Right to Travel


​Strategy
Why look for trouble? 

Here is one suggestion for what to do BEFORE you go about peacefully challenging the cops.
  1.  Have all the cop-control paperwork in place FIRST:
    1. ​Driver's license
    2. Vehicle plates
    3. Insurance
  2. Contact DMV and explain that you wish to relinquish your licenses, and you will be planning to travel in your car.
    They will write back, promising to beat you up and other horrible things if they catch you.
    Exchange correspondence a couple more times to finalize your relative positions.
  3. Sue them for a declaratory judgment which defines the relative positions of the parties (you & the state)
  4. Based on your court order, get a writ of execution ordering the DMV to update their records so that when the cop checks it, it will instruct him to leave you alone if you are not engaged in commerce. He will believe them and leave you alone.
  5. At this point you can relinquish your various licenses

​Cites
U.S. Supreme Court: “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dullus 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.
“The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression...” Laird v. Tatum 8212 288, 408 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972)
“When a government agent acts in an unconstitutional manner, the agent becomes PERSONALLY LIABLE for damages.” Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 29 L. Ed 2d 619, 91 S.Ct.1999 (1970);​
"It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See also Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 239.
Resident: One who has his residence in a place. “Resident” and “inhabitant” are distinguishable in meaning. The word “inhabitant” implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does “resident;” and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423. Also a tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord’s land, and not to depart from the same; called, also, “homme levant et couch- ant,” and in Normandy, “resscant du fief.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.
"We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 (2015)
No sheriff nor bailiff of ours, nor any one else, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport, unless by the will of that freeman. [Article 30. Magna Carta (1215)] (The common law referred to in Amendment the Seventh of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America, circa 1787, as amended in 1791.)
California Penal Code–Title 7 Chapter 7 §145: “Every public officer or other person, having arrested any person upon a criminal charge, who willfully delays to take such person before a magistrate having jurisdiction, to take his examination, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
“A determination of the rights of an individual under the existing laws is an exercise of judicial power...An essential element of judicial power . . . is that it requires “the ascertainment of existing rights.” People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27.
“No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding that he has it. In all such cases, every officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his peril.” John Middleton v. F.F. Low, Governor of California (1866), 30 Cal. 596, 607
Traveler illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 (in 1984 dollars) in damages. [Treaevant v. City Of Tampa, 241 F.2d. 336 (11th Cir. 1984)] ($25,000 in 1984 = $65,217.39/hour in 1984 dollars or $205,741.99 in 2025 dollars, as adjusted with 2.81% average inflation from 1984 to 2025 as per amortization.org/inflation)
"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891).
The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24]
“...infractions are not crimes and the rule forbidding successive prosecutions of a defendant is not applicable when an infraction is one of the offenses involved.” People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1 [123 Cal. Rptr. 636] fn. [1b] “Proceedings on infractions are not attended by the same constitutional safeguards as those attending felony or misdemeanor prosecutions. The limitation on an accused's right to jury trial of infractions has withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale the Legislature did not intend to classify infractions as crimes.” (See People v. Oppenheimer 42 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 4 [116 Cal. Rptr. 795] (1974) and People v. Battle, supra, People v. Sava 190 Cal. App. 3d 935, [233 Cal. Rptr. 694] (1987)
“Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.” Delaware v. Prouse , 440 US 648 (1979)
California Vehicle Code (VEH): §21100(b): Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding all of the following matters: (b) Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire and drivers of passenger vehicles for hire.
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. McAlister v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S. Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth v. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum v. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (M.D. Pa. 1947)
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people.” City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (Tex. App. - Dallas [5th Dist.], 1922)
"Through the courts, encouraging the government to obey the law."