| The Right to Travel vs. Driver's License Scam
Interesting page here by Harmon: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm Quote:
by Harmon Taylor:
The Objective and The Deadline.
Having been harassed unmercifully by the judicial system, in the face of
my motive and intent to protect THEIR interests in the matter and to
mitigate THEIR damages, I have made it my goal to get all "no driver's
license" "laws" off the books in all 54 (or is it now 55?) "states" on
or before 31 October 2010. No one should have to go through what I've
been through, and if all that the "judges" can do is abuse the people
trying to work WITH them on solving these types of issues, then to heck
with them! If they want to engage "political power play" games instead
of applying the law equally and uniformly, then let them be on the
receiving end of a few political power plays so as to adjust their
attitudes, perspectives, and demeanors.
About case cites regarding the "right to travel," there's a change in
"choice of law" about 1965.
Let's talk "funny money" really briefly. With Money (gold and silver
Coin), the "choice of law" is the Law of the Land. With "funny money,"
the "choice of law" is necessarily the Law of the Sea, because "funny
money" is fraud (actually, it's worse; it's Treason) under the Law of
the Land.
"We" still had Law of the Land after the gold was sucked out of the
system, because we still had silver in general circulation. However,
after they assassinated Kennedy, they sucked the silver out of
circulation, as well, which change Kennedy adamantly opposed. It was
either 1965 or 1969 when the silver was finally sucked out of the
system, but at that instant, the fundamental "choice of law" changed
from Law of the Land to Law of the Sea. To take 1965 as the year of
transition, America went to bed 31 December 1964 under a Law of the Land system, and woke up 1 January 1965 on the deck of a barge anchored in the middle of the Rhine River in Germany, i.e., under a Law of the Sea system.
In that change is a very material change in all of these "license"
issues. Once the Law of the Sea system started, ALL commerce became "fair game" for regulation. Thus, the way we approach "right to travel" under a Law of the Sea system is a little different from the way we approach it under a Law of the Land system. Under a Law of the Land system, we can argue "law." This is where the vast, vast, vast majority of the patriot community is still stuck, namely arguing "law." That fails in the Law of the Sea system, because the Law of the Sea system operates "federally," as in "by private obligation."
So, what you see in my materials isn't argument on "legal" points, but
rather argument on "commercial nexus" points. To argue the "law" is
basically to confess the existence of the agreement, which is about all
that matters. It's NOT all that matters, but it's about 90% of it. So,
where my materials and approaches are different, it's in the focus on
getting to the bottom line on the basis for that obligation. Either
there's an agreement to be enforced or there isn't. Since I have no
license, there is already no agreement, and STATE's burden to prove a
commercial nexus is impossible.
Said another way, "driving," or "operating," is commercial activity.
And, commercial activity is all that any STATE may regulate. No STATE may regulate "travel," which is, by definition, non-commercial. All that any STATE may regulate is "commerce." Thus, for there to be basis for any STATE participation / regulation, there must first be an
agreement for STATE to enforce. You'll note on the "ticket" that the
"Commercial vehicle" box is left unchecked. Thus, there was a
confession at the time of the issuance of the "ticket" that there was no
commercial activity going on. There being no commercial activity at
issue, there is no authority for STATE to regulate anything.
To compel anyone to engage in commerce is a violation of rights. To
compel anyone to agree to any particular "choice of law" is a violation
of rights. But, the biggie is compelled political / religious
association with STATE OF TEXAS. No "driver's license" is used solely for purposes of engaging in commerce. It's FAR more frequently used as an "ID Card." I am not a member of "church of STATE OF TEXAS," and I don't WANT to be a member of "church of STATE OF TEXAS." That system exists to deny and defy my God. So, the most fundamental problem STATE has by compelling ANYONE to get a "driver's license," especially under threat of criminal prosecution, is that of compelled political / religious affiliation.
At the end of the day, just be very sensitive to the dates of the
judicial opinions. Things changed dramatically when the "Uniform
Commercial Code" came into existence. The key thing that language does is justify the "funny money" system, which runs on a Law of the Sea system, because it'd be fraud (and worse) under the Law of the Land. The Uniform Commercial Code would not exist if we had a legitimate Money system; so, it's existence is just one more confession that we have an illegitimate "funny money" system, thus a Law of the Sea system. Throwing "law" at the "licensing" issue used to work. But, we can't throw "law" at it, now. We're dealing with a "moving target," not a
"static target." As the choice of law changes, the target's size, shape, and location changes. Now, we're not dealing with "law." We're
dealing instead with "Monte Hall's 'Let's Make A Deal!'" Thus, for any
"licensing" issue, either there's an agreement or there isn't.
"Federal" means "federal." It doesn't mean "national," and it most
certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." "Federal" means "federal." At
the level of a "state," "federal" means "by compact," or "by treaty."
At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation."
At the end of the day, we KNOW we're finally "getting it" when the motto is no longer, "Show me the law!" and is, instead, "Show me the agreement!"
|  |
11-17-2008, 09:37 PM
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
