Posted by Jay P Rutledge on July 18, 1997 at 03:31:31:
In Reply to: Driver's License posted by Brenda McCurdy on July 14, 1997 at 16:19:58:
: Has anyone personally had any success with not having a driver's license and/or vehicle license/registration for a personally owned automobile that is not for hire?? (Not a "vehicle" according to Texas Transportation Code?? I have heard that if you are not using your auto for transporting people or goods FOR HIRE that your auto doesn't have to be registered.
: Thanks, Brenda
The following is not gospel or advice of any kind, but hopefully will increase understanding.
The commercial distinction only applies when you are not statused as "resident" of the State of Texas.
I believe the first thing you have to accept before you try to exercise your rights is the fact that the nation is under law martial. I know this sounds fantastic, but when you study ex parte Milligan ( a supreme court case) and the Lieber Code (Executive Order 100), you will see that the courts and civil authority can continue under law martial as they would in peace. Then read the Senate Report publicized by the Amrican Freedom Coalition on the State of Emergency that has continued without interruption since March 9, 1933. Once your mind is open to the possibility that the government considers iself as operating by the law martial (and you consider what the phrase "military necessity ... admits of deception" allows and you realize "national security" is just another phrase for military necessity ) the more you look the more you will see. For instance, in Virginia all judges are "Law Enforcement Officers" which is a category they co-habit with US Marshalls, other federal enforcement agents, and Virginia Executive Department enforcement agents. So much for the separation of the Judicial and Executive branches in a republic. The inescapable conclusion is that all state governments are puppet governments of the occupying federal paramount force. Another case Thorington v Smith is instructive in understanding the permanent legal consequences of the period 1860-65, too. These consequences affect the administration of justice from municipal courts all the way to the supreme court.
In American courts unless you make a special effort to be in another jurisdiction and venue, you are in a civil law venue under martial law.
Another legal mechanism by which the federal authority reaches into state territory is the 14th Amendment (which was ratified at bayonet point) and the key word in that Amendment for purposes of this topic is the word "reside". So what does it mean to "reside" in a State ? All State codes define the word "resident". If your conduct matches the definition and/or you elect on government forms to be a resident, then you are. Otherwise you are an inhabitant citizen or nonresident citizen of the State. If you elect to be a citizen of the United States or a US citizen on a form, you simultaneously elect to be a "resident" of your State. All of this deceptive legal language is necessary for the government's legal purposes because the States have been conquered and occupied, but not completely absorbed by the federal authority. A Tenth Amendment limit on federal authority was affirmed in the recent Brady decision. Because the States accept federal funds and federal authority with the funds, it's difficult to tell where martial law federal authority begins and federal authority from financial incentive ends. But, practically speaking, it does not matter in the legal system. The effect is the same.
If you are statused as a "resident" you are subject to all kinds of civil code as a person or individual that does not apply to inhabitants who can still get protection of the common law. For instance, in the Va code, a "nonresident" is exempt from any car tax imposition by local government UNLESS the nonresident is in commercial activity with the vehicle other than farm to market commerce. On the face of it, nonresident sounds like somebody who doesn't live there and resident sounds like somebody who does. But I am firmly convinced (by other usage and provisions associated with the word nonresident in the code) that the colloqial meaning is not the legal meaning of these words. And I think this is where the Buck Act, Zip Codes, etc. do apply. You qualify yourself as a "resident" if you have a free delivery postal address. Residents and nonresident/inhabitants alike are subject to excise taxes (like the income tax). Also a Social Security participant or anybody receiving federal benefits addressed to them personally is a citizen of the United States and a "resident" of their State.
Your Right to Travel or Liberty of Movement Right is a common law right and if you cannot get under the common law because you have statused yourself as a resident, you only have civil rights. Civil rights are the rights of 14th amendment citizens. They are legislated by Congress and are not the Bill of Rights rights. Congress has not legislated a right to travel. I have seen the proposition that a State cannot interfere with your 14th Amendment right to go on the highways from State to State. The right to go on the highways among the several States without State interference has been held by the court to be a 14th Amendment Constitutional right. But the case in question did not involve "reasonable state regulation" like insurance and tags and licenses and I think that has been upheld against "residents" on numerous occassions. And residents in court are in a civl law venue under martial law.
So, your right to travel without license, tags, and insurance is there in the common law if you can get statused to be under its protection and IF you can deal with the law martial law enforcement officers, judges, and procedures. Common law abatement pleas can keep you out of their traffic court, but I don't yet know how you get your impounded car back. This common law right could be extinguished by a treaty, but so far as I know has not been, yet.
Post a Followup