The Theft of Rights

8/9/2019 The Theft of Rights

1/8

The drivers license has been perverted into a tool for social engineering. The statutes of

California are very clear that it is the commercial use of the streets and highways for the

transportation of passengers and freight for compensation that is the object of thelicensing statutes and not viatic use of the streets and highways as public rights of way by

motorcar for the purposes of ingress and egress.

Under the present mode of enforcing the statutory/regulatory scheme the license to drive

is in fact tortuously converted into a license or permission to survive. It is permission for

living life on even terms with the rest of the modern world.

When one examines all of the alternatives to acquiring a license merely to travel

autonomously one comes to realize that in fact, given the present enforcement scheme,

you cannot compete for the available resources of this world nor even acquire the basicnecessities of living without permission or without relying upon 3rd party permission to

travel.

All of the published cases addressing the right to travel pervert the distinction betweenthe right to travel, (viatic use of the highways as rights of way, using the modern mode of

ingress and egress) and the commercial concept of operating a motor vehicle, (thetransportation of persons and property for hire).

It works like this:

To obtain a license permitting the person to engage in AUTONOMOUS

travel:1. One must surrender their right to privacy:

a. Embedded RFID chip in your wallet so you can be tracked like property.b. Allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to sell their personal and private

information to would be peddlers and any self-interested party with the

cost of copying the information. These self interests then use your

personal and private information to their serve selfish ends. (Reno v.Condon)

2. One must surrender the right to be secure in his person and possessions and to

move about unmolested and must suffer his person to warrantless seizure andrestraint under the color of every imaginable human imperfection. Not merely

conduct not rising to the level of crime but benign conduct bringing harm to

no one A.K.A. warrantless seizure for non-criminal infractions of the Motor

Vehicle Code.3. One must surrender the right not to be a witness against oneself or to produce

evidence on command.

4. One must surrender the right not to associate with unethical insurancecompanies in league with municipal corporations with whom they are

incestuously invested.

1


2/8

In order to use ones own property, upon the streets and highways in

which We the People enjoy joint tenancy one must;5. Surrender the right to the absolute ownership of property and seek a license

for said property called a registration.

a. They must then pay a registration fealty and in so doing grant a lien right

to the state allowing the right of property to be reduced to the station of amere privilege, without regard to necessity or that it is the only means

by which a man may be anything but dependent upon others for every

necessity of the modern world.6. Surrender the right to be secure in ones possessions and suffer warrantless

seizure of ones person and property under the auspice of every conceivable

human imperfection.7.

8. If one should dare to exercise the right to travel upon the streets and

highways without leave or license. (VC 14607.4(g))

9. Surrender the right not to have your right to travel held hostage to a license.

10. Surrender the right not to have the license held hostage to payment ofdemands made upon every conceivable human imperfection.

11. Surrender the right to a fair hearing,a. By an impartial magistrate or

b. By a jury of ones peers,

c. With the advice and assistance of counseld. In a court that provides a true record on appeal

e. In a court where the people and the law are treated with respect

f.

12. Is there an alternative to securing the government created

privilege?a. I hear one can walk but I see that to be less true daily and I know not how

one brings home groceries and other supplies, or takes ones children to

school or after school activities nor any of the other occasion required in

life by walking.b. Then there is the same problem in common with the bicycle as being

exposed to weather and suffering great physical effort to accomplish even

the simplest tasks not to mention being forced to the shoulder of the roadsand not upon the streets and highways themselves.

c. Then of course we have the benevolence of a friend who holds permission

or license

d. Or perhaps a benevolent stranger holding leave or licensee. Or maybe even purchasing transportation services in commerce from a

commercial carrier with a business license and operated by a driver with a

chauffeurs license.f. Or perhaps a private carrier from a license cab or limousine company with

a driver that holds permission or license.

13.

2


3/8

Government is an abstraction of the mind that only exists in contemplation oflaw; therefore, everything government does or can do, can only be lawful. Allof those things done in the name of government, which are in fact absent the

authority or sanction of law, are not done by government but by governmentactors under the color of law.

The matter before this court portends itself to be a criminal action when infact it is an attempt to tortuously convert protected political rights intomeager privileges the exercise of which in the absence of license orpermission is maliciously prosecuted as if it were some form of crime or publicoffense.

Let there be no mistake, no misunderstanding, I'm not here today by accident,but by design. I'm here today because I have positioned myself to be where Iam and I'm here with a very specific agenda. I'm here to bring forth the truth,to expose it before the world in all its ugliness and to bear witness to the

institutionalized lie that brings me before this court today. I am here todaybecause I will not seek the permission of government actors to exerciseconstitutionally protected political rights.

The 1879;

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and haveinalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life andliberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuingand obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Constitutionof the

[1] State of California (1849)

We the people of California, grateful to Almighty; God for our freedom:in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Article I: Declaration of Rights [2]

Sec. 1.

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights,among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring,possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety andhappiness.

The language of the California Constitution appears to be very clear. Both the De jure

Constitution of 1849 as well as the de facto Constitution of 1879 place this declaration of

rights properly in Article 1 section 1. In fact the federal Constitution only provides two

3


4/8

remedies for the redress of grievance. These remedies were properly placed in the first

and second amendments.

All throughout history, man, in order to survive, to secure the bare necessities of life, to

acquire property and to pursue their health, safety and happiness, have depended upon the

viatic use of the streets and highways to attain those ends. Over the course of 50,000years of recorded history use of the streets and highways has not merely been a right but

a right annexed to the persons of men by necessity.

The most prized and precious of all my worldly possessions are my protected political

rights. The most fundamental of which, the right to move about, to freely associate and to

be independent, without the exercise of which no other right can be fully realized, is, by a

purported statutory regulatory scheme, held hostage to leave or license, to be granted orwithheld at the leisure of government actors according to the terms of their own

proclamations. Such a thing is not now nor has it ever been because it cannot be law.

Our law is published in our books. If it is not published in our books it is not our law. Wethe people in ordaining and establishing our Constitution of government did not create a

document that granted us anything. We created, by that act and through that instrument, arepublican form of government to which we granted to government a limited authority to

administer to those things specifically within the confines of that endowment.

If Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America is taken to mean what itsays in declaring itself the Supreme Law of the Land, then every state entering into the

Union did so on express terms of agreement to honor that Article in strict conformity

with the doctrine there proclaimed.

The first three words of that document established a principle upon which our entire

system of jurisprudence is based. That principle distinguishes between the politicalauthority endowed to the people by their maker, and which authorized them to declare the

Law, and the legal power to delegate limited authority to those entrusted to carry out the

duties of the public offices created or authorized by that instrument to preserve publicjustice as holders of the peoples trust.

In the hopes of avoiding the folly of what Dr. Vieira calls Humpty Dumpty law, I will

quote from Fletcher v. Tuttle 151 Ill. 41, 37N.E. 683 . . . in which the Court distinguishesbetween political rights and legally conferred rights, or privileges.

We find this echoed in Black's Law Dictionary, which defines political rights as "those,which may be exercised in the formation or administration of government. Rights of

citizens established or recognized by constitutions which give them the power to

participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government."

No court has ever dared to suggest that the exercise of a protected right should be made

subject to the forfeiture of another protected right. In fact, in Simon v. U.S. 390 US 389

4


5/8

the court said, " we find it intolerable that one constitutionally protected right should have

to be waived to exercise another . . . . . . .

The distinction between legal and political authority is further made explicit in Article II

in providing for the election of a political President of the United States of America as

against the sworn in legal President of the United States, and is made unequivocal in theFirst Amendment which articulates those rights and freedoms placed beyond the reach of

legal process.

When the Nixon court explained Baker v. Carr, in saying that "A controversy is

nonjustifiable, i.e. involves a political question, where there is . . . a lack of judicially

discoverable standards for resolving it ... ", the court had no intention of restricting

political rights to those only which involve electoral processes. Any doubts as to thisproposition are resolved by reference to the First Amendment which enshrines the most

important political rights intended to be protected from abusive, arbitrary or despotic

powers.

Among those rights, is the right of free association, which translates, to the right of free

choice of domicile. There can be no infringement of the right to choose one's politicalaffiliations, and this right prohibits coercion of any kind, which would compel an

individual to associate with a corporate, commercial or political interest.

We find this principle substantiated in the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment,which secures the people's natural and absolute right to exercise their political freedoms

free from arbitrary imposition of dubious legal initiatives, or regulatory ambitions. The

prohibition is declared in the imperative, "shall not be violated", and in providing for therequired elements of application of warrants of law, allows for no exceptions. All

reasonable instances of search and seizure will be found to be justified when satisfying

these requirements, and thus there can be no exceptions. In fact all cases employing theterm can be understood as various rationalizations on the concept of warrant of law.

Political rights are simply not within the province of our courts because they cannot bemade amenable to justiciable process.

The 4th Amendment opens with the unqualified acknowledgement of "the right of the

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects," against unreasonablesearches and seizures", and declares by imperative command that such right "shall not be

violated".

The language of that acknowledgement is not colorable, and leaves no room for

supposition or construction as to whether the right to be secure against intrusion,

molestation, or confiscation is a predicate right or privilege.

The right to be secure against arbitrary or warrant-less interference or invasion on the part

of government actors is stated in plain language as an existing right, absolute,

5


6/8

unqualified, and is not only one belonging to the people, but one that stands as a primitive

of our American jurisprudence.

The provision that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath

or affirmation, . . . is clearly intended to erect a barrier against abusive government

authority by establishing specific prohibitions and constraints, and most emphaticallynowhere allows for exceptions. Any and every intrusion, interference, or restraint of

liberty or privacy or deprivation of a property interest shall require warrant of law. For if

4th Amendment protections can be denied by imposition of fictitious abstractions, thenthe doctrine of 'reasonable and probable cause' are a fraud, and warrant of law becomes

indistinguishable from the Writs of Assistance issued by the kings' men in an effort to

'legalize' their plunder.

If 4th Amendment protections are deemed to be subject to civil law exceptions, under the

guise of contractual obligations or regulatory controls conferring upon government

various prerogatives, then government actors, and even individuals are encouraged to

trespass against their fellow citizens, thereby inviting anarchy by violating the distinctionbetween civil and criminal process.

...................................

NOTES;

The question as to how to exercise a fundamental right while preserving other protected

rights, and avoiding devolution of any such rights to the status of mere privilege andwithout becoming the victim of warrantless seizures and malicious prosecutions comes

now before this court.

Since the Constitution cannot be lawfully amended by regulation, court decision, or

legislative fiat, what provision of the Supreme Law of the Land,(Article XI), justifies

lawful exception to 4th Amendment protections against warrant-less arrest or seizure?

If the exercise of the fundamental right to travel requires the compromise of 4th

Amendment protections, then the plain language of that Amendment cannot be trusted to

mean what it says. And the qualifying term, "unreasonable" becomes subversive,rendering the whole provision ineffective for any purpose related to fundamental rights.

If the mandate "shall not be violated" is not imperative, allowing for no doubt as to itsmeaning and intent, then how shall the law itself be preserved?

If imperative is not imperative, then prohibition is not prohibition, and the law is thusreduced to a mockery, constructed with ambiguous terms, amorphous innuendo, intrinsic

self-contradiction, and ultimately self destructive. Such Law can be no law at all.

6


7/8

Thus can 4th Amendment protections be seen as essential, not only for preserving our

constitutional order, but even for purposes of maintaining the social order, and the reason

for instituting government among men. Indeed a people made to live under constantinsecurity are not a people capable of establishing the trust, confidence, and peaceful

conditions required for prosperity. If the People allow the courts or the legislatures to

abrogate their 4th Amendment obligations, they will invite the destruction of the peace,their prosperity, their rights and the rule of law itself, thus subjecting themselves to the

arbitrary rulership of greedy despots.

Considering the possible exception to fourth Amendment protections involving the

takings clause of the fifth Amendment will easily reveal itself as no exception at all.

Since the Fifth Amendment proscribes any taking of personal property for public use

absent adequate compensation. This does not constitute a 4th Amendment exception forthe simple reason that it is presumed that such taking for public purposes is by its very

nature warranted under our law, providing that such warranted taking is conducted in

accordance with the due process of law.

"No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation . . .

", is fortified by Sixth Amendment guarantee of the "Right to be informed of the Natureand Cause" of the accusations against one, and is further substantiated by 9th and 10th

Amendment declarations as to the reservation of powers reserved to the People, and

emphatically not the government.

Probable Cause is also unambiguous for it necessarily requires a clear and concise

declaration of the controlling body of applicable law, as well as a full accounting of the

elements that would go to constitute said alleged probable cause. This is co-equal withthe requirement to articulate each of the four elements essential to establishing a claim of

any kind.

If 4th Amendment exceptions exist, they are also subject to 1st Amendment constraints

and prohibitions.

The first most obvious example being, the right to travel as a fundamental right incident

to the exercise of other fundamentally protected rights. The right to peaceably assemble,

or associate, a right necessarily implied by each of the first four clauses of the First

Amendment, require for their exercise, the right to move about, to travel according to thecustomary mode of the day, free of unwarranted molestation or interference. It cannot be

denied that without 4th Amendment protections to be secure in person, houses, papers

and effects, there can be no meaning attributed to the various provisions of the 1stAmendment. And it is equally clear and undeniable that specious manufacture of 4th

Amendment exceptions renders the protections of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th

Amendments futile and ineffective for any legitimate purpose.

In the course of these proceedings defense will show that the instance, which gave rise to

the matter before this court, was one that the 1st and fourth Amendments were

specifically designed to prevent.

7


8/8

In order to obtain a license to use the streets and highways for securing the bare

necessities of life, one must surrender other fundamental rights.

8

The Theft of Rights

Documents

Transcript of The Theft of Rights