, and on
the government authorities now, as the government's
agents comes in contact with God's obedient children.

rk: Although judges may be "required" to obey the law, the simple fact is THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN about law when they have a Slave Subject standing before them in an Unconstitutional Administrative Court which binds them through lawyerly trickery and deceit into Waiving their Rights, and/or granting jurisdiction to the court via consent or contract. The average man standing before the bar, is ignorant and scared, intimidated by the illusion of the Judge. That man in a black robe is nothing more than a referree. He puts his pants on the same as you. One leg at a time. To observe this fact, listen to Sound File: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16
http://www.arkenterprises.com/yunker48.html

gm: > Evil was created by God Isa.45:7, and "evil" must
come that we may learn what is "good and evil"
Gen.2:9, and we must "overcome evil with good"

rk: Evil has always been the method of Testing Truth. The Christian error is to "overcome evil with good". To resist evil is to give it strength. The message of Jesus lost to everyone, and the lesson I now promote is to "Resist not Evil". BOYCOTT IT. Remove yourself from the inner conflict foisted upon you by threat and intimidation and you will withdraw the life energy the Satanic System extracts from the individual and feeds upon. Withdraw all support, Psychologically and financially, and the Machinery of Satanic ruled Government grinds to a halt.. That is the simple solution to all of Civilized Man's problems, Yet such spiritually blind have eyes but THEY DO NOT SEE.

gm: > Rom.12:21. You do this by willing to "obey" God,
by not obeying the Anti-god. The Judge overcomes
evil, by him willing to "acknowledge" that you are
doing "good" obeying our Creator Eph.3:9.

rk: Stop the satanic ploy of "becoming" and just stand in Divine Awareness otherwise known as the state of "being." In the state of pristine being, satanic states of becoming have no power to confuse and interfere with the intellect of the natural man, by the satanic illusions of the fictional courts.

gm: > If the JUDGE or officer is not willing to "obey" God,
by letting you go, remind him that God rules over
ALL the kingdoms of man Dan.4:32.

rk: You can lead an ignoramus to the Waters of Truth, but you CAN'T MAKE HIM DRINK.

gm: > And remind the Judge that the LAW gave "remedy"
to you and him UCC-1-207. God's LAW determines
that "offenses (evil) come; but WOE to that man by
whom the offense comes" Mat.18:7.

gm: > God do not use bullets or weapons. No, He use His invisible angels to "execute" His judgment Mat.13:39!

rk: Tom, there is where you an I part company. My holistic understanding that cannot be destroyed is that GOD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES.

gm: > In the end, or even now Jesus said: "those mine
enemies (who do not serve me) which would not
that I should REIGN over them, bring here, and
SLAY THEM before Me" Lk.19:27.

rk: No need to slay anyone unless in Self-Defense. Merely Emasculate them via the Mirror of Truth, as they stand naked and exposed just as the innocent child exposed the "Emperor has no Clothes." It is the cloth of authority that allows satanic Pharissees to sit on the bench, and facilitate Hell on Earth. Everyone gets the government they deserve. If you cannot stand up to it, you deserve to live the life as a Slave.

gm: > So, ask the judge to dismiss all the "infractions" of
the law of the Anti-god, a.k.a Satan who is only a
created being Jn.8:44, and was created to "test"
us with the "conflict," God created for us that we
may "choose" between "good and evil" Gen.2:9.

rk: One who stands in his own Divine Sovereignty, does not beg or grovel before satanic authorities who cloak their authority in illusion. He understands such fictional servants work for him, not he them. That is all you need to stand protected by the Shield of Truth. BUT YOU WILL BE TESTED IN YOUR FAITH.

gm: > We are CHOOSING between LIFE eternal and DEATH Deut.30:19.

rk: Most people comprise the legion of the "Living Dead" for they are ruled by the thoughts they hold in their mind. All thoughts are aftermoment memory based images, therefore ARE DEAD.. Only the LIVING MOMENT OF NOW and the DIVINE AWARENESS which resonates therein holds the key to liberation of the time-bound satanically conditioned enslaved.

gm: > Now if he say that the ministers of churches have licenses, just say that they serve the Anti-god, for they are ALL "deceived" Rev.12:9.

rk: Tom, the solution is quite simple. Either you serve God's Law, or conform to the Satanic Law of Mammon. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

rk; That is all I have done in the last seven years which has Slain the Goliath of STATE OF OREGON AND COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE GOVERNMENT. You can see their impotence without the threat of guns, handcuff, and tazers the armed corporate (Police and Sheriffs) security officers (slave overseers) use to intimidate slaves.

Blessings and Peace,
Tom

*********************************************
"No other man but I in the recorded History of
mankind, including JESUS CHRIST, has directly
revealed to the World the SATANIC WEAPON used to
enslave mankind -- INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT!!"

Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com










The State of OREGON, and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE authorities say that it is the law that all persons must have a driver license to drive a motor vehicle on Oregon Roads.

The Law, God's Law (DO NO HARM) Common Law, and Constitutional Law, says different.  This is the question of JURISDICTION that the STATE OF OREGON AND COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE have Commercially defaulted on numerous occasions. They WILL NOT answer the question of JURISDICTION, WILL NOT take me before a judge, but WILL STEAL my automobile and motorscooter from me (sometimes at gunpoint) via their Color of Law impoundments, costing me approximately $2000.00 to date to recover my stolen private property, all while depriving me the Right to DUE PROCESS of law..  They are acting as Pirates on Maritime  controlled Seas of Public Highways.

They have STONEWALLED me, one man, but they cannot STONEWALL the mass of taxpaying Sovereign People.  I ask that each of you to read the following excerpts from a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia).

I then ask you to put an end to the unlawful persecution/prosecution/of myself and other men/women who have been drawn into the web of piracy by our elected officials here in JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON and  DEMAND the authorities answer the 23 questions of JURISDICTION found on: http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch82.html#QUESTIONS!

The Oregon Authorities claim they operate by the "letter of the law"  Do They?  Lets us first look at what is a "person" and what is Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient Natural Man or woman.    Then we may examine government's own legal definition as found in their own  corporate Bible  "Color of Law" code book, the Vehicle Code. and what the courts have said in past legally precedent setting rulings.

A Living, Breathing, Flesh and Blood, Sentient, Natural Man or woman is not a "person" under the legal definition of "person", a Corporate entity, subject to the rules of the Corporation. They have their roots in the law of their Creator, and are protected in their Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property.  , they follow God's Law and Common Law, both of which take  precedence over Corporate Color of Law.

Such Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man or Woman is NOT a "person" as defined by the codes and is therefore exempt from such rules without waiving his/her rights and granting jurisdiction to the STATE via consent or contract. Nowhere in the codes,(criminal, vehicle, etc) will you find the words "man" or "woman" mentioned.

Corporate administrative rules, regulations, and legislation DO NOT apply to non-corporate natural men and women who stand in Common Law and in full legal capacity as one of the sovereign people.  The law states: "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.  He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."  CRUDEN v NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

A Legal person is the fictional Juristic Person created by fictional Government whose name is spelled in All Capital Letters created via birth certification.

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which renumeration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

TRAVEL

The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:

"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

DRIVER

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"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. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

OPERATOR

Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

1.Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.

2.Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

TRAFFIC

Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":

"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.

Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."

In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

"Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.

Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.

Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: XX "...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."

The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:

"The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.

Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

DRIVER

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"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. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

OPERATOR

Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawnbetween the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

1.Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.

2.Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

LICENSE

It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:

"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.

"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.

In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.

This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)

In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:

a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.

This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.

Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."

"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.

The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.

Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?

How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.

POLICE POWER

The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power," infra.)

Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

"1. Is there threatened danger?

2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

3. Is this regulation reasonable?"

People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power."

When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.

First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)

Next, does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.

The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"

The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.

Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:

No person shall be...deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.

As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.

In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.

DUE PROCESS

"The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.

Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.

There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..." Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.

and...

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.

But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)

Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that "no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court," by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.)

Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common."

The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:

"The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized..."

and...

"Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways..." Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11.

This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.

This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."

The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

REGULATION

"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260.

and...

"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.

First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:

1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?

The answer is No!

The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."

However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.

Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.

2. Is the statute reasonable?

The answer is No!

This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)

But isn't this what we have now?

The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.

These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.

We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS

A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

and...

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.