rk: Richard, I have read your piece on your recent experience with Oregon's Traffic Court. Yours is a case of personal capitulation to and acceptance of unnecessary regulation imposed upon you as a citizen by a government that has strayed away from, and is currently acting counter to the US Constitution.
rk: On Sept 23rd, 1999, I voluntarily allowed my driver's license to expire after 46 years of "licensed" driving. Although I am a retired California Police Sergeant, living on pension here in Southern Oregon, neither I nor any of those officers I worked with on the force were aware of the subtler aspects of licensing and traffic enforcement. For some reason, that subject was not covered in the police academy and/or subsequent law enforcement studies.
rk: As a result, I and the other officers operated in total ignorance of a citizen's Constitutional Right to travel upon the public roadways of our country in the "usual/ordinary conveyance of the day"; i.e., one's own private automobile while using same for private transportation and not for commercial/business purposes. I would wager that the officer who issued your citation hasn't a clue of your Constitutional Rights pertaining to your personal travelling on public Oregon roadways, either.
rk: I, for one, was schnookered by my government at the age of 16 when my goverment perpetrated a fraud upon me and millions and others by stating I/we had to be licensed as driving was a privilege and not a Right.
rk: That *Fraudulent contract* remained in effect for 46 years, until my 62nd birthday when I woke up from my hypnotic trance (for I had TRUSTED my government).
rk: There are reams of articles I have written on this subject that may be accessed in the DejaNews archives by anyone interested in understanding the lengths I went to in order to put on notice all political and law enforcement leaders in Oregon of my intention to use, and subsequent use of my personal automobiles on our public roadways without being licensed. From the Governor's and State Attorney's office to the my local (Josephine County) District Attorney's and Sheriff's office, all were notified of my intention to reclaim my long given up Rights. The contract was over, had been allowed to expire and I chose not to renew it. The terms of the contract were therefore no longer applicable through the medium of mutual agreement.
rk: Despite the deliberate high profile aspect of the case on the Internet and subsequest contact made with JoCo law enforcement officers while travelling alone on the roadways in my private automobile, I HAVE NOT BEEN ARRESTED OR BROUGHT BEFORE THE OREGON COURTS for reclaiming my Unalienable Right to travel on our Country's roadways.
rk: The upshot of your experience can be layed at the feet of your personally having entered into a binding contract with the State of Oregon when you accepted regulations designed for the regulation of those who use our public roadways for business/commercial gain.
rk: When you affixed your signature to the license, you stepped "through the looking glass" and found yourself in a different environment.
rk: You unknowingly relinquished your Unalienable Right to Liberty, accepting in return the "privilege" of licensing which placed you under the authority of TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE COURTS. In other words, Richard, "WELCOME TO THE CLUB"; for you too, along with millions of other citizens unaware of their government's chicanery, WERE AND CONTINUE TO BE SCHNOOKERED.
rk: Welcome to the everincreasing, liberty encroaching Law Enforcement/Judicial/Penal Industry which exploits you and other unwary citizens; for without your personal support through succumbing to threats, extortion, fines, and increased taxation, THEY WOULD NOT/COULD NOT EXIST in their present form.
rk: Perhaps now you understand the significance of Law Enforcement Levies. The citizens of Josephine County Oregeon certainly do!!
Ray Karczewski
Excerpts extracted from legal brief see:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
"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.
"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.
"Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways. "
"The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. "
"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."
"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."
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
ray: >> I did not realize that at the age of 16 I was already being primed to relinquish my Constitutional Rights as a citizen of the United States of America.
ray: >> I did not realize that my signature became a binding contract with the state.
ray: >> I did not realize that with my affixing my signature to their documents, I allowed government to strip away my Constitutionally Guaranteed Inalienable Right to Liberty; i.e., to move freely, to travel the highways of our land in a reasonable and responsible manner without being impeded by Law Enforcement Officers who patrol the highways for the purpose of enforcing laws pertaining to the commercial use of our highways.
merv: >The original constitution did not have any reference to rights as a citizen of the United States of America other than prohibitions on the federal government in regards to infringements on individuals and states rights.
ray: You've just put your finger on the Constitutional issue which has been perverted by our present day government, have you not? It is found in the language prohibiting infringement upon one's Inalienable Rights, most notable in this case is that of "Liberty."
ray: Liberty as stated in the Constitution includes the right of one who is not engaged in the use of a publicly funded highway system for commercial purposes to move about freely and unimpeded by police agencies whose primary purpose is the regulation of those engaged in commerce on our nation's highways.
ray: Government indeed may regulate travel on our highways of those engaged in commerce such as bus drivers, chauffers, truckers, etc.
merv: >The idea of a federal citizenship came later after the 14th amendment was interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights to the federal government as well as the states. Until then there was a state citizenship which was protected against the federal government.
ray: You may, and probably will, continue to rattle on with such peripheral misdirections designed to draw one's attention away from the core issue of INALIENABLE RIGHTS, but the real question remains--WHY? Answer: To obfuscate and muddle the simple, clear issue of INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
merv: >Each state had it's own bill of rights that protected it's own citizens.....and the federal government had no power to protect the citizens of the state from the state. IF the citizens do not like the laws of the state it is up to them to voice their objections and respond as they see fit in the next election.
ray: Surely you jest. The election system is the last nail which has already been driven into the coffin of this society. Here in Oregon we have alreadly lost the sacredness of the "secret ballot" system wherein votes were cast physically at local polls.
ray: This nation is now in the "hip pocket" of the ballot counters; i.e., those who are charged with the integrity of the vote count. They now are able to operate in an environment with little or no security of voter ballots while, via preprogrammed, computerized voting machines, they tally the result of votes cast remotely by voters who prefer to vote in the comfort of their own homes. This tainted election system attracts and panders to emotionally motivated, but blind voters who have successfully been conditioned to choose comfort over integrity.
ray: Ballot casters no longer call the shots. The ballot counters DO!
merv: >It is the nature of government to take as much power to itself as the people will allow.
ray: Yes! Hell, isn't it?
merv: >I do not see anything unconstitutional about regulating the right to drive.
ray: How can the "blind," intellectually driven individual SEE anything at all?
merv: >There is no constitutional right to drive without regulation written into the constitution as far as I know.....whether we would like it to be or not.
merv: >If you say there is, where is it?
Merv
On September 23rd, less than two weeks from this writing, it shall be a year since I have allowed my driver's license contract with the State of Oregon to expire, thereby reclaiming my Unalienable Right to Liberty i.e., to free and unencumbered travel upon our Oregon Roadways in my private automobile for non-commercial, private, survival purposes.
It is heartening to see that our elected Oregon Public Officials have chosen to support our existing U.S. Constitution in this issue of "Rights vs Privileges."
I have not been arrested, or in any way, interfered with or encumbered in my personal liberty while "travelling" on the road in my private automobile, despite personal contacts with Law Enforcement Officers and the use of my automobile to transport me to the County Seat so that I might perform my jury duty service.
My high profile Internet approach to holding our public officials i.e., Governor, States Attorney General, my local District Attorney and Sheriff accountable in the world's eye of the Internet has no doubt played a part in the newfound freedom experienced and enjoyed while travelling our public roadways in my private automobile in the past year. It appears that the State of Oregon has something to teach the other States about Unalienable Rights.
My Congratulations to the State of Oregon.
See a summation of the issue stated below: (written August 27th, 1999)
In The Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers wrote:
"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 Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."
What are these ""Unalienable Rights?"
Life: As with all Truth, the "Right to Life" is self-evident. The duty of Life rests in it's own self-preservation.
Liberty: The quality or state of being free. Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.
"Happiness" is the essence of Life "unimpeded."
It is the natural state of a "Free Man." These "Unalienable Rights" cannot be infringed upon by a government which is a servant of, and exists at the behest of a Free People.
Specifically, it is the Right to Liberty and the 14th Amendment, Section 1 (due process) of the US Constitution which is the Authority that is addressed in this writing.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#14sec-1
All quoted material below is extracted from a legal brief used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) 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
see: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
"The 'most sacred of liberties' of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:"
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"The concept of liberty is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:"
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
and further...
"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
"Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the 'most sacred of his liberties,' the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life."
and...
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
It must be noted that the "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day" for travel at the time the Constitution was written were horseback or horse and wagon. Today it is the "automobile."
To steal a man's horse was to threaten his very survival. Such an act violated man's Unalienable Rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As such, punishment for the crime of horse theft was swift and sure--Death by hanging! Keep this in mind as we observe the errant journey our present day goverment has taken since the Constitution was written and established as the Supreme "law of the land."
"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 remuneration 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."
If one examines the Oregon/California State Vehicle Codes which require a contract being entered into by an individual seeking to obtain a license (privilege) to drive , they will see such regulations pertain "only" to the regulation of "Motor Vehicles" and does not include the private use of automobiles.
"The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily."
"Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities."
"Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case."
"No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations."
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.
"Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways. "
In Josephine County, Oregon, where I live, our state and local government law enforcement officials have expanded implementation of the Rico Statute which was originally designed for the "War on Drugs" (a MAJOR FRAUD perpetrated upon the people by its own government).
Additionally, such implementation can be seen to be a clear violation of the "due process" clause in the 14th Amendment (confiscating private property of citizens in order to exploit and shore up sagging department budgets). Such extraordinary actions only further a deliberate government enforcement momentum designed to intimidate and throw fear into the minds of a "helpless public." Government disregard for the oath to support and defend the Constitution only results in everincreasing, power based, nonessential busy-work, bogey-man programs which, along with our military interventions throughout the world, is bankrupting our nation.
This expansion of confiscating private property of citizens without "due process" is a radical step away from the Constitution-based Government we at one time enjoyed. Oregon government is now targeting for confiscation the "automobiles" of the poor, the uninsured, the unlicensed, and less fortunate of our society who, although some in society may wish otherwise, are equally endowed with the Unalienable Right to Life (survival), Liberty (freedom of movement to ensure survival), and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Again, it must be noted, this is all being done without the necessity of due process. Not only do they violate the Constitution by infringing upon the "Unalienable Rights" of citizens to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," they "steal" away from citizens their "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day." The question must be asked by each of us--To what end?
History shows us the penalty suffered by the horse thieves of yesteryear. What should the punishment be for the horse thieves' modern counterparts who steal (confiscate) "automobiles" away from the poor, the uninsured, and/or the unlicensed ((none of whom are actually required to be licensed if they are not operating a "motor vehicle").
I am a retired police sergeant living on pension here in Southern Oregon. On September 23rd, 1999 my driver's license (contract) expireswith the State of Oregon. I shall not renew it. Instead, I shall reclaim my Constitutionally guaranteed Unalienable Right to Liberty as it pertains to driving my two automobiles on Oregon roadways.
Thus will end a 46-year-long unbroken chain of Driver's licenses possessed by me since the age of 16.
Yes, folks, sometimes it takes that long to WAKE UP!
On September 23rd, 1999 I'll be 62 years of age. I possess good health and coordination. Both of my automobiles are fully insured and in good mechanical working order.
I do not use either automobile for commercial purposes. They are used for private transportation purposes which ensure the survival of my wife and myself.
Gathering provisions at the local store requires a round trip of approximately 20 miles from and to my home. I do not consider that I need to secure a government "privilege" in order for me to attend to the survival needs of myself and my wife. I merely ask that I be afforded the same Unalienable Right to drive my "automobile(s)" on the public roadways as do farmers who currently drive their motor-driven farm equipment on Oregon roadways without needing to be licensed.
At the time of this writing I have never been arrested, nor have I been incarcerated for any reason. In other words, at the time of this writing, I AM NOT A CRIMINAL.
Let us see whether our government can make the act of a free man who demands his "Unalienable Rights" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness into a CRIMINAL ACT!
The Following Complaint was sent registered mail to the FBI Medford Oregon Field Office on June 7th, 2001.
This is being posted publicly on the Internet to assure that it does not meet the same Stonewalling FATE my earlier complaint lodged with the FBI on Nov. 2nd, 1977 into Government/Media Sponsored/supported Mind Control on the Internet.
June 6th, 2001
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Medford, Oregon Office
300 Crater Lake Avenue
Medford, OR 97504
Dear Sirs,
The following complaint is being submitted to your full and complete investigation of the Douglas County Oregon's Sheriff's Office for violations of Federal law: TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO)
The events of this crime have already been posted on the Internet, as will this complaint.
At approximately 0030 hrs on June 5th, 2000, I was returning home from the Seven Feathers Indian Casino in Canyonville, Oregon, some 80 miles from my home in Cave Junction.
I was driving a 2000 Pontiac Grand Am, a loaner car from my Grants Pass, Oregon Cadillac dealer while my own private automobile was being serviced. It was dark, poorly lit and misting slightly as I approached the Intersection which led to the southbound freeway on ramp of I-5 which would take me home. For all intents and purposes, there was no one else on the roadway I was travelling. No headlights to the front of me, nor headlights behind me. I made a right turn to access the highway without using my turn signals (who was there to signal?).
I crossed under the freeway overpass, then made a left turn onto the on ramp of the southbound freeway. It was then the Police emergency lights came on behind me and I pulled over and stopped.
I got out of the auto and met Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe, badge #112.
He asked for my license and registration. I told him the automobile was a loaner from the Grants Pass dealership while my car was being serviced.
I told him I had no operator's license, as I was not required to be licensed. I was merely travelling home and was not engaged in Commercial Activity, which would require such licensing. At that point a poorly hidden smirk came upon the face of Officer Poe.
I was approximately 3/4 of a mile from the Indian Casino when stopped.
Poe ran a check on me showing my old ODL license number, but that I was unlicensed at this time (not to be confused with suspended or revoked).
Poe began to write up a citation for "unsignaled turn" and, based on the information verbally given him by me (no id was asked for), "no operators license." He assigned me a court date of 6-27-01 to appear before Canyonville Justice Court.
In the meantime, Poe stated that the car was going to be impounded for no license and no insurance. I advised Poe the loaner car was covered by my personal insurance company. That did not seem to budge Poe. I asked that he call the Shift Sergeant to the scene before proceeding any further. The Sergeant was not available, but Poe summoned a Corporal with the Sheriff's Office instead.
On his arrival, I informed the latter of the same information I had earlier communicated to Poe about my exemption from the requirements of having an ODL. The same enigmatic smirk appeared on "Corporal Dave's" face.
I indicated to both officers the loaner car could just as well be removed to the Casino's parking lot less than a mile away. They weren't having any of it. The car was going to be impounded.
I told them that they were causing me to be stranded some eighty miles from my home, and my Unalienable Right to travel upon the roadways in returning home had been unnecessarily infringed upon by them.
I told the officers then that I was not going to sign the citation with my promise to appear in court. They said it didn't matter. If I didn't show up, a warrant for my arrest would be issued. I then suggested that as long as they were going to impound the car, they may as well arrest me so I could see the magistrate today. Why issue a citation?
Poe responded that I "did not commit a crime," but "an infraction," adding that "it didn't matter though, they could STILL TAKE THE CAR." Both officers refused to take me into custody. It seemed that they were only interested in TAKING THE CAR. A towtruck arrived on the scene and removed the automobile. Deputy Poe lent me his cell phone to call my wife. "Corporal Dave" then transported me back to the casino and dropped me off there. Thus began a long night.
At approximately 9:30 am Anita and a friend arrived at the casino. Armed with proof of insurance in hand, and Anita's ODL, the bureacratic hoops began to proliferate. It was necessary for the Grants Pass auto dealership to fax the Douglas County Sheriff's Office to release the car to us. That little bit of bureaucratic administrative paperwork called a "vehicle impound release" cost my wife and me a "hundred dollars."
Next came the contact with the tow/impound yard in Canyonville, Oregon. On arrival at this eyesore of a business which sported an assorted number of junked automobiles right on the parking lot in plain and open view on a main thoroughfare, we discovered that the deteriorating building that would not pass any reasonable building inspection was all locked up and not a person was to be found on the premises at that time. We called the phone number on their sign and were met with the message that that number was "no longer in service" and there was "no new number."
We contacted a business person across the street from the ramshackle tow company building, and she had a different phone number to call. The tow operator was contacted and arrived on the scene some 45 minutes later.
A ransom payment of two hundred and two dollars ($202.00) was paid the tow operator who had removed the automobile from the freeway on ramp some 12 hours earlier this date.
Yes, folks, that $302.00 was extorted from a citizen by the uniformed Highwaymen and their cohorts, who had, in effect, stolen from another their "usual conveyance of the day." Yesterday the "usual conveyance of the day" was horses, today it's the private automobile. We all know the fate which awaited the "Horse Thieves" of yesteryear. What fate should await the modern day Horse Thieves of Today?
As for me and my wife, we have been damaged by all this. My Civil Rights were violated. My Unalienable right to Travel had been infringed upon. Money has been extorted from me and my wife by those whose salaries are paid by public taxation. They use such salaries to conduct their "color of office" extortion policies.
ray: On September 23rd, 1999, one month from now, my Oregon Driver's License expires. I shall not renew it. On that day, I will end my contract with the State of Oregon which has allowed them to convert my Constitutional right to travel the highways of Oregon in the "conveyance of the day" (automobile) into a "privilege." We shall put such practice of licensing noncommercial drivers of automobiles travelling the roads of Oregon to the Constitutional test.
ray: My reason for taking this step at this particular late stage of life is to contribute whatever efforts I can to return our Government to its proper relationship to the people it serves by holding them accountable for their infringement upon the Unalienable Rights guaranteed us by the Constitution of the United States.
ray: Note: All quoted (") definitions and comments below pertaining to this issue have been extracted from the legal brief used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as 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.
See: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
ray: >> Certainly I have Choice. I am exercising it, am I not? My signed contract (driver's license) with the State of Oregon expires on September 23, 1999. I will not renew it. Your characterization that the State of Oregon will take it away should I choose to renew it is quite moot. I have violated no Oregon Law, nor, the facts will show, have I violated California law (read CVC Sect 21450).
ray: Since section 21450 CVC is not an enforcement section but one of definition, I did not violate it.
bl: >This is an interesting statement for a former California Peace Officer to make. Ray, please provide us with a legal citation of this "contract". I don't think you can, as it would be in conflict with Section 807 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/807.html). In fact, here are a couple of interesting relevant sections:
bl: > 807.010 Operating vehicle without driving privileges or in violation of license restrictions prohibited; penalty.
ray: The key word in the above statute is "Operating."
ray: Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.
ray: "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."
ray: "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."
ray: "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."
ray: "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. "
bl: > > (1) A person commits the offense of vehicle operating without driving privileges if the person operates a motor vehicle upon a highway or premises open to the public in this state and the person does not have an appropriate grant of driving privileges from this state in the form of a license, driver permit, indorsement or statutory grant of driving privileges allowing the person to engage in the particular type of operation.
ray: The key words in the above section are "Motor Vehicle," "Privileges," and "Operation."
ray: "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. "
ray: "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."
ray: 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.
ray: 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. "
ray: By definition, my use of my two "automobiles" does not fall within the jurisdiction of the DMV and Law Enforcement Agencies charged with "Traffic Enforcement."
ray: Then we come to the word "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. "
ray: "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. "
ray: "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."
ray: "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. "
ray: "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."
ray: "Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler."
ray: Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":
ray: "...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.
ray: "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."
ray: "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."
ray: "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. "
ray: "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."
ray: "Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: "
ray: "...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."
ray: "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: "
ray: "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. "
ray: "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."
bl: > (4) The offense described in subsection (1) of this section, vehicle operating without driving privileges, is a Class B traffic infraction.
ray: Agreed only as they apply to the operation of "Motor Vehicles." They do not apply, however, to the driving of "Automobiles while "travelling" upon public highways." The key word in the above section is "Traffic." - - -
bl: > 807.020 Exemptions from requirement to have Oregon license or permit. A person who is granted a driving privilege by this section may exercise the driving privilege described without violation of the requirements under ORS 807.010. A grant of driving privileges to operate a motor vehicle under this section is subject to suspension and revocation the same as other driving privileges granted under the vehicle code.his section is in addition to any exemptions from the vehicle code under ORS 801.026. The following persons are granted the described driving privileges:
bl: > (1) A person who is not a resident of this state may operate a motor vehicle without an Oregon license or driver permit if the person holds a current out-of-state license issued to the person by the person's home jurisdiction. To qualify under this subsection, the person must have the out-of-state license or driver permit in the person's possession. A person is not granted driving privileges under this subsection: - - -
bl: (b) During a period of suspension or revocation by this state or any other jurisdiction of driving privileges or of the right to apply for a license or driver permit issued by this state or any other jurisdiction; or - - -
bl: >So tell us how a "grant of driving privileges from this state in the form of a license" is a "contract."
ray: Sign your license application and you have signed a contract, have you not? In return you have relinquished your right to drive an automobile in return for a State-given privilege to operate a "motor Vehicle." It is a contract that few are aware of. Such is the nature of the "sleeping masses" at the mercy of clever, parasitical wordmongers (lawyers/politicians).
Ray Karczewski
Following is a dialogue regarding my upcoming Sept 23rd, 1999 dissolution of contract (nonrenewal of my driver's license) with the State of Oregon.
On that day, and every day thereafter, I shall personally put to the test whether our government is still operating as a Constitutional Republic.
The litmus test of freedom or enslavement will be based on our Inalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness guaranteed us by our Nation's Constitution.
We shall see whether such Inalienable Rights ("incapable of being alienated, surrendered, transferred, or stripped away") still have substance or have become merely positive imaged empty rhetoric used to feed the fantasies of an incrementally desensitized, dumbed-down (politically correct), "hypnotized," conditioned populace.
We shall see whether government can create a criminal out of a citizen who stands on his Constitutional Rights to Liberty. What would our country be if Patrick Henry, instead of uttering his famous statement "Give me Liberty or give me death," were to have uttered the statement--"Give me Liberty; if not, I'll settle for a license."
I will assert my Inalienable Right to Liberty (the right of a citizen to "travel" freely upon public highways via private "automobile" used noncommercially) without being subject to the jurisdiction of state licensing of drivers and operators of "motor vehicles" which use the public roadways for commercial purposes.
My driver's license contract (entered into coercively by the state, which fraudulently intimated that I had no choice in the matter) has allowed the state to convert my right to drive a private automobile for private purposes on our public highways into a privilege. In that one fraudulent act, the state has stripped my Inalienable Rights away from me and millions of others.
Read the comments below. Pay attention to the indisputable energy of capitulation and resignation of one who has adjusted well to his life of slavery. Therein one finds the mark of a "civilized man!"
Ray Karczewskit
twang: They're just going to arrest you if they find you.
ray: All violations of Rights of citizens by a government long adrift from its original Constitutional bearings begin with an arrest, do they not?
ray: Arrest is necessary to bring this issue before a sleeping populace. Perhaps they will see how they have been schnookered by their own government through subtle, incremental, hypnotic mind control techniques implemented over an extended period of time, which accounts for a "slave mentality" which readily gives up its Inalienable Rights in return for so-called goverment "privileges." That is when the Servant (government) becomes the Master and the people become the slaves.
ray: As to finding me, I assure you they'll have no trouble doing that. I intend to make "rights vs privileges" a high profile issue. When world attention becomes focused upon a judicial system, especially when the court must adjudicate issues dealing with Constitutionally guaranteed rights, therein one can reasonably expect justice to prevail.
twang: What about insureance? Can you drive without it?
ray: Both of my "automobiles" are insured.
twang: Can you be insured if you have no license?
twang: What serious hope do you have at succeeding at this?
ray: Hope? Hope doesn't even enter into the picture. I will succeed. Of that you can be assured. If I don't, God help America.
twang: It's one thing to have some sort of valid complaint, which I don't think you have, but it's another to compel a society to concede it.
ray: Don't rock the boat, eh? I wonder how many times that sentiment has been uttered throughout history in times of imminent change of Human Consciousness?
ray: On what do you base such a statement other than a blind belief which you have been educated (conditioned) to hold?
twang: Perhaps you are angry at something else, and being a police officer in the past, you think this is a relatively safe way for you to toss your rock at the window.
ray: I am not angry. I am quite clear about what I am stepping into.
twang: I don't know.
ray: Yes, that is clear. You do not know! That is quite a common affliction of those who live their lives in quiet desperation. It's outward appearance is *APATHY.*
twang: I do know, that you'll never win. You'll either have a license or you wont drive.
ray: Meditate, if you will, on Patrick Henry saying: "Give me Liberty, if not, I'll settle for a license." That ought to snap you out of your malaise!
twang: Hell, you probably wont even make more than a human interest bit on the local news.
ray: Wouldn't that be an damning commentary on the state of our TV, Radio and Print media coverage of a legal issue which goes to the heart of freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states " . . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
ray: Sleeping Americans have forgotten that government is a "Servant," an instrument of the people, by the people, and for the people. It has no authority but that which is accorded it by the governed--The People.
twang: What about my right to know that not only you are a safe driver, but that in the event of an accident you can pay for any error you make? jeez buddy. pay the ten bucks and relax.
ray: You are confused about the word "rights," aren't you? One could just as well ask what "rights" do you, or anyone else for that matter, have to know if any given "licensed driver" is a safe driver and in the event of an accident can pay for any error he/she makes. Twang, you must delve a little deeper into this issue than your present level of consciousness permits if you are to understand the real issues here.
Ray Karczewski
Raymond Karczewski wrote in message <37bb2111.37129074@news.meganews.com>...
Constitution of the United States of America: Blessings of Liberty
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
To: Governor's Office, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Law Enforcement and Judicial Officials of Josephine County Oregon.
On Sept. 23rd, 1999 I will have reached my 62nd birthday. I will allow my Oregon Driver's License to expire. I SHALL NOT renew it.
I, like many who will read this, have been coercively hoodwinked by my own government into surrendering my Inalienable Right to travel upon our nation's highways in a motor driven automobile by being purposely misled (conditioned to think) that driving an automobile was a privilege and not a Right.
rk: **excerpt from legal brief for dismissal for lack of Jurisdiction used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) 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. For full brief, see: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
"The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license. "
I have been a responsible licensed driver for 46 years, since the age of 16. I am a retired California Police Officer. My two automobiles are fully insured. My health is good, and I am competent and experienced in operating my automobiles safely.
I do not utilize the public highways for commerical purposes, and therefore am not within the jurisdiction of state vehicle codes designed to regulate the use of those vehicles utilized by business and corporate interests engaged in commerce on public roadways. My two automobiles and their use do not meet the definition of a "motor vehicle" as defined by the statutes. I shall reclaim my Right to drive a motor driven automobile, which is the same Right which allows farmers to drive their motorized unlicensed vehicles upon our roadways here in Oregon and elsewhere in our country.
In my 62 years, I have never been arrested, nor have I experienced incarceration for any reason. It would seem that we shall put to the test whether one can be marked a "criminal" in this country for waking up to and reinstating his Constitutionally guaranteed "Inalienable Rights."
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
My story is not unlike that of the average sleeping citizen who has been kept in ignorance throughout their lifetime, not ever actually understanding their true relationship with the government they support.
It was in a conditioned (primed) state of mind (at the age of 16) that I ignorantly and coercively entered into a contract with the state which allowed the state to convert my Right to drive an automobile on public highways into a "Privilege." For the last 46 years that contract converting an Inalienable Right into a privilege has been renewed by me out of ignorance.
That ignorant momentum ends on the 23rd day of September 1999. I meet all criteria of common law and past court decisions which allow me to travel freely in a responsible manner upon our nation's highways without the requirement of a license. I hereby assert that Right guaranteed to me by The Constitution of the United States of America.
Ray Karczewski
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.
rk: Mr. Thompson, why don't you have the time to research this Constitutional question which has such far reaching ramifications for the people of Josephine County and of this Country? You have the office, the facilities, the researchers, and certainly the time (your job) to answer this important Constitutional question. The question is: Does the State of Oregon and Josephine County have the ability to override the U.S. Constitution and convert a Constitutional Unalienable Right into a privilege and through such action therefore convert a Constitutional Unalienable Right into a crime?
rk: Mr. Thompson, all passages below which are enclosed in quotation (") marks are excerpted from the legal brief at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html sent to your office in a previous communication. I am not a lawyer, but I certainly understand Truth when I see it.
rk: The courts have held that "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
tt: If you proceed upon your stated course of action, perhaps the opportunity will arise to develop some appellate law in this state.
rk: Is it the sole duty of the County District Attorney to prosecute citizens and garner convictions without regard for the rendering of justice, then let the appellate courts sort out the mess? That, sir, does not best serve those constituents who put that District Attorney into office.
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.
rk: "The courts have held that There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946. That's pretty clear language, is it not?
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.
rk: I am not concerned with legal opinions regarding the Commerce Clause. I am, however, concerned with your official position regarding The Unalienable Rights of private Citizens to "travel" upon the roadways of Josephine County and of this Country in their private "automobiles" for their own private transportation and survival needs and who are not using the roadways for the purposes of engaging in commercial or business for profit.
rk: Let us cut to the chase, shall we?
rk: After all, the courts have further held that: "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
and
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with or disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
rk: These, Mr. Thompson, go to the heart of the matter, not the tangential peripheral opinions dealing with the "commerce clause." I'm talking about plain folk, taxpayers of Josephine County who utilize for their private transportation and survival needs, the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, in other words, their own private "automobiles."
rk: Have not the courts held that: "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.
and
rk: "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 Rights 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."
and
rk: "The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.
rk: "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).
rk: "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.
rk: "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."
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.
rk: Why? If Unalienable Rights are, in fact, held as Rights which cannot be Infringed upon, surrendered, transferred, stripped away, converted, or legislated out of existence, the issue of peripheral legislation concerned with regulation of commerce on the highways of our land is moot, is it not?
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.
rk: Now that appears to be the focus of this issue, does it not? That appears to be the government's deviation from our original U.S. Constitution and its guaranteed protection against government infringement upon a free people's Unalienable Rights.
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,
rk: Isn't the absence of a clear definition of "Automobile" rather convenient for a system that operates on the "letter of the law"?
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.
rk: But, I see you fail to include definitions for a private person's use of their own private Automobile for private travel upon the roadways while not engaging, in any way, in commercial activities. That, sir, is the issue that needs clarification.
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.
rk: Would not such legislation itself be viewed by the higher courts as unconstitutional and be struck down for vagueness?
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.
rk: In other words, you are saying that the State of Oregon and Josephine County arbitrarily restricts a citizen's mode of travel by using the ordinary and usual conveyance of the day, i.e. his private "Automobile," and thus converts his/her Unalienable Right to Liberty into a crime? Am I mishearing you?
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.
rk: Or, in the process of exposing legislation which runs counter to our U.S. Constitution, this issue may well cause a realignment of present governmental practices which do not confine themselves within the original parameters of the U.S. Constitution.
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.
rk: Sorry, Mr Thompson, I don't buy your apology. This is a matter of utmost importance to the Citizens of Josephine County and the American People. What other "pressing matters" could possibly override this?
rk: Since I am not a lawyer, I seek neither to argue nor compete with your considerable verbal talents. In this communication I have attempted to examine the Constitutional Issue of Unalienable Rights of Citizens. In my view such rights are inarguable and cannot be reduced to petty squabbling via dualistic debate.
rk: My response to you will be posted publicly on the Internet Oregon newsgroups and other pertinent newsgroups. This issue, sir, will not go away.
Very truly yours,
Timothy R. Thompson District Attorney
Raymond Karczewski
Sorry, there's no kind way to put this. Although most people who will read this post think they are intelligent, it is but a mere illusion they entertain.
A shocking statement? Well, yes and no! It is only shocking to those who cannot rise above their own limited conditioned mindsets which keep them enslaved and in perpetual servitude to those who are their psychological controllers. One merely has to look simply, directly, honestly at others to see that it is not their thoughts that betray their ignorance, but their actions, or lack thereof. It's called "intellectual inertia."
The average person reading this post has been primed with years and years of relentless reinforcing mind control techniques to capitulate to the experts--those who say they know and you do not know.
It is through the implementation of such self-doubt that mind controllers are able to weave their hypnotic spell over the vast masses of people who call themselves the "silent majority."
It is this same *self-doubt* which mind controllers use to ensnare and enslave large masses of *believers* through carefully planned agendas which spin the threads of an everexpanding web of deception, confusion, and division.
Most live their lives in a state of unawareness. They are unable to see this web of deception, but they sure can feel the effects of it. It inhibits them in their God-given Intelligence, the source of their momentum.
It strips away their freedom, their space. Ultimately, it forces them into a corner where they have no place to go and nothing to lose. It is then that blind rage takes over and leads to bloody revolutions which overturn, overthrow the existing ruling structure which has pushed them to the point of rebellion.
Have we not learned the lessons of past Civilizations? Are the people of America that dumb?
Answer the question for yourself, for each of you reading this post who consider yourselves citizens of this society called America are indeed responsible for its present state of its insanity. Sorry, folks, this question is not to be graded on the curve--It's pass or fail!
The words *Mind Control* evoke in the malleable imaginations of the masses, fearful, mysterious images of evil masters who have their way with their helpless, suggestible, gullible victims. This image is constantly reinforced in their minds through the media with their agenda of carefully selected news items. They are joined by an Entertainment industry producing movies and TV dramatizations designed to create and perpetuate "politically correct" thinking and behavior. Like most effective mind control gambits, the techniques used upon all who live in a civilized society are "hidden in plain sight." But, who has the eyes to see them? Certainly not the blind who allow themselves to be led by the blind!
Many are following this drivers licensing issue of Unalienable Rights vs Government Privilege.
Have any of you paid close attention to the kind of comments arising from the vocal *anonymorons* (anonymous morons)? If you haven't, I suggest you do so. Check out the DejaNews archives under the name of Raymond Karczewski. Read the typical responses of the vocal but anonymous posters to my present challenge to government on this important Constitutional Issue.
What you will find are slogan spouting, anonymous disinformation agents operating under a multitude of aliases who never seek to address the issue, the message, but instead rely upon the time-tested and usually effective ploy of "attack the messenger" with emotional, ad hominem attacks. It is the old "Village Idiot" ploy designed to dishearten and destroy the will and character of the messenger and to also discourage others from similarly challenging the existing ruling structure. It is a simple ploy, but quite effective. Its use can be traced to the control arsenals of mind-manipulating leaders who have controlled the mass mind throughout the history of civilized man-made societies on this earth.
What is at stake, if the American People realize it is their Unalienable Right to travel freely upon the public roadways of this land without the permission of the government, a mere "instrument, a "servant" of the "People?" What is at stake if the people understand that their Rights cannot be Converted into a Privilege under the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land?
Is it a simple matter of the mindcontrolled masses seeking psychological comfort in "knowing" that those who are *papered* (licensed) by the state have passed a competency test to operate an automobile safely? If so, that ought to wake a few of you up. All that need be done is to look at the vehicular crime statistics, they tell the story of licensed driver's, do they not?
Or is the real issue which underlies this issue a matter of millions, perhaps billions of dollars to the coffers of mindcontrolling exploiters who make up an evergrowing industry of legislators, bureaucrats, police, judges, lawyers, and prison systems?
Ponder this, people of America. If you had not been defrauded by your government into thinking you have no choice but to be licensed by the State in order to drive your private automobile on public roads, would you have entered into such a debilitating contract? Would you have given up your Unalienable Right to Liberty and agreed to take on the burden of being prosecuted for vehicle code infractions (non crimes) which are designed toward the regulation of commercial traffic by drivers of motor vehicles who use the public roadways for commercial/ business purposes?
Look at the money that has been extorted from your pocketbook; the loss of time to one's personal, business, and family life through incarceration; the cost of financing ever-burgeoning mental health counseling programs, which have a vested interest in placing and keeping you under the control of psychiatric experts; the drugging of your bodies, which is designed to further destroy the natural intelligence of your precious organism; the forced community service programs, which defined in simpler language is no more than the SYSTEM'S way of implementing coercive slave labor programs.
All, because you agreed to the terms of a contract which allowed you to be prosecuted for "noncrimes."
The real problem is your silence, your apathy in this matter. Therein lies the reason for the present state of your consciousness and the quality of life you have created for yourselves. When it comes time to speak up for freedom and liberty, a muzzled populace is always a sign of crisis in the consciousness of civilized human beings.
A new millenium is upon us. Will it lead to a New World Consciousness or a New World Order?
That is up to each of us. I've made my decision, have you made yours?
Ray Karczewski