The following is a transcriipt of a lecture said to have been given by George Gordon. This lecture is titled - Why Some People Need A Driver's License. In telling this one story - of how the people's right to travel slowly evolved into the citizen's requirement to be licensed in order to exercise the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, Mr Gordon delves into the relevant history necessary to reveal the story of how politics teamed up with commerce, industry and business "for the greater good of the people". In other words, this lecture reveals far more history than just the history of the driver's license, which itself dates to approximately the early 1900s, a period during which several significant pieces of political work were erected, pieces that to this day a century later can still be found underpinning the present-day order of this thing referred to since at least 1492 as the new world, known in more recent times as USA ®, and during the better part of the period between 1600s and at least the 1860s, known broadly as America. Case in point: the history of driver's license has it's seed in the insurance industry as it existed shortly after the turn of the century (the 19th to 20th). To this day, many people do not understand the pyramid structure and nature of the insurance industry, and how the pattern of this scheme is nearly identical to the same basic pattern that other industries have been underpinned by for many decades. The SS System and the central banking system are other good examples of systems built on a foundation that increasingly favors more benefit - plunder, the higher up in this system that one's station in life holds, and increasingly less benefit for the masses near the bottom. There is a rudimentary dichotomy, a basic co-dependency going on here; without the plundered, those reaping the plunder do not have much plunder to enjoy... al the more reason for the latter to lobby diligently 24-7-365 for their politicians to continually serve up "legislate" state-sanctioned piracy.... "free trade", as it were. By conditioned habit, many people, including myself, do not think much about the insurance agency. Prior to 10 years ago, I hardly ever thought beyond the writing out of checks to pay monthly bills, addressing an envelope and putting into the USMail. If you are like me, you may marvel at the sheer simplicity involved in slowly but steadily manipulating situations involving the masses such that over time, gradually, there was more and more police-state infrastructure "democracy" erected and built out onto and into this once free land..... like the old saying goes "freedom is not free". At the current rate, freedom costs the average person about % 30 - % 35 off the top of their earnings from their labors just as a starting point, plus additional mandatory & confiscatory expenditures by way of taxations "licenses" for, increasingly, nearly every thing a person might want or think to do, including thinking, during every waking moment. Even for those who like to enjoy some quiet time spent with a de-emphasis on thinking, better known as fishing, that too requires taxation by way of license! There is some relatively good news here. Technically speaking, sleep is not taxed, yet... death is, but so far sleep is free.......why else does one suppose this world is littered with so many sleeping people "PJs"... Pajama People? ;) By comparison, we yanks still have much to be happy about. Across the pond, the cost of freedom across the still burgeoning and ever expanding vast stretches of the European Union has for years been in the neighborhood of % 60 to % 70 percent taken off the top of pay earned by the average hired worker. The flip side is, they get to brag about the virtues of socialized health care that we yanks do not have, exactly, yet.

This is a long read but will be an good read for anyone with a curiosity for how birth rights, one by one, have been politically morphed into state-granted privileges, the exercising of which promotes a lot of profit for entities in control of the ship of state - politicians and corporations / businesses a like. This transcriipt is so long that it will be copied to this thread in 2 parts just like it was found at the intermediate web site.

Some people, such as myself, might wonder - who is George Gordon? As it turns out, he has been teaching and instructing people in various departments of civics, courtroom law, pro se litigation and the like. He has a web site but his lecture copied below is not presently found there. The copy below came by way of an intermediate web site that did not provide a link to this transcriipt. At the referring site, the text looked like it may have been sourced from a PDF document, but that has been cleaned up a bit in order to present below.

--------

http://www.georgegordon.org/WHOIS.HTM

Why Some People Need A Driver's License

(part 1 of 2)

A Lecture by George Gordon

Let me start off and explain to you why some people need a driver's license.

There was a time when we didn't need one. When you didn't have one, and you were able to enjoy just driving along in your old car, your 1910 Peerless or your 1910 Model - T Ford. You didn't have or even need a driver's license. You were driving as a matter of right, exercising your Liberty under the Constitution to go from point A to point B. Then somebody came along and said, Gosh, wouldn't it be interesting or nifty or nice to. . .? I call this the insurance scam.

Somebody went to this insurance company . . . let's say he was a salesman for the insurance company. He goes in . . . naturally all corporate business is interested in making money . . . he says, "Wouldn't it be nice to increase profits and cut costs?" "Let me make a suggestion. I'll tell you what we need. We need to insure all of these new horseless carriages. If we could insure all of these horseless carriages, boy there would be a huge market there. I predict that we're going to move from horses and wagons to automobiles." And so the man goes out and he starts selling policies on horseless
carriages and automobiles. But, the more of these horseless carriages and automobiles that pack the roads, then the more accidents, and more claims, right?

So somewhere around, let's say, 1910 . . . let's start out with them selling insurance policies in 1900 to people that have horseless carriages. By 1910 you go into the board room of the insurance company, and what do you see? Somebody is in there saying, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?" "You know?" answers someone else. "I noticed the biggest claims problems that we have are these automobiles that come to intersections and one of them doesn't stop or doesn't see the other one and he goes into the intersection, and bang!, there's a crash in the intersection. I think what we need is the stop sign law." "If we had a law that put stop signs at these intersections, I think that we could cut down on those accidents and that would cut down on the claims and losses at the insurance claims window, and that would cut our costs and increase our profits."

"Well, how are we going to effect that?" someone else asked. "Oh, I know what we'll do. We'll go up to the legislature and we'll lobby these legislators up here and we'll show them a bunch of real pictures of death and carnage. We'll show them pictures of arms that are cut off by people that went through the windshield in these accidents. And we'll lobby and we'll tell them that for the health, safety and welfare of the people, under the police powers, we need these stop signs."

Pretty soon we've got stop sign laws. Now, that cuts down on accidents there. But, what else do you need? Well, about 1920, let's say, somebody comes in and they say, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?"

So the insurance industry says, "Gosh, that's interesting. Let's see. What's the biggest single thing that costs us money?"
"Well, these automobiles drive awful fast. So we need some traffic regulation. We've got to have a line down the middle of the road, and we've got to have speed limits, and we've got to have signs that show us curves, and we're going to call these 'traffic regulations.'?" "Oh, how do we get those passed?" "Well, we'll go to the legislature and we'll show them a lot of pictures of death and destruction and carnage on the highway. And we'll do it in the name of the people to protect the people's health, safety and welfare under the police powers. Oh, and we're doing it with the noblest of intentions."
So now you go up to the legislature this is the insurance industry they show them the pictures and they have the public hearings and go through all the processes and pass these laws called regulations.

Nobody objects too much to that and so pretty soon, somebody comes along and says, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?" "Well, we noticed that people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five have the most accidents. Some of the highest rates of claims. So what we need is a system where we can keep records on these driver's. What we'll do
is we'll propose a licensing law. And we'll claim that people that aren't licensed are a menace on the road, and that what we need is the licensing to establish qualifications for competency." Who's going to argue about that? You don't want incompetent driver's out there on the road, do you? So, we passed the licensing law at some point in time and then we start to keep records. What we'll do to get people to go down and get these licenses is, we'll lower insurance rates to licensed driver's and raise insurance rates to unlicensed driver's.

Well, ten years goes by and we come up to 1930, let's say, or something like that, and now we've got this uniform licensing law border to border, coast to coast. Now what we need to do is we've got to have stricter enforcement
of the traffic regulations. So what we need to do is codify these, and call them misdemeanors, and we've got to dish out some punishment for these traffic offenders who are killing people by speeding and drunk driving and doing these violations of law. So we'll codify those.

Here again is your insurance industry going in to the legislature and they go through the hearings. They never do this in the name of profit to protect the claims window of the insurance industry they always do this in the name of health, safety and welfare of the people under the police powers. "We're doing this to protect you, Mr. John Q. Public, from those drunk
drivers out there. Those wicked evil terrible awful people." So, somebody in the insurance industry asks, "How do we increase profits and cut costs?"

"The next step is, now that we've got everybody licensed, what we need next is a mandatory insurance law. The reason we need a mandatory insurance law is that there are these irresponsible people out there, and they drive their cars, and they run into people, and then they don't have any insurance, and they can't pay the medical bills, and they can't pay the hospital, and they can't pay for the damages they cause, so what we need is a universal insurance program. So what we're going to do is pass a law, and we'll put this in the traffic code."

Now let's take it a step further, you know, say about 1950 or 1960 somebody says, "Well, how do we increase profits and cut costs?" "What we need to do is educate our youth. We need to take traffic safety into the public schools and have a driver's education program. We've got to get to these young people and teach them how to get a driver's license, how
to register their car, how to get insurance. In other words, we've got to train these young people to be slaves when they are age fourteen." And so you license the kid when he's fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen. You make the requirement to graduate from high school that they have this driver education, this driver training. He gets out of school, you've never taught him anything about the Constitution. You never taught him any thing about rights versus privilege. So what we've got now is the perfect slave. He's created and designed by his government to be a perfect tax-payer. Now, if he violates or breaks any rules or regulations, what happens? Oh, you take him into the traffic court and they fine him under a penal
statute . . . under a contractual penalty for violating the terms and conditions of the contract.

Now, on our streets and highways today, we have a virtual police-state tyranny. That's a fact. The police stop you. They can search your car. They don't need any Fourth Amendment warrant whatsoever. They can arrest you and throw you in jail for
drunk driving and then you can worry about how you're going to prove that you weren't drunk, whether you are or not . . . and listen, I can categorize and tell you some of the most tear-jerking horror stories about people who've been entrapped, and charged with felonies, and thrown in the penitentiary.

Now, did they hurt anybody? No. Nobody was damaged. Nobody was hurt?

But here they are in prison for drunk driving, maybe the second or third time, and the guy has never had an accident. And, I'm going to talk to you about that in a moment, and show you how that works.

The traffic court's sole function and purpose is to protect the profitability of the insurance industry. It isn't there for any other purpose.

Now the professed goals are always altruistic and magnanimous, and of course, we don't want people killed on the roads. And so we've got this big kick now that we're going to put all these drunk drivers in prison and I've got to lay this story on you, because when it comes to logic, reason and common sense, sometimes what I hear up here in my legislature just befuddles me.

Here are some statistics I heard up here in the legislature. I went up there, and here in Idaho, they're going to pass this strict drunk-driving law. The second time you're caught drunk driving . . . I mean, you don't have to kill anybody, get in an accident or anything . . . just go get a few drinks in you and drive down the road, the policeman stops you, gives you a ticket, you plead guilty, pay a $300 fine, come back . . .. Let it happen again and they're going to charge you with a felony. That's what they are proposing.

Here's what some of the testimony was about. This one lady get up and she says, "Now listen, there were 52,000 killed last year, and 26,000 or those deaths were alcohol related. We've just got to do something about these drunk drivers because I'm telling you they are just killing people, there's just carnage on the road, and we've just got to do something about these lethal weapons called automobiles driving down the roads with these drunks in them and these alcoholics, and these mean, wicked and terrible people."

So I listened to all that. I listened to eighteen people testify in two hours and a half, and every one of those people had a financial interest in alcoholism. There were non-profit corporations that did alcohol and drug evalua tions. There was the Attorney General, who is part of the law enforcement growth industry he has about fifty prosecutors who prosecute
drunk drivers. Then there's the prison out here. They've got to warehouse these criminals and they've got beds to fill so that they've got guards to employ to guard those people out there. There's the insurance industry, of course. And the medical industry is interested in these drunk drivers also. They make money off of alcohol evaluation. Then there are these alcohol clinics where you go in and dry out. Not one drunk came in to testify. Not one!

I am sitting there just watching all this, and I think to myself, 26,000. I sat there for a little bit, and my mind works differently from bureaucrats. It works differently from politicians. And I'm sitting there and I'm saying, "Let me see if I understand this. For some reason we've got to pass legislation and call drunkenness a felony?" Now, we're going to lock this guy up in prison for five years, that's right.

A felony is five years in jail.

Do you know what it costs to put a man in prison for five years? In Idaho? $15,000 a year. Let's see how much that is . . . fifteen, thirty, forty-five, sixty, seventy five thousand dollars. My God! Do you understand how much money that is?

You've got this drunk out here and some of these people are testifying that alcoholism is an illness, it's a disease. And we're going to put these sick people out here in the penitentiary for five years, for seventy-five thousand dollars.
I'm saying, wait a minute. I could send that guy to Harvard twice for that kind of money and turn him into a medical doctor . . . or a lawyer, or something, for that kind of money.

Look, if I've got a guy driving down the road drunk and I wanted to get him off the road, why don't . . . instead of paying seventy-five thousand to lock him in prison, why don't we give him fifty thousand dollars and tell him to go to Brazil? We'd save twenty-five thousand and we'd get rid of the guy! We'd make money, and he'd be happier down there. He'd have fifty
thousand to blow. He could practically retire.

OK. We've got to have law and order, and we've got to get these drunks off the roads; so we've got twenty-six thousand of them alcohol related. I sitting there, and I'm thinking; my father was killed in a head-on traffic crash in 1970. I'll tell you, I was really upset about that. This fellow crossed the center line of the road, about four thirty in the afternoon, in broad daylight, trying to pass a truck, and he didn't have enough clearance, and he ran right into my father and he killed him. My father went right through the windshield and broke his neck and it killed him. And I'll tell you what really galls me, the guy was stone sober! Didn't even drink! It didn't help my dad any. It killed him.

So why do I . . . I'm sitting in this meeting and I'm listening to this diatribe, and I'm saying to myself, "Wait a minute. What is it? Twenty-six thousand were alcohol related. Well then twenty-six thousand were not alcohol related, are they?"
"Why don't we fund a study for the twenty-six thousand that are non-alcohol related and find out how many of the twenty-six thousand drivers that were not drunk had blond hair and blue eyes. And find out if there is a correlation between blond hair and blue eyes and traffic accidents and death on the highway?"

It makes about that much sense to me.

The one thing that was totally absent in all the testimony was, how many of those deaths that were alcohol related were caused by the drunk?

You know, there was a famous Supreme Court case came down in New Mexico about ten years ago. This farmer was driving down the road in his old pick-up, just bombed out of his mind. He was so drunk that he couldn't walk. That's probably why he was driving. He had a bottle of whiskey about two-thirds empty in the truck bed tool box, and he's driving down the road and there's an accident, a head-on crash. A doctor, his wife and his two children, from Houston, Texas, who were going on holiday to Los Angeles were killed. The farmer survived. That's the way it usually happens. The drunk survives and this wonderful family, this man and his wife and his two children were killed. The problem here was that the doctor fell asleep, crossed the center line, and hit the farmer head-on. Now let me ask you: Is that wreck, and are those deaths, alcohol related? Oh yeah. You bet. The farmer's drunk. But is the farmer the cause of the accident, or is the farmer (who was drunk) the victim?

What none of these people tell you is, who has ever funded a study to find out whether or not drunkenness is the cause of the accidents that cost these lives. They'll cite you a few cases where the guy is drunk, ran the red light, ran into this blond-haired, blue-eyed, twenty year old young woman just out of college, or whatever, and ruined her life, and how "we've gotta do something about this guy because it's the fifth time." Maybe so. But, that's one out of twenty six thousand. There's still twenty-five thousand nine hundred ninety nine that we've got to analyze. But for some reason we want to zero in on this one group over here.

Why do we want to zero in on one group? To protect the claims window of the insurance industry.

I don't care if you drive down the road drunk. My father never took a sober breath for the last twenty years of his life,
and he never had an accident drunk. He had several wrecks sober and never had a wreck drunk. Now I'm not sitting here telling you that you should drive drunk. I don't know whether you should or not. I'm just telling you that I'm suspicious when I see people who testify before the legislature trying to get some kind of legislation passed, and they're sitting there railing against some particular group of people that have this or that particular financial motivation involved.

Listen, if you're running a non-profit organization in Idaho, and it's to rehabilitate alcoholics, these people work for these organizations. While the organization is tax exempt, the people who run them get their salaries and make their livings doing that, don't they? Well, if they are getting their salaries and making their living doing that, then they have a financial interest involved, don't they? John Q. Public, the average drunk, he doesn't make any money off of it so he doesn't go up a testify. Oh. Now I see how that goes. Let's carry this on a step further.

The purpose for having driver's licenses is to regiment all the people into a little group that can be regulated under the police powers, separate from their Constitutional rights.

Like I said, I'm not really concerned about you driving drunk.
I've only got a fifty percent chance of being killed if you're drunk. I
still stand the same fifty percent chance of getting killed if you are
sober. And I'm just as dead whether you are drunk or sober. It doesn't make
any difference whether a drunk kills me or a sober guy kills me.
What you're going is creating this police-state environment giving the
police these broad new powers to set up road blocks. I mean, these people
are so off-the-wall when it comes to our constitutional guarantees, they're
so emotionally involved in their religious philosophy, or their moral
philosophy, whatever it is, that they want to set up road blocks to run all
these drunks off the road.

I'll bet you there are more people that drink in this country than don't
drink. If all of your people out there that drink don't want to be involved
in this massive police-state gestapo-type society where we're just going to
create this communist one-world government right here in our own land, for
the sole purpose of eradicating drunks.

Well, let's think about that for a minute.

The insurance company probably has figured that if they could get rid of a
certain number of drinking drivers, they may save a little money. I don't
know who came in, but somebody came into the board room and said, "I'll tell
you these drunks over here are costing us a lot of money at the claims
window. What we need to do is do something about them." So the President and
a few of them get out there and they start beating the tom-toms and then
they start going to the legislature, and they start getting these laws
passed.

Now, personally, I don't really care. I don't have a driver's license. I
don't come under Title 49, so I don't have to be concerned about it. But,
let me tell you that you licensed people out there better get real concerned
about it.

If I'm concerned about you with your hundred dollar car running into my
thirty-thousand dollar Porsche, I don't need any legislation to protect me
from you. If I'm real concerned about it, it is up to me to go out and
insure my thirty-thousand dollar Porsche against irresponsible people who do
not have insurance . . . who are poor and cannot pay for my thirty-thousand
dollar Porsche.

And if you are the poor guy, and you've got the hundred dollar car, are you
really concerned about my thirty -thousand dollar Porsche crashing into your
'62 Buick Skylark and wrecking it? You just go out, pay another hundred
dollars and buy another car, right? You're not real concerned about it.
Besides that, if I've got a thirty -thousand dollar Porsche, and the wreck's
my fault, I probably have a hundred dollars and I can pay you, right?
I don't where this logic of theirs comes from, but we citizens don't go out
buying insurance policies for other people, or compelling them to buy
insurance policies, for fear that when they die they might leave their
family on welfare, do they?

If the government can compel you to buy an insurance policy, can't they
compel you to buy a water bed, or compel you to buy a certain type of
carpet, or compel you to buy a TV set . . ..

The government cannot compel you into a contract against your will and over
your objection, pursuant to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

Well how do that do that by statute under Title 49 in the traffic code?

That's easy.

You volunteered to do that. You've got a driver's license in your pocket.
How can the government come in and tell you that you've got to get a permit,
and that you've got to build your house in a certain way by a certain
method? That it's going to be inspected, and you're going to be regulated,
and that if you don't do that you are a criminal and they're going to put
you in jail?

I don't know.

A fellow went to jail for five days for building his own house without a
building permit.

Was there ever a time in America when you could go out a build something on
your own property, and you didn't need your government's permission?
Yeah, there was. It was when the citizens were responsible for their actions
... . . and not someone else.

When you are ready to become responsible for your own actions, then you can
be free. Because incompetent people are not responsible for their own
actions, are they?

An incompetent person has a guardian, doesn't he?

Don't your children at ten years old have a guardian. Don't you tell your
kid that he'll come in at eight or nine o'clock at night, and if he doesn't,
there is a penalty here called a belt which will be applied until he can get
straight.

Do you know that in America today, we have a police-state environment that
we Americans bought and paid for? The Poles and the Chechs can complain
about their slavery being imposed upon them at gun point by the Russians,
but not us Americans.

We didn't have anybody come over here with a gun and force us to go get a
driver's license or tell you to go get a building permit or compel you into
this mercantile equity. We volunteered for it. We bought and paid for it. We
went to the insurance company and paid them dollars and cents to take our
freedom from us.

Now, let me show you how this words with Garrett Truck Lines. I like to talk
about Garrett because they come in and out of Boise, and they are pretty
much all over the United States.

Here's how mercantile equity works. Outside here we have what's called a
right-of-way. That's the road. That belongs to the people.
Garrett is a paper entity. Garrett is a corporation, and they have no
natural inalienable rights.

So, when Garrett wants to use that road out there, remember the sovereign
peoples representative is the legislature, the legislature created Garrett
as a corporation and Garrett is using that road for profit and gain, aren't
they? They are using it in privilege.

If they use it in privilege, they have to pay us, the sovereign citizens, a
tax for the privilege of using that road in interstate commerce.
We the citizens own it. We don't have to pay for it. We own the thing. We
don't want to pay for something that we already own, do we?
You don't pay to park your car in your garage. You pay to park it in
somebody else's garage because that's a privilege. But to park it in your
own garage isn't.

When Garrett uses that road, it's a privilege for them and they pay tax on
it.
Well, l

et's go back to about 1900.

When a man owned his house, he owned the land. He owned his car. He didn't
have to pay tax on it. He owns it in fee simple or alodial absolute title.
Today, we don't know many people that do that. People live now in equitable
interest. They don't own their homes, they own an equitable interest in
them. They call themselves home owners, but that's a misnomer.
I don't know of very many actual home owners.

When I was a youngster, nearly ten years old, almost everybody I knew owned
their own home. I mean that house was bought and paid for.
In 1940, three thousand dollars would build a nice three-bedroom house. When
the man got three thousand dollars, he went out and built the house, and he
owned the thing in fee simple.

Now, we don't do that. Today, we put three thousand down, of our inflated
Federal Reserve notes, and we mortgage that property for thirty years.
Well, corporations have no rights and corporations can be taxed for the
privileges, and those are called excises taxes.

So the bank owns your house, or the mortgage company, or whoever owns it,
and by contract they pass that tax on to you.

That's right, when you signed that contract for thirty years, you agreed to
pay the property taxes and you agreed to insure the house for the entire
time, and if you don't, then the bank just does it for you and they add that
on to your payments, don't they?

The same thing on the highways. We don't own our automobiles, so therefore
GMAC owns your car, and the legislature that has passed traffic laws, rules
and regulations governing the use of automobiles. Well GMAC doesn't have any
rights, and so the statute says that the car has to be registered, has to be
licensed, and only licensed drivers can drive it.

Go to Hertz and try to rent a car without a driver's license, and see if
they'll rent you a car. Why is it that only a licensed driver can drive a Hertz car? Well, because
the statute says so.

Now those statutes attach to each and every one of those corporate entities.

Every one of those persons in mercantile equity have to obey the statutes.

You go down and you buy the car from the Ford dealer. The Ford dealer then
sells the paper to GMAC. You've agreed in this contractual agreement that
you'll obey all the rules and regulations and laws, etc. So you have to be
licensed, the car has to be registered, and you also have to carry
insurance. And that's all it attaches to.

They cannot tax a right. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

They can tax Garrett right out of existence, and there is nothing they can
do about it.

But you can't tax the individual out of existence because the individual is
a sovereign. The individual has natural inalienable rights guaranteed by the
common law under the constitution.

So don't you see what happens to you?
You go down and you buy the car. Now, by contractual arrangement, you have
given up your constitutional rights for a privilege under mercantile equity.
Now you come under the statutes because the corporation, through its
contract, has imposed it upon you.

We have our government out here licensing free and natural persons as well
as corporate persons. You don't have to be, but nearly everybody has
volunteered.

Now the poor policeman's out here trying to enforce the law. Look at his
problem from his perspective. He's been to the government school. He doesn't
understand the constitution or inalienable rights. All he understands is
statutes and law. Police regulations. The guy's been in the army, he was in
the Marines for a few years, and maybe he was an M.P., and all he knows is,
"Sit down and shut up?" "Do this, do that, jump up, come here" and all that.
He doesn't understand freedom. He's been a slave his whole life. That's all
the military service is, voluntary servitude. You get in there and you sign
the contract, and there you are at the Captain's Mast there on the bridge of
the ship. Here's the way that comes down.

You have two crewmen down in the engine room and they have a fight. Do they
have any constitutional rights on the high seas? That's Admiralty
jurisdiction, you take them up to a Captain's Mast. He just sits there and
says, "Well who started this fight?" And he asks questions.

Are their any Fifth Amendment rights? Are their Fourth Amendment rights? No.

He just says, "I'm confining you fellows to quarters and I'm going to fine
you so much, and blah, blah, blah." That's the end of the argument.
Well what happens when a passenger on a ship gets into a fight with one of
the crewman, and they haul the passenger and the crewman up to the Captain.

Well, if they haul this particular passenger up, I'm going to say, "Excuse
me, but you've got a problem here. I'm not one of the crew. I'm not one of
the fellows you have jurisdiction over. You don't have jurisdiction over me.
I'm challenging your jurisdiction. I'm a paying passenger. I'm a sovereign.
You put me off at the next port and we'll talk about common law rights."
And that's where you are on the road.

You see, Garrett has to stop at the port of entry. Garrett trucks, and all
these others trucks that are operating in interstate commerce for profit or
gain, using our roads, have to pay tax.

Let's try this on to the independent trucker. The independent trucker takes
five thousand dollars, he goes down and he puts five thousand down on a
truck, and now he owes GMAC, or somebody, a bunch of money, doesn't he?
He doesn't own that truck in fee simple .

Now he needs a load, right? So he goes down here to a broker and he goes out
and he gets a job to haul stuff.

He goes over to the, let's call it, Acme Lumber Company, and with a bill of
lading, he takes a load of lumber from Idaho, and he's going to take it to
Texas. So he's going to act in interstate commerce. He has a letter of
privilege for profit or gain to use the roads.
Don't we have to control him? How do we know that he's not going to steal
the lumber and run to California and sell it?

Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to regulate interstate
commerce. And here's a fellow that acting in interstate commerce for profit
or gain, and he's regulateable. And he'd better stop down here at the port
of entry, and he'd better clear, and he'd better pay duties, and he'd better
pay his taxes, and he better not be overloaded, and if he is he's going to
go into the "Captain's Mast" or summary proceedings. He has to be licensed.
His truck has to be licensed. He has to have insurance.
We know how that works. It works that way day in and day out, doesn't it?
How would a man operate, then, if he wanted to PRIVATELY operate in the
trucking business from Idaho to New York?
Here's the way it works.

The Constitution hasn't changed. The Constitution is still in force and
effect. What we have to do is we have to correct our status to that we're no
longer servants in bondage to free men who are responsible for their
actions.

Here's the way that works.
You go down here and you buy a truck, and you pay cash for it, and you own
it, and you throw the license plates away.
Now you're claiming to own this thing in alodial fee simple.
Now if you've got a driver's license, turn it back in by affidavit and stop
driving as a matter of privilege and start driving as a free man as a matter
of right.

Now you've got no driver's license. You don't owe any money on the truck, so
you're not affecting any corporate entity in any way.
Don't insure the truck, because if you insure the truck, then the insurance
company is the master and they're responsible for your actions. You've got
to be responsible for your own actions.
Now you go down and you want to haul a load.
Oh, oh. Are you going to go over here to the lumber company with a bill of
lading and haul that lumber? Uh huh. No. You can't do that.
What you do is you go over and you tender or you pay properly in full for
the lumber. Now you own it.
You own the lumber. You own the truck. And you own the road.
Can you drive your truck, with your property on it, on your road?
Well certainly you can.
Can you drive it in the several states?
Absolutely. You can drive it in every state in the Union.
Can you do it for private business?
Absolutely. Take that load of lumber over to Los Angeles or Houston and sell
it, and convert it to something, and go down and buy another load and come
back.
You can do that.
That's what I do.
Do you know of any people who do that?
Well I don't know of any either.
If you're a truck driver out there and you've been complaining about this
police-state environment, if you want to operate as a free man you have to
be prepared to be responsible for your actions.

If you think about it for a moment -- If the insurance company is
responsible for your actions, then you are affecting a public interest, and
if you affect a public interest the police powers can come into play, and if
the police powers come into play, then you're going to be regulated . . .
and you're going to be taxed.

Now I want to tell you about the Toby story.
This is an interesting and a true-to-life characterization of the way our
constitution works, the way it has worked in the past, and the way I hope it
continues to work in the future.

Remember the story of "Roots"? It was on TV.

Here was a fellow who was a natural person with inalienable rights living in his own land and his name was Kunta Kintay.

He exercised all the rights of sovereign. He owned property. He was accepted within his community. He wasn't a slave. He wasn't obligated to anybody. He got up in the morning, he went out, and he came and went as he pleased.

Then, he got captured. He became a part of the spoils of war, taken to a new land, his name changed from Kunta Kintay, the sovereign free man, to Toby the slave. Toby then was sold to the master.

Look up the word slave in Bovier's Law Dictionary and you'll find that a slave is a person.

A corporation is a person.

A natural Citizen is a person.

But there are different statuses. There are different powers, rights, obligations, duties, and capacities for different statuses of persons.

Toby has no rights. He doesn't even have a right to live. He has no property rights. He has no right to expect life, liberty or property.

He tries to escape.

What do you do when you have a horse that keep jumping over the fence?

What do you do when you have a cow that keeps breaking the fence, or a calf that you can't keep in? I used to have a bull that kept jumping over the fence. What did we do? Bored a hole through his nose, put a ring in it, and tied it to a twenty
foot rope. That stopped him.

You have to do something to stop your chattels from running away.

Toby ran away. They cut his foot off. It stopped him from running away, didn't it?

The master had a right to protect his property. Toby was property.

OK. Now what happens?

Toby goes out and he starts picking cotton and he stops running away and he
becomes a good slave. The master wants to reward the slave with a privilege.
So, What's the privilege? The master says, "Toby? See all those women over
there? I'm going to let you take any of those women that you want for a
wife."

There's the marriage license. There's the privilege.

Remember, the word "license" means the permission to do something that would be otherwise unlawful.

I ask you, my friend, what's illegal about getting married?

Did you go down to your government to get a license to get baptized?

Do you go to your government to get a license to go to church? Don't you exercise your religious rights freely under the First Amendment?

Our government puts out marriage licenses. Isn't marriage a religious business? What business has the government got in regulating marriage?

I'll tell you friend, you go out and get a marriage license, and doesn't health and welfare then come into play? And doesn't compulsory education and compulsory attendance to school? And If you're not good, we're going to take your kid away from you?

Well, what happened to Toby and his wife when his first baby was born. Who owned that child? Toby and his wife? Unh-Unh.

You got a bull and a cow. A calf is the offspring. Who owns that calf?

That's right, the master owns that calf. Yeah.

Remember, when the Constitution was formed in 1787, those people were all slave owners and most of them were religious guys.

They understood law.

They understood slavery.

They understood chattels.

They understood mortgages.

They understood indenture.

(end of Part 1 of 2)