FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

Real.  Educational.  News.

Fort Fairfield Journal                                  Contact Us                            Bible Reference                       Our Library

Are Driver's Licenses Unlawful?

By David Deschesne

Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal

Fort Fairfield Journal, February 2, 2005

The History

   Prior to 1933, there were very few states issuing driver’s licenses - or  “highway privileges.”  Those that were, only were issuing them to corporations or individuals who were using the public roads for profit or gain, such as freight companies, taxis, busses, etc.

“In general, the revenues fall into the following...categories... (2) Fees, or highway-privilege dues, exacted from individuals or corporations enjoying a special privilege of using the streets and roads of the state in providing public services, such as those furnished by electric railway, lighting, telephone, and water companies” (Only five states reported receipts from this source in 1928.  The receipts, aggregating $210,810, came principally from electric railways for paving between tracks and for the use of state bridges.)” - Introduction to American Government, Frederic A. Ogg,   Ph D, LL.D. and P. Orman Ray, Ph D,  ©1931, pp. 788-789.  

  After the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, driver licensing of the general populace became more and more widespread as the governments of the states sought tighter and more centralized control of the people who had since been pledged as collateral against the nation’s ballooning national, as well as state, debt.     The State of Maine, for example, began licensing drivers just prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 in an effort to regulate and track its human  “chattel” which were soon to be pledged against the state’s future debt to the Federal Reserve bank.  The US Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that driving, and using the public roads is a constitutional right ‘in the spirit of the  liberty’ we all enjoy (see list of court rulings on this page).

The Law

   According to the US Code,  “Motor Vehicles” are defined for commercial purposes; automobiles for pleasure.    Title 29-A of the Maine Revised Statutes is the Motor Vehicle Code.  When you read it closely and use their definitions and understand the sentence structure you, too, will see that driver’s licenses appear to be only required of legal or commercial entities-not live-born human beings...  

MRS 29-A §101  

54.  Person.   “Person” means an individual,  corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate or any other legal or commercial entity.  

   In the context of that sentence, most people would look at individual and think they are one of those.  Well, an individual is simply a single  person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, or estate.  Also, where the definition ends with:  “or any other legal or commercial entity,” the inference is that everything in the list preceding it is a legal or commercial entity.  In law, a  “person” could be a corporation.    We are human beings, not ‘legal or commercial entities.’   The Maine Revised Statutes also recognizes a  “person” as a human being, but not for the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Code.  If you will go to the Maine Criminal Code at MRS, Title 17, you will find an interesting definition of  “person”:  

MRS 17-A §2

20.   Person means a human being or an organization.  

    The State of Maine recognizes that there are two different definitions of  “person” in their own laws.  Driver’s Licenses are only required of   “persons”  as defined in Title 29-A, which are legal or commercial entities.  

The State Incorporates the Human

   Now, the State of Maine’s laws, as with other States,  were written by very smart lawyers.  They knew that the live-born human being is superior in power to them, so they had to create a corporation that they could legally regulate.  They concocted a way to create a corporation using a name that resembles yours, but isn’t, and tricking you into believing it’s actually you.  For example, the correct way to spell a proper noun is:  John H. Doe.  However, the way it would appear on a driver’s licenses is:  DOE, JOHN H.   Look on your own driver’s license.  The all capital letters name that is on it closely resembles yours, but isn’t.  Proper nouns, or the names of persons, places, or things, are always spelled upper/lower case.   The state did not ALL CAPs your name for administrative convenience, they did it on purpose to create a corporation which they could then regulate and collect money from.  It is a fictional corporation, so they presume the person whose name closely resembles it to be financially responsible for it...you.   While the Criminal Code, under common law, can and does deal with human beings, the Motor Vehicle Code can only deal with legal or commercial entities, not human beings; both by their own definitions.     

Licenses Don’t Make Drivers Safe

   While the Driver’s License in Maine does not apply to humans, and as will be shown, is Constitutionally unlawful, people should certainly be trained to drive safely and follow a pre-established list of rules for safety.  A certificate of completion will do just fine.  Driver’s licenses never were designed to prove that a person knows how to drive—only to prove that corporation paid the usage tax for the use of the roads it is making a profit from (rate per mile on a buss fare, taxi, trucking company, etc.).  

   99.9% of all car accidents are caused by people with driver’s licenses!  A driver’s license is merely another tax that we have allowed our public servants to levy upon us.

Courts Rule Driving is a Right

      The US Supreme Court, and other US courts have already ruled in the following cases that we all have the right to travel protected by the constitution:

“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” -United States v. Guest, 383 US 475, 757, 86 S. Ct 1170 (1966)  

“It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain (profit) is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.” - Stevenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 77 L.Ed. 288

“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.” - Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250, 254, 94 S. Ct. 1076, 1080 (1974)  

“The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty.” - Worther v. Herter, 270 F.2d. 905, 908 (D.C. Cir 1959)  

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of the exercise of consitutional rights.” - Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 948

“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitution of the particular state; if it infringes  upon provisions of either, it is so far void.” - Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 5 L.Ed. 19

“Void:  Null; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.” - Hardison v. Gledhill, 72 Ga. App. 432, 33 S.E. 2d. 921, 924.

“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.” Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254

   Driver’s licensing, as a method of conveniently keeping track of people is also prohibited by the following court ruling:  

“ ...pure administrative convenience, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for an enactment which restricts the right to travel.” - Costa v. Bluegrass Turf Service, Inc. 406 F. Supp. 1007 (B.D. Ken. 1975)  

   The State of Maine does appear to be complying with the Supreme Court rulings, because it does not require human beings - the only entities who can have natural (granted by God) rights - to be licensed in order to travel, only businesses who use the road for profit or gain, which the Supreme court has ruled is O-K.

   The State of Maine also allows  any vehicle may be operated on a public roadway...” at 29-A §102.  

Class D Crime to Interfere with Rights

   Title 17 §§2931 - 2932 makes it a class D crime for any person (human being or organization) to: 

  “ ...by threat or threat of force, intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or intentionally attempt to injure, intimidate, interfere with or intentionally oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, secured to that person by the Constitution of Maine or laws of the State or by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States.”  

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.” - U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 at 187; and has said of the courts:

“It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against stealthy encroachments by the State.” - Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616

   It appears that police officers and judges who enforce driver’s licensing on private, non-commercial human beings are in direct violation of Title 17-A §2931 and are guilty of a class D crime.    Please don’t fault the police officers, who are  just doing “what the legislature tells them to do” or today’s legislators.  They were all brought up in the same government-run education system as you were, which does not consider teaching the law as beneficial to the existence of unconstitutional mandates - especially ones that make a lot of money for the state.       Maine is simply one example of how all of the states in the union have  “duped” their citizenry into financing a system which exists only for the benefit of itself and to permit a centralized governing authority to track and trace the movements of all who have signed up.  Driver’s licensing, itself, does not provide funds to repair and maintain roads.  It exists merely for the purposes of existing.    The driver’s licensing and vehicle registration scheme was originally designed by mid 19th century political thinker and Communist, Karl Marx.  Marx notes  Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state” in the 6th plank of his  Communist Manifesto”

Digital Biometric Photo Defense

   It is believed by some, that the proposed biometric digital photo id and bar code on most State’s driver’s licenses is either the  “Mark of the Beast” or a major building block toward the concomitant functions of that ID/Monetary system.  

   The State cannot compel one to accept that identifying  mark” if it impedes the observance of one’s religion (i.e.:  if you accept the Mark your soul will spend an eternity in hell.  see Revelation 13:16-17)  

   Support for this defense comes from the following Supreme Court Ruling:

    “If the purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or to discriminate invidiously between religions, the law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect; but if the state regulates conduct by enacting, within its power, a general law whose purpose and effect is to advance the state’s secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance unless the state may accomplish its purpose by means which do not impose such a burden.” – Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 US 599; 6 L. ed. 2d, 564  

   Since a requirement for a digital photo and barcode stored in a database does violate some peoples’ religion, and the state can accomplish the purpose of identifying by means which do not impose such a burden, any law or requirement imposing the obligation of said digital photo and/or bar code is constitutionally invalid.  

   Most States that require digital photos do so under federal mandates, rather than actual State Law.  A federal mandate merely tells the state what it must do to receive federal money.  Hence, there is usually no authorizing legislation existing that even requires a human, by law, to submit to a digital photo in order to acquire a driver’s license; the Secretary of State merely requires it administratively and nobody challenges its legality.

The original material contained herein is copyright, ©2004 by David R. Deschesne, All rights reserved.  This material may be duplicated electronically, or otherwise and forwarded for non-profit educational purposes.