The Right to travel is Guaranteed

Hierarchies create the problem FIRST

This is one of the many example’s that show how hierarchies
evolve power brokerage cartels. It’s all about control over
other human beings. You have to know a whole bunch of useless
information “laws” to “prove” that you have the “right” to
exist and not bother anyone while feeding yourself and your
family. In a non hierarchical , non bureaucratic,
voluntaryist society, we would be expending our creative
energies to make the world a better place. People would not be
wasting their time writing or reading the following information
and being concerned about having to pay or not pay our “tribute”
for a “license” to do something that is as basic as eating or
breathing. The ability to travel is long since documented a
BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
Now the BORG Agents (COPS) are programed to contract with those
unsuspecting slaves the “pull over”. The courts can charge
those a ‘penalty” for not following the rules, the unsuspecting
slave agreed to follow when you got your “drivers
license”. Basically when you go to “court”, it’s really an
administrative hearing. They are not going to hear these
arguments BECAUSE your car is titled with the state, you have
insurance and you have a drivers license. You are operating in
commerce and therefore you are “Driving” and you loose.
I suggest you read the following Transportation Stop Action
Script. I have not used it yet however you are putting the BORG
agent on notice that he is not following the rules. Its just
another leg to stand on. It is HIGHLY recommended!
The Right to Travel Freely is Guaranteed
THE Sovereign individuals
have a Constitutionally Guaranteed and Lawful
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Freely throughout the United States
without the need of permission or a license
from any State, City or Political Subdivision
After the natural laws of the universe, the Constitution for the
United [Sovereign Republic] States of America is the supreme law
of the land. The United States Supreme Court decisions are the
only authorized interpretations of that supreme law. Next to the
Constitution, in superior authority, are all treaties made or
which shall be made by the United States. Then, the fifty titles
of the United States code are next in authority as law in the
United States of America. Every state constitution is
subordinate to and subject to these aforementioned Supreme Laws
of the land.
If the Constitution for the United States of America and its
Supreme Court decisions state you have the right to travel
freely throughout the United States without the need or
encumbrance of a “Driver’s License:” Then, NO state law can
overrule or contradict that law and those decisions.
If the United States code plainly states what a “Motor Vehicle”
is, then NO state has the right to interpret it differently.
Nor, can they ignore, usurp, abrogate, nullify or overrule the
U.S. Code.
If the United States is a signatory of an International Treaty
or Convention, then every state in the union is a signatory of,
bound by, subject to and are to uphold that treaty.
Surprisingly enough, every state constitution and state law,
which I have so far read, does comply with and acknowledge the
“paramount authority” of the Constitution for the United States
and federal laws, to their own states’ constitution, laws and
statutes.Exactly what does the Constitution, supreme court
decisions and U.S. Code say about the citizen’s right to travel?
Supreme Court Decisions which pertain to the Right to Travel
The Passenger Cases (7 Howard) 7 How. 283 (1849)
“We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of
the same community, must have the right to pass and repass
through every part of it without interruption.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
granted by the Federal Constitution. [113] Freedom of press,
freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred
position…the privilege in question exists apart from state
authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal
Constitution.” [115]
Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958)
“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under
the fifth amendment.”
NAACP vs. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958)
“Like the right of association [the right to travel freely] is a
virtually unconditional personal right guaranteed by the
constitution to us all.”
Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US 500 (1964)
“…a personal liberty protected by the Bill of Rights…Freedom of
travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights
of free speech and association…the constitutional right to
travel has been firmly established and repeatedly
recognized…that a right so elementary was conceived from the
beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United
States has long been recognized as a basic right under the
constitution.”
United States v. Guest 383 US 745 (1966)
“The constitutional right to travel…is a right that has been
firmly established and repeatedly recognized…a right so
elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event,
freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been
recognized as a basic right under the constitution”
Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 (1969)
“…freedom to travel is an element of the “liberty” secured by
[the due process clause of the fifth amendment.]”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969) [not: 373 US
262(63)]
“…our decisions have made clear that a person faced with…an
unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with
impunity in the exercise of the right…for which the law purports
to require a license.”
Constitutionally Guaranteed Right Cannot Be Converted Into A
Crime
Miller v. US (5th Circuit) 230 F. 2d. 486 (1956)
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be
converted into a crime”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them.”
Hale v. Henkel 201 US 43 (1906)
“…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a
corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional
rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private
business in his own way…He owes nothing to the public so long as
he does not trespass upon their rights. Upon the other hand, the
corporation is a creature of the state…it’s powers are limited
by law.”
Byars v. United States 273 US 28 (1927)
“…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment
thereon.”
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803)
“…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an
act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886)
“An unconstitutional act is not law…it imposes no duty…it is, in
legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been
passed.”
Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887)
“The supreme court of the United States is, however, the final
expositor and arbiter of all disputed questions touching the
scope and meaning of that sacred instrument [the US
Constitution], and its decisions thereon are binding upon all
courts, both state and federal.”
Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908)
“The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official
confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal
right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts
under a state law in a manner violative of the federal
constitution. And he is, in that case, stripped of his official
or representative character, and is subjected in his person to
the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no
power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States.”
Staub v. Baxley 355 US 313 (1958)
“…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms
which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the
uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or
license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of
such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior
restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”
United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 (1968)
“If a law has ‘no other purpose…’ than to chill the assertion of
constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise
them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.”
Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton) 19 US 264 (1821)
“A law cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver. We have no
more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is
given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the
other would be treason to the constitution. The several state
legislatures and judiciaries, are all bound by solemn obligation
of an oath, to support the federal constitution;…willfully
legislating in violation of that constitution…[is] guilty of
perjury. [309]”
Without Willful Intent To Violate The Law There Is No Crime.
United States v. Murdock 290 US 389 (1933)
“The [Supreme] Court has recognized that the word “willfully”
generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known
legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of wilfulness as
“bad faith or evil intent.”
Spies v. United States 317 US 492 (1943)
“…the word “willfully”…generally connotes a voluntary,
intentional violation of a known duty. It is not the purpose of
the law to penalize frank differences of opinion or innocent
errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care”
Sansone v. United States 380 US 343 (1965)
“If his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty.”
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973)
“The court, in fact, has recognized that the word “willfully” in
these statutes generally connotes a voluntary, intentional
violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the
requirement of willfulness as “bad faith or evil intent,” …if
his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty…”<
Evans v. United States 504 US 255 (1992)
“[The] offense of extortion” was understood…[as] a wrongful
taking under a false pretense of official right” [269] and
citing White v. State, 56 Ga. 385 & 389 (1876) “generically
extortion is an abuse of public justice and a misuse by
oppression of the power with which the law clothes a public
officer.” [270]
ADDENDUM
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979)
License (In re: Streets & Highways): “The privilege of using the
streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers
for hire can be acquired by permission or license from the state
or it’s political subdivision.”
There are numerous decisions in state supreme courts throughout
the United States on the right to travel. They all can be summed
up best by the Virginia case:
Thompson v. Smith 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 ALR 604 (1930)
“The right of a 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 his right to
enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and
pursue happiness and security. It includes the right in so doing
to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and
includes the right to operate an automobile thereon, for the
usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a
privilege, like the privilege of moving a house on the street,
operating a business stand on the street, or transporting
persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may
permit or prohibit at will.”
In Re: Charles Stark v. City of San Francisco Cal. Surpreme CT.
(1914)
“The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation,
and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the
rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended
with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge
upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in
and imposes conditions upon its exercise.”
The United States code expressly defines the term Motor Vehicle:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 31 (6)
“The term ‘motor vehicle’ means every description of a carriage
or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and
used for commercial purposes.”
Constitution for the United [Sovereign Republics] States of
America
Article VI paragraph II:
“This constitution and the laws of the United States…; and all
treaties made or which shall be made…shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the
contrary not withstanding…”
Now that we have a much clearer understanding of what the
Constitution, the supreme court decisions and the U.S. Code
actually say on the subject; how can we apply this knowledge to
our situation?
First: If you “drive” a taxi, limousine, etc…or haul any kind of
cargo for Hire; then you are required to have a “driver’s
license!” But: If you are NOT engaged in “commercial” activity
and do not “carry passengers and/or cargo for hire;” then you do
NOT need a “driver’s license”!
 Because; you are not “driving,” you are “traveling.”
Because; you are not operating a “motor vehicle;” you are
traveling in an “automobile;” “horse-less carriage,”
“truck,” “van,” etc…
 Because; you are not transporting “passengers;” they are
your traveling “companions” or “guests.”
 Because; you are not carrying “cargo,” it is “private
property;” (No matter what you do with it, when you reach
your destination.)
  Because; the Supreme Court says you DON’T need any form of
“license” or pay any “fee,”to enjoy your “liberty” and your
constitutional rights!
Most police officers are only aware of what they are taught at
their police academy or by their training officers. They are
legally responsible to be aware of the Constitution, federal
laws and Supreme Court decisions. The fact is, they have even
sworn an oath to uphold them: But, there is only so much
training they receive. That training is focused on trying to
control the masses, keep the peace and gain revenue for the
state. So please don’t expect them to understand. You will have
to educate them. Even those who do know the truth might ignore
it, for the “status quo” of what they think is the right thing
to do.
You might consider to express your assertion of your
constitutional rights in a self-authenticating, notarized, and
internationally Apostilled Right to Travel Document.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902 (3); Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 27 and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 44 (a)(2) & (1991 Amendment) all deal with
“self-authenticating documents,” acknowledging that they are
legal and valid as evidence for the courts and other public
offices.
Create a “Right to Travel document:
” write down an affidavit of facts as you know them. You can
make it as simple or as complex as you wish. Then, have it
notarized. Take it to a Notary Public and have them notarize
your signature on your “Right to Travel document.” (You might
want to use some other form of identification: Examples:
Passport, Firearms ID, etc…instead of a “driver’s license” to
verify your ID to the Notary Public.)
Once it is notarized, then you can take it to local state’s
Secretary of State’s Office, and have your “Right to Travel”
document “APOSTILLED” under the International Treaty of the
Convention of the Hague. The state’s secretary, acting for the
Secretary of State of the United States, will take and affix a
cover letter acknowledging its’ official status as an APOSTILLE
of the Convention of the Hague, then they will punch holes in
the document, put a ribbon through the holes and emboss their
state’s seal to it. (Many states as sovereign republics, have
signed this treaty as well.)
The “Apostille” is an international notary, recognized by every
country that is a signatory of the “Convention de la Haye du 5
octobre 1961” (and, even by some nations, who are not part of
the treaty.)
Then, you will have an “official” document to show anyone who
would challenge your lawful “Right to Travel” freely, even
internationally.
Any act to attempt to deprive a citizen of their
constitutionally guaranteed rights is a direct violation of
Federal Law. It is also a crime called a “felony:” Title 18 USC
§ 241 Conspiracy against rights, and § 242 Deprivation of Rights
under color of Law. Civil damages: Title 42 USC § 1986 action
for neglect to prevent; § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights and § 1983Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Simply because you are in the right, and have the paramount laws
of the land on your side, does not mean you will not be harassed
or even attacked for standing up for your constitutional rights,
even by those who have sworn an oath to them, and to serve and
protect you, as hard as that may be to believe.
Well meaning, ignorant and sometimes ‘evil’ people have been
able to assume positions of authority in our society. Instead of
obeying their oaths and promises to serve and protect “We the
People,” they are only interested in personal gain. They
masturbate their egos and they become tyrants.
So, if you are not willing to pledge your Life, your Fortune and
your most Sacred Honor to both God and man and stand against the
tyranny; fighting all the enemies of the constitution, both
enemies “foreign” and the most lethal “domestic” enemies: Then,
it would be better for you to submit yourself to “privileges”
and ignore your “rights.”
If your only motivation to travel without a “license” is to
avoid your responsibilities, then the assertion of your
constitutional “Right to Travel” is not the path for you.
Because, the truth is there is a greater commitment of
responsibility to the assertion of your “rights” and the
“paramount” laws of this land than to submit to “privileges.”
However, if you are up to the challenge and are prepared for the
commitment, then you now have the knowledge to make an informed
decision for yourself and your personal “liberty!”
Take it before your Higher Power. There is a quote in the
Christian Bible stating “My people are destroyed for the lack of
knowledge:” (Hosea 4:6) Study the law on your own. Don’t be too
willing to take anyone’s opinion on any subject as though it
were fact. You would be amazed at how many presumptions are
accepted as “fact,” and the “Truth” is ignored by those who
should and are required to know the “Truth.”