Should I get an NH Driver's License?

[penguins4me]

dog, I do think that current-day drivers' licenses is a fairly trivial thing when compared to other issues... but where is the line in the sand? The DL I was issued has nothing more than my name, picture, address, and a seemingly random number on it, none of which I am particularly ashamed of and freely give out to others, mostly businessfolk.

Then there's RealID - a federal database brimming with all sorts of cruft, to include crap such as Social Security "Account" numbers and perhaps other things... and it's supposed to be required for travel! The line in the sand is closer to be sure, but has it been crossed?

Then there's the basic matter of claiming our God-given, inherent rights, but oops! That doesn't work so well - just ask Wayne Fincher and friends.

Shouldn't we be able to depart from the system before we have to fertilize the liberty tree? Perhaps protesting driver's licenses isn't such a foolish thing - especially if other sympathetic folks hear about people imprisoned for harming no one!

I'm not saying that such protests are best. Hell, I wish the enemy would make an open declaration of war so we could get this crap over with instead of having it remain hanging over our heads - but it seems that they're still too canny to make such a foolish move yet.

[Quantrill]

I think it's crazy that the cop knew Lauren by name, where she was going etc... 

If these guys are going to read NHFREE, why don't they jump in the conversations?  Personally I'd rather have the cops on our side/understand where they're coming from.  I agree that guy was very cool about giving her the ticket.  I've seen many cops show a *tad less class...





*by "tad" I mean a crapload.

[dalebert]

Here's what happened when I got pulled over with no license or registration.

What's been up with Lauren. I haven't seen any posts lately. Am I just missing them or has she been arrested finally? I hope not.

[Tom Sawyer]

Here's what happened when I got pulled over with no license or registration.

What's been up with Lauren. I haven't seen any posts lately. Am I just missing them or has she been arrested finally? I hope not.

Lauren is alive and well we saw her tonight. 

[JohninRI]

My son is 26 years old and when he turned 21 he filed a Rescission and Revocation with the Rhode Island Secretary of State of all the contracts which we as his parents may have entered him into prior to his reaching the age of majority.  Mind you that there were none.  But since that time he has never entered into a contract with any government entity.  To make a long story short, he was stopped a second time for driving without a license and is now going to the Rhode Island Supreme Court and soon to the Federal Court of Appeals and hopefully to the United States Supreme Court.  Below is his preliminary brief filed by his Lawyer, Robert Healey Jr., one of the coolest people I know.

This is a very complicated issue and if successful will mean that the United States of America and every other government entity will have to adopt two separate rules of law, one for the 14th Amendment "citizens of the United States" which reside in every one of the 50 united States of America, and another for sovereign state Citizens in full possession of all their constitutionally guaranteed Rights.

My sons lawyer is very excited because not many people in this country have my son's pure status.  For this case to fail, the United States Supreme Court will have to declare the Constitution for the United States of America dead.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND            SUPREME COURT
PROVIDENCE, Sc.


STATE

   V.                     C.A.#: SU-07-0135

Grant Garvin

         RULE 12 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
         ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE COURT

ISSUE 1:
Does  the United States Constitution mandate a person waive his or her constitutionally guaranteed rights retained under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in order to receive a governmental privilege through its Fourteenth Amendment?

ISSUE 2:
If a State Citizen of Rhode Island fails to either actually or indirectly ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, does any Fourteenth Amendment analysis apply to that Citizen given the Citizen's Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights?


         STATEMENT OF THE CASE
   This case presents a rare if not unique issue to the Court for analysis.  It questions both the application of Constitutional rights and the application of Fourteenth Amendment judicial analysis.  While it may appear as though it is a Rube Goldberg construct, the Court need remember that Goldberg creations, while often difficult to follow, were functional and reached the objective, albeit indirectly.
   The Defendant, Grant Garvin, was charged with the operation of a motor vehicle in East Providence, Rhode Island, not having first obtained a drivers license.  The Defendant does not deny driving on the highway; however, the Defendant claims that the jurisdiction over his right to personal travel is beyond the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction of the court.
   Although the current court rules have abolished "special appearances" to challenge jurisdiction, the Defendant clearly indicated to the Court that it was his intent to present himself by way of "special appearance" to contest jurisdiction.  The trial judge, with the strong arm of a potential contempt citation and an indication that the current court rules were clearly to apply thus preserving his "special appearance" status, held a trial.
   At trial the Defendant offered no defense other than to argue that the law is inapplicable in that a Ninth and Tenth Amendment Citizen is not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment unless he or she waives into it.  The Defendant asserts that he has not.
   The Defendant reasons as follows.  He is a natural born state Citizen in the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  He has never made any direct or indirect manifestation that he has waived his Ninth or Tenth Amendment rights retained by him.  Having his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights in tact, for the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to him, he would either 1) personally ratify the Amendment, thereby waiving his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's protections or 2) tacitly approve of it through actions that would be consistent with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   The Defendant has done neither.  In fact, within 3 days of  his 18th birthday, he filed with the Secretary of State of Rhode Island a document, A Notice of Declaration and Reservation of Rights (Defendant's Exhibit D at the Superior Court trial) clarifying his relationship to the State and Federal governments.  As this court and others have  frequently held, contracts entered into by or on behalf of a minor are void-able when timely done after attaining the age of majority.  That document filed with the Secretary of State of Rhode Island is a complete rescinding of any actions (although none had been taken) that may have been conceived of as a contract with the United States government which would have shown a tacit ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Not having made any contract with the government of the United States, either to acquire a Social Security number, to initiate a tax compact between him and the United States government, or to seek any other federal benefit or privilege, the Defendant has not had any contractual dealings with the United States government which could be construed under law to have rendered him to have "tacitly" ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.  As the record shows, his behavior, in filing a declaration with the Rhode Island Secretary of State, indicates a clear intent to retain his Ninth and Tenth Amendment status.
   It has been clear that the Rhode Island courts and the State of Rhode Island consider driving to be a "privilege" which is executed and interpreted through the Fourteenth Amendment for most of its residents.  But how can a Fourteenth Amendment "privilege" stop a person fully endowed with his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's constitutionally guaranteed right to travel?
   If, in fact, one does not waive his innate rights under the United States Constitution, then how can the State wrest away such rights to afford a "privilege"?  Since a person's right to travel is a constitutional guarantee, it can only be regulated by the state under a privilege system via the Fourteenth Amendment or by the common law standard of least restrictive application.
   Rhode Island, as a State in the Union, has a different standing in relation to the federal government than an individual Citizen of the State of Rhode Island.  The Tenth Amendment clearly provides that powers not granted the federal government, nor retained by the states, remain in the people.  The Ninth Amendment states that constitutionally enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.    At the time of the signing of the Constitution and approval of the Bill of Rights, an individual was endowed with a right to travel the highways of the nation, unhampered lest the travel was for commercial gain.
   Whether or not Rhode Island has adopted the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion.  While a State can waive its rights and subject itself to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot do so on behalf of its Citizens where the Citizens have vested constitutionally guaranteed rights.  If that were so a State could waive the Bill of Rights whenever it is "inconvenient" for some State action.   Unlike an individual who has not ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, the State is bound by Fourteenth Amendment constitutional analysis, quite obviously, having waived its the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments constitutional protections.  The Defendant here has done no such thing.
   
Most Citizens of Rhode Island would be similarly situated as the Defendant is; however, most Citizens personally contract with the federal government to obtain a social security number and thereby tacitly ratify the federal government's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Most fail to rescind and void contracts at age of majority, and so that contractual relationship, most likely formed for parents to obtain a tax bonus when the Citizen was an un-emancipated minor child, is a binding legal obligation on the newly minted adult who has failed to void such contracts.  In this case, the Defendant never had a Social Security contract with the federal government.
   If the Defendant has retained and duly exercised his Ninth and Tenth Amendment's rights, then the Defendant cannot be held to the legal obligations of the Fourteenth Amendment in that they cannot be applied to him. 

   Since Rhode Island holds driving a "privilege", using a Fourteenth Amendment analysis, how does this impact on the Defendant who is under a constitutionally based right to travel? 

   Thus, the issue before the Court is:  Can the Rhode Island "privilege" to drive be conditioned on a Citizen's waiver of his or her existing constitutional rights? 
   In order for a Rhode Island Citizen to receive a license to operate, he or she must list a Social Security number.  In order to obtain a Social Security number, one must contract with the United States government, and, in doing so, tacitly waive any Ninth and Tenth Amendment's retention of rights the Defendant may have vis-à-vis the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Must one relinquish to the State a duly retained right in order to obtain a privilege when the person has a constitutional right to act as such without the privilege? 
   If rights retained by the people under the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments are true and valid, then they cannot be deemed waived without consent, either direct  or tacit. 
   Therefore, with his full panoply of constitutionally guaranteed rights in tact, including his un-enumerated Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights which would allow for the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, the Defendant respectfully submits that the courts have no jurisdiction over him as to matters that are based on a Fourteenth Amendment privilege to operate a vehicle and travel on the highways, that is, as long as the Citizen is not driving on the highway for commercial gain.   Any state action to otherwise limit this Defendant's right to travel requires analysis under common law and not the Fourteenth Amendment analysis typically afforded such matters.
   In so concluding, the Defendant could not obtain a Rhode Island Operator's license without a Social Security number.  To obtain a Social Security number, the Defendant would be coerced by the State to waive rights retained by him under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Thus, the Defendant cannot be held to have violated a "privilege" that he has neither sought nor acknowledged as valid.  Without the Fourteenth Amendment attaching to this Defendant, the court is without jurisdiction.

   To aid in this analysis, the Defendant adds two pages: Addendum A and Addendum B.

               Respectfully submitted,



               _______________________________
               Robert J. Healey, Jr. – RI BAR # 3065
               665 Metacom Avenue
               Warren, RI  02885-2346
               (401) 245-0306
               (401) 247-1908 (fax)
               roberthealey@msn.com






         CERITIFICATION OF MAILING

I, the undersigned, mailed a true copy of the above to THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, 150 Benefit Street, Providence, RI 02903 on this the 21st day of May, 2007, by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid.


                  
                  _______________________________



Addendum B

RELEVANT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.

[Tom Sawyer]

Interesting...
I look forward to seeing how it goes, good luck. 

[Spencer]

It looks like the guy's lawyer (Robert Healey, Jr.) has a pretty good sense of humor and a decent brain for politics.

I found the following on his blog re: his campaign to be Lt. Governor of R.I. in 2006:

HEALEY ANNOUNCES FOR LT. GOVERNOR OF RHODE ISLAND

Sitting on a sandy beach in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Robert J. Healey, Jr. announced that he will make a second run for Lieutenant Governor of the State of Rhode Island.

"Today, I announce my less than ambitious plan for running for the office of Lieutenant Governor. I have chosen this location because I think that it demonstrates that no matter where you are in the world, and no matter what you are doing, you can also be serving as Rhode Island's Lieutenant Governor at the same time.

"Waiting for the demise of the Governor can be accomplished just about anywhere, any time, and by just about anyone with a pulse. I probably would do it here on the beach.

"I have no plans for the office of Lt. Governor, and, in fact, will not maintain a staff nor take a pay for my service. I could not justify such a boondoggle being hoisted upon the hard working taxpayers of Rhode Island. If I wish to advance my political career, I will do it without using a taxpayer subsidized soapbox.

http://votehealey.blogspot.com/

[Russell Kanning]

Watching Lauren's video confirms what I've also experienced: New Hampshire cops tend to be pretty cool about things. They have a job to do,

the "job to do" part is the main problem

[Russell Kanning]

dog, I do think that current-day drivers' licenses is a fairly trivial thing when compared to other issues... but where is the line in the sand?

it could be trivial, but try telling that to the cops .... they will trow in jail

[penguins4me]

dog, I do think that current-day drivers' licenses is a fairly trivial thing when compared to other issues... but where is the line in the sand?

it could be trivial, but try telling that to the cops .... they will trow in jail

Exactly my point. Most normal people I know consider a driver's license a trivial thing (even "worse", most take it completely for granted [as they should, ironically enough, for the freedom to travel]) - so WHY IMPRISON SOMEONE OVER A TRIVIAL NON-CRIME? :P

Gets my dander up every time.

[dalebert]

Exactly my point. Most normal people I know consider a driver's license a trivial thing (even "worse", most take it completely for granted [as they should, ironically enough, for the freedom to travel]) - so WHY IMPRISON SOMEONE OVER A TRIVIAL NON-CRIME?

It's the nature of government. Their authority has to be seen as absolute. It's just an illusion backed up with threat of force, afterall. If they don't enforce even the little things with an iron hand, then people will start ignoring the little things and their illusion of legitimacy will start to crumble.

[Tom Sawyer]

dog, I do think that current-day drivers' licenses is a fairly trivial thing when compared to other issues... but where is the line in the sand?

it could be trivial, but try telling that to the cops .... they will trow in jail

That Russell...
He'd complain if they transported him in a shiny new cattle car.

[error]

Watching Lauren's video confirms what I've also experienced: New Hampshire cops tend to be pretty cool about things. They have a job to do,

the "job to do" part is the main problem

Tyranny: It's not just a job, it's an adventure.

[JellyFish]

My license is good until 2010.  What does everyone think?  I guess when it's time to register my car I'll need to get an NH DL?  From one of the previous threads, it sounds like Rochelle had some problems with the DMV.  Would I be able to get a P.O. box with my Missouri ID? 

You need a driver's license to buy guns and ammo in NH. So I say, get one.

[Quantrill]

I haven't needed the license to buy ammo yet.  Noone has asked for any ID for that.

As for guns, I'd prefer private transactions.  I'm currently looking for a .40 Glock or Springfield XD if anyone is trying to get rid of one.

Maybe I should post that on the Trading Post...