The Fallacies Embedded in RV Bey Publications ‘Right to Travel’ Card
First, no Right is absolute and unqualified. For example, one of our most sacred Rights, ‘Freedom of Speech’, which is fervently protected by the courts of this nation, does not encompass libel, perjury, fraud, incitement to riot, nor shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. The right is limited. Limitations and restrictions are applicable to all Rights including ‘The Right to Travel’ and numerous court decisions explicitly recognize those limitations.
Many who have bought into the Sov Cits misinterpretation of what the ‘Right to Travel’ encompasses will reject said court decisions and offer their own rulings instead. Nevertheless, the cases they offer don’t hold up and when carefully examined, they actually often say the exact opposite of what the Sov Cits and their unfortunate Muurish or Moorish followers are suggesting.
In a 1979 case (not related to Drivers Licenses), a California appellate court correctly stated pertaining to the issue of the Right of free movement… “Like all constitutional rights the right of free movement is not absolute and may be reasonably restricted in the public interest.” 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
Second, requiring a Driver License does not deprive anyone of the right to travel. One is free to walk, ride a bicycle, take a bus, train, or plane, ride in a car driven by someone else or you can just get a license and drive a car. There is no right to “travel by the most convenient means,” nor to travel by “any means I want” and definitely not “unrestricted in any manner.” You cannot trespass to travel. You cannot drive a car without a license. For that matter you cannot fly your personal 747 without a license. Of course we can travel without a license. We do that when we take the bus, or an airplane, or walk, or ride a bike. The license is not for traveling it’s for operating a vehicle, a dangerous one.
The SCOTUS has held that “The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.” Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941).
Burdens on one method of travel or another do not interfere with the right to travel. Driver licenses are perfectly legal because:
(1) Licenses are a proper use of police power, and actually protect the right to travel;
(2) Licensing laws have a valid public safety interest at their core;
(3) They don’t intend to, nor do they actually, stop people from traveling;
(4) Travel is a protected right; driving is not a right.
(5) The license is a license to operate a dangerous machine, not to travel.
In the above ‘Right to Travel’ card currently being sold for $50 on RV Bey Publication’s website; they allegedly quote 4 court cases all of which, no doubt, are being misquoted and out of proper context. The first is the 1943 SCOTUS case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 where the case is allegedly quoted by stating… “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it”.
Needless to say, this alleged quote appears nowhere in the text of this case. Nevertheless, this case had absolutely nothing to do with Drivers Licenses or the Right to Travel. It was a case pertaining to the Religious Rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses to distribute their religious literature without it being considered commercial activity under a municipal ordinance of the City of Jeannette Pennsylvania and being charged a license tax on account of it. Here’s a link to the actual case, read it for yourselves… Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Next is the 1975 California Appellate case of People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 2. The alleged quote is “Traffic infractions are not a crime”. Although it is true that infractions are not crimes, however the court in People v. Battle never claimed they weren’t arrestable and prosecutable offences that carry penalties. Traffic infractions are still arrestable offenses, certainly in California which can lead to more consequences if it results in a search incident to the arrest that ends up uncovering something that actually IS considered criminal and this has happened on numerous occasions. In the 2002 California Supreme Court case of People v. McKay, the courts position was that so long as an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed an infraction, the officer has the authority to arrest that individual. They stated… “We conclude, in accordance with United States Supreme Court precedent, that custodial arrests for fine-only offenses do not violate the Fourth Amendment and that compliance with state arrest procedures is not a component of the federal constitutional inquiry. We also conclude, in the alternative, that the arrest here complied with section 40302(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal [27 Cal. 4th 606]”
I personally agree with the dissenting portion of the opinion of Justice Brown. Further, the points he made underscores the importance of civic engagement by the citizens to ensure that the legislature establishes proper guidelines to govern law enforcement whereby the Police aren’t allowed unnecessary discretion which often causes so called minorities to be susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In the courts conclusion it states… “The rule of law implies justice and equality in its application.” (Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972) 405 U.S. 156, 171.) If we are committed to a rule of law that applies equally to “minorities as well as majorities, to the poor as well as the rich,” we cannot countenance standards that permit and encourage discriminatory enforcement. (Ibid.)”
The next case that is erroneously used is the 1971 California Court of Appeals case of People v. Farley, 20 Cal. App. 3d 1032. However, the citation is sometimes given by the Sov Cits as Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. Rep. 89, 20 CA 3d, 1032 and sometimes as California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971). The alleged quote from this case is “Speeding, driving without a license, wrong plates or no plates, no registration, no tags, etc., have been held to be non-arrestable offenses.” Once again, the problem with this alleged quote is that it can be found nowhere in the actual text of the case. This case pertained to a woman who, completely contrary to the bogus quote, was in fact “arrested for driving without a driver’s license in her possession (§ 12951, Veh. Code), speeding (§ 22350), faulty brake lights and having a license plate on the Volkswagen that belonged to another vehicle (§ 4462), all minor traffic violations; also, the Volkswagen had no front license plate (§ 5200). Incident to her arrest, her car was searched and drugs were found. She was subsequently charged with possession for sale of a restricted dangerous drug (Health & Saf. Code, § 11911).”
The court in this case determined that “the officer could not arrest defendant under Penal Code section 833 et seq. for the foregoing Vehicle Code infractions (People v. Wohlleben, 261 Cal. App. 2d 461, 463 [67 Cal.Rptr. 826]) and they alone would not justify a search of the interior of defendant’s vehicle, the record otherwise supports probable cause for defendant’s arrest and the seizure of the paper bag from the front seat of the vehicle.”
Penal Code 833 et seq. is a section of the Penal Code (Not the Vehicle Code), that speaks to custodial arrests being made by an officer based on reasonable cause to believe that the person possesses a dangerous weapon. So no, in an ordinary traffic stop, there may be no reasonable cause in the initial instance to arrest someone based on this Code and Officer Sisak in this case expressed no cause. However, there was in fact cause for arrest based on violations of several sections of the Vehicle Code and ultimately, his belief that the Vehicle was stolen due to the circumstances. The court went on to state that “…the validity of her arrest was not affected by the fact that Officer Sisak told her he was arresting her for the minor traffic violations and, in fact, did so.” And in conclusion, the courts stated, “We conclude that the officers had ample probable cause to arrest defendant (§ 836, subd. 3, Pen. Code) for a violation of section 10851, Vehicle Code”.
So NO, this case does NOT in any way support the bogus claim that “Speeding, driving without a license, wrong plates or no plates, no registration, no tags, etc., have been held to be non-arrestable offenses.” Anyone that even thinks these things should be non-arrestable offenses are merely criminal minded irresponsible scofflaws themselves. Keep in mind, we just went through the California Supreme Court case of People v. Mckay that supports Officers arresting people for Motor Vehicle infractions.
Finally, the alleged quote from State v. Armstead 60’s. 778 779 and 781. This bogus quote can be found all over the internet as “The Right to Travel, the right to mode of conveyance, the right of locomotion, are all absolute rights and the police cannot make void the exercise of rights.”
We KNOW that this is completely bogus and doesn’t even deserve any real attention because for one, there is no court that will determine that any Right is absolute and by enforcing the Motor Vehicle Laws of the State, the Police are NOT making void the exercise of any True Rights. If anyone believes that there is an actual case called “State v. Armstead” that specifically has the above quote in the text of the case, I challenge and welcome you to produce said case and highlight in the case text where the court speaks to these alleged Absolute Rights. Otherwise, it’s time to let go of all of the Sovereign Citizen Pseudo Legal Mumbo Jumbo because NONE of it is a grant of immunity from arrest, prosecution, conviction and incarceration. NONE of it changes the Sovereign Autonomous nature of the States or the United States and NONE of it does anything to change the unfair practices of some police officers or the unfair laws and practices of many racially biased people within the judicial system. IMO, it’s long past time to get real because this misuse of inapplicable or outright bogus case law is just not real.
Peace, C. Harrison Bey aka Ali Bey