Private Travel

Steps to Move about in the Private - Not a "sovereign citizen"

The citizen of the United States - created by the pen in the 14th Amendment

Before we begin, i, wanted to send out thanks to our readers for assisting in highlighting the only reference in law to “sovereign citizen”. The reference is a wonderful blessing. It reaffirms that a “sovereign citizen” is a “citizen of the United States”.

The link for the reference to “sovereign citizen” was removed since posting this article originally - the link is now to the LOC archives. Here is the actual document - please note, this was repealed in February, 1952. (Updated 17 June 2025 to reflect this editorial change)

If you Google, or use any browser to look up sovereign citizen and the right to travel, the AI results will come up with misleading “sovereign citizen” movement generalizations and overall negative presumptions using words like “vexatious litigants”, “financial scammers”, “conspiracy theorists”, “activists”, “pseudolegal interpretation”, “mainstream interpretation”, “arguments relying on exacting definitions and word choice”, (found that interesting as it is a Maxim of Law if any statute is general, then it is limited to the items listed.) i.e.) Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. “Latin for “of the same kind,” used to interpret loosely written statutes; where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.”

“They” even came up with a new acronym - “SovCits”. Supposedly it is a movement. I had no idea. Has anyone told Congress that the term “sovereign citizen” is being hijacked and mis-used versus their own context definitions in their resolutions? Ha!

Detailed analysis of the House Joint Resolution below:

1. The Only Official Use of “Sovereign Citizen” is in Reference to U.S. Citizens

• On May 3, 1940, Congress passed Public Resolution 67, which designated the third Sunday in May each year as Citizenship Day, also known as "I Am An American Day", which explicitly links the phrase “sovereign citizens” to citizens of the United States, emphasizing their responsibilities within the federal system. This was repealed in 1952.

• It is clear that this reference does not relate to men or women of mankind outside the jurisdiction of a federal citizen or statutory resident.

• If a man or woman has formally rebutted any presumption of U.S. citizenship, then courts using this term would be making a false designation.

2. The Slaughter-House Cases (83 U.S. 36, 1873) and Dual Citizenship

• The Slaughter-House Cases confirm that there is a distinction between state citizens (of one of the several states) and federal citizens (citizens of the United States).

• The case makes it clear that citizenship of the United States is a privilege, not a right and is distinct from those who are simply members of the republic without being statutory citizens.

• If one is not a U.S. citizen, then being called a sovereign citizen (a term applied only to U.S. citizens in the 1940 resolution) would be a false designation.

3. United States Citizenship is a Created Political Status

• The Fourteenth Amendment created a new category of citizenship that had not existed before: citizen of the United States.

• Prior to this, all citizenship was state-based, meaning a man was considered a Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc., rather than a citizen of a corporate federal entity.

• U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including United States v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542, 1875), reinforced that state citizenship is separate and distinct from federal citizenship.

• If a man properly rebuts the assumption that he is a U.S. citizen, he cannot lawfully be treated as one.

4. Legal Presumptions in Court and the Burden of Proof

• Courts operate presumptively—meaning they assume facts until they are rebutted.

• If a man or woman fails to challenge the assumption that they are a U.S. citizen, then the court assumes jurisdiction.

• However, if the man or woman expressly rebuts U.S. citizenship, the burden then shifts to the court or prosecutor to prove otherwise.

• The court must provide evidence that the man voluntarily entered into U.S. citizenship or that he contracted into the jurisdiction of statutory law.

5. If One is Not a “Sovereign Citizen” (as Defined in 1940), How Can the Court Use the Label?

• If the only legal definition of "sovereign citizen" applies to citizens of the United States under the 1940 House Joint Resolution, then anyone who has rebutted that status cannot legally be accused of it.

• If a court or law enforcement labels a man as a sovereign citizen despite lawful rebuttal, they are engaging in:

  • False claims

  • Defamation

  • Color of law abuse (18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of Rights)

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation of status

• Such a designation would be a fraudulent legal construct, and it should be challenged at every opportunity.

6. Application to Traffic Citations & Court Cases

• Traffic laws operate under the assumption that the individual is a resident or a U.S. citizen engaged in a regulated commercial activity.

• Rebutting jurisdiction is essential in any traffic case because the legal fiction only applies to those within statutory jurisdiction.

• If a man or woman is not a U.S. citizen or a resident, but is instead traveling privately and not engaged in commerce, then the legal framework governing "motor vehicles" does not apply.

• If courts refuse to acknowledge this rebuttal, they are operating in fraud by presuming a status that is not in evidence.

7. How Courts Rule Against This Truth

• Courts operate administratively, meaning they function more like corporate dispute resolution boards rather than actual constitutional common law courts.

• Many judges will simply ignore jurisdictional challenges unless they are persistently and properly raised.

• Judges may resort to tactics like:

  • Claiming the argument is a “sovereign citizen theory” (which we have shown is false).

  • Dismissing filings without reviewing them.

  • Misapplying case law or simply disregarding evidence.

• Solution: Always require the court to produce sworn affidavits proving jurisdiction. Demand they prove citizenship status rather than assuming it.

---

Conclusion

Based on the 1940 House Joint Resolution, the Slaughter-House Cases, and other legal precedents, the term “sovereign citizen” applies only to U.S. citizens and has no lawful connection to free men and women of the Union states.

If a man or woman properly rebuts U.S. citizenship and its statutory obligations:

1. They cannot lawfully be labeled a sovereign citizen.

2. Any legal action against them using that term is a fraud.

3. Traffic citations and similar infractions must prove jurisdiction.

4. If jurisdiction is not proven, the case must be dismissed as a fraudulent claim.

Thus, any court that proceeds against a properly rebutted man or woman is acting in fraud and violating the Constitution and their own legal definitions.

• Ask them to define the term “sovereign citizen”.

• Then ask them how to distinguish between the actual reference in law [“54 Stat 178, Ch. 183. germane to H. J. Res 437 [Pub Res. No. 67], May 3rd, 1940”] versus their presumption as no other definition or reference exists.

• Then ask them if they are ignoring the honest rebuttal of citizenship as defined in the Slaughter-House cases as it cannot possibly apply. Not to mention, all definitions apply to the States and United States and the District of Columbia, the Territories/territories, insular possessions, and ceded properties where all citizens of the United States “reside” has no inhabitants.

• Then ask them if they are attempting to coerce you into committing a felony per 18 U.S. Code § 911 - Citizen of the United States: “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

• Then ask if that coercion falls under 25 CFR § 11.406 - Criminal coercion:
  

  • (a) A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose to unlawfully restrict another's freedom of action to his or her detriment, he or she threatens to:

    • (1) Commit any criminal offense; or

      (2) Accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or

      (3) Take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.

  • (b) Criminal coercion is classified as a misdemeanor.

• Then ask if they are attempting to deprive you of your rights as a man under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights:

  • Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

• Or if more than one federal person is involved if they are attempting: 42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:

  • (2)Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

• Ask them if they are attempting to violate your safe conduct with a valid passport: 18-USC § 1545. Safe conduct violation, “Whoever violates any safe conduct or passport duly obtained and issued under authority of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

• Try to remember these statutes are applied to them, not you. So, they are violating their laws.

Steps for Private Travel

1. Record your status correction affirmation (affidavit).

2. Apply for and obtain a proper passport through the Post Office and U.S. Department of State. Make sure you select that you are not a US Citizen everywhere where it gives you an option. The USPS Carrier Route Map has RFD route number data on this website. Enter the zip code and check the maps in each line until you find the one that matches your geography. It is rather easy to find. Use this for the RFD number in the applicant section for the address.

   

   

   Notice the first page is in ALL CAPS? This is the sole proprietorship or corporate sole. This is the only thing the government can interact with since it is a fictitious entity. You can use the birth certificate certification date for this area. That is the date the ens legis was brought into paper existence.

   Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943)

   Key quote:

   “When the United States enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.”
   — Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S., 318 U.S. 363, 369

   “Governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not theirs.”

   — Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

   “The state is a creature of the people. It may not convert a right into a privilege and require a license for its exercise.”
   — Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)

   Your passport is for your corporate sole. It is not for you. You are acting as the Holder in Due Course. You are the one authorized to autograph on behalf of the PRINCIPLE.
   
   Now you can move on to getting rid of your driver’s license. This is because a passport is a lawful form of travel ID. Remember, the passport is not you. It is a card or book. So, if you are asked “is this you”, the honest response is one of confusion and child like honesty. “How can that be me, i am right here. That is my book.”

3. Be sure you have paid off the automobile - or at least the State cannot prove it has a lien in the form of a State loan.

4. Make sure you have your driver's license and certificates of title in hand. It is ideal if the Driver’s License is expired on it's face. However, moving to another state and not declaring residency “in” the new State will also void the presumption.

5. Set up a Living Private Irrevocable Trust to get an EIN to transfer the registration. This can be done using an SS-4 form. Again, the top part is for fictitious entities.

   

   
   Change the information above to your information please. Do not copy exactly as above. Go over the entire form carefully. i, called the phone number directly as foreign, and then walked them through the form (case sensitive and clarifying the foreign status) and received the EIN number over the phone.
   Per the instructions: “Apply by telephone—option available to international applicants only. If you have NO legal residence, principal place of business, or principal office or agency in the U.S. or U.S. territories, you may call 267-941-1099 (not a toll-free number), 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (Eastern time), Monday through Friday, to obtain an EIN.”
   
   The people are very helpful, so treat them with kindness.

6. The trust will be used to transfer the property either through a Bill of Sale or Asset Transfer.

7. Once you have received the EIN, create your DOT number through FMCSA. A good video for the online step by step method for the DOT private motor carrier non-commercial (non-business) registration which does not expire, is to use Brandon Joe Williams instruction video for setting this up. It is also a good idea to watch Joe Lustica’s video on the same topic where he better describes the proper address to use. You will obtain your DOT number immediately and the following message “the FMCSA has determined the applicant [“maintains”] Private Motor Carrier Non-Commercial Only (non-Business), Private Property” [“with an”] estimated financial responsibility minimum for Bodily Injury and Property Damage (BI&PD) Liability - Not Applicable”.

8. When you set up the DOT #, it will be via intrastate use. i, also did the interstate use as non-commercial, non-business. It works the same, but you get automatically hounded by the State of State where the mailing address is referenced with coercion attempts to fill out commercial paperwork. This creates a need for rebuttal which i, did complete. However, it is an extra step in dealing with the government entities. After having a few very pleasant conversations with the FMCSA representative for our area, he confirmed that it would be good to keep the number intrastate status, which will stop any trigger for safety audit submissions. He was very helpful and was willing to wade through the details. Having the condition set for intrastate does not invalidate the DOT number. Instead, you have a valid piece of evidence of non-commercial, non-business without a presumption of interstate commerce. Next, request a PIN and it will be sent to you and then go into your account. You will need to confirm the DOT status every two years. However, it does not expire if you confirm the no change of status every two years. Here is the FMCSA site link [“also above linked to “FMCSA””] to do a registration - https://portal.fmcsa.dot.gov/UrsRegistrationWizard/. (Editorially Updated 18-Jun-2025)

9. Order your diplomatic plates. https://www.platesandgear.com/product/diplomatic-plates/ or https://asnplatesandmore.us/products/usdot-exempt-plates/usdot-exempt-51589921 [“this website has a ton of good information on the codes and links to videos to properly accomplish this task”]. Use the DOT# as the plate number. They have different options where you can use color State Department Plates, or as others have used the Black and white as in the above provided link. Order enough for the various "private motor carriers" you have. Include tractors, UTV, trailers, etc... Get enough to do both front and back on the separate pieces of property if you so desire.
   
   Note: This method, utilizing the DOT number, is only a way to record evidence that you are private and non-commercial and non-business. It is a right of mankind to travel regardless of method, without plates or a license.

10. Next, send in your revocation of Driver’s License, registration, return your plates, etc... Boilerplate below for reference. Make sure to write "VOID" across the registration and Certificate of Title. If your license is expired, change the verbiage to "expired on its face". In my case, I am no longer a resident of PA, so I am able to return based on that fact. I did not declare residency in WV, so the registration does not apply to me in WV. My wife's was expired, so she was able to use that verbiage. Example verbiage for expired follows in this section of the email. Use only the notarized two pages for your revocation with the DMV address of the applicable State. On the Memorandum, you will see a RED section that is an example of commentary with a policy enforcer if necessary. Always have a copy of the FMCSA registration in your various automobiles at all times. Two copies in case (unlawful theft) they keep one. This is a great example from the “Errant Sovereign’s Handbook” with minor adjustments.

Example 1:

"Greetings,

You will please take notice that I, recently discovered that there are certain political liabilities which attach to the above numbered driver’s license account which, if they had been fully disclosed to me at the time I was induced into said Consent contract, would have dissuaded me from Consenting same. I, am not a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and obtain no consideration for the Consent contract. As evidenced by enclosed wallet card, which is being returned to you, said contract is “expired” on its face. For these reasons and on that basis I, am hereby expressly terminating said Consent contract and do hereby rescind my signature from and Declare void any and all forms, cards and Instruments which may evidence anything to the contrary. My sovereign Consent is hereby expressly withdrawn and reserved until further notice. This includes all revocable trust contracts for care of title and license plates, if applicable, included herein. All MCO/MCS currently held in safe keeping are to be immediately returned to my PO Box return address or destroyed with proof of said action.

You, will also forthwith please notify any and all interested parties of this termination action as well as direct/order that all forms, cards, documents and instruments bearing my signature in connection with said account be amended to well and truly reflect this change. No answer to this instruction is required, but acknowledgement of compliance would be appreciated. If any MCO/MCS/Title shall arrive at a future date to your office, you will immediately return to the PO Box return address referenced herein as your services to hold in safekeeping are no longer required.

To the event you are unable or unwilling to comply with this instruction, I shall alternatively require of you evidence of your Article VI Oath of Fidelity as well as the policy number and name and address of the underwriter of your Bond."

Example 2:

NOTICE OF REBUTTAL OF REGISTRATION, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE & PLATES, AND DEMAND FOR RETURN OF MCO/MSO

TO: [State Department of Motor Vehicles] FROM: [Your Name], a man/woman DATE: [Date]

SUBJECT: Writ of Praecipe - Order - Rebuttal of Registration, Revocation of Driver’s License & Plates, and Demand for Return of Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO) or Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO)

I. NOTICE OF REBUTTAL

1. i, [Your Name], a man/woman, hereby rebut the presumption that my private automobile is lawfully subject to State registration without full disclosure and voluntary consent.

2. i, revoke any prior presumption that i, knowingly and voluntarily surrendered my absolute ownership rights by registering my private automobile and accepting a Certificate of Title.

3. As no valid lien or financial obligation exists between myself and the State, the continued retention of the MCO/MSO constitutes unlawful conversion of property.

4. i, also revoke and surrender my Driver’s License and Vehicle Plates, as they were obtained and used under the false presumption that i, am a resident subject to the statutory laws of the 50 States, when in fact, no such agreement was made with full disclosure.

5. The issuance and enforcement of the Driver’s License and Plates were done without full disclosure of their contractual and jurisdictional implications, making them invalid as they were entered into under fraudulent misrepresentation.

II. DEMAND FOR RETURN OF MCO/MSO

6. i, formally demand the return of the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO) or Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO) for my private automobile, as i, am the rightful and absolute owner without lien or encumbrance.

7. Provide documentation proving the lawful authority under which the State retains my MCO/MSO if no lienholder exists.

8. If no such authority exists, i, demand the immediate release and return of the MCO/MSO within ten (10) days from receipt of this notice.

9. Furthermore, i, demand official confirmation of the cancellation of my driver’s license and the deregistration of my vehicle, as i, no longer consent to be classified as a statutory resident subject to the jurisdiction of the 50 States.

III. NOTICE OF FRAUD AND UNLAWFUL CONVERSION

10. Failure to return the MCO/MSO or provide a lawful justification for its retention shall constitute fraudulent conversion and deprivation of property rights under color of law.

11. Any continued withholding of the MCO/MSO shall be construed as an unlawful financial scheme involving securities fraud, as it enables unauthorized financial activity related to my private property.

12. Any party failing to rebut this notice point-for-point shall be held personally and financially liable and may be subject to legal consequences under:

· 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 & 242 – Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law.

· SEC Rule 10b-5 – Fraud in connection with financial securities transactions.

· UCC 1-305 – Remedies to be liberally administered to prevent injustice.

IV. FINAL DECLARATION & NOTICE OF DEFAULT ORDER

13. This is a lawful demand, and failure to comply within ten (10) days shall constitute agreement and acceptance that: - No lawful claim exists for the State to retain my MCO/MSO. - The State has engaged in fraudulent conversion of private property. - Further legal action will be taken to enforce my property rights. - My Driver’s License and Plates have been formally revoked and should be removed from all State records.

Dated: [DATE]

By: ______________________________________________
Without Recourse, All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
[Your Given and Family Name]

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT, NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Manufacturer

A Certificate of Title issued by a State of State organization does not constitute true ownership of a vehicle, but rather a color of title—meaning it appears to confer ownership but does not convey actual legal title. The Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO) or Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO) is the original title, which is surrendered to the State at the time of vehicle registration.

• Registered Owner: Would need to be located as a resident person in the State of X in order to be applicable to the laws.

As you are not a resident or person as defined, and instead your corporate sole on your passport is acting as a non-citizen national of the United States and all its 50 State of State businesses, territories, or the District of Columbia, and, as such an ambassador as a national of any state/nation you choose, you do not qualify for a license or registration under those codes.

• Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO): The original birth certificate of a vehicle, describing what was created by the manufacturer. This piece of paper is held in safekeeping by the corporate entity of the District of Columbia via Department of Motor Vehicle centers (or similar names). The bill of sale between private people/trusts/businesses who exchange the Certificate of Title is a brand new MCO that essentially shows that the person who has held and modified the car has exchanged that car to the new man or woman or trust who owns. The Dept of Motor Vehicles (or any other corporation) agrees that the writing and notarization of a bill of sale between those exchanging a Certificate of Title contains the same power as exchanging the MCO and the bill of sale is a superior title to even the MCO itself.

• manufacture (n.):
  1560s, "something made by hand," from French manufacture (16c.), from Medieval Latin *manufactura "a making by hand" (source of Italian manifattura, Spanish manufactura), from Latin manu, ablative of manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand") + factura "a working," from past-participle stem of facere "to perform" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put").
  
  Sense of "process of making goods or wares of any kind, the production of articles of use from raw or prepared materials by hand-labor or machinery" is recorded by 1620s. Related: Manufactures.

If you have ever made ANY modification to your automobile, you are technically a manufacturer. The proper designation is a “Second-stage Manufacturer or Alterer”. You can use your organization or trust and make your own MCO (Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin) as it will not technically match the original VIN anymore. New tires qualify. Ever notice how the manufacturer's description includes the tires? If you change them to non-original manufacturer tires, it is now a different automobile and property. Here is the link to order MCO's and new VIN number stickers - https://mcostore.com/.

Once all this is done, the trust now claims the property. It would be highly beneficial to create a living express irrevocable trust and place all your property in the trust. Create a trust certificate that lists the assets in the trust. You can be the Grantor, Trustee, and Beneficiary of the trust. Beneficiaries never should be named. That is up to the Trustees. Make sure to assign survivor trustees.

Another step to consider is to revoke the power of attorney specifically and directly to the SS Administration so you are the attorney in fact for the account. There is a very good example in the “Errant Sovereign’s Handbook”.

Please remember, the only thing the government can interact with is a fictitious entity. All the credit cards, passports, driver’s license, etc… are “persons” that the government attempts to get you to believe that you are in fact those said things.

Case Law and Statutes for Traveling:

• 18 USC § 31 - (10)Used for commercial purposes.—
  The term “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.

• “in doing this i shall have occasion incidentally to evince how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how his creatures and servants at first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker. Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people and everything else be subordinate to the state.” Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall, 440 - paraphrase - not specific to travel.

• "The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452 - accurate paraphrase, although not specific about travel.

• Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” -
  Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” -
  ”The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” - Paraphrase - however regulating “vehicles” by licensing was supported.

• Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

• Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” - Notice the difference in automobile and other vehicles.

• Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” - Clearly notes the difference between an automobile and other vehicles. Also indicates that preventing a man walking along the public highways is also permitted.

• Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

• House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.” - paraphrased and accurate

• Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

• Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

• Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

  - American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 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) The term “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. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” - Paraphrased

  - International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 “The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’” - very important distinction between classifications of conveyance

  - City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “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” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 - Distinction between commercial versus private

• The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, “held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” - supports automobile as private property - licensing is for commercial - so probable cause from previous citations rely on use, not type. An officer must supply articulable probable cause of USE - not just type of conveyance. Burden lies with the accuser.

• Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

• Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” - Highly relevant

• Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” -
  Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” - paraphrased
  
  Note: this means, follow local safety rules reasonably for the betterment of your fellow man, however, traveling is not a privilege.

• Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” - Note - applies mostly to commercial use… indicates licensing may be unconstitutional through municipal control if the powers are not specifically enumerated to them.

• Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy "A municipal ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms."

• Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

• City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. . 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

• Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

• Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” and… “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” -
  Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

• “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge from Kent v. Dulles, 231 F.2d 681 (D.C. Cir. 1956): “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.”

• Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. - Limited relevance

• Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” - relevant but not in the case - Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”” Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.” - Right to silence

• Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” - clarifies the expectation to reasonably obey the laws of the road, but not to be limited in the right to travel by choice of mode of said travel.

• Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: “An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

• “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. - Reinforces constitutional rights override state regulatory authority and constitutional protections protect against state interference.

• Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943): “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” This was not related to travel, however, addressed the that rights should not come with a charge by the state. This is a correct paraphrase.

• Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979): In this case, a police officer conducted a random stop of a vehicle to check the driver's license and registration without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. “Except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” - Although the court did not distinguish between a vehicle and an automobile, many of the other cases, when taken as a whole, clearly support both being required, articulable probable cause for licensing and registration in addition to proof of use of the conveyance.

Travel

The system is not corrupt. It is perfectly constructed to deal with government functions. However, people in perceived authority positions who are actually public servants, are the ones who can ultimately be corrupt.