this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA

Started by M O'D, April 03, 2011, 12:11:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Hi I and I,

with no further correspondence from DevilAir, and after an interesting and enlightening conversation with our friend in the North, I decided to redraft the previous document to be used in the event that a Policy Enforcement Officer chooses to attempt to engage with me whilst I am exercising my freedom to travel. This one, drops the biblical references but still establishes the universal right we have to travel freely, without levy or hindrance of any kind. I like the idea of having something in writing for him to peruse whilst I maintain my right to remain silent. If DevilAir originated as a way of identifying vehicles involved in 'hit and run' accidents, then it is a fact that said agency have been provided with all that they may need - an identifiable plate, a name and a mailing location.  Note - this has not been tried and tested yet: feel free to adapt it to your needs and take note that I don't think it would work if you have a licence. Having issued that disclaimer, it is worth noting that the more who start to do this sort of thing, the better.

QuoteDeclaration of Constitutional Right to Travel and Deregistration.

1. You have indicated to me that you wish to speak with me. I will be pleased to speak with you upon condition that you first read and sign the content of this document in order for me to satisfy my self that we have common grounds for discussion. If you do not accept my offer I will not be able to speak with you on this occasion. Please apply due diligence to the following facts:
2. DVLA have been furnished with the name of the keeper of the vehicle, a current contact address and  the plate details as displayed.
3. Said Agency has acquiesced - albeit grudgingly - that any and all contracts my person may have had with DVLA have been rescinded as an action at LAW and have acknowledged my Constitutional right to travel. I can furnish you with the documentary proof of this, if required.
4. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no contractual obligation between oneself and the Ministry of Transport/ DVLA as any and all actual and presumed contractual obligations with said commercially operated Agency, known as DVLA have been lawfully rescinded and revoked, ab initio.
5. CONSTABLE'S OATH OF OFFICE: It is my belief that your declaration of allegiance binds you to serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that you will, to the best of your power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while you continue to hold the said office you will, to the best of your skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.
7. Please note: I am not a PERSON. I am man created as male/female by God. As you appear to be ACTing as an OFFICER and therefore the role of a CHARACTER, then you are not real and it is a fact that I hold dominion over you under Natural Law. Therefore unless you can prove to me that you are God/Allah/the Divine Creator et al, or stand between my self and said creator, it is my wish that you give me free passage without let or hindrance.
9. In accord with my Claim of Right as served by way of Recorded Delivery in May 2009, on the woman acting as the Queen of England and the Commonwealth, I hereby reiterate my ancient and unalienable right to travel by whatever form of conveyance I choose without having to enter into any contractual obligations with the DVLA and/or any Police Officer who does not have reasonable grounds for stopping me.

10. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not 'drive' in a DVLA registered vehicle - I travel in my own private conveyance. I am not a  "DRIVER" - "One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals."  From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856),  As I am not and will not be employed as a 'Driver", there is no requirement for a licence.

11. I claim the right not to be bound by the statutory requirements of any and all motor vehicle acts of a parliament that are subservient to Constitutional Law.

12. Therefore, I simply exercising my right to travel freely along any highway, water or sky way without limitation and without constraint of any nature whatsoever across the land mass or by way of water around what is commonly known as the British Isles by whatever choice of conveyance is available to me. Indeed, this right is factually supported by the following which states,  "Most of the offences committed under the Highways Act 1980 are designed to punish those who endanger or interfere with users of a 'highway' or who damage or obstruct a 'highway'. There is no statutory definition of a highway, only a common law one. That definition is quite clear: a "highway is a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass. Their use of the way must be as of right, not on sufferance or by licence". From: Sweet & Maxwell, Encyclopaedia of Highway Law and Practice, March 2002, para 2-335

13. As a Free Man, indigenous to this land mass known since ancient time as Albien, it is my understanding that the ancient custom and right to freedom of travel for all has and remains established since time immemorial and is enshrined in the UNION WITH SCOTLAND ACT, 1706, ARTICLE IV which unequivocally guarantees the right to safe and unhindered passage. "Trade and Navigation and other Rights. That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

14.  ARTICLE 25 of the 1706 Act states - "That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

15. Furthermore, any and all attempts, ab initio, to pre-fine someone are contrary to the BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1689, which states, "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme".

16. You are hereby informed that ANY Act  which prevents me from enjoying my right to travel anywhere within the UK is "contrary and inconsistent" with the Acts of Union 1706 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 is deemed to be a breach of my Constitutional rights which remain paramount.

17. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: for any transgression(s) against me that is/are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents of DVLA or justice system participants. I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents of DVLA or justice system participants is (GB £500.00) FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (GB £5000.00) FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my expressed written and Notarised consent. And  a minimum of (GB £5,000,000) FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING if I am tasered, injured, subjected to violence in any way or my biological property (DNA, blood, urine, fingerprints) is taken without my expressed written and Notarised consent. Charge for impounding the private automobile without consent: FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS PER DAY. I also claim the right to be paid in whatever form of functional currency I choose.

18. If you wish to impede me further in my unalienable right to roam upon the earth and my constitutional right to travel freely, as enshrined in the MAGNA CARTA, the BILLS OF RIGHTS (1689) and the UNION WITH SCOTLAND ACT (1706), please affirm this by means of your signature on this document that you agree to the points made herein and that you accept the facts stated. If you do not agree to the facts stated herein I may decline your invitation while reserving all my rights not to be bound to perform in any contracts revealed or unrevealed. I do not accept your paperwork and cannot sign it. However, I am willing to consider any written requests you may wish to make.
19. Note. By signing this document, you are personally affirming that you legally qualified to make a lawful determination of the matter and are willing to enter into a contract, the terms of which are detailed herein. Please note: in the event that any of my rights are transgressed upon, I reserve the right to pursue whatever course of commercial remedy is necessary against the Police Force you are employed by and/or you personally under said terms and conditions. 

(i) Full NAME of OFFICER: _______________________________________
(ii) NUMBER: _______________
(iii) BAR Card Number:_____________
(If making a legal determination)
(v) CAUSE OF ACTION ie on what grounds have you chosen to deny my ancient right to and custom of "full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom?" 
Please state: ____________________________________________________________________


Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,

By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as Freeman 
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Happy travelling, my friends

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


Readers are encouraged to note the alterations to the above post.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted



Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. You are peacefully travelling along an ancient roadway in a private form of transport, observing the road conditions, taking it easy and being mindful of other users of the highway. The sun is shining over the Pennines as you approach the outskirts of a town called Buddhasfield, an enclave in the region known as Elmet.

All is well and the journey almost complete when a flashing blue light and a wailing siren alert you to the fact that the (already observed) commercial driver behind you wishes to pull over.

You choose to pull over, switch on your video camera and prepare for the inevitable encounter. He is with a woman and both are in the costume of the corporation whose interests they evidently represent. The male of the specie begins to press you for an explanation of a plate on the vehicle which reads, 'NAMASTE'. The documentation you present provides an explanation, a declaration of your right to travel freely, a name you go by and an address for any mail to be sent to. The Declaration contains a fee schedule, which informs said officer of one's charges in the event that a corporate entity seeks to enforce its services upon one without consent.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case with those employed as agents of the state, this man is somewhat bound up in the role of his ego and his costumed status and his power of perception is dimmed by this. He knows not what he is doing, is unwilling to act as a public servant and refuses to spend some time reading through something that is outside his reality tunnel. So it goes, so it goes.

Dissatisfied with one's paperwork, and one's repeated mantra that one is travelling privately and not performing any function in a public capacity, he grabs the camera, handcuffs you and forces you into the back of his car.

The private car is then stolen - along with all its contents - and carried to a commercial company's premises. The officer then informs you that there will be an extortion charge should you wish to get it back.

Next, he kidnaps you, taking you to a dungeon where you are held without your consent, subjected to all manner of (failed) attempts to contract by way of one's signature, forced into providing specimens of one's biological property and locked in a cell for the next 6 hours. You are unable to make a phone call as your mobile phone has been stolen with the car. The head dungeon master, who refers to himself as the 'desk sergeant' informs you that because the agents were unable to find the vehicle identification number on the chasis (it was removed when the car was deregistered), they are investigating to see if it is stolen.

Eventually, you are let out onto the street. It's a chilly August evening and there are 4 amoured vehicles and a gang of men on the pavement, dressing up in costumes that incorporate knee pads, elbow pads, body armour, cudgels, gas sprays, electronic stun guns, visored helmets and big shields. One asks one of the dramatis personae what they are doing and he informs you that they are off to protect some corporate interests (a supermarket) which is under some kind of attack from a cadre of presumably disgruntled local people. In this instant the role of the police is clear - the common law crimes listed below have been committed against one and all those minions out on the streets around the country as the engineered 'riots' unfolded are there as the private corporate enforcers and protectors of the elite and their assets.

In spite of it all - the theft, kidnap, false imprisonment, attempted extortion, the perjury of an officer who falsely claimed you had not provided him with the requested information and a list of statutory offences as long as the stunted arm of the 'law', you begin to chuckle for you know, deep within, that all is pantomine, all is play and all is unfolding just as it should in these apocalyptic times. You gotta smile, you just gotta smile.

Were it not for the mechanised transport and other technologies, the scenario that is depicted here could be easily applied to other, more distant eras when highway robbery, extortion and injury were similarly practised just like this - we're living in a gangsters' paradise and it's been going on for millennia. . .

Many will see this as comeuppance, indeed, many were the people who said it would end thus, that one would eventually be arrested, a perfectly workable car stolen and finally crushed. However, they miss the point - readers of this thread will see the validity of the claims against this aggressive CROWN entity and will instantly appreciate the truth of said claims. We are free to roam this earth when, wherever and by whatever form of transportation we may choose and no one can deny us that unalienable right. This is supported by the constitution, by the timeless understanding of the people of their divine freedoms and, way before it was written down, the ancient customs of these lands which were passed on by way of mouth from generation to generation. This is my understanding and it has been expressed by way of Claim of Right and by way of one's actions and I will not cave into accepting any form of contract with an entity whose ethic is based on the 'might is right' enforcement of unlawful contracts which, in any event, are rendered void by way of their procuration without full disclosure and under duress.

And yet there has to be a light side to all of this. One readily acknowledges that, and, of course, there is a certain comedic element to it (and, at least as far as this traveller is concerned, it is divine comedy) which may serve to en-lighten us should we choose to see it thus.   

One's legal person was charged with some nine counts. The charges were returned - unsigned, "refused for cause" to the 'CEO' of the regional constabulary. There will, doubtless, be more to follow as new remedies emerge but in the meantime, there is the small matter of sending a bill to the extortionists for charges accrued under the Fee Schedule with which the other party has been served.

I read with interest others' comments on this and it occurs to me that a representative action against DEVILAIR may be something we could focus on collectively - feel free to pm me if you would be interested in joining such an action should you have experienced similar unlawful actions at the hands of the corporate entities referenced herein.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


Who the feck is anyone to claim a Man does not have the right to travel upon the ancient highways of these lands without paying a TAX to the usurpers known as the CROWN?
QuoteIn addition to being one of the founders of British Legislation, Dyvnwal designed and partly made the Royal British Military Roads through the Island. These were nine in number,—

1. The Sarn Gwyddelin (corrupted into Watling street), or Irish Road, in two branches, from Dover to Mona and Penvro.

2. The Sam Iken (Iknield street), the road from Caer Troia, Northward through the Eastern districts.

3. Sam Ucha (Iknield street), from the mouth of the Tyne to the present St. David's.

4. Sam Ermyn, from Anderida (Peven sey) to Caer Edin (Edinburgh).

5. Sam Achmaen, from Caer Troia to Menevia (St. David's).

6. Sam Halen, from the Salt Mines of Cheshire to the mouth of the Humber.

7 Sam Hàlen, from the Salt Mines to Llongborth (Portsmouth).

8. The Second Sam Ermyn, from Torbay to Dunbreton on the Clyde.

9. The Sam ar y Môr, or military road following the coast around the Island.

These roads were pitched and paved, and ran sometimes in a straight, sometimes a sinuous line, at a moderate elevation above the ground, forming a network of communication between the Cities of Britain. Being completed by Belinus, they are known as the Belinian roads of Britain. The Romans followed these lines in their first and second invasions, and subsequently laid down in great measure their own military roads upon them. Hence the Belinian and Roman roads are found constantly running in and out of each other."
[19/01/2012 17:21:14] Michael of Elmet: Now that should get some of the old juices flowing   (h)



All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


Here is something I made earlier... they are to be placed on the windscreen instead of tax discs.

Opinions/Feedback appreciated.


Salutations One and One,

This is a sanitised version of a missive that the Secretary of State for Transport (UK) will be shortly receiving. It is posted here for your consideration:

                                                  Administrator in Commerce & Equity

To: Rt Hon Trees R Billowing, Minister of State, Department for Transport
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
16 May 2012



Dear Treesa Billious, Minister of State for Transport,           

RE: ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988, ss 143 & 144

1. Pursuant to the above referenced sections which state:

"Compulsory insurance or security against third-party risks"

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act," and,

"144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.
(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F3 Senior Courts] the sum of [F4£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control."  source: ,

2. Could you kindly confirm that in accord with the foregoing, my person has indeed the statutory right to deposit a Security in the form of a promissory note made payable to bearer to the value as stated above with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts?

3. Please find attached a scanned copy of the Security.  It is requested that if there any apparent defects in the instrument and/or any reason why it would not be acceptable as a security then you point them out in order that any adjustments can be made.

Many thanks for your time and consideration of this matter,

                       Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

              By:      Man of Elmet, Duly Authorised Administrator to STRAWMAN™
? ?
                                 MAILING LOCATION: C/0 XX XXXXX AVENUE, SNOTTINGHAM

                            All Rights Reserved - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit.

We await the Minister of State for Tranport's considered response... Scanned Promissory Note attached to the email...


man of elmet   :)

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted



This is the reply to the correspondence originally sent to the minister of transport. 

QuoteZone 3/21
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
Tel: 0300 330 3000

Web Site:

Our Ref: TO 43181
Your Ref:

26 June 2012

Dear Sir,


Thank you for your e-mail of 17 May to the Minister of State for Transport, in which you asked for information on the procedure for making a deposit under section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 144(1) allows a vehicle owner to make a deposit of £500,000 to the Supreme Court as an alternative to compulsory motor insurance as required by Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However;

The vehicle must be driven at all times under the owner's control.
The Depositor must meet the full costs of any insurance claim awarded against it (This is unlimited in the case of personal injury).
The £500,000 cannot be used to meet these claims unless the depositor is declared bankrupt and then the deposit is used to meet their liabilities.
The exemption only applies when the vehicles are driven in Great Britain and does not cover social, domestic or pleasure purposes under this section.
A depositor must make a formal application to the Department for consideration. If the application is agreed the Department authorises the Courts Funds Office to issue the necessary paperwork.
Every company, partnership or sole trader, even one which is a wholly owned subsidiary of another, is considered a legal entity in its own right and is therefore responsible for those vehicles. A deposit would therefore be necessary for each company if a Warrant is required to be issued.

I mentioned above the need for the vehicle to be driven at all times under the owner's control. A definition of "owner" is given in Section 192 of the act and further in section 161(1). You may wish to seek legal advice on whether vehicles used under a long term lease contract would be covered by such an arrangement.

In respect of the sum to be placed with the Supreme Court, the regulation allows the following: provided that in lieu, wholly or in part, of the deposit of money the depositor may deposit an equivalent amount of securities in which cash under the control of or subject to the order of the Court may for the time being be invested. The requirements are set out in the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks Deposits) Regulations 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 1284).  A bank guarantee or a promissory note is not an acceptable alternative. If you are in any doubt as to whether you meet all of the requirements you should consult those Regulations and or section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Additionally you should be aware that there are regulations (Statutory Instrument 2003/37) which make it a formal requirement that motor Insurers and motor policy holders notify the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) of certain information about the policies and vehicles covered by such policies.  If your client should decide to become a depositor it would be required to set up a notification system direct with the MIB to ensure that details of your vehicles are recorded on the Motor Insurance Database. 

The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972 – as amended) set out certain requirements. Amongst these is the form of certificates to be used by depositors as evidence of an acceptable alternative to insurance. You will see that the certificate is one that the depositor completes. If the police or any other authority have a valid query then we will confirm to them the validity (or otherwise) of any such certificate.

If you wish to progress with the scheme then the first requirement is to write formally to this Department naming the company (or other entity), giving the address and stating that you wish to become a depositor under section 144(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The letter must be from the company and signed by a duly authorised Director (or in the case of a partnership a partner; and in the case of a sole trader the sole trader himself).

Yours faithfully

Chris Curson
Licensing and Insurance Team
Road User Licensing Insurance and Safety Division

Notice the final sentence, and you will realise that it is all a commercial offer ~ NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO THE REAL MAN ONLY THE CORPORATE/BUSINESS ENTITY/LEGAL PERSON...

The whole DVLA/MINISTRY TRANSPORT exists for the taxation of COMMERCIAL transportation ~ the scam is that people are fooled into believing the lie that they are a legal person. The offer is made and accepted when you pass the 'Driving test' and apply for a 'Full' licence, whereupon you are deemed to have agreed to become - effectively - an agent of the state who is engaging in commercial activity because he has agreed by way of his application that he is a 'Driver'. An individual who simply travels cannot partake in this scam [not 'scheme' as the civil servant would have you believe] ~ it is exclusively for the corporate fiction. 

QuoteIf you wish to progress with the scheme then the first requirement is to write formally to this Department naming the company (or other entity), giving the address and stating that you wish to become a depositor under section 144(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The letter must be from the company and signed by a duly authorised Director (or in the case of a partnership a partner; and in the case of a sole trader the sole trader himself).

Let those with the eyes see, let those with the ears, hear  ~ none of the DVLA bullshit applies to anyone who has rescinded his licence and de-registered his form of transport as he is, in legal terms, not a Commercial Driver ~ he is not engaging in any commercial activity. [Unless, of course, he is a taxi driver, haulage driver or the driver of any vehicle which is using the public highway with the intent of charging for his services].

Happy days  :D

Love and blessings to all fellow travellers


All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


I'd be willing to join a joint action Michael.  Something similar happened to me and my car was stolen and sold off by the criminals before any adjudication process had taken place.



A bizarre incident happened to me of May this year. I had a car with the engine removed on my own land. I did not bother to cash the tax disk in and let it run but I did cancel the insurance in february seeing as I could not drive the car.

I received a £100 fine and I contested it. I was told that I should  have SORN'd the vehicle. I said I didn't need to because I left a valid tax disk on. I informed them the vehicle was on my own land. They told me that from october 2011 the SORN rules changed and that If my car could not drive I should SORN it or insure it. I told them I asked 20 people (which I had) whether they knew of these new rules and none of them did. I was told that it had been advertised in newspapers, TV and radio - yet nobody seemed to know about it.

They told me that as long as it was taxed I could potentially drive it. I asked as to why there was a presumption that I would commit a crime and fine me "just in case" - these are Stupid Statutes - just like the seat belt statute - ie motorbikes can drive in wet slippery weather. but I, in the safety of my car cage, must wear a seatbelt - SS - stupid statutes.


it is declared in the "English Bill of Rights 1689" that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. Before conviction means that no fine can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law. 


Quote from: Man Of Elmet on September 30, 2012, 01:35:47 PM

Let those with the eyes see

My eyes see, awesome thread, thank you.

Love & Gratitude

A of D'



"License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

"The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

"A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

"A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege..." River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

"A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

"The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

"...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


Quote Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or

2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this:
Quote"...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 a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

QuoteThere are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. (or, as in the case of the issues being dealt with here, the British Constitution as referenced in the foregoing posts of this thread)

If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. (UK) Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


So, if you have applied for a licence you are deemed to be operating in a commercial capacity  ... this video has further information on the matter... 

Quote"Motor vehicle ... drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property" Title 18 USC 31 ...


All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted