Non-Federal Licenses, Bonding, and Permits

 By Anna Von Reitz

I just wrote a brief Article for you on Federal licenses which typically involve health care professions (Uniformed Officers as defined under Federal Code Titles 11 and 37)  and some kinds of real estate, securities and insurance licenses--- also shedding some light on what counts as "Federal Income" and how "licensed professionals" can structure their businesses to pay less Federal Income Tax or even no Federal Income Tax. 

If you get funds from Federal Workers, you get Federal Income.  If you get funds from making use of a Federal License, you get Federal Income. 

But what State-of-State Licenses? Bonding? Permits? 

Remember that in this country at the current time, all "States of States" are business franchises of foreign Federal Corporations, so these "State Licenses" issued to contractors, bankers, securities brokers, and some kinds of healthcare professionals, real estate vendors, insurance vendors, and others --- are not really State Licenses.  

They are being called "licenses" but in effect they are permits to do business with Federal Citizens, including Federal Corporations, and those permit/licenses guarantee a certain level of professional competence and/or agreement to adhere to certain published standards, and like bonding, are designed to provide a basis for consumer protection and damage claims if work is substandard. 

These provisions are not there for the benefit of the General Public.  Those provisions and "requirements" are there for the benefit of Territorial and Municipal Corporations, their officers, employees, and dependents--- and that's all that they apply to, too. 

In other words, if you aren't applying for a Federal or State of State franchise contract you don't need to have any permits, licenses, or bonding.  

The situation is exactly analogous to the earlier discussion about Federal Licenses, because in fact, the State of State licenses are just another form of "Federal Franchise License", and they all work the same way.  

If you are doing a job for an incorporated business, especially under contract, they will require you to be licensed and bonded and get all the permits to do the job.  But, do you do business with a lot of Federal or State of State Corporations, or do you do business with unincorporated Mom and Pop businesses and other men and women?  

A great many licensed and bonded contractors and people in the trades --- plumbers, carpenters, millwrights, machinists, etc., etc., etc., --- have fallen into the same trap of assumptions that doctors and nurses and dentists have accepted, and so, they believe that they "have to have" a license and they "have to have bonding" and so on, which isn't necessarily true.  It depends on who or what your clientele is, and what you are willing to put up with, and how you choose to structure your business. 

Occupational licenses like Professional licenses are conditions of employment if you want to provide services to and do business with these foreign corporations and their personnel.  

During the Covid Madness I advised small businesses all over the country to post disclaimers openly saying that U.S. Federal Public Persons and Municipal CORPORATIONS and their Employees and Dependents are entering the premises (of the bar, restaurant, hotel, retail shop) at their own risk. 

What does that do?  That puts the whole issue of doing business with Federal and Federal franchise corporations and their employees "on the hand that fits".  It tells them flat out, well, if you want to do business with me and obtain my services, it's on my terms.  Otherwise, hike down the street and find someone who will pander to your mandates, licensing, bonding, and other "requirements" to do business with you.  

As long as your business isn't incorporated, it's yours.  You get to determine who you serve and what the terms of service are.  

If you aren't particularly stuck on serving the 10 to 12% of the people who are Federal Workers, you don't need to be licensed or bonded or anything like that to provide services to the rest of us ------or to them, if they are advised of your terms of service and decide to "waive" their "requirements".  A simple disclaimer given to each and every potential customer either as part of your initial intake paperwork or posted in a prominent position in your place of business, places the entire responsibility for accepting or not accepting your services on them.  

Now you may encounter some Ninnies and some Ignoramuses who look at you wide-eyed and say, "But, but! --- It's the Law! Arizona Statute AS 101.22.333 says: blah,blah,blah, blah, blah...."  

But no, occupational licensing is not the "Law" for everyone, it's only the "Law" for those wishing to contract with U.S. Federal Public Persons (Territorial U.S. Citizens) and Municipal CORPORATIONS, their employees, and their dependents. This is part of what was brought home in the recent U.S. Supreme Court Case, Virginia v. EPA, which reiterates the findings of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Norton v Shelby almost a century ago: Administrative Law does not apply to the General Public. 

If you aren't a corporation and aren't working for a corporation and not seeking to contract with corporations, it doesn't apply to you at all. It's not your law. It's their law. And you can happily tell them that they are welcome to it.  

The same considerations of Federal Income apply.  If you go to work for the State of Utah, you are working for a Territorial United States (USA) Federal Franchise Corporation and adopting the role of a U.S. Federal Public Person and as such, you are receiving Federal Income.  It's "franchise income" but it is still "federally connected" income, so you still pay Federal Income Taxes on it.  

If you have a small unincorporated retail business called "Nancy's Nifty Nook" and you post your Disclaimer behind the cash register or similar obvious spot, and a Federal Worker has the temerity to do business with you (say that despite the fact that you are an American Philistine, your donuts and other pastries are too good to resist) the "gift" of any "Federal Income" is on them and thanks to your Disclaimer, you are free to presume that only Americans operating in their private capacity are belly up to your bar hogging down those fritters. All you need to do to close the loop is to redeem the fiat notes and checks as lawful money as provided for by Section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act by making the proper notations for endorsement on the checks ---and for cash, on the deposit slips. 

So do you need (or want?) an "Occupational License" to be a hair-dresser?  It depends entirely on the clientele you want to serve and what you are willing to put up with to provide such service.  Licensing usually carries with it additional, sometimes hidden, obligations, such as requirements that you file Federal Income Tax forms or you go back to school for training for three weeks every year or, or, or.... and again, it is entirely up to you and your situation whether the customers you gain by accepting a license is worth the cost and "voluntary" regulatory obligations the license carries with it. 

This applies in the same way to "Business Licenses"  which allow your business to do business in a foreign Territorial State-of-State with their officers and employees and dependents.  Or, in a foreign Municipal STATE OF STATE, serving Municipal CORPORATIONS and their officers and employees and dependents.  A Business License of this kind allows you to do business in their jurisdiction, under their rules, and lets you provide services to their Corporations/CORPORATIONS and their citizenry, as a non-resident alien.  

This is all very odd because they are in fact the ones intruding into your space and doing business in your State of the Union--- but, from their perspective when you elect to do business with them and their employees, you are entering their turf and subjecting yourself to their rules by "voluntarily accepting" a Business License from them.  

You could just as well stand on your two little feet and ask them where their license to operate in your State is?  When you do this, you will cause a great deal of bureaucratic consternation.  They will cast about and mumble something about the State of State Constitution, but no, while the State of State Constitution allows them to provide certain services, it isn't a Business License.  It's a Service Contract.  

No Federal or Federal State of State Franchise has any authority to regulate you or your business or license you with the following exceptions: they do have the authority to regulate the interstate manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  Otherwise, they are just bluffing and racketeering and getting you to "voluntarily" comply and pay them for a license to do something that you have every right to do anyway. 

The practice of law, medicine, banking, barbering, and numerous other occupations that have been subjected to "voluntary" licensing, are in fact occupations of common right that anyone can engage in with impunity, leaving nothing but proof of your own skill to decide whether or not you can make a living at it.

By these incremental and insidious impositions of private corporation codes, regulations, ordinances, licensing obligations, and statutes misplaced upon and enforced against the General Public, these "governmental services corporations" and their franchises have been able to gradually usurp against the Public Law and enforce their "standards" and "requirements" on everyone else with no granted authority to do so.  

Just as they have imposed Professional and Occupational Licensing using private Administrative Codes and Legislative Statutes that apply only to their own corporations and personnel and dependents (collectively called their "citizenry") they have imposed and illegally enforced Motor Vehicle Codes and Internal Revenue Codes and Real Estate Codes and other forms of Administrative Law on members of the Public.  

This is now, finally, coming to a halt and being recognized and reversed.  The only question that remains is ---- are you a member of the General Public, or are you a Federal Employee?   If you are a Federal Employee or a Federal State of State Franchise Employee, or you wish to contract with these characters and their corporations, you may need an Occupational License, a Professional License, a Driver's License, a Business License, and probably, before long, you will need a License License.  By accepting a license you accept whatever obligations the license requires.  

Or, you can stand under the Public Law as a member of the General Public and Populace and carry on your own unincorporated business with none of this foreign regulatory clap-trap.  

----------------------------

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Federal Licenses, Federal Income, and Potential Issues --- or Not

 By Anna Von Reitz

It's up to you each and individually to determine whether you have "Federal Income" or not.  

Generally speaking, if you are receiving a check from the Federal Government (that isn't an earned pension based on private sector earnings) you are in receipt of Federal Income. If you are the unemployed spouse or minor child of a Federal Worker --- Military or Civil Service --- you are in receipt of Federal Income because your Head of Household is supplying you with his or her Federal Income.    

If you are a "Medical Doctor" and using your "Medical License" to treat "U.S. Citizens" or "citizens of the United States", you are in receipt of Federal Income.  If you are a private physician who screens your clients to be sure you are only treating Americans in a private capacity and you properly endorse all checks to redeem the payment as lawful money, you are NOT in receipt of any "Federal Income".  

Most doctors don't use their licenses for anything but writing prescriptions and less than ten percent of the people who walk through their doors are Federal Employees --- strictly speaking, they should ask patients to disclose whether or not they work for the military or federal government, and only pay Federal Income Taxes on money received from the 10% that are government workers or dependents of government workers. 

All of this hinges on your individual circumstance and how you structure your business and handle your bank accounts.  That should be perfectly clear to anyone who thinks about this for more than a minute. 

What if I am a man who has retired from the military, then worked running his own private non-federal lawn mowing business for ten years, and then worked for the Post Office for ten years, so that when he retires his retirement pension is based on two different kinds of "federal income" from his time in the military and his time in the Post Office, plus whatever he paid in from his lawn mowing business?  Does he have "federal income" as a retiree?  Yes, he is receiving pension funds based on Federal Income he earned in the past, so he has to pay Federal Income Tax on that portion of his pension that he earned in Federal jobs. 

If more Federal Workers understood how they get shafted and shafted again for working for the "Federal Government" a lot of them wouldn't stick around. 

Having a Federal License doesn't necessarily mean ANYTHING.  If I have a license to run a radio station and don't have a radio station, having a license to run one is immaterial.  

Say that I am a Real Estate Agent --- the word "Agent" is a tip-off that you are working in a federally regulated industry --- same with "Insurance Agent" --- and yes, I might have Federal Income as a result.  If I am selling houses to U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States and expediting their receipt of "Titles" to the property, then the "commission" (think military commissions) I receive on the sale is most certainly Federal Income and I am using a "license" to do this activity which obligates me to pay the Federal Income Tax ----and redeeming the funds as "Lawful Money" does not release my obligation to pay Federal Income Tax on the gross receipts. 

If, however, I am working in a private capacity to help buyers find homes and helping sellers to sell homes, and I screen that portion of my business so that I am working for Americans on a private basis, then all I have to do is make sure that the buyer actually pays "ten dollars" in silver money "in hand" to the seller and provide information to the buyer on how to claim their Land Patent, then I haven't used my "Real Estate License" and I am not in receipt of Federally-connected income.  I still have to redeem any checks as "Lawful Money" but otherwise I am in the clear and above board.  

Now, this is all just common sense.  If you are providing services to Federal Workers and receiving their money, you are in receipt of "Federal Income".  If you are receiving money as a result of employing a Federal license, you are in receipt of "Federal Income" to the extent that you employ that license. It's up to you to determine if you used that license to enable you to provide service to that specific person, or not.

One way for doctors to use their "Medical License" to prescribe meds and not claim the total patient receipts as "Federal Income" when actually treating members of the General Public, is to track how much "income" they receive specifically from writing the prescription or sale of the medication and only claim that as "Federal Income".  A physician, could, for example, establish a flat fee for writing prescriptions -- say, fifty bucks for up to two prescriptions, a hundred for three or more.  With respect to a non-Federal Employee patient, he would only owe "Federal Income Tax" on the prescription fee. 

I am giving you these examples and expect you to sit down and think about the logic that applies throughout---- and share this information with others so that they have to sit down and use their own brains to solve their own puzzles. 

There is no "one size fits all" and certain people are going to have to use their brains to figure out what they are "licensed" to do and when those "licenses" apply and when they don't.  Some doctors treat a lot of Federal patients and some treat virtually none at all.  Some real estate deals involve actual money in hand and others don't.  Those that don't result in transfer of titles instead of transfer of land and the receipts from those transactions are "Federal Income". 

So far as the Assemblies are concerned, the only issue is --- does the person have Federal Income?  Yes or no?  If yes, how much Federal Income? 

Having genuine Federal Income in amounts greater than The Standard Deduction precludes us from revoking election to pay Federal Income Taxes.

 Anyone who has actual Federal Income in excess of The Standard Deduction is obligated to pay the Federal Income Tax.  

The problem is that millions of Americans have been taxed on their private sector earnings and millions of people have paid Federal Income Tax on all their receipts when they are actually only required to pay Federal Income Tax on the portion of their receipts that derives from the use of a license or from providing service to Federal Workers and their direct Dependents.   

Receipt of substantial amounts of Federal Income also prevents us from acting as State Citizens.  Remember that the whole idea of being a "State Citizen" revolves around the fact that you are free from other allegiances, obligations or conflicts of interest ---- and having Federal Income is a potential conflict of interest that could lead one to make decisions favorable for the Federal Government but against the best interest of one's State of the Union.  

If someone has Federal Income less than the amount of The Standard Deduction each year, it is regarded as totally insufficient to create a conflict of interest. 

For example, someone spent two years in the Navy back in 1966-67 and as a result, a very small amount of the monthly Social Security pension check -- about $40 a year --- is based on Federal Income.  This is much less than The Standard Deductible and doesn't have to be reported and is immaterial so far as the Assemblies are concerned with respect to any conflict of interest. 

For example, someone has a Real Estate License, but they don't use it anymore, or have no Federal Income resulting from it because they are doing cash sales with actual money paid, or, they use the license very occasionally and have Federal Income less than The Standard Deduction or less than ten percent of their total income --- so long as this is true, there is no reason for the Assembly to be concerned about any conflict of interest.  It shouldn't even be a question. 

For example, someone has a Medical Doctor's License, but 97% of their patients are non-Federal Workers, and the bulk of any Federal Income they receive comes from fees for writing prescriptions ---- even though they might have Federal Income in excess of The Standard Deduction and might have to file the paperwork, if less than 10% of their total earnings comes from Federal Income, it presents no possible presumption of conflict of interest. 

Assemblies and Vetting Committees are expected to apply some Common Sense when determining whether or not a financial interest is sufficient to create a conflict of interest or not.  Generally speaking, anyone who has less Federal Income than The Standard Deduction is 100% held harmless.  Anyone who has less than ten percent of their total income from Federal Sources is 100% held harmless.  

What you have to ask yourselves is --- would a Prudent Man given these facts find that the potential for conflict of interest exists? 

People who have substantial portions of their income derived from Federal sources should not be serving as State Citizens, but a veteran who has $40 of Federal Income per year can serve as a State Citizen because the amount of Federal Income he receives poses no rational threat of any conflict of interest and provides no motive to undermine the welfare of his State of the Union.  

Keep your focus on "What makes sense?"   and "Why are we concerned about this?"  And remember that every case is different.  

----------------------------

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Oh, Let's Go At It Again....

 By Anna Von Reitz

This morning I got a British historical diatribe in my "inbox" together with a request that I make a reply. For example, the writer claims that Pope Innocent "annulled" The Magna Carta, quite ignoring the fact that Pope Innocent had no such power to annul the words and acts of the Norman kings of Britain who held the land by conquest and force of arms, and who enforced The Magna Carta with no blessing from Pope Innocent required, for a thousand years and beyond.

The same writer would probably also claim that The War of Independence never happened or had no effect, and that the British King still has a right to rule here --- when in fact the British were very soundly beaten and the King himself fully admitted that our land and soil were ours and that we are free men in possession of our sovereignty and guaranteed our republican form of government.

No, indeed, there has never been a quibble from the British Government or the Government of Westminster claiming to own an iota of The United States or The United States of America ever since The War of 1812. What they do claim to own and control is their version of "the" United States (Trading Company) and their version of "the" United States of America (Trading Company).

And we won't quibble about that, because they've made a terrible lot of bad business decisions ---as is typical of their entire history --- and both their now-incorporated businesses formerly doing business as "the" United States, Incorporated, and "the" United States of America, Incorporated, are bankrupt.

One of the key bits of historical knowledge that British pundits are either unaware of, or choose to ignore, is that the Treaty of Paris 1783, like a all things dubbed "Treaty of Paris" in any other year, is a sea treaty, having nothing to do with land or soil ownership, and only concerning the business affairs of a commercial company interest in "the" United States of America (Trading Company).

This version of "United States of America" was the British owned portion of the original investment and trading company of the same name which existed before The War of Independence. The original United States of America (Trading Company) broke into two parts as a result of the war -- creating one British-owned "United States of America" (Trading Company) and one American-owned "United States of America" (Trading Company.)

The same thing happened with "the" United States (Trading Company) which similarly broke apart as a result of the war into British and American components.

The confusion that this has caused over the last two centuries can hardly be estimated, but when British apologists say that the Crown Temple owns and controls "the" United States or "the" United States of America, either one, this is what they are talking about.

Our American version, The United States of America (Trading Company) never incorporated, and is still alive and well, as is The United States (Trading Company).

Wouldn't it have been helpful, if they had bothered to add "Trading Company" or later, "Incorporated" to the names, so people could see what they were talking about?

And know that they were discussing the business affairs of four business entities, two British and two American, operating under very similar names?

The only difference is that following The War of Independence, the American versions started using the names "The United States" and "The United States of America", while the Brits used "the" United States and "the" United States of America.

We contracted with the British version calling itself "the" United States of America to provide us with certain enumerated services and delegated the power to provide those services to them when we adopted "The Constitution of the United States of America" --- see it now? We were contracting for services from the British Trading Company, which, much later, incorporated as a franchise of the British Crown Corporation.

So that is what British writers are talking about when they claim that the Crown (British Crown Corporation) owns and controls "the" United States (now a bankrupt governmental services provider) or says that it owns and controls "the" United States of America (now another bankrupt governmental services provider).

It doesn't mean that our country is bankrupt. Sovereign entities can't go bankrupt, and aren't eligible for bankruptcy protection, so you can be sure that our States of the Union are not bankrupt by definition, and our unincorporated American versions of The United States and The United States of America aren't bankrupt, either.

These bankruptcies involve the British Service Providers only, both of which are franchises of the British Crown Corporation, which the BCC has run into the ground while embezzling from the American People using a sophisticated personage and barratry scheme. The only silver lining to that cloud is that we have become their Preferential Creditors as a result and own every scrap of everything they ever claimed to own.

These are the facts and this is what happened --- and while the British writers are correct in saying that the Crown owns and operates "the" United States and "the" United States of America --- two British commercial corporations dba "the United States, Incorporated" and "the United States of America, Incorporated" ---- the only inconvenience that presents for us, the Americans, who are their Preferential Creditors, is gearing up and providing our own services.

Beyond that, I would say that there is a common British misconception that rights come from Constitutions or are granted by the Queen or dictated by the British Crown Corporation ---- none of which is true. Rights come to us from the hand of God, from Nature itself, and they are not the result of anyone's devising. Rather than creating any rights, Constitutions are meant to safeguard them by limiting the powers assumed by governments and by providing written guarantees that those governments will not Trespass on the rights and prerogatives of their employers.

In the present case, the Rotters have sought to evade their constitutional obligations by secretively "redefining" their employers as employees, but that won't stand the light of day, either.

Lastly, I would observe that there has always been an element of flim-flam in what the Temple Bar proposes to do, which is to "represent" the actual physical world on paper, and try to use rules and procedures and definitions to control these papers. It's like creating a map of Georgia and pointing at it and saying that you "own" Georgia, when in fact, you own a map of Georgia.

That's what these fellows are engaged in, and in my opinion, it's delusional.

Public Records establishing claims to land and homes are certainly more durable and reproducible than grocery receipts, but if you think of it, they do the exact same thing: they prove -- if they are correct -- that you paid for something. The salient question always is --- what did you pay for?

Broccoli, lettuce, dog food? Land, a land patent, or a land title?

Disturbingly, most people in this country (and elsewhere) own a land title and think that they own the land described by that title, but instead, by analogy, they only own a map of Georgia provided by the Temple Bar.

That's why, as Fiduciary for The United States of America, I stepped forward and claimed all the United States Land Patents and cadastral surveys and copyrighted titles to land that have been created to "describe" our land and soil assets. I claimed them for The United States of America and I rolled them into my own trust as the Secured Party Creditor of all these corporations, and I published my Irrevocable Will granting every American the return of their portion of land and soil assets.

This had to be done to put a stop on the British Flim-Flam described above.

As an example -- the British Crown Subcontractors literally paid people to wander around this country and make up fictitious land descriptions in a dazzling array of categories and organizational systems and all of them are "maps of Georgia" in one way or another.

We have Plat Maps and cadastral surveys, we have Townships and Sections, we have Lots and Blocks, we have Subdivisions, and then, we have Land Patents, and last, we have (mostly false) claims of "real estate" and "real estate descriptions" that include various copyrighted names and number systems, like "256 Sunnybrook Lane".

Imagine the horror of an American "home owner" who discovers that he bought a tenant interest in a property that had already been mortgaged to the hilt by the Queen's Government ---even though they never had any rightful claim or ownership interest in the property --- and even after he pays off all the Queen's debts, he will still only hold a tenant's interest in a "future lease purchase agreement"? And all he's really got in "equitable exchange" for all his time, labor, love invested in his home, is ownership of a copyrighted title describing his house and land.

What if I decide to call his house and land "999 Horrorstruck House" and copyright that new "land description"? Will I then be the new owner of his house? You see how this works and where it leads.

Someone shows up and looks over the fence at your house and land, and they arbitrarily decide to call it, "40193 Happy Valley Lane" and they then match this description to a map description and they copyright this and claim to own your house and land based on their copyrighted description of it.

That's what a "land title" is --- someone else's arbitrary description of your land, which they've copyrighted.

Anyone smell the manure under British boots yet?

Well, they may own their copyrighted description of your land, but they don't own your land. The United States of America owns your land and your Fiduciary locked it in her trust and published her Irrevocable Will to make sure that everything ever used to "describe" your land is yours. All you have to do is come home and claim it.

Meanwhile, in reading the British screeds everyone is well-advised to take a jaundiced view. For example, when they claim that The Declaration of Independence is invalidated because it was signed by five "Esquires" of the Crown Temple --- no, that's not what it means at all.

There were actually three (3) Declarations of Independence published on the Fourth of July in 1776, and the Esquires signed as representatives of the International Jurisdiction of the Sea, just as members of the clergy signed as representatives of the Global Jurisdiction of the Air. This country declared its independence in all jurisdictions--- air, land, and sea, and American representatives of each jurisdiction signed the documents in full agreement.

A final example, "all constitutional rights are dictated by the Crown Temple" --- ??? No, there are no "constitutional rights" ---that is, no "rights" conferred by any Constitution. There are only constitutional guarantees and those are not dictated by the Crown Temple. Those are dictated by the stipulations of the contract itself.

Take no wooden nickels. Never accept anything Brits say as gospel. And if you find yourself facing a dogpile, just stir it around a bit, and you will find the Brits at the bottom of it. Between their BS, omissions, and half-truths, you will eventually find the truth if you roll up your sleeves and look for it.

----------------------------

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

America Under Siege - A special report about the war to take down FOOD and ENERGY

 https://www.brighteon.com/64baea61-1cdb-4028-94dc-03fc0c39329f

More on Fuel shortage.

70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Face Shutdown Under New State Law

https://www.theepochtimes.com/70000-self-employed-truckers-in-california-face-shutdown-under-new-state-law_4586287.html

This Has Only Been "News" Since the 1890's

 By Anna Von Reitz

Yes, it's true that if you are an American, you don't need a Driver's License to travel on our public roads.  That's the way it is, and the way it has always been.  The recent flurry of excitement over the U.S. Supreme Court's put down of Administrative "Law" in Virginia v EPA misses the whole point.  

We, Americans, have never needed a license to travel around this country.  Ever.  That was decided over a century ago.  

Since the 1890's and early 1900's, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court and by multiple County, State, and Circuit Courts, always with the same result, which is nicely summed up by Jeffrey Phillips in this compendium of cases proving this point beyond any possible doubt: 

I am reposting his information for your convenience (below) so that you can literally see for yourselves how conclusively the issue of "needing or not needing a driver's license" has been decided. This is by no means the first such compendium of actual court decisions in support of our freedom to travel and to use the public roads for private purposes without licenses.  Americans need no "permits" to go wherever we want to go without obstruction or interference from private law enforcement officers aka "patrolmen" arresting and detaining people over "code infractions" that don't apply to the General Public --- and never did.  

This is the absolute truth of the matter.  The only question is -- are you an American?  A member of the General Public?  And are you using the roads for private, non-commercial purposes?  

Our law is simple.  If you haven't injured anyone else or injured anyone else's property, there is no crime and no issue to be adjudicated and no reason for any Highway Patrolman to stop you. 

The all-too typical situation of Patrolman Busybody stopping you because your left tail light is out and issuing you a $100 fine and "order" to get the tail light fixed, is in fact illegal, if you are Jane Doe on her way to pick her kids up from school, or John Doe on his way home from work. 

They have no authority to stop you, no authority to fine you, and the only plausible and allowable reason for them to interrupt your day at all, would be to politely inform you that your tail light is out --- much as a friend might tell you the same, out of concern for your safety.  That's all.  No "tickets" and no "citations" of Motor Vehicle Code should ever be involved in a traffic stop involving a non-commercial driver. 

Unfortunately, we have all been strong-armed into "registering" our automobiles as "motor vehicles" and as "public property" when they really aren't.  This forced registration extortion is really at the heart of this debate --- not licensing, which has been decided for over a hundred years.  It's the forced registration of private cars and trucks that provides the Highway Patrol with the excuse to "presume" that you are engaged in commercial activities in the first place, even if you aren't and even if that is perfectly obvious.  

In order to pull off their otherwise illegal registration demands, the Perpetrators had to offer remedy to private non-commercial drivers, and that remedy is Regulation Z of the Securities Laws adopted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.  You and your private car are actually exempt from registration requirements and you can claim that exemption as long as you are an American who is not employed by the Federal Government corporations. In many States including Alaska, you simply need to ask for "Z tags" or "Private Plates".

No, you don't need a license to travel from Point A to Point B for your own private reasons and you never did need a license to travel.  The entire idea behind licensing is rooted in the fact that some people drive as a profession and make their living off of the use of public roads, and some people drive very large and potentially dangerous loads on the public roads -- the origin of Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs) -- as a business.  The courts make a distinction between private use --- Grandma going to the grocery store --- and ABC Trucking, Inc. doing a double-decker long haul via semi-trailer truck from Georgia to Nevada.  

And we think that is reasonable.  What's not reasonable is forced registration of our private trucks and cars and obstruction when we claim our Regulation Z remedy.  What's not reasonable is when we have to defend ourselves against Highway Patrolmen threatening us with bodily harm over broken tail lights.  What's not reasonable is when we are being "mistaken" accidentally-on-purpose as foreigners in our own country.  And what's really not reasonable is when our ability to travel freely is being impeded or prevented by rules, codes, regulations, ordinances, mandates, and statutes that don't apply to us, because someone thinks that they have the right to redefine "interstate commerce".  

Read on for a nice fat list of court citations that absolutely and definitively deal with the issue of whether or not we need a driver's license when we travel for private purposes --- and the answer is "No!" just as it has been since the 1890's.  But be aware that the greater fish to be fried is the imposition of forced and largely false registration of private cars as "motor vehicles" and obstruction of our access to our Regulation Z exemptions.  

____________

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

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

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

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

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

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

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

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

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

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-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 “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 citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

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

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

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

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

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

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

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

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

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

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

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “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. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

---------

And there you have it, as nice a listing of appropriate court decisions as you could ask for.  Now all you have to do is start educating the politicians and the police and claiming your Regulation Z exemptions, so that the "license plates" serve notice that you are not subject to licensing.  

And, as always, be aware that the British Territorial Persons named after you and the Municipal citizens of the United States named after you as UNITED STATES CITIZENS are all subject to all the codes, rules, regulations and statutes.

You're not, but they are.

So while you are educating the politicians and police, be sure to draw the distinction between you and these "hue-men" persons that have been created using your Good Name and Trademarks without your knowledge or agreement.

----------------------------

See this article and over 3700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.