Notes on Right-to-Travel

Can the States require the Private Citizen to take its Driver’s License to travel and transport his family and good across them?

Editor’s Note: I came across the following document whilst searching though items to add to our newly created Forums. I do not know who sent it to us, or the identity of the author. It is rough in its construction, and we have not had time to verify any of the research. The quotes from Bouvier’s, I recognize. Likewise, with some of the quotes from Blackstone’s. It appears to be well-researched, but it is not the sort of thing we usually post– not, at least, without doing more research.Trouble is, life goes on. New posts to this site have not come as often as I wish; we just haven’t had the time. We often get email from people with problems for which we have some of the answers, but not enough. With the addition of the Forum to The Lawful Path, I’m hoping to call on more help from you, the Reader. Rather than hoarde this man’s research, and sit on it because it isn’t ready, I’m posting it here so that you, Dear Reader, can build on it. Please, make it better, and then post it back here on the Forum for the benefit of all.

First, let’s look at the terms used.

Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle with horses, mules or other animals, [or self powered]. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Revision, 8th Edition, 1984 Re-print, page 940.
Employed: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, page 1035: The act of doing a thing and being under contract or orders to do it. U.S. v Morris, 14 Pet.(US) 464, 475; U.S. v The Catherine, 2 Paine, 721, Fed. Case No. 14,755.
License: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, page 1976. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful. See for example Gibbons v Ogden, 1 U.S. 1, 71, 72, 77, 124, 131-132, 137, 139, 213Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, page 1974: A right given by some competent Authority to do an act, which without such author- ity would be illegal, or a tort or trespass.

At 1st glance it would seem to say under the state’s Policing authority the state could require the individual to enter into contract and take the license as a “Mala Prohibita” matter. That is the states have the right to regulate some conduct so as to protect the public health, safety or welfare and punish for any such violations.

That however, would be wrong as there is no proof from the states that the operating of ones private vehicle for its normal purpose is a threat to the Public at large. Thus, no threat no regulation. Further, since the private citizen does not use his vehicle for personal gain/hire then he is not a driver and there can be no “Driver’s License” to be granted in such a case.

The next question that arises is, is there Some act that is unlawful to do that requires the taking of a license or for which is lawful but can require the taking of a license?

The latter question turns out to be exampled by the historical documents of New Jersey. In New Jersey, and probably other states, that any friend, relative or attorney could plead ones case in court, see Concessions & Agreements 0f West Jersey, 1676, Art. XXII, and that no one could be forced to “fee” any attorney for such representation. Thus, the lawful act is to represent people in court while the unlawful act is to be able to be paid for ones services. Thus, the attorney who takes a license is being granted the “privilege” of being paid for his/her services. See also The Fundamental Constitution of East New Jersey, 1683, Art. XIX and U.S. Jepson, 90 F.Supp. @ 988-990; 1776 New Jersey Constitution, Clauses XXI & XXII; 1844 New Jersey Constitution, Art. I, Clause 19 and Art. and X, Clause 1; 1947 New Jersey Constitution, Art. I, Clause 21 and Art. X Clause 1 & Courts & Lawyers of N.J., page 145.

When dealing with automobiles we can make the same analogy but this would come crashing down on the state. If we assume that the state may regulate for the protection of the Public Safety, Health or Welfare they might get away with such laws. However, This falls apart for the following reasons.

As to the Public safety the State contends that because accidents occur that the public must take a license and be trained to safely operate a car / automobile on the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. Ones private right to travel and transport one family and goods and for other personal reasons. Despite the fact that trained people still have accidents on the roadways as well as they only require the renewal of the license though a license fee and there is no ongoing requirement to prove one is competent and can safely operate an automobile. Thus, the taking of a license does nothing to say that the public safety is in question or risk.
The State In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631 & 634 the court ruled that a “License Fee” is a tax.
Which makes us arrive at the 3rd point and that is that Direct taxes on the exercise of rights is unconstitutional. See Art. 1, Sec. 9 and Hendricks v Md., 235 U.S. 610. This case is only valid, however, if one can identify a right that is being taxed.
And these:

The Police Power of the State is valid as it relates to trade or Commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public. (The U.S. Supreme Court Stated in Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-116)

“The term ‘Commerce’ comprehends more than the mere exchange of goods; it embraces commercial intercourse in all its branches, including transportation of passengers and property by common carriers, whether carried on by water or land. In re Second employers’ Liability cases, 223 U.S. 1, 46 (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Page 532.)

“Trade”. Any sort of dealings by way of sales or exchange; May v Sloan, 101 U.S. 231. Bouvier @ 3290.

To determine if there is a right we can look at the following information.

1. Twining v N.J., 211 U.S. 78, 97: It is only rights and privileges that do not arise out of the Nature of National Citizenship which are subject to the State’s Control by way of the 14th Amendment, In Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448; Duncan v Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382. And for which are covered under the 14th Amendment as to all citizens & persons.

In looking at this case, there is a question of whether a driver’s license falls under the National Citizenship or the 14th Amendment. There is case law galore implying both. As to it being a right under the 14th Amendment we can turn to the following cases.

Buck v Kuykendal, 267 U.S. 307, 308-310 & 312-316;
Packard v Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144,
Williams v Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 and
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 6. 9-10 where the court said “…Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the 14th Amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges…”

All of these case imply the right to travel the highways is under the 14th Amendment purviews. If this is true then we must turn to the following cases as to if the state can regulate to require the private citizen to take its driver’s license privilege. These cases are:

Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, where the court said…But in moving from State to State or tho the District of Columbia appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.
N.A.A.C.P. v Button, 83 S.Ct. 328, 341.

To see if the state can SHOW a compelling and over-riding interest we must ask the following questions. They are:

How does the mere possession of a driver’s license protect the safety of the Public at large?
How does the maintenance of a license through a license fee protect the safety of the public at large?
How does the trained licensed driver protect the safety of the public at large and the trained un-licensed driver does not?
Where is the proof that the possession of a driver’s license keeps the citizen from getting into an accident? And
Where is the proof that there is no alternative to a driver’s license being taken that would protect the Safety of the Public at large? (Bouvier’s Law dictionary, page 3067…Show: To make apparent or clear by evidence, to prove. Coyle v Com., 104 Pa. 133.)

If the state cannot prove/answer these questions then the state is absolutely barred from requiring the private citizen to take its driver’s license.

What about the right to travel being a right that stems from the National citizenship? Twining Supra clearly makes it apparent that rights that flow from the National Citizenship cannot be regulated in any fashion. So we must delve into this area to see if there is a national right here. In looking at this issue we see the following things.

Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-116, 118, 122, 124-130, 133:The state has the right to regulate public ferries, common carriers, hackman, bakers wharf fingers, innkeepers, &, The constitutions are compacts between the people as a whole and conversely as private citizens. “This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely private. Thorpe v R. & B. Railroad co. 27 Vt. 143, but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. From this source comes the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583 ‘are not more or less than the powers of the government inherent in every sovereign…that is to say…the power to govern men and things’.
The Police power of the state is valid as it relates to trade or commerce, not as to private rights and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public as it relates to the manner in which trade or commerce is carried on in the public. See for example License Cases Supra.

They carried on the business of receiving, storing, and delivering grain for hire.

Like common carriers, they are required by law to receive grain from all persons..

..it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all.

We find that when private property is affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only.”

Thus, as to ferries, Lord Hale says, in his treatise De juris maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 6, the king has “a right of franchise or privilege, that no man may set up a common ferry for all passengers, without a prescription time out of mind, or a charter from the king. He may make a ferry for his own use or the use of his family, but for the common use of all the king’s subjects passing that way; because it doth in consequence tend to a common charge, and is become a thing of public interest and use,…

“A man for his own private advantage, may, in a port or town, set up a wharf or crane, and may take rates he and his customers can agree for cranage, wharfage, housellage, pesage; for he doth no more than is lawful for any man to do , viz., make the most of his own…If the king or subject have a public wharf, unto which all persons that come to that port must come and unlade or lade their goods as for the purpose, because they are the wharfs only licensed by the king,…or because there is no other wharf in that port, as it may fall where a port is newly erected; in that case there cannot be taken arbitrary and excessive duties for cranage, wharfage, pesage, & co., neither can they be enhanced to an immoderate rate;
Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. @ 630-631, 634:”For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.”
“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another…occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

“[T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constituition.

The right to travel the highways free and unencumbered by unnecessary state regulations, customs, usages, policies, etc., occupies a FUNDAMENTAL place under the constitution.
Dunn v Blumstein, 405 U.S. @ 338.Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.
Gibbons v Ogden, 1 U.S. 1…@66- There is a right of intercourse among the states whether for commerce, residence or traveling.
@68- The individual has the right of free ingress or egress to and from any state.

@69- There is no inconvenience in the right to pass from state to state which was secured by the articles of confederation. It provides that the government is to guarantee to the citizens of one state the rights of another. See Art. IV clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

@71- As to commerce, the state has the right to regulate everyone who comes within its jurisdiction. The states regulation of steamboats relates to navigation of the waterways by that mode and as to commerce. All other forms of travel are still free. (i.e. sail boats cannot be regulated for example.)

@72- Steamboats could be regulated because it was deemed injurious to the public waterways. If a steamboat were found unsafe, & destructive to property or lives unless navigated by skillful operators the state could regulate.

@73- States can regulate the waterways just as it can the roadways.

@74- same as @73- Can regulate stage wagons and others for the carriage of goods and persons.

@75- Same as @74- Waterways are public highways just like the roadways of land which the state may regulate.

@77- If a license is granted and no trade is conducted in accordance with the license, the license is a fraud upon the state if the laws are otherwise valid. (frauds void the thing so issued.)

@78- Must show some right under the Constitution or Laws of the U.S. to challenge the state regulation. Right to regulate trade and navigation is within the power of the state.

@117- The right of the state to erect and regulate light houses, buoys, etc. cannot be questioned if the individual has that right. See @208 below.

@124- States cannot prohibit the navigation (traveling) of the waterways (highways of land), only the way they may be navigated. (i.e. steamships can be regulated unless they are equipped with sails.) It cannot restrict different types of wagons (vehicles) on the public roadways for to do this would be to prohibit the transportation of merchandise and people. (These would be excessive or tyrannical acts.)

@125- Every act of tyranny is void.

@126- If it is oppressive to the people it seeks to bind, it is void not because it is unconstitutional, but because it is tyrannical.

@129- Reference to the Supremacy Clause of Art. 6 and state laws yielding thereto.

@130- Reference to Justice Joseph Story.

@131- A license is to restrain an act and without the license the right is lost, and to only regulate commerce as per the jus commune. The right to trade, enter and navigate exist unmodified and the license is to regulate commerce… @132- to impose a tonnage fee.

@132- The state has the right to regulate the navigation of the waterways and all vessels have the right to carry on trade without a license. See @213 and 214 below.

@137- American ships are free to carry on the coasting trade without a license.

@139-It is the use of steamships that the state can regulate (i.e. ships that may be harmful to the community/people or property thereof. A tonnage fee can be required. In today’s society, a registration fee.)

@208- A state or private citizen may erect and operate a light house unless engaged in commerce and then may be regulated as a public mischief. (Commerce is a public mischief.)

See @117 above. The private citizen may erect a light houseand so long as it is not for public use the state cannot regulate it. @209- Only when opening ones doors by engaging in commerce does one submit to be regulated. See @ 210.

@212- A privilege attaches to a right and may be regulated, but the law must imply a power to exercise the right. The privileges are gone if the right is annihilated.(the privilege is gone if in losing it the right is lost.) Such a position is contrary to all reason and to the course of human affairs….

@213- License means the permission or authority to do that which the license grants. (In other words, to do that which without the license would be illegal. Bouvier’s Law dictionary.)

@216/217- Commerce applies to the transportation of men who pass voluntarily or involuntarily in and without the State.

@223- The Constitution is to protect the civil & political rights of the humblest individual, all the rest is the means to do so.
Northern Securities Co. v U.S., 193 U.S. 197:Commerce implies more than mere traffic.
City of Chicago v Banker, 112 Ill. 94, 99 (1904); City of Chicago v Collins, 51 N.E. 907 (1998) and Swift v City of Topeka, 23 P. 1075, 1076. (1890)Today’s laws once would have been viewed as unconstitutional.
The Kansas Supreme Court struck down..the ordinance…declaring [each] citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires.

The right of a driver “to use the streets is undoubted,” wrote the court, “subject to [the limitations that he honor the rights of other users,] his right cannot be regulated away by an ordinance.”

Courts that spoke of the right to travel by automobile as “Part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen”.

Prior to the 19th century, courts generally held the public roadways were open to all users without regard to the trav- eler’s method or means of transport.
Simone v Lindsay, 65 A. 778, 779 (1907) and Holland v shackelford, 137 S.E.2d 298-304 (1907).”A Public highway [was]open in all its length and breadth to the reasonable, common and equal use of the people, on foot or in vehicles.”
House v Cramer, 112 N.W. 3, 3 (1907)……The Supreme Court of Iowa, like many state courts, opted to place automobile travel within the same category as trav -el by horse, carriage and other vehicles. “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel”..”is no longer an open question.”…There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets or cities, or highways in the rual districts,” See Crandal v Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall) 35 (1867) & Liebrecht v Crandal, 126 N.W. 69, 69-70 (1910)
Swift Supra……[each] citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires…,subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the “law of the land”. See 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, Chapter 1, page 134.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, page 92: Absolute Right…Absolute Rights are such as appertain and belong to particular persons merely as individuals or single persons…
11 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law 329 @ 1135…The right of a citizen to travel upon public highways and transport his property thereon, by…automobile, is not a mere privilege which may permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.
Gregory B. Hatch, Wrong turns: A critique of the Supreme Courts right to travel, 21 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 457,484… The right to travel by vehicle of one’s choice was thought to be as important as any personal freedom recognized under the Constitution.
Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 N.E. 221…The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common Fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived of.Joseph Story’s Constitutional Commentaries, Vol. 1, pg. 309. Rights protected by the Constitution are part of the Supreme law of the land and cannot be surrendered or transferred by any means.
Thompson v Smith, 154 S.E. 579…”The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by…automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a Common Law Right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125…”The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without Due Process of Law under the 5th Amendment.”
Schactman v Dulles, 96 App.DC 287, 225 F.2d 938, 941… “The right to travel the highways is a well established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a NATURAL RIGHT.”
State v Johnson, 245 P. 1073…”…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain…” See for example, Buck Supra cited above.
Holden v Hardy, 169 U.S. @ 371…Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it a public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use which the public has an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good to the extent of the interest he has thus created.
@373…Therefore, the violation of the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas covers ever case in which the exercise of the police power would be valid and legitimate…This maxim, literally translated means, the use of ones property so as to not injure that of another. If there is no viola- tion of this maxim, there can be no laws to punish. Common law Tort actions. No injure no foul/offense.
Twining Supra @ 97, citing Crandal v Nevada, 6 Wall 35..The right to pass freely from state to state.

From the above it is clear that the private citizen who is using his automobile for pleasure or to conduct his daily life and business who is only trying to protect, exercise and enjoy his rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness he does no wrong and the right grows out of the National citizens for which the state is barred from regulating at all. From the above we see the Courts holding the following things:

In Munn Supra, we see the court find the following…
1. The public cannot control rights that are purely private.
2. The private citizen has the obligation to use his proerty in a way so as not to injure that of another. (Common Law Torts. No injury, no foul.)
3. The Police Power of the State allows the state to regulate Trade and Commerce under the guise of protecting the Public’s Safety, Health and Welfare at large.
4. The Constitution is a contract between the People aa a whole and as private citizens.
5. …it was supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of use, or private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law…We find that when private property is affected with a public interest, it ceases too be juris privati only.
  …If you open your doors to the public by transporting goods or people for higher/gain you submit to being regulated for the common good of the people.
6. A man for his own private advantage may make the most of his property and even make money, and so long as he does not open his doors for all to use and the state cannot regulate it.
Shapiro and Dunn Supra we see…There is a National/Federal right to travel the highways and under Twining cannot be regulated by the State. See items 10 -20 below.
Gibbon Supra we see…
1. State has the right to regulate trade and commerce.
2. Waterways are roads of the water as roads are on the land.
3. The state can regulate the waterways just like the land roads.
4. If a license is granted and the license is not used for its purpose it is a fraud on the state.
5. It cannot be said the state has the right to do something if the people don’t have that right.
6. Licenses are for the regulation of trade and commerce.
Northern Securities Co. Supra…Commerce implies more than mere traffic.

From the re-pleat of the law above, there is a clear difference between trade, commerce and the use of ones property for purely private reasons and the latter is guaranteed to the people free from governmental regulations.

What are the limitations on the government in these matters?

Kelly v Board of Education of Nashville, 270 F.2d 209, cert.den. 80 S.Ct. 293;James v Almonde, 170 F.2d 331, app. Dis. 79 S.Ct. 1146 & State v Lund, 119 N.J. 35, 52…U.S. Supreme Court decisions are part of the Supreme Law of the land.
Graves v Walton, 300 F.Supp. 188, Aff. 410 F.2d 152…State laws which conflict with the Constitution and its intent are invalid and cannot be enforced.
Al Star v Prellar, 95 S.Ct. 218…State laws, etc. which prevent or inhibit the Supreme Law of the land-–whether judicial or legislative–-are invalid under Art. VI, Sec. 2.
Testa v Katt, 67 S.Ct. 810…State court policy against enforcement of the Supreme Law of the land is invalid if claim grows out of it, since it is the Prevailing Policy.
Miles v Illinois Central R.Co., 62 S.Ct. 810…The Supreme Law of the land is binding on every citizen and every court.
Joseph Story’s Constitutional Commentaries, Vol. 1, pages 275-277…States are prohibited from ignoring the national government or it would not seek to protect and thus reduce the Constitution of the U.S. to a mere Mockery of Sovereignty.
Missouri R & T Railway v Haber, 169 U.S. 628…The police power of the state is limited by the restraint placed upon it by the U.S. Constitution.
Lujan v Defender’s of Wildlife @ 606…In my view, “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives and injury.” Marbury v Madison, 1 Crach 137, 163.
Schick v U.S. 195 U.S. @ 69-71…Blackstone’s Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the Common Law of England. At the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution it had been published about 20 years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.
Bolden v City of Mobile, Al., 100 S.Ct. 1490, 1504…It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.
U.S. v Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187…Because of what appears to be lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because if their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.
Regina v Day, 9 Cord.P. 722…There is a difference between const and submission, and while every consent involves submission, a mere submission does not imply consent.
Ray v U.S., 412 F.2d 1052, 1058, 9th Cir. 1969, citing Bumper v North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968)…There are certain things which consent obviously is not. Clearly, consent is not mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.
Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 1, page 134..The people have the absolute right to use their property.

As to what the common law rights of the people and thus the due process rights of the people are:

The right of trial by jury of ones peers. Magna Carta, Articles 39 & 52; Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 1, pages 131 & 133-134; Courts and Lawyers of New Jersey, Pages 124 & 392-394; 1676 Concessions and Agreements of West Jersey, Art. XV; 1683 Fundamental Constitution of N.J., Art. XIX; 1776 Constitution of N.J., Art.s XXI & XXII; 1669 Constitution of S.C., Art. III and 1778 Constitution of S.C. Art. XLI; 1776 Constitution of Pa., Art. IX; 1777 Constitution of Ve., Art. X and 1786 Constitution of Ve., Art. XI; 1776 Constitution of Md., Art.s III & XXI.; 1844 Constitution of N.J., Art. 1, Cl. 19 & Art. X, Cl. 1; 1947 Constitution of N.J., Art.s I, Cl. 21 & Art. XI, Cl. 1; Courts and Lawyers of N.J., Page 124, citing Art. XIII of the N. J. Constitution & @ 393; 1776 Constitution of Va., Sec. 8; 1663 Charter of R.I., Paragraph 5; 1776 Constitution of N.H., Paragraph 2; 1674 Grants of Me., Paragraph 2; 1776 Constitution of De., Art. 25; 1777 Constitution of N.Y., Art.s XXXV & XLI; 1662 Charter of Ct., Paragraph 6; 1765 Reolution of the Continental Congress and Confirmatio Cartarum, 10/10/1297.
The right not to be prosecuted unless upon the plain and solemn averment of at least 2 honest and reputable persons. Magna Carta, Art. 38; Concessions & Agreements of N.J., Art. XX; 1676 Concessions & Agreements of West Jersey, Art. XV, Art. XIX; Concessions & Agreements of West Jersey, Art. 20; Deuteronomy 19, Versus 15-19 and Mathew 18, versus 15-16; Courts & lawyers of N.J., Pages 124 & 396;
The right to have a jury that decides the law and the facts and has the power to nullify the law. Common Law of England and historical documents. 1776 Constitution of De., Art. 25; 1776 Constitution of Md., Art. III; 1776 Constitution of N.J., Art. XXII; Courts and Lawyers of N.J., Pages 105 & 392; 1677 Concessions & Agreements of West Jersey, Art. 19; 1664 Concessions & Agreements of N.J., Art. XIX;
In New Jersey, the right to be tried in 1 year from the earliest date that you are brought into the criminal system. The document “The Courts and Lawyers of New Jersey, the Constitu- tion in the colonial documents. Magna Carta of 1215, Art. 40; Courts & Lawyers of N.J., pages 102, 105, 124, 392-394.
The right to have ones friends, family or relatives to plead their case. Fundamental Constitution of N.J., page 163, refer to Art. XIX; Courts & Lawyers of N.J., pages 123 & 393; 1776 Constitution of N.J., Art. XXI & XXII; 1844 Constitution of N.J., Art.a I, Cl. 19 & Art. X, Cl. 1; 1947 Constitution of N.J., Art.s I, Cl. 21 & Art. XI, Sec. 1.
The right to bring criminal charges against those who injure you in the exercise of your constitutional rights and to be masters of the process. Common Law of England, Historical Documents and The “American Bar Association Journal, Vol. XXIV, No. 6 , June 1938, page(s) 421 & 423-424. Making sense of the English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century; Courts & Lawyers of N.J., Page 392; 1676 Concessions & Agreements of N.J., Art. XXI; 1776 Constitution of N.J., Art. XXII; 1844 Constitution of N.J., Art.s I, Cl. 19 & X, Sec. 1; 1947 Constitution of N.J., Art.s I, Cl. 21 and XI, Sec. 1.
Rights to common law of England. Courts and Lawyers of New Jersey, pages 78, 105,121, 144; 392 and 399 Grants and Concessions of New Jersey, 129, Ch.s XII & XV and Pg. 394, Ch.XV;see also 1776 Constitution of Delaware, Art. 25; 1632 Constitution of Maryland, Art. VI; 1776 New Jersey Constitution, Art. XXII; 1632 Constitution of Maryland, Art. VII and 1776 Constitution of Maryland , Art. III; 1629 Charter of Massachusetts; 1674 Charter of Maine and 1663 Charter of Rhode Island; 1674 Grants of Maine, Par. 2; 1663 Charter of Rhode Island, Par. 5; 1662 Charter of Connecticut, Par. 6 and 1765 Resolutions of the Continental Congress, par. 3; 1844 Constitution, Art. 1, Cl. 19, Art. X, Sec.1; 1947 New Jersey Constitution Art. 1, Cl. 21 & Art. XI, Cl. 1; The document of “Making sense of English Common Law by David Friedman” One has the right to prefer and prosecute any crime against you, Part III, Crimes decreased from 1660 to 1800 and then went back up after creating paid police departments; 1765
Resolution of the Continental Congress, par. 3; Magna Charta, Par. 2 And The “American Bar Association Journal, Vol. XXIV, No. 6, June 1938” and Confirmatio Cartarum, 10/10/1297 Citing the Magna Charta as being part of the Common Laws rights of the English Subjects forever and thus the above documents of New Jersey on this issue makes the Magna Charta part of OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

To defeat the State you only need go in to the court and state that you are not and do not intend to use my automobile to carry on any trade or commerce and that you are a United States Citizen and a Citizen of the State and then cite the material in this paper and the court is barred from prosecuting you unless it wants to face criminal charges and possible civil liability to you for the intentional violation of your rights.

For all the forgoing reasons the State’s cannot require the people to take their driver’s license, unless and Until the comply with Due Process of law to give one a trial by jury on ones peers, 2 witnesses that can prove the laws can be used against this De Jure Citizen, and to a jury who has the right and power to decide both the Law and Facts and to nullify the laws.