Letter and Tableandum - Right of Way

Publick Notice

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that this Letter, Table and Memorandum shall serve as lawful, legal and Publick Notice of the explanation of the OPERATION CLASSIFICATION on the USDOT MCS-150 Personal Automobile Registration; and that the vessel known as LYNN CRAIG PAINTERTM is not engaged in trafficking in interstate or intrastate commerce upon the public way for profit or gain (privilege in commerce for limited liability) in “this state” or in any other state. I, THE MAN WHO STANDS BY Lynn Craig Painter, am a man upon the soil of the nation-state California republic, my asylum home state, where I am always and at all times present.

I am a “traveler” using the way “viatically;” therefore, I have had FMCSA issue a one-time courtesy exempt USDOT registration number to properly reflect, and to serve as notice to others of, my correct status pursuant to 18 USC § 31. My travel and transit constitutes the pleasure, recreation and travel use of my conveyance, exclusively. I am the “owner” named therein and at all times engage in and exercise my unalienable Right of Public Vehicular Travel. Also see federal case law and sister state Statutes (various) defining “recreational vehicle” as a non-commercial vehicle, of a type not required to be registered.

Lines and boxes intentionally left blank and the use of N/A on Form MCS-150 means the item is “not applicable” to me and the use of copyright symbol and TM are used in reference to common law Registered Copyright Trade-name/Trademark.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Right of Free Passage

Right of Way - “The Liberty of the Common Way” and

Memorandum of the Law In Support Of DOT Form MCS-150

State and Federal Case Law

“A highway is a way over which the public have a free right of passage.” --Yale University v. City of New Haven, 104 Conn. 610; 134 Atl. 268, 271.

“The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right.” --Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

“The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” -- Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

“We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” --Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243.

DOT MCS-150 Letter -

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” --Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” --Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." --Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449.

"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied." --Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644.

“The claim & exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” --Miller vs. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." --Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946

“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”--Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105.

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” --Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262

“If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.” --U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346 “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” --Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616

“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” --Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232.

“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” --Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

It is undisputed that the use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a “COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT” of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163.


Meaning and Signification of Words

Fundamental Right. Any right expressly guaranteed by the Constitution. Areas now deemed fundamental include . . . freedom of travel.

Travel. Noun: A [constitutionally protected] right under [Article the fifth of the Bill of Rights.] Aptheker v Secretary of State, 378 US 500, 12 L Ed 2nd 992, 84 SCt 1659. The act of taking a trip. Ex parte Archy, 9 Cal 147, 164. To travel is to pass or make a journey from place to place, whether on foot, on horseback, or in any conveyance. Traveling is the act of making a journey; change of place; passage. Spoken of voluntary change of place.

In transitu. In transit. Literally, in the course of passing from point to point; on the passage, transit or way. 2 Kent, Comm. 543.

Transit. A stop-over privilege on a continuous journey granted by carrier by which a break de facto in continuity of carriage of goods is disregarded and two legs of a journey are treated as though covered without interruption, uniting both legs into a through route for which a joint rate can be published.

Traveler. One using a public way. As for whom a public way must be kept reasonably safe, anyone rightfully using the way viatically, or who has occasion to pass over the way for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure. 25 Am J1st Highway §427.

Right of Way. A right of passage; an easement.

Way. A road, sidewalk or path. In a more technical sense, a right of way, that is, the right of one person, or several persons, or the community at large to pass over the land of another. 25 Am J1st Highway § 3.

WAY. A passage, path, road or street. In a technical sense, a right of passage over land.

PRIVATE WAY. A right which a person has of passing over the land of another. In another sense a private way is one laid out by the local public authorities for the accommodation of individuals and wholly or chiefly at their expense, but not restricted to their exclusive use, being subject, like highways to the public easement of passage.

TRAVELED WAY. The traveled path, or the path used for public travel. Within located limits of the way. Also called “traveled part of highway.” –Black’s Law Dictionary

Public Highway. A way for the use of the public; a highway. Any way used by the public in going from one place to another . . .”

Public. The people.

Sovereign state. A people . . . exercising through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries.” 30 Am J Rev ed Internat L § 10. --Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.


HighwayHIGHWAY. A free and public road, way, or street; one which every person has the right to use. There is a difference in the shade of meaning conveyed by two uses of the word; Sometimes it signifies the right of free passage . . . [and] it has reference to some system of law authorizing the taking a strip of land, and preparing and devoting it to the use of travelers. In this use it imports a road-way upon the soil, constructed under the authority of those laws. Abbott. --Black’s Law Dictionary, 2d ed. (1910), p. 571.

“The essential feature of a highway is that it is a way over which the public at large has the right to pass.” State v. Pierson, 2 Conn. Cir. 660; 204 A.2d 838.

“This right of the people is in the street and highways of the state, whether inside or outside the municipalities thereof, is a paramount right.” --Light & Coke v. City of Chicago, N.E.2d 777, 781; 413 Ill. 457 (1952).

“It is well settled that the public are entitled to a free passage along the highway.” --Michelson v. Dwyer, 63 N.W.2d 513, 517; 158 Neb. 427 (1954).

“Our society is built in part upon free passage of men and goods, and the public streets and highways may rightfully be used for travel by everyone.” --Hanson v. Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 383.

“Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed ‘highways’ or ‘public roads,’ are such ways as every citizen has a right to use.” --Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62.

“A highway includes all public ways which the public generally has a right to use for passage and traffic, and includes streets in cities, sidewalks, turnpikes and bridges.” --Central Ill. Coal Mining Co. v. Illinois Power Co., 249 Ill. App.199.

“Our courts have stressed the basic right of the transient public and abutting property owners to the free passage of vehicles on public highways and the paramount function of travel as overriding all other subordinate uses of our streets.” --State v. Perry, 269 Minn. 204, 206

“A highway is a public road, which every citizen of the state has a right to use for the purpose of travel.” --Shelby County Com’rs v. Castetter, 33 N.E. 986, 987, 7 Ind. App. 309; Spindler v. Toomey, 111 N.E/2d 715, 716 (Ind.-1963).

“The public have a right of free and unobstructed transit over streets, sidewalks and alleys, and this is the primary appropriate use to which they are generally dedicated.” --Pugh v. City, 176 Iowa 593, 599, 156 N.W. 892, 894.

“It is well settled law that every member of the public has a right to use the public roads in a reasonable manner for the promotion of his health and happiness.” --Sumner v. County v. Interurban Transp. Co., 141 Tenn. 493 500.


“A highway is a road or way upon which all persons have a right to travel at pleasure. It is the right of all persons to travel upon a road.” --Gulf & S.I.R. Co. v Adkinson, 77 So. 954, 955; 117 Miss. 118.

“The right to travel over a street or highway is a primary absolute right of everyone.” Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P.2d 721, 728.

“A highway is a passage, road or street which every citizen has a right to use.” Ohio, Indiana, & W. Ry. Co. v. People, 39 Ill. App. 473.

“Highways are public roads, which every citizen has a right to use.” --Wild v. Deig, 43 Ind. 455, 458; 13 Am. Rep. 399.

It is undisputed that the courts of this land have repeatedly and consistently concurred on the fact that the people have a right to travel on the public roads and highways of this country; but the nature of this Right must be determined. What type of Right is it questioned here? Is it only a statutory “privilege” or an inherent right? The cases cited prove that it is an “incorporeal hereditaments;” a fundamental, unalienable, inherent and constitutionally-secured Right:

“It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

“This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.” --Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674.

“The right of a citizen to use the highways, include the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him.” --Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, 137 So. 163, 167. Also: State v. Quigg, 114 So. 859, 862 (Fla.-1927); Davis v. City of Houston, 264 S.W. 625, 629 (Tex. Civ. App., 1924).

“Every citizen has an inalienable 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, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

“The term “public highway,” in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads -- any road which the public have a “RIGHT” to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public.” –See Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.


Personal Liberty

The "most sacred of liberties" is personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is: "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."--16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

This concept is further amplified by this definition of personal liberty: "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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."--II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

Personal Liberty -- II. Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. Concerning which we may make the same observations as upon the preceding article, that it is a right strictly natural. --Blackstone’s Commentaries 1:120 – 41. --Henry Paul Monaghan – “Of Liberty and Property,” Cornell Law Review 62 (March 1977) 411.

due course of law. According to the law of the land; due process of the law. Hanson v. Krehbiel, 68 Kan 670, 75 P 1041.

law of the land. The law of the state in which the proceeding is brought, whether common law or statutory law. 16 Am J2d Const L § 543.

It is undisputed that the term “or” above is disjunctive; therefore, by the Right of Choice of Law, we, the people, choose self-governance by the common law NOT by statutory law. The supreme law of the land is the National Constitution, which has already spoken; it does NOT mean the “laws of the country,” which are the internal administrative procedures of the corporate states.


laws of the country. In the broader sense of the term the laws of the United States and the state and local laws. So far as the United States is concerned, the phrase means the local laws of administration and procedure of the respective states of the Union.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE CONFIRMS

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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." –National Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2.

Furthermore,

“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.” –National Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3.

Therefore, pursuant to the “Supremacy Clause,” EVERYONE must defer to federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. See Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987).

With the Supremacy Clause in mind, as well as the limitations of state police power, the Motor Vehicle Compact and implementing regulations are explicit with regard to the authority of the states to regulate commercial motor vehicles ONLY!

“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.” --Connolly 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 police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” --Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." --Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60

“As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” --Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

Moreover, each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

1. Is there threatened danger?

2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutionally protected Right?

3. Is this regulation reasonable?"

--People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power.”

When applying these three questions to licensure statutes, some critical issues emerge.

First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

“The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” --Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

To deprive all men and woman of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to the due process of the law.

Next; does the regulation involve a Right secured by the Constitution?

This question has already been addressed and answered herein, and need not be reinforced other to repeat that the people do have the Right to travel freely, without interruption, upon


the public highways by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that any attempted regulation thereof does involve a Right secured by the Constitution.

The third question is the most important: "Is this regulation reasonable?"

The answer is No! Any licensing or registration statute involves an “exaction,” is oppressive, and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means, but only upon entities subject to regulation.

Motor Vehicle Compact – State or Local Laws

Subpart B—General requirements and information

§390.9 State and local laws, effect on.

Except as otherwise specifically indicated, Subchapter B of this chapter is not intended to preclude States or subdivisions thereof from establishing or enforcing State or local laws relating to safety, the compliance with which would not prevent full compliance with these regulations by the person subject thereto.

HOWEVER, it is undisputed that those State or local laws relate to safe operation of commercial motor vehicles ONLY! See below.

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER III--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 395_HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS--Table of Contents Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(2) The exceptions from Federal requirements contained in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section do not preempt State laws and regulations governing the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles.

It is undisputed that the implementing regulations also support the fact, as enumerated in the definitions above, that “traveling,” even with reference to a commercial motor vehicle, is NOT the same as “driving!” Driving is a government granted privilege and traveling is an unalienable natural Right endowed by the Creator!

“License is synonymous with privilege . . .” --Aberdeen v. Cole, 13 Wn. App. 617, 537 P.2d 1073. See also United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394.

See 49 USC § 395.1(j)(1) and (2) below. Moreover, no license or registration is required to exercise the Right of Way—the Liberty of the Common Way—the Right of Free


Passage—by any conveyance whatsoever for personal, private recreation or travel purposes.

[Code of Federal Regulations][Title 49, Volume 5][Revised as of October 1, 2008]From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access[CITE: 49CFR395.1]

[Page 457-461] TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER III--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 395_HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS--Table of Contents Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

(j) Travel time--(1) When a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 10 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.

(2) When a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver at the direction of the motor carrier is traveling, but not driving or assuming any other responsibility to the carrier, such time must be counted as on-duty time unless the driver is afforded at least 8 consecutive hours off duty when arriving at destination, in which case he/she must be considered off duty for the entire period.

If a commercial motor vehicle driver can be “traveling, but not driving,” so can I. If I am not “driving,” I am not a “driver” and I am not required to obtain a “driver license.” There is no such thing as a “traveler license” since traveling is an unalienable natural Right and no license is, or can be, required to exercise a Right. That Right, among all others, was endowed to me by my Creator, is freely exercised by me according to my in capite sovereign body authority, and is subject to no other.

Case Cites – People vs. Persons

“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.” -- Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943.


“This word “person” and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition.” -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910.

“The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. paragraph 1.” --Church of Scientology v. U.S. Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425.

“The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound.” --The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825).

FREEDOM AND SOVERIGNTY

FREEDOM, n. A state of exemption from the power or control of another. –Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, first edition, 1828.

SOVEREIGNTY, n. Supreme power; supremacy; the possession of the highest power, or of uncontrollable power. –Webster’s 1828.

". . . at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." --Chisholm v. Georgia, (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793, pp 471-472.

free. Without restraint or coercion; not enslaved; not bound; to be enjoyed without limitation; open for use or enjoyment without charge. –Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

It is undisputed that I have the Right of Freedom and that, by definition, free sovereigns are not subject to, or accountable to, any higher authority other than to God. “Absolute sovereignty belongs to God only.” –Webster’s 1828.


What This Means With Regard To The Right Of Free Passage

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” –National Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 1.

The “Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of [the] Constitution,” are still valid, including, but not limited to, the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance.

Articles of ConfederationArticle IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State . . .”

The Congress of the Confederation

THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE

Article 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.... (The act next provided how the people of the territory would share in the process of raising revenue for the federal government.) The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefore.

It is undisputed that all fees, such as those imposed for licenses and registrations are taxes and exactions.

DECLARATION OF STATUS AND APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS

8 USC 11018 USC § 1101. Definitions

(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term “national of the United States” means

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.


Pursuant to this notice, the definition of “motor vehicle,” as codified in the Federal Criminal Code and of other related terms listed below from the Motor Vehicle Compact between the compact states, with reference to my status as a sovereign (a “national” NOT a “national of the United States”), as a people NOT a person, to the “meaning and signification” thereof, to “the true and proper understanding to the term[s] in all the phases of [their] proper use,” pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the National Constitution, for any future “legal proceeding,” shall be as follows and ONLY as follows.

The principle of in pari materia dictates that this definition in 18 USC § 31 must be applied in all Federal and/or State statutes that contain or include the term “motor vehicle,” which statutes are limited in their application and operation, and that can embrace only one single subject matter: the regulation of certain State-created entities: persons who operate said “motor vehicles” that are “used for commercial purposes.”

If any person claims that any other definition of the term “motor vehicle,” that varies from the definition below that would include any carriage or contrivance NOT used for commercial purposes and not in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Compact, exists at law, or in any Federal and/or State statute, let him come forth by sworn affidavit, as such a claim would constitute prima facie ambiguity, and would nullify, under the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, all statutes or rules that include the contradictory term.

18 USC § 31 – Definition of Motor Vehicle

Title18, UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Sec. 31. Definitions

When used in this chapter 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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

“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[.]”

“It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * * * Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their separate classification and for relieving from the


burden of the license tax those who merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or employees.”

--Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238.” (State v. Karel, 180 So. 3 at 8.)

“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used by the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22. “

Codification - Lack of Jurisdiction of USDOT

49 USC § 13505. Transportation furthering a primary business (a) In General.— Neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction under this part over the transportation of property by motor vehicle when—

(1) the property is transported by a person engaged in a business other than transportation; and

(2) the transportation is within the scope of, and furthers a primary business (other than transportation) of the person.

Implementing Regulation:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Compact

Subpart A—General applicability and definitions§390.5 Definitions.

For-hire motor carrier means a person engaged in the transportation of goods or passengers for compensation.

No Interstate Compacts Without the Consent of Congress

“No state shall, without Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State. . .” --National Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.

Codification - 4 USC 112 - Interstate Compacts

4 USC § 112. Compacts between States for cooperation in prevention of crime; consent of Congress - Release date: 2006-03-20


(a) The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies , and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts.

(b) For the purpose of this section, the term “States” means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.

It is undisputed that traffic infractions are NOT crimes; therefore, with regard to the Right to Travel and the declaration in subsection (a) above, the interstate compact for the enforcement of traffic infractions (The Motor Vehicle Compact), is NOT the enforcement of “criminal laws” but the enforcement of mere policies! AND,

“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” --16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70.

Motor Vehicle Compact Excerpts

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

Driver-related Regulations - § 390 General

§390.5 Definitions. Unless specifically defined elsewhere, in this subchapter:

Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle.

Multiple-employer driver means a driver, who in any period of 7 consecutive days, is employed or used as a driver by more than one motor carrier.

Operator— See driver.

Single-employer driver means a driver who, in any period of 7 consecutive days, is employed or used as a driver solely by a single motor carrier. This term includes a driver who operates a commercial motor vehicle on an intermittent, casual, or occasional basis.

Vehicle-Related Regulations

Subpart A — General

§392.1 Scope of the rules in this part.


Every motor carrier, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees responsible for the management, maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers, shall be instructed in and comply with the rules in this part.

[53 FR 18057, May 19, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 38746, July 28, 1995].

Case Law Confirms

“It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms ‘operator’ and ‘driver’; the ‘operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the ‘driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both ‘operator’ and ‘driver’.” --Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

§392.16 Use of seat belts.

A commercial motor vehicle which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself/herself with the seat belt assembly.

[35 FR 10860, July 3, 1970, as amended at 60 FR 38747, July 28, 1995].

§367.1 Definitions.

(c) Motor vehicle — A self–propelled or motor driven vehicle operated by a motor carrier in interstate or foreign commerce under authority issued by the Secretary.

§367.2 Participation by States.

(a) A state is eligible to participate as a registration State and to receive fee revenue only if, as of January 1, 1991, it charged or collected a fee for a vehicle identification stamp or a number pursuant to the provisions of the predecessor to this part.

Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Motor Vehicle Safety Act, see National Safety and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

National Safety and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, an act to provide for a coordinated national safety program and establishment of safety standards for motor vehicles in interstate commerce to reduce accidents involving motor vehicles and to reduce the deaths and injuries occurring in such accidents. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq., 80 Stat. 718 (1966), as thereafter amended.

15 USC 1381 was repealed:


§ 1381. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, § 7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379 and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. § 30101 but it still applies ONLY to interstate commerce!

49 USC § 30101. Purpose and policy

The purpose of this chapter is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is necessary—

(1) to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce.

Automobile NOT Motor Vehicle

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

“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.

The distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"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."--International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 “The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”--City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

My Family Car Is Consumer Goods NOT Equipment

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 9 - SECURED TRANSACTIONS; SALES OF ACCOUNTS AND CHATTEL PAPER

PART 1. SHORT TITLE, APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS

§ 9-109. Classification of Goods: “Consumer Goods”; “Equipment”; “Farm Products”; “Inventory”.Goods are

(1) “consumer goods” if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes;


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-105.html#Goods_9-105

(2) “equipment” if they are used or bought for use primarily in business (including farming or a profession) or by a debtor who is a non-profit organization or a governmental subdivision or agency or if the goods are not included in the definitions of inventory, farm products or consumer goods;

Relevant applicable stare decisis case cites relating directly to UCC 9-109:

“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” --James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).

“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive.” --McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).

“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was ‘consumer goods’ as defined in UCC §9-109.” --Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).

“The provisions of UCC §2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use).” --Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).

Federal Case Law Confirms

IN RE BARNESUnited States District Court,

D Maine, September 15, 1972Bankruptcy No. BK 72-129ND, No. EK 72-13OND

[9109] Consumer goods - automobile for transportation to and from work.

The use of a vehicle by its owner for purposes of traveling to and from his employment is a personal, as opposed to a business use, as that term is used in UCC § 9-109(l), and the vehicle will be classified as consumer goods rather than equipment.

The phraseology of § 9-109(2) defining equipment as goods used or bought for use primarily in business seems to contemplate a distinction between the use of collateral “in business” and the mere use of the collateral for some commercial, economic or income-producing purpose by one not engaged “in business.”

The appropriate filing place turns upon the classification of the collateral as consumer goods or equipment. The Uniform Commercial Code classifies goods as consumer goods


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-109.html#Consumer%20goods_9-109

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-105.html#Goods_9-105

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-105.html#Debtor_9-105

“. . . if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes. (2). Fn (2) 11 MRSA § 9-109(1).

It is the court's opinion that the use of a vehicle by its owner for purposes of traveling to and from his employment is a “personal,” as opposed to a business use, as that term is used in UCC § 9-109 (1). The phraseology of UCC § 9-109 (2), defining “equipment” as goods used or bought for use primarily “in business” seems to contemplate a distinction between the use of collateral “in business,” and the mere use of the collateral for some commercial, economic or income-producing purpose by one not engaged “in business.”

Traveling to and from work is a PERSONAL use NOT a BUSINESS use!

This ruling is consistent with the undisputed fact that “The classification of goods is determined by its primary use” (Barron’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition, 1991) and not by the type of goods, including, but not limited to, vehicles:

CONSUMER GOODS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED!

“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, . . . it is NOT a type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston v. Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14.

“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.

“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.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

“A soldier's personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

“... [T]he exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions. --In re Schmolke (1926) 199 Cal. 42, 46.

“The right of a 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 his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.” --Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579.

“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may ” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “ must ” exempt them.” --State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94, page 581.

Conclusive Presumption of Right of Free Passage

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." --Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

CODIFICATION OF STATE INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE

COMPACT – FEDERAL FUNDING – COMPATIBLE REGULATIONS

49 USC § 31102 – Grants to States

(a) General Authority. -

Subject to this section and the availability of amounts, the Secretary of Transportation may make grants to States for the development or implementation of programs for improving motor carrier safety and the enforcement of regulations, standards, and orders of the United States Government on commercial motor vehicle safety , hazardous materials transportation safety, and compatible State regulations , standards, and orders.

it is undisputed, pursuant to 49 USC § 31102 above, that the STATES are receiving federal highway funds, its regulations must be “compatible” with federal regulations; and, therefore, it is bound by the clear and unambiguous terms and definitions in the federal statutes (UNITED STATES CODE) and codes of federal regulations (CFRs) contained in the body of this Table of Authorities.

LOCAL LAW

“The right to travel over a street or highway is a primary absolute right of everyone.” Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P.2d 721, 728. Also see Smallwood v. Jeter, 42 Idaho 169.


ABSOLUTE RIGHTS

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence . They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123). Words and Phrases, West Publishing Company.

Droitural Declaration of Imprescriptible Rights

“Droit ne poet pas morier.”

Right cannot die. --Jenk’s Eight Centuries of Reports, English Exchequer, 100, case 95.

Droitural. What belongs of right.; relating to right;

Prescribe. To assert a right or title to the enjoyment of a thing, on the ground of having hitherto had the uninterrupted and immemorial enjoyment of it.

Imprescriptible Rights. Such rights as a person may use or not, at pleasure, since they cannot be lost to him by the claims of another founded on prescription.

Imprescriptibility. The state or quality of being incapable of prescription; not of such a character that a right to it can be gained by prescription. –Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed.

"A vested right of action is Property in the same sense in which tangible things are property, and is equally protected against interferences. Where it springs from contract, or from the principles of common law, it is not competent for the legislature to take it away."--Williams v. Atlantic C.L.R.R., 153 N.C. 360, 69 S.E. 402 (1910). (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 "Statutory Construction.")


CONCLUSION

This Table and Memorandum is clear and unambiguous, on point, and constitutes the “law of the case” under the rule of law. It definitively establishes the conclusive presumption that my “transportation” is “not on a commercial basis.” Section 1 of The Motor Vehicle Transportation License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) is the statutory provision that provides for mandatory exemptions in favor of those who solely transport their own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle. These mandatory exemptions have been determined in the Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful, constitutional exemptions; therefore, it is a Rule of Law that all Federal, State, County or City supervising officials, officers, agents and employees have no discretion in this matter, or in the interpretation of the law as expressed. Due to the nature of my inherent, natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights and of my “transportation,” supervising officials must exempt me from any driver licensure or vehicle registration requirements, and from any and all statutes in pari materia, and/or from any other rules, regulations, legislative enactments, administrative determinations or from any other law or “color of law” that would tend to deprive me of my rights or to derogate those rights in any way whatsoever. In simple terms:

“To 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 SW 2nd 248; 308 Ky 420. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” --Payne v. Massey, 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless.” --City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.

Public officials, agents, employees and officers must not refuse my claim of guaranteed exemption, nor impede my forward progress while I am on my way.

“All Citizens of the United States of America have a right to pass and re-pass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in their own state.” --Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 12 L Ed. 702.

Finally, Governments, as in our guaranteed republican form, are instituted for the sole purpose of securing for the people their unalienable rights as declared in our sacred American documents and in this letter; as an elected representative, employee, officer or agent, this is your job description; therefore, your assistance is requested and this letter and Table of Valid Lawful Authorities and Memorandum of the Law shall serve as legal publick notice that any “interruption” or impediment of my forward progress while I am on my way in the exercise of those rights will be construed as a blatant and willful disregard of my declaration of status, of my rights, of the Rule of Law as expressed clearly herein, as a “dishonor” in commerce, and as a TORT (injury) against me, as well as a “lack of faithful performance” of your duty under oath.

Thank you for your consideration and for your prompt attention to this matter.

U.C.C. 1-308 – Reservation of Rights


Letter and Tableandum - Right of Way

Documents

Transcript of Letter and Tableandum - Right of Way