Posts

Can you drive without a license?

Most Americans waive their right to travel on the roads by getting a driver’s license.

Licenses are for commercial use of the roads. Government has a duty to regulate commerce. Government also has a duty to secure the blessings of liberty. There is no conflict between these two duties. Traveling without a license is a liberty that government officials are sworn to protect.

Commerce restricts travel. Examples:

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516 “ … For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”

Washington State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864:“The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”

Willis v. Buck, 263 P. 982 (1928): “On that point the opinion is not controlling here, as no person has a vested right to use the public highways for a commercial purpose, and a denial of the mere license to do so takes from him no property or property right.”

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “ Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v Kuykendall 267 US 307 at page 314:“The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35” . . .
“A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144“

How do you like that? The U.S. Supreme Court says that a federal citizen may have the right to travel interstate by auto vehicle. Today’s judges tell you the opposite.

Don’t be fooled by the legal term “motor vehicle”. This is a term that originated in statutory definitions 100 years ago but in wide usage has become known to mean something else. Do not assume these old legislatures intended to use today’s common misuse of their language.

Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20:“ Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled”

The federal definition of Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 31 definitions:
“(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…”
“(10) “Used for commercial purposes.” Means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit”

For more information read my essay on Driving here. But don’t blame me for corrupt courts that have no respect for your rights.

Steven Miller · Originally answered Jul 10, 2017

Someone tried to tell me: If everyone is free to do as he or she pleased society will quickly dissolve into chaos. Is it important that people abide by the law?

Here is my rebuttal.

Your question is wrong. You don’t understand what law is.

The laws that you expect people to obey are written laws created by artificial (graven) entities.  The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that it is the divine laws of nature that entitle the United States to exist. The laws that entitle the U.S. to exist do not need to be written. Everyone is bound to the divine laws of nature. Maxim of Law: Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat Ignorance of a law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man.

We did not have a central government for the first ten books of the Bible. It was evil in the eyes of the Lord to elect a King to rule over us. (First Samuel 12:17).  Christ at the Last Supper (Luke 22:25) told his Apostles that they are not to be like the princes of the pagans that take orders from “those who exercise authority over them”.

The Declaration of Independence also says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that to secure these God-given rights governments are instituted among men.

Just what is the divine law of nature? Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law was a four volume law textbook that existed in the American Colonies when the States were writing their Constitutions. Blackstone’s Commentaries 7 page introduction to law says, among other things:

“… no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original..[divine law of nature] … Neither could any other law possibly exist; … for we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being.”

Now you know why we are all created equal. An equal will not take orders from another equal.

Your words “free to do as he or she pleased” must necessarily exclude any acts which violate the rights or property of others. If your rights are violated we must revert to the laws of nature. Maxim of law: When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature. Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege natureae utendum est.”

We will return to the laws of nature. This is what gives us the right to hang cattle rustlers, murderers, child rapists, etc. Maxim of Law: Peccata contr naturam sunt gravissima. Crimes against nature are the most heinous.

If we don’t waive our rights, then we have all the privileges and immunities of all other Citizens, just like it says in the Constitution. We have the same equal right to duel to the death, just as equal to other Citizens like President Jackson, Vice President Aaron Burr and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, U.S. Senator Broderick and California Supreme Court Justice David Terry. And government cannot interfere with your right to the natural law that entitles government to exist. To do so would be to question the legitimacy of their own office.

When laws imposed by the state fail, people will be much more respectful of the rights of others. Why do you call this “chaos”?

For more insight read my essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Aug 9, 2018.

Revised 8/28/2019

Do you trust your lawyer?
Is he colluding with opposing counsel?
What are your rights?
What I would do.

DO YOU TRUST YOUR LAWYER?

The American Bar Association (ABA) reports:

• 60% of the public can’t afford a lawyer.
• 20% simply don’t want to spend the money.
• 50% just don’t trust lawyers!

That is why ½ of all court proceedings involve at least one pro-se party.

IS HE COLLUDING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL?

Once you understand the procedures that run the courts, you can know exactly what your lawyer should be doing. And know enough to push him in the right direction. I recommend a self-help law course for those who do not trust lawyers.

• If you have a lawyer — understand what he should be doing, so that you can control him, and know when to fire him.
• If you don’t have a lawyer — understand what YOU should be doing. All the basic courtroom procedures are explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course. This is a step-by-step guide on how to win in court. It has Pro-Se tactics, and forms for civil cases.

You can understand why lawyers cannot be trusted by reading my essay at Can a lawyer be honest?  My essay will tell you the history, the conspiracy, and you will also learn that:

• The Supreme Court said that the bar was associated with rude and degrading barbarism.
• U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said that 50% of American Trial Lawyers are too incompetent to represent anyone.
• TIME Magazine April 10, 1978 quotes Chief Justice Warren Burger warning us:

“We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.”

• The same TIME article also tells us:

Chesterfield Smith, a former president of the American Bar Association, said that he would not trust 20% to 25% of all lawyers”

WHAT I WOULD DO.

All the basic courtroom procedures are explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course.

Steven Miller · Originally posted January 31, 2019
revised 8/24/2019

Governments must spend money for Constitutional purposes such as military.
Education is NOT a function of Government. There is no authority to spend money for public education of children, with the exception of surrendered children, blind and deaf.

The Supreme Court keeps ruling over and over and over again that it is the parents responsibility to educate their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, and there are dozens of cases on family privacy.

Communism is un-American. Public schools are the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto. Communism cannot recognize individual rights. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE EVIL. Back when America was a free country, people never thought public schools would exist in America. After all, our state Constitutions just do not authorize such a thing [although they may authorize schools for the blind and deaf, and universities that charge tuition]. Rights can only come with responsibilities, and no one would have a right to force others to pay for their children’s education. Even the U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, concluded “it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life…”
This is very similar to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law:

“The duty of parents for the maintenance of their [legitimate] children is a principle of natural law … The establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation… The last duty of parents to their children is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life … Yet the municipal laws constraining the parent to bestow a proper education upon his children made a wise provision for breeding up the rising generation… .”

That’s right! By institutionalizing “your” children, you have confessed that you are incapable of raising your own children. You lose your parental rights. The children become wards of the state. It is no wonder family courts are so sure that they have jurisdiction over the state’s children. Activist judges no longer fear that they will be charged with kidnapping, genocide, and depravation of liberty under color of law. For un-surrendered children, state protection would be severely limited to a compelling state interest.

Who would ever send their children to ungodly indoctrination factories to be transformed into mindless robots for the state? This sounds too much like a science fiction story of an alternate future that went horribly wrong.
For those parents who forfeit their rights to their own children, Hillary’s village will be waiting to raise them. (If it takes a village to perform a natural duty that everyone has, then how competent can these villagers be? )
Yes, there are state schools for the blind and forced schooling for children of parents who cannot care for themselves.

These forced education exceptions for surrendered children were never intended for the vast majority. It was not until 1900 New York that socialist public schools were forced on an unsuspecting public.
Here is proof that mandatory public education IS genocide.
The Genocide Treaty ratified by the Senate on February 19, 1986, 78 UNTS 277, defines genocide in its Article II as

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: … (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”

If you don’t realize that Christian children are forcibly transferred to another group for the purposes of Genocide then you don’t understand why public schools were established.

For more information read my essay at http://notfooledbygovernment.com…

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Dec 22, 2017

The word “religion” only appears once in the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
And in Article 6 we find: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”

Religion was defined in Webster’s Dictionary first edition as:

2. religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1:26.”

Also notice in definition 4 that Webster included within the term religion, the false religions.

Everyone has a different beliefs on how to perform all known duties to God and our fellow man.  The founders, perhaps with evil intent, did not want to restrict officers of government to certain specific beliefs about their private duties.  Their public duties were well defined by their duties delegated by the Constitution.

The term “religion” might not be an ethical term.  In the King James Bible the word “religion” appears five times.  Four of which are in a negative context, which is in contrast to “pure religion” of James 1:27 where it is spoken of in a positive light.

A treaty with Tripoli ratified by two-thirds of the Senate and signed by President Adams in June of 1797 correctly states in Article 11: “… the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”. This quote is from the English language version signed by President Adams, in U.S. archives, even though the original foreign version of this treaty is missing this controversial clause.

President Adams and two thirds of the Senators in 1797 knew the truth about Washington DC. John Adams would have known the truth, after all, he was, with Ben Franklin, a signer of the Peace Treaty with England that ended the war and authorized the U.S. to exist.

For more information read my essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Aug 22, 2018.

The U.S. government exists only to the extent of the authority delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution.  It was delegated the 18 things the States allow it to do, as listed in Article 1, section 8.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson insisted that State Citizens were subject to only three federal laws. The three crimes mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Back in 1798, the people living in Kentucky wanted assurance that they were free from federal law. They knew they were free from most federal laws but they remained skeptical. Vice President Thomas Jefferson reassured them in the Kentucky Resolves that, as a state, the state inhabitants are subject to only three federal laws. The three mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Piracy, Treason and Counterfeiting.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson wrote both Kentucky Resolutions.
Full text of both Kentucky Resolutions can be found here: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 and 1799

“… the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Seas, and offenses against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, “that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,”

State inhabitants are subject to ONLY three federal laws. As a State inhabitant, YOU WERE FREE FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION, until you surrendered.

After the Civil War, while some states were still under martial law of the Reconstruction period, the Supreme Court determined in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 that States must protect their people against the federal government.

Nor are State people protected by the Federal Government. Example: The first eight Amendments do not apply to States and do not protect state people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Twinning v. New Jersey in 1908 and in Hague v. CIO in 1939. State inhabitants are not protected by federal protections until they become federal wards. You become subject to federal laws when you voluntarily did so.

You may also be interested in studying:

• US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421: “there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld.”
• US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, at page 47: “No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.

When you volunteer into the federal government, you voluntarily submit yourself to a form of government that owes allegiance to two sovereignties.
Yes, you subjected yourself to federal law VOLUNTARILY.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the Cruikshank case, 92 U.S. 542 at 551 tells us that:

“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

Pay attention to their word “voluntarily“. Your natural birth did not voluntarily submit yourself to the federal government. Contrary to a popular myth that a 14th Amendment birth is your natural birth — a 14th Amendment birth is not your natural birth — Your voluntary birth (by registration) into the federal government is how you submitted yourself.

People in the federal territories became States to free themselves from the federal government. Those who submit themselves to federal government must first deny the purpose of their state to exist. They must mutiny against the purpose that their State government was created. For proof read my essay at Freedom in America – Do Not Be Fooled by Government.

To find out how you volunteered into the federal government, read my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.

Do the Federalist Papers show the intent of the U.S. Constitution?

The Federalist Papers are not just some antiquated editorial opinion, they are, according to the Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia, the exact record of the intent of the Constitution. Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 at 418:

“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority.
It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

Just in case you think a law or an amendment changed the intent of your Constitution, Think again. A congressman cannot swear an oath to support and defend your constitution and then mutiny by suggesting an amendment to change something that he is sworn to perpetuate. Article V allows amendments TO the constitution, there can never be an amendment OF the constitution. It’s meaning does not change. Here is the proof:

The 1905 U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437:
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now…”

The 1901 Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwill, 182 U.S. 244, ruled:
“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927) repeating their earlier decision in Boyd:
“…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Headliner note to Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264:
“The Supreme Court will construe provisions of Constitution which appear to be repugnant, so as to preserve the true intent and meaning of the Constitution… ”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, Page 635:
“illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon. ”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 page 442:
“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 page 491:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US 137: All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void

President John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Daniel Webster:
“I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution form being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and, even thought I should see it fall, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the people to come to its rescue.”

John Quincy Adams:
“Posterity – you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

Originally Answered Jun 23, 2018, by Steven Miller

For more information read my essay The Constitution Does Not Change at https://wp.me/P7yY3A-3q