I have been trained by a lifetime of steadily worsening liberty to outright reject that this judgement could be real. I am considering all the backdoor ways in which the cops, or whichever city in question, will effectively negate this law even if it is real.
For example, I do not need a license to operate a vehicle, but WHEN I speed by one mile per hour over, I will instantly be pulled over and my property seized as I was "jeopardizing the safety of other motorists". If I had a license the city may have "chosen" not to take that action, having an effective way of recording my previous driving record, but without those means they are "left with no choice" but to assume the worst, and therefore impound the vehicle.
Another way to fuck with people who actually try to drive without a license may simply be to arrest them, temporarily of course, while they determine whatever safety horse shit they come up with to justify inconveniencing you.
Or they could simply say you don't have to have a license to "operate a vehicle" but you do have to have a photo ID for other purposes, such as being IDed by the cops when they pull you over. You aren't going to jail because you drove without a license, you are going to jail because you didn't possess a photo ID WHILE operating that vehicle.
The ways in which this shit will be loopholed and Legalesed are endless. End of the day, big daddy gubbament don't take kindly to you trying to skirt his laws boy.
It doesn't help that police officers (policy officers) have a quota in traffic tickets to make. They use a loophole and just call it "productivity goals" David Lester Straight talks in-depth about the Common Law, he doesn't use a license to travel in his property and uses his passport for ID.
We need united non-compliance for this to work. I'm sure they would wage all out war to stop this since it would cut off most of their revenue. I believe this is going to keep gaining traction with all the bullshit they are forcing on us.
Cops follow policy set by city manager. Cops do not know or understand the laws they enforce. If you put them on the stand and ask them about the law, the prosecutor will object, "objection, police are not expert witnesses and cannot offer testimony regarding the law" and the judge will sustain it.
You absolutely need a license to "operate" a "vehicle" on the "highways and byways" of "this State".
"Driving" is a privilege regulated by the state and requires a license and adherence to the "Transportation Code".
"Traveling" in an "automobile" is a right that cannot be regulated or infringed upon.
Transportation Code. You have been confused by their Legalese. When they say highways they are including all public roads. I'm not looking to argue about every little thing i say, i want people to learn about Common Law and the corporate enslavement that is making us all miserable.
That isn't true. In Texas, FM roads are public roads and you can travel, not drive, on them without a license. Countless farmers children have traveled, not driven, countless miles behind the wheel of a tractor. No license required.
But yes, generally speaking, the public roads that you are referring to are called "byways" in Texas and I did say, "highways and byways".
(post is archived)