The article below is re-posted in its entirety for your review and distribution. Your comments or questions should be directed to the provider of the e-mail (who is not the author) robertsmi4@access4less.net
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a Form W-4 (or its equivalent) or an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferredservices.org/Ax_the_Tax.1.html (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
Legislators, police
officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court
decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore
requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some
of these cases:
CASE #1:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is
not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v.
Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2:
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a
mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law
right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC
287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Government -- in
requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle
inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and
therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation
on this subject?
Apparently not. This
means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and
those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in
determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free
exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured
by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.
That means it is
unlawful.
The revelation that the American
citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound
questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.
The first of such
questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that
are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way
that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a
few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once
again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.
In Hertado v. California, 110
US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state
cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1
Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles
of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that
these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful
method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging
to the people?
Other cases are
even more straight forward:
"The assertion
of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22,
at 24.
"Where rights secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436,
491.
"The claim and exercise of a
constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486,
at 489.
"There can be no sanction or
penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional
rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
We could go on, quoting
court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers
our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the
American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six
of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution,
and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to
the Contrary notwithstanding."
In the same
Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme
Law:
"The Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United
States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution..."
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:
1) Citizens who
involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the
courts have said about this:
"...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...as 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.
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
supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. 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. Constitution.
Every police officer
should keep the following U.S. court ruling --discussed earlier -- in mind
before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
To Post a message, send it to:
zeroincomefilers@eGroups.com
To Subscribe, send a blank message to:
zeroincomefilers-subscribe@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: zeroincomefilers-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.