Time: Tue Oct 14 19:52:50 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA22652;
	Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:47:44 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA03007;
	Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:24:19 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd003005; Wed Oct 15 02:24:08 1997
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:23:13 -0700
To: ABeliever@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Seattle Times/Roach Drivers License

Travel is a Right guaranteed by the
Privileges and Immunities Clause,
but you must be a state Citizen,
in order to invoke these Guarantees.
See 4:2:1.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

At 10:14 PM 10/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I even wonder if in any case the govt. can "regulate" people moving around;
>it seems from the beginning of time, evil people block roads and exact
>tribute before you can pass (whether doing "business" or just going to Aunt
>Bessy's or not)
>Michael Smith
>Forwarded message:
>From:	idzrus@nwlink.com (idzrus)
>To:	idzrus@nwlink.com
>Date: 97-10-14 06:10:04 EDT
>Whow Nellie!!!
>Looks like we have another well informed citizen weighing in on this issue
>of Drivers Licenses.
>It is a long read but it is worth it!!!!
>Some of you already know this information - others will learn a great deal
>from it.  Better make your voices heard soon or pay the price.
>Jackie Juntti
>Mr. Whyte: 
>Regarding your Seattle Times article, October 13, 1997: "Thousands on the
>road lack drivers licenses," you forgot to expose, or ask, the most
>important question: *WHY* are people saying "NO" to the driver licensing
>"scheme?" The answer is that under our Constitution, both State and
>Federal, and with many Supreme Court cases supporting the same, the people
>have the UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL in whatever conveyance they so choose.
>Article I, Sections 1 & 3 of our Washington State Constitution guarantees
>to all people, the *RIGHT* to "LIFE, **LIBERTY**, and PROPERTY." The State
>has not been honest and forthcoming about protecting these RIGHTS as
>guaranteed thereunder, has chosen to ignore the absolute rights of the
>people, and has engaged in a broad
>The State has sought to use the "compelling state interest" doctrine to
>utilize the police powers under the rubric of protecting the public health,
>safety and welfare, to engage in the conversion of titles to private
>property, in this instance a Citizens private automobile, through
>misrepresentation and misapplication of the motor vehicle laws upon those
>*NOT* engaged in commerce or the transportation of persons or property, as
>defined by the law itself (See: Definitions, "Motor Vehicle" -RCW 46.04.320
>and "Vehicle" -RCW 46.04.670), which is appropriate for those engaging in
>commerce, but not the use or operation of private automobiles, which have
>been CONVERTED into a "motor vehicle" upon REGISTRATION (See: "Motor
>Vehicle Excise Tax" -RCW 82.44.060).
>Early on, the Seattle Post-Intellingencer, circa Tuesday, June 6, 1913
>(page 20), published an article concerning the REGISTRATION and LICENSING
>of "motor vehicles" operated **FOR HIRE,** meaning engaged in *COMMERCE* in
>the City of Seattle, preceding the first "motor vehicle act" by the
>Legislature in the 1915 session. Go back to that issue of the PI and you'll
>begin to develop a knowledge level of what's going on here. And then go
>read the beginning pages of RCW Title 46 and the definitions. The "motor
>vehicle act" can only concern itself with the intended purposes of the Act,
>i.e., "motor vehicles" and their extra-ordinary use of the public highways
>which is commerce, not the ordinary every-day travel by the Citizens in
>their private property (automobiles) on the roads and highways, the
>ownership of which is vested in the Citizens of this State.  
>The people are becoming aware of how the State and Federal governments have
>set about trampling the rights of the people, in this instance, by
>CONVERTING an absolute "RIGHT" into a "PRIVILEGE" and then licensing and
>taxing that previous right. But, you say, like the the legislators
>(including Pam Roach and Karen Schmidt), "driving is a privilege!" YES --
>YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! But, what *IS* the PRIVILEGE? It is, according
>to law (RCW Title 46) "operating a motor vehicle for the transportation of
>persons or property." The word TRANSPORTATION, according to Black's Law
>Dictionary, 5th Edition, which is officially recognized by the Congress,
>Legislature and Courts for the meaning and intent of technical terms in the
> law, defines transportation as "The movement of goods or persons from
>place to another, by a carrier." Now, that does seem innocuous enough
>doesn't it? Well, we now have to go to the word "carrier" in Black's 5th,
>and it is defined as, "Individual or organization engaged in transporting
>passengers or goods *FOR HIRE*." There you have it. And as well recognized
>by the Washington Supreme Court, in Palmer v. Laberbee, 23 Wn. 409, 73 Pac.
>316 (1900) and other cases related thereto, "Courts do no make laws, they
>only interpret them to determine legislative intent." There can be no
>mistake that the "Motor Vehicle Act" composed of RCW Titles 46 & 47,
>together with ancillary provisions of the taxation scheme in RCW Title 82,
>only apply to "motor vehicles," those devices/conveyances engaged in
>commerce. In addition, the Washington Supreme Court has recognized that the
>"Literal word of statute is controlling unless literal application would
>give absurd result." (See: Ex rel. Calderwood, 23 Wn. 573, 63 Pac. 221
>(1900)). So now go read the beginning section of the "Definitions" section
>for the "Motor Vehicle Act" at RCW 46.04.010, wherein it states: 
>"Scope and construction of terms. Terms used in this title shall have the
>meaning given to them in this chapter except where otherwise defined, and
>unless where used the context thereof shall clearly indicate to the
>One other thing, what we have witnessed is a gross application of
>lawyer-legal-ease by the members of the bar when it comes to legal twisting
>and gymnastics with the syntax of legislative acts. That is why the members
>of the bench and the bar can play the game with people that the motor
>vehicle act has nothing to do with commerce and that all people
>living/residing within the State *must* have a drivers license. That is
>LEGAL HOGWASH and here's why: The original statutes of the motor vehicle
>act convey an entirely different meaning than the current statutes. In
>other words, while the original (circa 1915, et seq.) motor vehicle act
>spoke in literal terms of transportation of persons, property, goods, etc.
>*FOR HIRE*, the current Act does not state specifically "for hire." The
>lawmakers in Olympia and those who draft "uniform acts" (National
>Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws--ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR)
>have used clever syntax and technical meanings defined in the law to paint
>everyone with the same brush. However, in order to protect themselves from
>outright fraud, the legislature provided themselves with an "out" in the
>"General Provisions" section of the Revised Code of Washington at RCW
>1.04.020 and RCW 1.04.021. The gist of this is as follows: Citing RCW
>1.04.021, "The contents of said code shall establish prima facie the laws
>of this state of a general and permanent nature in effect on January 1,
>of the provisions of said code and the laws existing immediately preceding
>As you can determine from the foregoing, the State must construe the motor
>vehicle act according to the previous existing law, prior to the adoption
>of the present RCW. This is succinctly stated in State ex rel. Town of
>Mercer Island, 58 Wn.2d 141, 361 Pac.2d 369 (1961), wherein the court held,
>"Statute, as adopted by the legislature, prevails over a restatement
>thereof in the code." The original motor vehicle act was put on the books
>in 1915, but oddly, no definitions of terms used therein was applied until
>some five years later, giving lawmakers an advantage to first condition the
>people into getting into the "habit" and "routine" of accepting the
>registration process of their private property, and eventually, as is the
>case today, taxing the Hell out of everyone's use of what used to be their
>own private property, i.e., "automobile." Early on, the State even went so
>far as to construe the terms "automobile and "motor vehicle" as being one
>and the same. They are not. The latter is used exclusively in commerce,
>which is a privileged, extra-ordinary use of the public highways, and that
>is why a license is required. And that is why "driving is a privilege."
>So, the question that comes from all of this and what the bottom line is,
>answer is obvious. The "scheme" is about the UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF TITLE,
>and a giant monopoly for the purposes of raising revenue. And yes, I can
>already hear YOUR NEXT question, "but how will we pay for the roads?" The
>answer to that is we already do through property taxes and the tax on
>gasoline. The State has simply not been judicious with the people's tax
>monies. And Seattle **ATTORNEY** Mark Sidran and his co-horts like Senator
>Pam Roach and Representative Karen Schmidt, would like to close the breech,
>tighten the noose a little tighter around the Citizens necks, and RAISE
>MORE REVENUE from their tax and spend Criminal Justice System by making
>sure that if the Citizen refuses to be swashbuckled into REGISTERING and
>LICENSING their private automobiles as a motor vehicle and jump on the
>revenue enhancement program, they will see to it that more laws will be
>placed on the books to COERCE people into complying: IF YOU DON'T GET A
>why we need all the new jails in this state, to harass and coerce people
>into paying for something they don't want? It is clear from the numbers
>quoted in your article that the people are becoming wise to what is going
>on and they have had enough of the extortion racket being practiced by the
>pettifoggershyster members of the bench and the bar, and their co-equals in
>the executive and legislative branches, and those other evils who wear two
>hats, as in "LAWYER-LEGISLATOR" and "LAWYER-JUDGE." As long as they can
>keep the people ignorant of the laws they will keep on getting away with
>this criminal racketeering and extortion racket. But alas, the people are
>beginning to see what's being done to them.
>It is through the use of constructive misinformation by State officials,
>deception, undue influence, threats, withholding, misrepresentation and
>concealment of material facts, that the unwitting Citizen has been cajoled
>into "registering" his private property with the State. As was well stated
>in Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 at 583:
>"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
>transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business
>is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty,
>to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It
>includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of
>the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive
>a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile
>thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. it is
>not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street,
>operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or
>property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at
>So, Mr. Whyte, as you can see, this kinda looks like, "What came first, the
>chicken or the egg?" Or, as herein, the RIGHT? . . . or the PRIVILEGE? As
>clearly proven by the Latin term, "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius,"
>i.e., the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another, the "Motor Vehicle"
>pertains ONLY to a privileged use of the public highways, as opposed to the
>ordinary use thereof by Citizens. The bottom line is the Motor Vehicle is a
>"business machine."
>It is obvious what Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran and State Senator Pam
>Roach are up to. They want the people to pony-up with all the revenue the
>state, county and municipalities are missing out on. You see, all of the
>municipal and district courts retain approximately 66% of all fines,
>forfeitures, etc., and they send the State about 33% each month. So, with
>the numbers as presented in your article, this is not about "safety." IT IS
>ALL ABOUT RAISING REVENUE. In addition, your article does not elucidate the
>people to a missing point in your quotes of Pam Roach. Did you know, for
>instance, that if you have a drivers license and you get a ticket for some
>infraction, and don't pay it, you're record shows an "FTA" (failure to
>appear) which is the same as a failure to respond, and that Department of
>Licensing AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDS your license UNTIL YOU PAY? And, of
>course, the next time you happen to be stopped, YOU GO TO JAIL UNTIL YOU
>PAY OR POST BAIL! And now they want to TAKE YOUR CAR? No, what Mark Sidran
>and Pam Roach are promoting here is a BETTER MOUSETRAP! We've had enough of
>these two . . . they should be IMPEACHED for their TREASONIST ACTS AGAINST
>THE CONSTITUTION -- you know, the document they SWORE TO UPHOLD!  
>There can be no doubt that State is not just. It has become a tool of
>devious men by which they exploit the unaware. It is filled, not with
>virtue - but with vice. Does it reflect the character of its inhabitants?
>NO! The people are sorely inattentive of their government. They are, almost
>without exception functional illiterates; but, they are not intrinsically
>evil. If the State reflected the intent and substance of its inhabitants,
>it would be a bumbling, ineffectual institution . . .and not the
>deliberately fashioned engine of oppression that it has become. No, the
>State reflects the dubious character and immorality of those "officials"
>like Mark Sidran, Pam Roach and others, who have usurped its awesome
>powers, and have turned them against the very people it was originally
>instituted to protect and serve. That there are now over five-million
>(plus) so-called "Motor Vehicles" REGISTERED, the owners of which have no
>idea of the fraud that has been purposefully perpetrated upon them by those
>holding our Offices of Public Trust, is bold evidence that the people have
>become sorely apathetic and inattentive, and why our Ship of State has
>remained so far off course all of the ensuing years. It doesn't take a
>brain surgeon to see through the clever smoke and mirrors that the State
>has erected and will continue to erect into the framework of its
>legislation, laws which are for the SOLE PURPOSE of RAISING REVENUE. Sidran
>and Roach say it's a "major safety issue." BULL! These people are
>professional criminals and con-men/women! They both need to be removed from
>office - YESTERDAY!
>Permission to publish and re-send authorized.
>John R. Prukop, Executive Director
>CCW Coalition: Citizens For A Constitutional Washington
>11910-C Meridian Ave. E., #142
>Puyallup, Washington 98373
>PHONE: (253) 840-8071 
>FAX: (253) 840-8074 
>e-mail: ccw@frugal.com 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail