The drivers’ license has been perverted into a tool for social engineering.

The statutes of California are very clear that it is the commercial use of the streets and highways for the transportation of passengers and freight for compensation that is the object of the licensing statutes and not viatic use of the streets and highways as public rights of way by motorcar for the purposes of ingress and egress. Under the present mode of enforcing the statutory/regulatory scheme the license to drive is in fact tortuously converted into a license or permission to survive. It is permission for living life on even terms with the rest of the modern world. When one examines all of the alternatives to acquiring a license merely to travel autonomously one comes to realize that in fact, given the present enforcement scheme, you cannot compete for the available resources of this world nor even acquire the basic necessities of living without permission or without relying upon 3rd party permission to travel. All of the published cases addressing the right to travel pervert the distinction between the right to travel, (viatic use of the highways as rights of way, using the modern mode of ingress and egress) and the commercial concept of operating a motor vehicle, (the transportation of persons and property for hire). It works like this:

To obtain a license permitting the person to engage in AUTONOMOUS travel:
1. One must surrender their right to privacy: a. Embedded RFID chip in your wallet so you can be tracked like property. b. Allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to sell their personal and private information to would be peddlers and any self-interested party with the cost of copying the information. These self interests then use your personal and private information to their serve selfish ends. (Reno v. Condon) One must surrender the right to be secure in his person and possessions and to move about unmolested and must suffer his person to warrantless seizure and restraint under the color of every imaginable human imperfection. Not merely conduct not rising to the level of crime but benign conduct bringing harm to no one A.K.A. warrantless seizure for non-criminal infractions of the Motor Vehicle Code. One must surrender the right not to be a witness against oneself or to produce evidence on command. One must surrender the right not to associate with unethical insurance companies in league with municipal corporations with whom they are incestuously invested.


3. 4.


In order to use ones own property, upon the streets and highways in which “We the People” enjoy joint tenancy one must;
5. Surrender the right to the absolute ownership of property and seek a license for said property called a registration. a. They must then pay a registration fealty and in so doing grant a lien right to the state allowing the right of property to be reduced to the station of a mere “privilege”, without regard to necessity or that it is the only means by which a man may be anything but dependent upon others for every necessity of the modern world. Surrender the right to be secure in ones possessions and suffer warrantless seizure of ones person and property under the auspice of every conceivable human imperfection. If one should dare to exercise the right to travel upon the streets and highways without leave or license. (VC 14607.4(g)) Surrender the right not to have your right to travel held hostage to a license. Surrender the right not to have the license held hostage to payment of demands made upon every conceivable human imperfection. Surrender the right to a fair hearing, a. By an impartial magistrate or b. By a jury of one’s peers, c. With the advice and assistance of counsel d. In a court that provides a true record on appeal e. In a court where the people and the law are treated with respect f.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.


Is there an alternative to securing the government created privilege?
a. I hear one can walk but I see that to be less true daily and I know not how one brings home groceries and other supplies, or takes ones children to school or after school activities nor any of the other occasion required in life by walking. b. Then there is the same problem in common with the bicycle as being exposed to weather and suffering great physical effort to accomplish even the simplest tasks not to mention being forced to the shoulder of the roads and not upon the streets and highways themselves. c. Then of course we have the benevolence of a friend who holds permission or license d. Or perhaps a benevolent stranger holding leave or license e. Or maybe even purchasing transportation services in commerce from a commercial carrier with a business license and operated by a driver with a chauffeurs license. f. Or perhaps a private carrier from a license cab or limousine company with a driver that holds permission or license.



Government is an abstraction of the mind that only exists in contemplation of law; therefore, everything government does or can do, can only be lawful. All of those things done in the name of government, which are in fact absent the authority or sanction of law, are not done by government but by government actors under the color of law. The matter before this court portends itself to be a criminal action when in fact it is an attempt to tortuously convert protected political rights into meager privileges the exercise of which in the absence of license or permission is maliciously prosecuted as if it were some form of crime or public offense. Let there be no mistake, no misunderstanding, I'm not here today by accident, but by design. I'm here today because I have positioned myself to be where I am and I'm here with a very specific agenda. I'm here to bring forth the truth, to expose it before the world in all its ugliness and to bear witness to the institutionalized lie that brings me before this court today. I am here today because I will not seek the permission of government actors to exercise constitutionally protected political rights. The 1879; CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Constitution of the [1] State of California (1849) We the people of California, grateful to Almighty; God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution. Article I: Declaration of Rights [2] Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

The language of the California Constitution appears to be very clear. Both the De jure Constitution of 1849 as well as the de facto Constitution of 1879 place this declaration of rights properly in Article 1 section 1. In fact the federal Constitution only provides two 3

remedies for the redress of grievance. These remedies were properly placed in the first and second amendments. All throughout history, man, in order to survive, to secure the bare necessities of life, to acquire property and to pursue their health, safety and happiness, have depended upon the viatic use of the streets and highways to attain those ends. Over the course of 50,000 years of recorded history use of the streets and highways has not merely been a right but a right annexed to the persons of men by necessity. The most prized and precious of all my worldly possessions are my protected political rights. The most fundamental of which, the right to move about, to freely associate and to be independent, without the exercise of which no other right can be fully realized, is, by a purported statutory regulatory scheme, held hostage to leave or license, to be granted or withheld at the leisure of government actors according to the terms of their own proclamations. Such a thing is not now nor has it ever been because it cannot be law. Our law is published in our books. If it is not published in our books it is not our law. We the people in ordaining and establishing our Constitution of government did not create a document that granted us anything. We created, by that act and through that instrument, a republican form of government to which we granted to government a limited authority to administer to those things specifically within the confines of that endowment. If Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America is taken to mean what it says in declaring itself the Supreme Law of the Land, then every state entering into the Union did so on express terms of agreement to honor that Article in strict conformity with the doctrine there proclaimed. The first three words of that document established a principle upon which our entire system of jurisprudence is based. That principle distinguishes between the political authority endowed to the people by their maker, and which authorized them to declare the Law, and the legal power to delegate limited authority to those entrusted to carry out the duties of the public offices created or authorized by that instrument to preserve public justice as holders of the peoples trust. In the hopes of avoiding the folly of what Dr. Vieira calls Humpty Dumpty law, I will quote from Fletcher v. Tuttle 151 Ill. 41, 37N.E. 683 . . . in which the Court distinguishes between political rights and legally conferred rights, or privileges. We find this echoed in Black's Law Dictionary, which defines political rights as "those, which may be exercised in the formation or administration of government. Rights of citizens established or recognized by constitutions which give them the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government." No court has ever dared to suggest that the exercise of a protected right should be made subject to the forfeiture of another protected right. In fact, in Simon v. U.S. 390 US 389


the court said, " we find it intolerable that one constitutionally protected right should have to be waived to exercise another” . . . . . . . The distinction between legal and political authority is further made explicit in Article II in providing for the election of a political President of the United States of America as against the sworn in legal President of the United States, and is made unequivocal in the First Amendment which articulates those rights and freedoms placed beyond the reach of legal process. When the Nixon court explained Baker v. Carr, in saying that "A controversy is nonjustifiable, i.e. involves a political question, where there is . . . a lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolving it ... ", the court had no intention of restricting political rights to those only which involve electoral processes. Any doubts as to this proposition are resolved by reference to the First Amendment which enshrines the most important political rights intended to be protected from abusive, arbitrary or despotic powers. Among those rights, is the right of free association, which translates, to the right of free choice of domicile. There can be no infringement of the right to choose one's political affiliations, and this right prohibits coercion of any kind, which would compel an individual to associate with a corporate, commercial or political interest. We find this principle substantiated in the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment, which secures the people's natural and absolute right to exercise their political freedoms free from arbitrary imposition of dubious legal initiatives, or regulatory ambitions. The prohibition is declared in the imperative, "shall not be violated", and in providing for the required elements of application of warrants of law, allows for no exceptions. All reasonable instances of search and seizure will be found to be justified when satisfying these requirements, and thus there can be no exceptions. In fact all cases employing the term can be understood as various rationalizations on the concept of warrant of law. Political rights are simply not within the province of our courts because they cannot be made amenable to justiciable process. The 4th Amendment opens with the unqualified acknowledgement of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects," against unreasonable searches and seizures", and declares by imperative command that such right "shall not be violated". The language of that acknowledgement is not colorable, and leaves no room for supposition or construction as to whether the right to be secure against intrusion, molestation, or confiscation is a predicate right or privilege. The right to be secure against arbitrary or warrant-less interference or invasion on the part of government actors is stated in plain language as an existing right, absolute,


unqualified, and is not only one belonging to the people, but one that stands as a primitive of our American jurisprudence. The provision that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, . . . is clearly intended to erect a barrier against abusive government authority by establishing specific prohibitions and constraints, and most emphatically nowhere allows for exceptions. Any and every intrusion, interference, or restraint of liberty or privacy or deprivation of a property interest shall require warrant of law. For if 4th Amendment protections can be denied by imposition of fictitious abstractions, then the doctrine of 'reasonable and probable cause' are a fraud, and warrant of law becomes indistinguishable from the Writs of Assistance issued by the kings' men in an effort to 'legalize' their plunder. If 4th Amendment protections are deemed to be subject to civil law exceptions, under the guise of contractual obligations or regulatory controls conferring upon government various prerogatives, then government actors, and even individuals are encouraged to trespass against their fellow citizens, thereby inviting anarchy by violating the distinction between civil and criminal process. ................................... NOTES; The question as to how to exercise a fundamental right while preserving other protected rights, and avoiding devolution of any such rights to the status of mere privilege and without becoming the victim of warrantless seizures and malicious prosecutions comes now before this court. Since the Constitution cannot be lawfully amended by regulation, court decision, or legislative fiat, what provision of the Supreme Law of the Land,(Article XI), justifies lawful exception to 4th Amendment protections against warrant-less arrest or seizure? If the exercise of the fundamental right to travel requires the compromise of 4th Amendment protections, then the plain language of that Amendment cannot be trusted to mean what it says. And the qualifying term, "unreasonable" becomes subversive, rendering the whole provision ineffective for any purpose related to fundamental rights. If the mandate "shall not be violated" is not imperative, allowing for no doubt as to its meaning and intent, then how shall the law itself be preserved? If imperative is not imperative, then prohibition is not prohibition, and the law is thus reduced to a mockery, constructed with ambiguous terms, amorphous innuendo, intrinsic self-contradiction, and ultimately self destructive. Such Law can be no law at all.


Thus can 4th Amendment protections be seen as essential, not only for preserving our constitutional order, but even for purposes of maintaining the social order, and the reason for instituting government among men. Indeed a people made to live under constant insecurity are not a people capable of establishing the trust, confidence, and peaceful conditions required for prosperity. If the People allow the courts or the legislatures to abrogate their 4th Amendment obligations, they will invite the destruction of the peace, their prosperity, their rights and the rule of law itself, thus subjecting themselves to the arbitrary rulership of greedy despots. Considering the possible exception to fourth Amendment protections involving the takings clause of the fifth Amendment will easily reveal itself as no exception at all. Since the Fifth Amendment proscribes any taking of personal property for public use absent adequate compensation. This does not constitute a 4th Amendment exception for the simple reason that it is presumed that such taking for public purposes is by its very nature warranted under our law, providing that such warranted taking is conducted in accordance with the due process of law. "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation . . . ", is fortified by Sixth Amendment guarantee of the "Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause" of the accusations against one, and is further substantiated by 9th and 10th Amendment declarations as to the reservation of powers reserved to the People, and emphatically not the government. Probable Cause is also unambiguous for it necessarily requires a clear and concise declaration of the controlling body of applicable law, as well as a full accounting of the elements that would go to constitute said alleged probable cause. This is co-equal with the requirement to articulate each of the four elements essential to establishing a claim of any kind. If 4th Amendment exceptions exist, they are also subject to 1st Amendment constraints and prohibitions. The first most obvious example being, the right to travel as a fundamental right incident to the exercise of other fundamentally protected rights. The right to peaceably assemble, or associate, a right necessarily implied by each of the first four clauses of the First Amendment, require for their exercise, the right to move about, to travel according to the customary mode of the day, free of unwarranted molestation or interference. It cannot be denied that without 4th Amendment protections to be secure in person, houses, papers and effects, there can be no meaning attributed to the various provisions of the 1st Amendment. And it is equally clear and undeniable that specious manufacture of 4th Amendment exceptions renders the protections of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th Amendments futile and ineffective for any legitimate purpose. In the course of these proceedings defense will show that the instance, which gave rise to the matter before this court, was one that the 1st and fourth Amendments were specifically designed to prevent.


In order to obtain a license to use the streets and highways for securing the bare necessities of life, one must surrender other fundamental rights.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful