Driver Licensing vs.

Right to Travel
Author Unknown
http://freedomfromgovernment.us/

Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.

The following argument has been 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 the charges to be dropped, or for a win in court against the argument that free
people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants. 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 drivers 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. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to
have a drivers license.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION
NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if
he failed to do so, with this BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION, stating as follows:

ARGUMENT
Continue reading Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel
automobilecommerceconstitutiondriver licensefederallibertylicense platemanpersonrighttraffictravelvehicle
Court Strategies, For the record, Notices

Pulled over today with no license, license plate, or

registration
September 16, 2015
A CHP officer came up behind me today on 680N and turned his lights on, because I dont have a plate, I
knew he didnt have a warrant.
I know I didnt commit any Crime, so if I pulled over, it would be considered an Arrest by Consent. I
continued to my exit, about 3/4 of a mile. On the exit the officer said Pull over right here through his loud
speaker, I ignored him and continued to the light, turned my blinker, and turned. He repeated pull over right
now, I continued on, and took a right and pulled into a church parking lot.

California highway patrol gets its authority from the people!

The officer came to my passenger window, I immediately asked Am I under arrest?, he said No, I said,
So Im free to go?, he said no, I said So Im under arrest, this time he said yes.
I told him that I did not consent to this arrest, and asked him if he had a warrant. He said no, and asked for
my drivers license. I handed him my notarized secured party declaration, a copy of the bill of sale to the
truck, and my proof of insurance. He went back to his car for about 5 minutes.
A sergeant showed up and took over. I asked him if I was arrested and he said no. I again said So I can
leave? he said no, youre detained. He started talking about arresting me and towing the truck and I asked
under what authority. I told him I was on private property and I have not committed a crime. He agreed, but
was playing tough guy.
He started asking me what was going on with my license, asked if I was ever licensed in California, and why
the truck wasnt registered. I explained all of my info, we read through the case law and cvc together, and
both officers admitted that they were fascinated by this. Turns out they were anti-obama, anti-health care,
and tea partiers (who knows what type) but either way we made a connection.
I repeated that I have conviction and respect for the Constitution, and that I understand the codes and
definitions. I reminded the officers that ALL ROADS in the United States have been deemed channels of
Interstate commerce by the Supreme Court, and because of that, local and State laws are trumped by
Federal Laws, and that in the Federal Laws a Motor Vehicle was a Commercial Vehiclewe were waiting
for almost 30 minutes while they waited for word from their supervisors.
Eventually, they hand me a citation with none marked in the DL location, and none in the License Plate
location. I asked him if I was required to sign it, and he said yes, otherwise we have to take you to jail.
This now made the signature under duress. I wrote under duress and signed my name next to the ticket.
This is where I was surprised, the Officer said hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we
use against you in court is not admissible. Im not sure if this is true, but I was intrigued. I have written
refused for fraud across the original ticket, and sent it to the Court and the CHP with the letter below
attached. I have done this in the past, and never heard another word, I had wondered if there were any
warrants, apparently not!
*************************************
NOTICE and DEMAND ATTN: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8185 California Highway Patrol Golden
Gate Division
Officer B. Knudsen DUBLIN (390)
4999 Gleason Road Dublin, CA 94568-3310
CC: Certified Mail 7009 2820 0003 2274 8192
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
5672 Stoneridge Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8559
RE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Violation Number: 60435 LJ

This notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS as evidenced by the original citation in possession of, or
submitted by Officer B. Knudsen. Because this notice to appear was signed UNDER DURESS; 1)
Statements made therein shall not be considered admissible evidence, 2) As a party to this action, I hereby
void this contract and notice to appear, and 3) Any perceived consent or promise to appear is hereby
withdrawn. If you, or any Officer of the court or Officer of the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL disagrees
with the facts or statements stated above, you must refute those items point by point within 10 days of
receipt of this Notice, via sworn affidavit, under your full commercial liability, signing under penalty of perjury
that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Mere declarations are an
insufficient response, as declarations permit lying by omission and hearsay, which no honorable draft may
contain. If an extension of time is needed to properly answer, please request it in writing. Failure to respond
will be deemed agreement with the facts stated above and an inability to prove your claim.
_____________________________________
Non resident, non licensed and non registered pursuant to CVC 4, 17459, 17460 See: Edwards v. California,
314 US 160 (1941), Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579., Hertado v. California, 110 US 516 (Enclosed) Copy of
Notice to Appear
CHPcitationduressnoticerefusal for causerefusedsummonsticket