I chose this photo because it is the perfect picture (funny pun) of taking the archaic and modernizing it. From what I understand, it is a modern day horse pulled carriage in Poland. This represents what most Sovereign Citizens on the highways today attempt to accomplish when pulled over by law enforcement, and, even if that doesn’t work, in court itself (which I have yet to see this work, on YouTube or elsewhere). They pull dated documents and twist the meaning to fit their agenda. They will throw case law (common law) at you with some “excerpt” from it that many times you cannot find when you take the time and read it. It is not a part of the actual ruling, but is someone else’s interpretation (or misinterpretation as it commonly is) concerning that ruling. They will also misrepresent what the case law is actually about. I have also found that, it appears, they threw up any case law in an attempt to somehow validate what they are saying and impress, hoping readers don’t take the time to read it. For instance, on a forum, one such individual presented a case law on how it was illegal for law enforcement to impede or charge someone in driving without a license. The hope was that no one would actually read the case law.
In summary, it is case law that came out in 1930–yes, you read that right, no typo–1930. It was in, at that time, the town of Lynchburg, where it was the custom, backed up by the town’s ordinance, of the chief of police to require motorists get a permit from him for the privilege to drive in the town. It had nothing to do with DMV or the state’s right to mandate drivers to secure licenses before driving on state, county or city roads. This particular ruling was about the revocation of one motorist’s permit to drive in that one town, and if it was legal to do so.
SovCits whole premise is to confuse and misrepresent the law, which we will discuss further in this blog. I will have to apologize here and now, this may be a long one, but I do find it necessary to be thorough, especially with the SovCit’s definition of a driver.
Other than misrepresented case law, they take their authorization to “travel” behind the wheel of an authomobile without the necessity of a license from Black’s Law Dictionary, Second edition in the definition of what a driver is. Here it is, unaltered:
“One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,”
This should be a “slam dunk” in favor of the SovCits, as the definition states it is “One employed…” Driving a motor vehicle, they proclaim, is only for commerical purposes and only commercial drivers then need “driver’s” licenses, so states their argument. And according to this definition, it appears they are right.
Yet, in this instance, context is everything. First, the Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition was published in 1910. Even back then, it’s been reported that about a whopping 500,000 vehicles were manufactured in the United States (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov –I was amazed myself when I did the research). It sounds like a massive amount of motor vehicles on the roads so early in the 20th century. However, if you discover that there were over 92 million citizens living in the United States at the time ,
(https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1910_fast_facts.html),
that averages out that only 1 out of every 184 individuals owned a motor vehicle. This gap gets even greater when you look at companies owning several of them in their fleet and also the federal and state governments utilizing these vehicles. Even with the first figure, it is certain that less than 1% of Americans owned their own vehicle.
Why is is? First let’s look at the wages of the average worker. My source is:
From this source, a union carpenter, say, can make as much as $30 dollars a week. That is $1560 a year. And that’s a union worker. Other sources state that an non-union worker gets between $300 to $900 a year, which includes government workers. Keeping that in mind, let us look at the cost of a vehicle in 1910.
When the Ford Model T came out in 1908, it sold for about $900. Believe it or not, with time came a decrease in cost with vehicles and the chart of my source below states that in 1910 it cost about $700. This is still about half of the union workers salaries and out of reach with the common worker, who utilized public transportation for work and any other intended destination.
https://transportgeography.org/
So, who were these 1% individuals who owned vehicles? Of course, they were the wealthy. They may have owned more than one vehicle. Yet, how many actually drove their own vehicles on a consistent basis? Why would they? They were wealthy enough to hire drivers that would drive them wherever they needed to go. Owners driving their own vehicles were almost unheard of in 1910.
However, as the costs of vehicles came down and the wages increased, there was a steady acceleration of ownership. So, with this ability to own vehicles, in 1968, the ratio of vehicles and ownership of individuals drastically increased to an average 1 out of every three. Ownership and owners driving was a thing. It may be the reason that Black’s Law Dictionary amended the 4th Edition definition that was published in that same year to reflect:
DRIVER. One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,
with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle,
tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad
car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vevehicle. (Italics and boldness mine). Wallace v. Woods, 340 Mo. 452, 102 S.W.2d
91, 97
Now, let me address the obvious typo of “vevehicle”. I’m sure someone is going to run with the argument that a “vevehicle” is not a vehicle, but something else. Other than that, it is clear, if you operate a motor vehicle, you are driving that vehicle and you must adhere to state laws regarding that operation, including the mandatory driver’s license.
I must share with you what someone told me on a forum that the part I put in bold print was speaking of one who drove his own vehicle for Uber or Door Dash. It might be half way believable if it were not for the fact that in 1968 there were no such services. There was no internet. There were no smart phones to call them with or look them up. No aps, no advertising except in the papers, television, bill boards or the Yellow Pages (if anyone still uses that). Uber, who I believe started this whole independant contractor thing to transport people or food from one destination, did not begin until 2009. This goes to show there is no limit on how far SovCits will go in the attempt to explain away the falacies of their ideologies.
Now let’s see what the fourth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary tells us is the definition of “travel”:
TRAVEL. To go from one place to another at
a distance; to journey; spoken of voluntary
change of place. White v. Beazley, 1 Barn. & Ald.
171; Hancock v. Rand, 94 N.Y. 1, 46 Am.Rep. 112;
State v. Smith, 157 Ind. 241, 61 N.E. 566, 87 Am.
St.Rep. 205.
So far, it fits with the SovCit’s definition of traveling. Nothing about using a motor vehicle for commerce mentioned there. Yet let’s look at the definition of a traveler just a few definitions down:
TRAVELER. One who passes from place to place,
whether for pleasure, instruction, business (bold print mine) or health. Lockett v. State, 47 Ala. 45; 10 C.B.N.S.
429
So, being a traveler does not legally separate you from those who use the highways for commerce. This has been one of the most prominent claims of these “travelers” after they are pulled over. Since he is not using his conveyance for commerce, he is not a driver, but a traveler. Yet, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, being a traveler can also be given to those who drive a tractor trailer down the road.
Just another resource SovCits use are from the US Constitution. The first is the Fourth Amendment concerning searches and seizures. They believe that a traffic stop is an illegal seizure because they say it is done not because a crime has been committed, but a violation of an infraction is witnessed by the officer. They claim that motor vehicle infractions are not crimes. That is interesting because the Tenth Amendment allows states to enact laws for the protection and health of its citizens. In Viriginia (as I suspect that similar statutes from other states include the same) it calls motor vehicle infractions unlawful. Under the Motor Traffic Code of Virginia, we read in 46.2-113:
§ 46.2-113. Violations of this title; penalties.
It is unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions of this title, or any regulation adopted pursuant to this title, or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the authority granted in this title.
So, in this since, motor vehicle infractions are crimes and are actually misdemeanors. Most are punished with only a fine, but there are some that fall under Class 2 and even 1 misdemeanors that have a potential of jail time.
The question is not if traffic stops are illegal, but are they a reasonable seizure, even temporarily, of a motorist. The answer all the way to the US Supreme Court is yes, as long as the officer has at least reasonable articulable suspicion (not probable cause) that a violation of law has occurred.
Also, the SovCits love citing the Fourteenth Amendment, which they will quote the following:
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See, the kicker here is that there is a small phrase in here they do not like. It’s “without due process of law”. They will agree that traffic stops are not due process of law when they are conducted at the commission of a traffic infraction. Justia Law website explains it best when speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment:
“About twenty years were required to complete this process, in the course of which two strands of reasoning were developed. The first was a view advanced by Justice Field in a dissent in Munn v.Illinois,69 namely, that state police power is solely a power to prevent injury to the “peace, good order, morals, and health of the community.”70 This reasoning was adopted by the Court in Mugler v.Kansas,71 where, despite upholding a state alcohol regulation, the Court held that “[i]t does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of [public health, morals or safety] is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state.” The second strand, which had been espoused by Justice Bradley in his dissent in the Slaughter-House Cases,72 tentatively transformed ideas embodying the social compact and natural rights into constitutionally enforceable limitations upon government.73 The consequence was that the states in exercising their police powers could foster only those purposes of health, morals, and safety which the Court had enumerated, and could employ only such means as would not unreasonably interfere with fundamental natural rights of liberty and property. As articulated by Justice Bradley, these rights were equated with freedom to pursue a lawful calling and to make contracts for that purpose.74“
If you wish to read the entire article, you can find it here:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/04-due-process-of-law.html#2
The explanation of the courts ruling is evident that “The consequence was that the states in exercising their police powers could foster only those purpose of health, morals, and safety which the Court inumerated, and could employ only such measn as would not unreasonably interfere with fundamental natural rights of liberty and property.” Which means that the states under the Tenth Amendment can enact laws for the purpose of health, morals and safety. Law Enforcement Officer can and should enforce thoses laws for public health and safety. Protection of health and safety are what the state’s traffic laws accomplish.
That means stopping and investigating those who disregard the traffic laws, thereby placing in jeopary the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of other motorists. Other motorists is not their concern. They are only concerned with their “rights”, even to the expense of others. They demand their “rights” without the expectation of responsibility. Rights without responsibility is the very meaning of anarchy and tyranny.
There is much more I could write, but I realize this article is long enough, and if you had the patience to read it until the end, I congratulate and thank you. For those who wish to comment, I will approve your comment whether you agree or not, but will disapprove any disrespectful comments. If you wish to spar with me on these or any of my blogs in that manner, you can look me up on Quora.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE, MAYBE EVEN CLOSE TO YOU, WHO FEEL THAT LAWS DO NOT PERTAIN TO THEM. THEY HAVE CONSCIENCE AND WILL NOT THINK TWICE OF MAKING YOU A VICTIM. PROTECT YOURSELF NOW AND GEAR UP BY CLICKING THE BANNER BELOW!!
