DRIVING V. TRAVELING
THIS PAGE WILL BE CENTRIC TO CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL LAWS, SPECIFICALLY. IF YOU ARE IN ANOTHER “STATE,” YOU MAY NEED TO DO A LITTLE DIGGING TO FIND SIMILAR INFORMATION IN YOUR “STATE.” If anyone would like to debate me on this subject, please message me to set up a time to do a show. This page will be what we will cover.
The beta (incomplete) version of this page was made live on 3/28/25. First full COMPLETED version WAS released on 4/7/25. Last updated on 4/9/25.
I. Introduction
Due to the tremendous amount of confusion and emotional discord involving this subject, this page is being made.
W&W does not specialize in the driving v. traveling argument but, due to the tremendous amount of noise and confusion surrounding this discussion, this page is being made to address these issues.
Within everything that we do in The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition and W&W, the area of which produces the most amount of issues and difficulties is this driving v. traveling conversation. Passports are completely under control, negotiable instruments are slowly starting to gain traction… but this driving v. traveling situation is still really bad and needs a comprehensive and precise addressing (complete with exact and specific solutions to the problems that are faced). That is the point of this page.
ONE OF THE CORE ISSUES IN THIS ARGUMENT IS THE SUBJECT OF TITLING, OF WHICH NO ONE IS SPEAKING ABOUT ONLINE.
You may use this page in your cases as the plaintiff or defendant (or any other application). This page is hereby entirely public domain and is being written IN ORDER TO BE PUT INTO USE. Please do not sell the information here, as some people have done (taking my free info and trying to sell it)… this info is made available and free in an effort to help put a stop to the tremendous amount of issues and problems associated with this argument. If just this one topic, alone, was put to rest, it would free up over 50% of the traffic in the courts and also reduce the overall tensions between the public and law enforcement by a dramatic amount.
This page is made in an attempt to bring clarity to a violent and completely out-of-control situation that appears to only be getting worse. We need to bring MASSIVE UNDERSTANDING to this area as rapidly as possible, before more serious violence erupts on the scene unnecessarily.
II. The Argument
The argument, in simple terms, consists of two various sides. Let’s explore both sides of this argument:
On the side of law enforcement and Federal/National/”State” government, the expression is that “registration, license and proof of insurance is required to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.” THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY CORRECT.
The rebuttal to that statement, within our own ranks, is “we aren’t driving commercially, we’re traveling non-commercially… which the US Supreme Court has already established that we have the right to do.” THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY CORRECT.
Conclusion: Both of the above statements are entirely correct and there has never been any discussion to fully establish and clarify this conversation in expansive detail. This page will seek to do so and to clarify and separate both sides of this argument (both of which are entirely correct). The purpose of this is to bring all sides of this “debate” into an agreement based off the actual facts of law.
III. Separation of Issues
So we have two different points, as mentioned above, and both are correct. How could this possibly be? Well, I assure you that we will break this down in a way to show that both of the above statements are entirely correct and you can choose which one you want to be in ENTIRELY VOLUNTARILY.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU ARE NOT CLEARLY IN ONLY ONE SIDE OF THIS EQUATION BUT YOU ARE ACTUALLY SET UP AS A COMMERCIAL DRIVER WHILE SIMULTANOUSLY EXERTING YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL NON-COMMERCIALLY
The main issue that is not being spoken about by EITHER SIDE of this discussion is the issue of titling and licensing. This is the main area that needs to be addressed prior to us getting into the “driving v. traveling” separation.
In order to fully understand both sides of this argument in relation to titling and licensing, we need to fully understand the government’s claim and, in order to do so, we must explore, in detail, the crux of their mentality… which is the Commerce Clause.
IV. Commerce Clause
THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION OF DRIVING V. TRAVELING REVOLVES COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY AROUND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS SITUATION ENTIRELY DEPENDS ON HOW WELL YOU KNOW THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.
So what is the Commerce Clause? It’s found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
The Congress shall have power … to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
The term “plenary power” is used to describe these areas, which is defined on Cornell as:
Complete power over a particular area with no limitations. This term is often used to describe the Commerce Power of Congress. Under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) Congress is granted full power over interstate commerce. The Court has found that states are not able to pass laws affecting interstate commerce without the permission of Congress.
So Congress, meaning the Federal or National government, has unrestrained power over ONLY 3 areas:
Commerce with foreign nations
Commerce among the several states
Commerce with Indian tribes
I RECOMMEND THAT YOU REPEAT THE ABOVE 3 POINTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL IT IS FULLY MEMORIZED BECAUSE IT IS THE CENTRAL POINT OF LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS IN OUR COUNTRY
V. Citizenship and the Relationship to the Commerce Clause
As I have covered in many various areas, there are two entirely separate types of citizenship; there is the state citizen and the Federal “US citizen.” This is made abundantly clear by the Honorable Justice Miller in Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873):
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
I’m not going to go into a massive breakdown on this, as I do that so often and in so many places, but a US citizen is a special type of citizenship that is someone who has subjected themself to the “citizenship of the United States” - Federal US citizenship class, as described above by Justice Miller. This means they are subjecting themselves to the District of Columbia, specifically (which can be seen in 4 USC 71 and UCC 9-307(h)).
The definition of a “US citizen,” according to Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873), and another case called Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1857), would be “released slaves of African descent or their descendants, who were released by the 13th Amendment and had no citizenship and then were given a special kind of citizenship via the 14th Amendment called the US citizen category.”
Here is a podcast that covers this entire breakdown in detail, because I don’t want this subject to become the basis of this entire page: https://youtu.be/RMAq8wwiJuk
I’m not going to go into terrific detail beyond this… basically a “state citizen” is in a state and a “US citizen” is in the District of Columbia. Let’s keep it simple here and leave it at that.
So by being a US citizen, you fall within #1 of the Commerce Clause points above… which is “commerce with foreign nations.” “United States,” which means the District of Columbia, is a “foreign nation” from California.
Type “is State of California within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the Federal government?” into Google and you will see the answer is “no.” Congress, meaning the District of Columbia, ONLY HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE 3 SECTORS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO THE 50 STATES OF THE UNION.
Let’s take a look at what the US Supreme Court has to say about this in the case Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1894):
This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any State of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
It’s very simple… California, or any other State of the Union, is an entirely different nation from “United States.” “United States” applies to the District of Columbia and, by stating you are a “US citizen,” yet you are “resident” in a State like California proves that you are operating commercially in a foreign nation. This is exactly how point #1 of the Commerce Clause becomes activated for 99.99% of Americans.
The word “resident” means “a temporary visitor whose actual citizenship lies someplace else and they intend to return to that area at some point in the future” (I’ll put a section below this section with the actual definitions). So a “resident” is a FOREIGNER. This is how the #1 point of the Commerce Clause activates! YOUR CITIZENSHIP IS WITH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS A US CITIZEN, BUT YOU’RE IN A FOREIGN NATION CALLED CALIFORNIA AND TRANSACTING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.
This is exactly why, if you look at voter registration for State of California, it says “A U.S. citizen and resident of California.” This means “someone who has subjected themselves to the District of Columbia, but is temporarily in California as a FOREIGNER.”
This is why we have the conversation presented before us of “commercial driving versus non-commercial traveling.” You MUST understand and memorize the Commerce Clause in order to understand this debate (it’s really not a debate… it’s simply just a confusion).
V-1. Definitions Proving “Resident” versus “Domicile”:
Definitions found under “resident” from Black’s Law 4th Edition:
As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.
"Residence" demands less intimate local ties than "domicile," but "domicile" allows absence for indefinite period if intent to return remains. Immigration Act 1917, § 3, 8 U.S.C.A. § 136 (e, p).
Definitions found under “domicile” from Black’s Law 4th Edition:
"Domicile" and "residence," however, are frequently distinguished, in that domicile is the home, the fixed place of habitation; while residence is a transient place of dwelling. Fisher v. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex., 116 F.2d 183, 186; Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483, 488; Hartzler v. Radeka, 265 Mich. 451, 251 N.W. 554.
A “US citizen” would be a foreigner in a state, as defined here in the term “foreign domicile” from Black’s 4th:
A domicile established by a citizen or subject of one sovereignty within the territory of another.
Here is the definition of “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in 8 USC 1101(a)(20):
The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.
Here is the definition of “immigration” from Black’s Law 4th:
The coming into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
Conclusion: a RESIDENT (US citizen) would fall within point #1 of the Commerce Clause, whereas a state citizen (DOMICILE) would not. A “resident” is an IMMIGRANT (meaning their citizenship lies ELSEWHERE).
VI. Driver’s license
The basic definition of a driver’s license, if I were to write one to bring clarity to the driving v. traveling argument, would be defined as: “the primary contract that establishes your activities as falling under one or more of the 3 points of the Commerce Clause. This is done by establishing that you are a US citizen or resident/foreigner of a State, which would be point #1 of the Commerce Clause, and/or that you are engaged in commercial activity in between State lines, which would be point #2 of the Commerce Clause.”
In order to understand the term “driver,” the first thing we need to do is look up the definition of “transportation”:
The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com'n v. Brimson, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 5 S.Ct. 826. 114 U.S. 196, 29 L.Ed. 158 [word “carrier” is underlined to show emphasis]
So now let’s look up the word “carrier” and break down the definitions found under this term:
Carriers are either common or private. Standard Oil Co. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 217 Wis. 563, 259 N.W. 598.
Common carriers are those that hold themselves out or undertake to carry persons or goods of all persons indifferently, or of all who choose to employ it, Merchants Parcel Delivery v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. 150 Pa.Super. 120, 28 A.2d 340, 344; Burnett v. Riter, Tex.Civ. App., 276 S.W. 347, 349; or those whose occupation or business is transportation of persons or things for hire or reward, In re Rodgers, Neb., 279 N.W. 800, 803, 804.
Common carriers of passengers are those that undertake to carry all persons indifferently who may apply for passage, so long as there is room, and there is no legal excuse for refusal. Lazor v. Banas, 114 Pa.Super. 425, 174 A. 817, 819; Anderson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 100 Misc. 411, 166 N.Y.S. 640, 642.
Private carriers are those who transport or undertake to transport in a particular instance for hire or reward. Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N.Y. 341; Columbus-Cincinnati Trucking Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 141 Ohio St. 228, 47 N.E.2d 623; 625. 626.
So now that we have covered that “transportation” involves only two types of “carriers,” let’s start to dig into the definitions we can find of “driver”:
As defined in 29 CFR 782.3: A “driver,” as defined for Motor Carrier Act jurisdiction (49 CFR parts 390-395; Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C.1; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1), is an individual who drives a motor vehicle in transportation which is, within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, in interstate or foreign commerce. (As to what is considered transportation in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act, see § 782.7). This definition does not require that the individual be engaged in such work at all times; it is recognized that even full-duty drivers devote some of their working time to activities other than such driving. “Drivers,” as thus officially defined, include, for example, such partial-duty drivers as the following, who drive in interstate or foreign commerce as part of a job in which they are required also to engage in other types of driving or nondriving work: Individuals whose driving duties are concerned with transportation some of which is in intrastate commerce and some of which is in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act; individuals who ride on motor vehicles engaged in transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and act as assistant or relief drivers of the vehicles in addition to helping with loading, unloading, and similar work; drivers of chartered buses or of farm trucks who have many duties unrelated to driving or safety of operation of their vehicles in interstate transportation on the highways; and so-called “driver-salesmen” who devote much of their time to selling goods rather than to activities affecting such safety of operation. (Levinson v. Spector Motor Service, 300 U.S. 649; Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422; Richardson v. James Gibbons Co., 132 F. (2d) 627 (C.A. 4), affirmed 319 U.S. 44; Gavril v. Kraft Cheese Co., 42 F. Supp. 702 (N.D. Ill.); Walling v. Craig, 53 F. Supp. 479 (D. Minn.); Vannoy v. Swift & Co. (Mo. S. Ct.), 201 S.W. (2d) 350; Ex parte No. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665; Ex parte No. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1; Ex parte Nos. MC-2 and MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125; Ex parte No. MC-4, 1 M.C.C. 1. Cf. Colbeck v. Dairyland Creamery Co. (S.D. Supp. Ct.), 17 N.W. (2d) 262, in which the court held that the exemption did not apply to a refrigeration mechanic by reason solely of the fact that he crossed State lines in a truck in which he transported himself to and from the various places at which he serviced equipment belonging to his employer.)
As defined in 49 CFR 390.5T: Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle. [the word “person” in that definition is defined in 49 CFR 130.5 and is defined as: Person means an individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body, as well as a department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government. This definition includes railroads.]
So, as you can see, a “driver” is someone either “doing business” in the State (which would be under the Commerce Clause #1), or someone involved in interstate commerce. Here are some definitions of “doing business” from Black’s Law 4th Edition proving that it is only involving foreign nations:
A foreign corporation is "doing business", making it amenable to process within state, if it does business therein in such a manner as to warrant the inference that it is present there. Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., D.C.N.C., 292 F. 169, 171. Or that it has subjected itself to the jurisdiction and laws in which the service is made. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 129 Minn. 104, 151 N.W. 917, 919, L.R.A.1916E, 232, Ann.Cas.1916E, 335
No general definition can be made of phrase "doing business" in statutes relating to foreign corporations. Each case must be determined on its own facts, by considering objective of statute in which phrase is found, its purpose and orientation to the carrying on of business, nature of activities, their magnitude, multiplicity of contracts, and possibility that incidents may occur and liabilities be created, especially where entrance into state is in ordinary prosecution of corporation's business. State Highway and Public Works Commission v. Diamond S. S. Transp. Corp., 225 N. C. 198, 34 S.E.2d 78, 80, 81.
Conclusion: “Doing business” would be defined as “a foreign business transacting commercially in the State,” then “doing business as” would be defined as “the trade name used for a foreign corporation commercially operating in the State.” A “driver” is one or more of the following:
A person “doing business” in this State using a motor vehicle, meaning their citizenship is not with this state but lies elsewhere
A person involved in interstate commerce, which would mean transporting persons or property for some kind of fee, rate charge or other consideration OVER STATE LINES
A person transporting persons or property for some kind of fee, rate, charge or other consideration to/from Indian lands
That’s it! Memorize the Commerce Clause!
VII. History of the Traffic Laws in California and the Shifting of the Definition of “chauffeur” to “driver”:
Let’s see some history straight from the California DMV website:
“In 1901, California laws authorized all cities and counties to give licenses for bicycles, tricycles, automobiles, horse carriages, and similar wheeled vehicles. By 1905, it became clear that California should issue a state-wide vehicle registration system, so the task was referred to the Secretary of State (SOS).
The SOS handled vehicle registrations from 1905 until 1915, at which time Senator E. Birdsall enacted the official Vehicle Act of 1915 and created an official DMV. By that year, vehicle registrations had climbed to 191,000 in the state of California alone.
In 1921, the powers and duties of DMV were transferred to the Division of Motor Vehicles, which was actually part of the Department of Finance. This move showed that the government was beginning to notice that DMV could produce revenue.
By 1931, DMV had become a standalone department.”
So, looking in the Vehicle Act of 1915 on the Internet Archive, we have these following quotes:
In the section entitled “Exempt from tax”: SEC. 2. All motor vehicles owned and use in the transaction of official business by the representatives of foreign powers or by officers, boards or departments of the government of the United States, and all motor vehicles owned by and used in the operative work of such corporations as are taxed solely for state purposes under the provisions of the constitution of this state and such self-propelling vehicles as are used neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure, or business, nor for the transportation of freight, are hereby exempted from the payment of the fees in this act prescribed. The department shall furnish, free of charge, distinguishing plates for motor vehicles thus exempt.
In the section entitled “Residents of other states”: SEC 10. The provisions of this act relative to registration and the display of registration numbers, shall not apply to a motor vehicle owned by a resident of another country or state who is only temporarily within the State of California, other than a foreign corporation doing business in California; provided, that the registration number plate of such other country or state shall be displayed on such motor vehicle substantially as provided in this act for motor vehicles registered pursuant to the provisions hereof.
In the section entitled “Chauffeur to be licensed”: SEC . 19. No person shall employ for hire as a chauffeur of a motor vehicle any person not licensed as in this act provided . No person shall allow a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control to be operated by any person who has no legal right to do so, or in violation of the provisions of this act. No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle shall allow such vehicle to stand in any public street or public highway unattended without first effectively setting the brakes thereon and stopping the motor of said vehicle.
Conclusion: So, as you can see, somewhere along the line… the word “chauffeur” was changed to “driver” but they mean the same thing. And, if we fast-forward to present time, you will see a lot of the same terminology in the California Vehicle Code.
VIII. The California Vehicle Code
Let’s start with some history of the Code from the California DMV website:
“The California Vehicle Act of 1914 created laws governing all things related to driving and vehicles. Year by year, new laws were created and existing laws were amended to manage the growing number of vehicles hitting California roads each year.
In 1923, the Act was amended to create the California Highway Patrol (CHP). It authorized the chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles to appoint state inspectors and traffic officers to enforce vehicle laws.
In 1935, the act was codified and officially became the CVC.
In 1959, the CVC was re-codified and re-enacted by legislation, and the CVC remains the same today.
While the CVC was originally a thin booklet of very few pages, it now fills over 1,000 pages and sets all the rules and regulations for licensing drivers and registering and selling vehicles. The CVC also establishes the rules of the road and states penalties for not obeying these laws.
The California legislation continues to amend and add new laws to the CVC every year.”
CVC Section 21052 defines how the traffic laws only apply to employees of the State: “The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.”
In California Vehicle Code 6700, we have exactly how nonresidents work (this would be people with license plates/identification from a nation such as Slowjamastan or The Amnesty Coalition):
The owner of any vehicle, other than a commercial vehicle, of a type subject to registration which is registered in a foreign jurisdiction may operate the vehicle in California until the owner accepts gainful employment in this state or establishes residency in this state, whichever occurs first, provided the vehicle displays valid license plates and has a valid registration issued to the owner, and the owner was a resident of that state at the time of issuance.
A nonresident owner of a vehicle may operate, or permit operation of, a vehicle in California without obtaining California registration if the vehicle is registered in the place of residence of the owner and displays valid license plates issued by that state. This exemption does not apply if the nonresident owner rents, leases, lends, or otherwise furnishes the vehicle to a California resident for regular use on California highways.
IX. Titles, Claims and the Basic Operation of Ownership
Subsection A: Manufacturer’s certificate of origin/manufacturer’s statement of origin
Let’s hear it straight from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA):
Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO) or Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO) refers to the original ownership document for a vehicle. The document contains a variety of security features and is provided by the new vehicle dealer and contains specific vehicle information such as the year, make, and VIN. Upon the retail sale of the vehicle, the document is surrendered for the issuance of a jurisdiction title.
On the California DMV website, at the California Vehicle Code 7.065, it is said:
Unless a new vehicle is sold by a licensed California dealer and an Application for Registration of New Vehicle (REG 397) is submitted, all applications for original registration and/or title of new vehicles and motorcycles must include a Manufacturer’s Certificate/Statement of Origin (MCO/MSO).
Who is the AAMVA? Their “about” page says:
“AAMVA is helmed by an International Board of Directors, which is comprised of representatives from the jurisdiction membership. Under the Board sit committees, which represent the disciplines for Driver, Law Enforcement, Vehicle, Identity Management, and MVA Operations and Customer Experience. Various subcommittees and working groups are convened by the committees to provide guidance, resources, and solutions on topics of interest to the membership. AAMVA's four regions have their own independent boards of directors that oversee their annual conferences and other activities within their respective regions.”
Then they define “jurisdiction membership” as: “AAMVA's jurisdiction members are comprised of the 50 U.S. states, District of Columbia, 5 U.S. territories, 10 Canadian provinces, and 3 Canadian territories and the agencies within those jurisdictions who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. AAMVA's members handle driver licensing, vehicle registration and titling, and roadway law enforcement.”
If I take the MCO/MSO for my 2023 Triumph Speed Triple 1200 RS, turn it around on the back and read what it says at the top, we have the following: “Each undersigned seller certifies to the best of his knowledge, information and belief under penalty of law that the vehicle is new and has not been registered in this or any state at the time of delivery and the vehicle is not subject to any security interests other than disclosed herein and warrant title to the vehicle. FOR VALUE RECEIVED I TRANSFER THE VEHICLE DESCRIBED ON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE TO:”
Conclusion: the original (and ACTUAL) title, WHICH HAS NO OTHER “SECURITY INTERESTS,” to an automobile is this MCO/MSO. In order to get a “jurisdiction title” under “State of California” they REQUIRE you to send in that ACTUAL title and then they give you a CERTIFICATE of title (“pink slip”).
Subsection B: Certificate of title and “jurisdiction title” - automobile versus motor vehicle
What is the definition of “certificate” from Black’s Law 4th Edition?
A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with.
So, in English, a “certificate of title” is essentially “proof that the title is someplace else.” It is essentially an “abstract” of the original title (MCO/MSO). It’s a document that REPRESENTS the actual title. A certificate of title shows that someone has “legal title” and another person has “equitable title.” We’ll cover what that means and will break down each definition.
So, like quoted above directly from the AAMVA website: “upon the retail sale of the vehicle, the document is surrendered for the issuance of a jurisdiction title.”
So, when you buy a new car and the dealership asks if you would like them to handle “title and registration” for you and you say yes, they send the original and actual title to the DMV to exchange it for the “jurisdiction title.”
If I type “what is a jurisdiction title?” into Google, it tells me: In the context of law and government, a "jurisdiction title" refers to the legal basis or authority upon which a court or governmental body can exercise its power and make decisions within a specific territory or over certain matters.
THIS PROCESS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IS WHAT CONVERTS A NON-COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE (TRAVELING) INTO A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE (DRIVING)
Let’s look at the definition of “automobile” from the California DMV website:
An “automobile” is a passenger vehicle that does not transport persons for hire. This includes station wagons, sedans, vans, and sport utility vehicles.
Ok, then right below that on the definitions page, we see the definition of “commercial vehicle” here:
A “commercial vehicle” is a vehicle which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property (for example, trucks and pickups).
Let’s also look at the definition of “motor vehicle” from 18 USC 31(a)(6):
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
Inside that same definition of “motor vehicle” above, we have a special definition for the phrase “used for commercial purposes” at 18 USC 31(a)(10):
The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
So we can see here that we have a CLEAR SEPARATION. We would “travel” in an “automobile,” whereas we would be “driving” a “motor vehicle.” We would “travel” if we were OUTSIDE of the Commerce Clause, whereas we would be “driving” if we were UNDER the Commerce Clause. It’s very simple!
How does the California Vehicle Code define these various terms? Let’s take a look:
Definition of “legal owner” from the California Vehicle Code section 370: A "legal owner" is a person holding a security interest in a vehicle which is subject to the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, or the lessor of a vehicle to the State or to any county, city, district, or political subdivision of the State, or to the United States, under a lease, lease-sale, or rental-purchase agreement which grants possession of the vehicle to the lessee for a period of 30 consecutive days or more.
Definition of “owner” from the California Vehicle Code section 460: An "owner" is a person having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal title of a vehicle whether or not such person lends, rents, or creates a security interest in the vehicle; the person entitled to the possession of a vehicle as the purchaser under a security agreement; or the State, or any county, city, district, or political subdivision of the State, or the United States, when entitled to the possession and use of a vehicle under a lease, lease-sale, or rental-purchase agreement for a period of 30 consecutive days or more.
Conclusion: by having a driver’s license, you have already established point #1 or #2 of the Commerce Clause applies to you. If you said you are a US citizen on your driver’s license when you are not actually a released slave of African descent (or a descendant of such) as described in Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873), then you are a felon who could go to prison up to 3 years for a violation of 18 USC 911. If you said you are a “resident” or “permanent resident” on your driver’s license to get it even though you are actually a state citizen of the state your are in (meaning you DOMICILE there), then you are a felon who could go to prison up to one year for perjury. The only way you can get a driver’s license is by saying you are either a US citizen or resident under penalty of perjury.
Then, entirely separately from that license, we are converting an automobile to a motor vehicle by titling it with the DMV and going to the DMV to move this abstract (and irrelevant) jurisdiction title from another person’s business name to your business name. THIS IS ALL THE STUFF THAT NEEDS TO BE SORTED OUT BEFORE GETTING INTO THE TRAVELING VERSUS DRIVING ARGUMENT.
Subsection C: Legal title, equitable title and types of ownership
In the last subsection, we can see that there is various types of ownership. Let’s explore that idea in more depth.
So let’s grab the definition of “legal owner” (which is under the definition of “owner” in Black’s 4th Edition):
One who is recognized and held responsible by the law as the owner of property. In a more particular sense, one in whom the legal title to real estate is vested, but who holds it in trust for the benefit of another, the latter being called the "equitable" owner.
Ok, now let’s look at the two definitions under “equitable owner” in that same section under “owner” in Black’s 4th Edition:
One who is recognized in equity as the owner of property, because the real and beneficial use and title belong to him, although the bare legal title is vested in another, e. g., a trustee for his benefit. One who has a present title in land which will ripen into legal ownership upon the performance of conditions subsequent. Hawkins v. Stiles, Tex.Civ.App., 158 S.W. 1011, 1021.
There may therefore be two "owners" in respect of the same property, one the nominal or legal owner, the other the beneficial or equitable owner. In re Fulham's Estate, 96 Vt. 308, 119 A. 433, 437.
Now, if we look at the abstract jurisdiction title called a certificate of title, we see that your name is listed as the “registered owner.” What does that mean? We can find that in Black’s Law as well in the 2nd Edition: Owner whose name is recorded in a security issuer’s registers as the security’s owner and is entitled to receive dividend or interest and principal payouts. Also called record holder.
So how does that above definition of “registered owner” plug into everything we have learned about the jurisdiction title and the Commerce Clause? Well, if I had to translate the above definition in plain English, it would be: the business name that is entitled to the profits associated with using the motor vehicle listed on this jurisdiction title as a common carrier or private carrier.
Conclusion: Given this definition, it makes perfect sense now what the certificate of title is: it’s a trust agreement where your name as a sole proprietorship has the beneficial/equitable usage rights to a car, which is the “res” of the trust, and all of this trust is administrated by the legal owner who is “State of California” (WHICH IS ALSO A PERSON, AS PER THE LEGAL DEFINITION!). AND THE CRAZIEST THING ABOUT ALL THIS IS YOU TRAVELED DOWN TO THE DMV, WAITED IN LINE AND PAID TO SET UP THIS TRUST… WHICH MAKES YOU THE EXECUTOR/GRANTOR OF THE TRUST! YOU ARE ACTUALLY THE ONE WHO SET THIS WHOLE THING UP!
X. Federal versus State Government
At this point in the conversation, we will have the haters or nay-sayers saying “ok sure, but even if you are right about all this, Brandon, your entire document or page here is only referring to Federal application. Congress only has exclusive territorial jurisdiction over Federal zones such as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. Then, when it comes to the States, they only have plenary power over activities that fall under the Commerce Clause. So the States themselves can have their own laws and all this Federal government stuff you are talking about is all irrelevant to that.”
Yes, that is true.
But we need to evaluate if “State of California” is really what people ASSume it is.
“State of California” is listed on Dun and Bradstreet as a business. “State of California” also has an EIN number, which can be found in the California Department of Human Resources in their Human Resources Manual section 2706, which says:
The Employer Name should reflect State of California and the Employer ID should reflect #94-6001347 for departments that process payroll under the State Controller’s Office or the applicable Federal Tax ID for departments that process their own payroll (or have a third-party payroll processor).
So, as you can see… “State of California” has an EIN number. The IRS defines an EIN as: An EIN is a federal tax ID number for businesses, tax-exempt organizations and other entities.
“STATE OF CALIFORNIA” IS JUST A BUSINESS. THIS IS PROVEN BY THEM HAVING AN EIN NUMBER. THE EIN NUMBER IS #94-6001347. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A BUSINESS NAMED “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” INSTANTLY PROVES THAT THEY ARE NOT REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL STATE AS A SOVERIGN ENTITY. THEY ARE ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC CORPORATION THAT IS A SUB-CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IT IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL JURSIDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OF CONGRESS. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” IS SIMPLY JUST A CORPORATION UNDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The definition of “public corporation” from Black’s 4th Edition is:
A public corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the administration of civil government.
The right of the Federal government to do this comes right out of the same case that I spoke about earlier in this article of Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1873):
That wherever a legislature has the right to accomplish a certain result, and that result is best attained by means of a corporation, it has the right to create such a corporation, and to endow it with the powers necessary to effect the desired and lawful purpose, seems hardly to admit of debate
Another piece of evidence, which is so obvious but, for some reason no one has ever had it fully click, is that YOU CAN BRING A CAUSE OF ACTION FROM A FEDERAL CODE IN “STATE” COURT. HOW COULD A “STATE” COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION? BECAUSE “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” IS A FEDERAL BUSINESS. CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE LEGALLY SEPARATED NATIONS!
Conclusion: “State of California,” as a business, is just a Federal public corporation that is used to manage Federal employees operating in the ACTUAL California, as well as to administer anything within the ACTUAL California which would FALL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. Sadly, when it comes to the ACTUAL government for the ACTUAL California… there simply isn’t one. It’s that simple. This is exactly why you don’t see the “state citizen” specification anywhere… there is no government to administer any services to us. But, frankly, we don’t really need “services.” Most “services” are really not… as I’m sure you’re well aware.
IF YOU HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, THIS IS WHO IS THE “LEGAL OWNER” OF YOUR VEHICLE WHILE YOUR SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP IS LISTED AS THE “REGISTERED OWNER,” WHICH MEANS IT IS THE “EQUITABLE OWNER.” “STATE OF CALIFORNIA” IS A PERSON!
XI. More information regarding registration, etc
CVC 4000, entitled “vehicles subject to registration” says, in subsection (h):
For purposes of this section, possession of a California driver’s license by the registered owner of a vehicle shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the owner is a resident of California.
It is important to reference that to the Federal Rule of Evidence #301 involving civil litigation:
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.
So what is the mechanics of a “traffic citation”? Well, it’s quite simple. A citation is just a micro civil lawsuit written up by the person named “State of California” and “served” on you on the spot by the officer. THE OFFICER IS THE PROCESS SERVER. The copy that the officer takes with him is simply “evidence of service of process that the defendant has been served.” It’s literally just a normal civil suit.
By having a driver’s license, there is a “rebuttable presumption” that you are a RESIDENT (immigrant/foreigner) of California. How can you “rebut” that presumption? Well, you are now saddled with having to PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT WITH EVIDENCE. If you never had a driver’s license to begin with… you wouldn’t need to prove this. How do you prove you AREN’T something? Good luck. As far as I’m concerned, you were a felon for even having the driver’s license in the first place so I don’t particularly have pity for anyone who is aware of this information but still insist on keeping the license. I’m not friends with criminals. If you are just now becoming aware of this information, I recommend you handle the possible felony you are currently involved in as rapidly as humanly possible. If you do not, then don’t come crying to me when something bad happens because I will have no sympathy for criminal activity.
XII. Conclusion, final thoughts and solutions for people with difficulties with law enforcement not following the law
If you are having troubles, the very first and most important things you need to work out are the following:
Your own citizenship and resident/domicile status. This would include eliminating or clarifying anyplace that you unknowingly signed anything under penalty of perjury that you are a US citizen or “resident” of a State. By saying so makes you an immigrant and, as an immigrant, you do not have access to things like the California Constitution.
Your driver’s license: most likely get rid of it… TODAY. If you are domiciled in your State, you only need a driver’s license if you are TRANSPORTING PERSONS OR PROPERTY FOR SOME KIND OF FEE, RATE, CHARGE OR OTHER CONSIDERATION, BETWEEN STATES. A truck driver would most likely need this. If you drive for Uber or something and live close to State lines to another State, I would recommend you move… not recommend that you get a driver’s license.
Your certificate of title needs to get sorted out, which means you need to decide if you are going to start sending all the bills for your car to the State or you are going to eliminate their security interest. If you want to let them continue to be the legal owner while your sole prop is the beneficial owner, THEN THE STATE SHOULD BE PAYING ALL THE UPKEEP AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT VEHICLE AND SHOULD BE TREATING YOU AS THE BENEFICIARY (BECAUSE YOU ARE). This would include you sending them the bills associated with oil changes, new tires, gasoline, etc… then you suing them aggressively if they refuse to settle those bills.
What you have not understood about this situation is that all the above selections and ideas are all YOURS TO WILLINGLY CHOOSE THE BEST AVENUE FOR YOU IN YOUR LIFE. You may currently have a driver’s license and a certificate of title yet you are trying to stand on your “right to travel” - THIS IS MADNESS. You have the right to choose your right to travel and to actually own your automobile, but it must be done properly and in the eyes of the law. The processes exist for you to WILLINGLY CHOOSE the way you way to contract in every single area of your life. The decision of driving versus traveling is no different, but you need to actually learn the way to properly set all this up and contract accordingly.
In my opinion, the best way to handle the license and titling is to simply go in and surrender/destroy your license at the DMV and get evidence that you did so. When I did mine, I was in and out of the DMV in a matter of maybe 15 minutes. They had me fill out a little form as to why I am turning it in and I wrote “neither the principal nor the agent are residents of any of the 50 States of the Union, the District of Columbia or any U.S. territories.”
Then, when it comes to the MCO/certificate of title… I simply mailed in my certificate of title to be destroyed. I had a cover letter explaining how all security interest is hereby removed and that the dominion and absolute and unqualified ownership (both legal and equitable) is all being transferred into a private trust. You could also print up a new MCO yourself and go file it with the County Recorder or something. www.mcostore.com has blank MCOs and a template to print them using your printer. From the research I have done, doing any modifications to the automobile makes you the “manufacturer.” So, ideally, just do some slight modification and then create a new MCO/MSO. You can even let the State know that you are doing that when you send back the certificate of the title for destruction.
Another avenue of titling that I know that is VERY effective is to label the vehicle a total loss and have it registered as “salvaged.” You can do this through, what looks like, a REG 488C form in California. I don’t know a ton about this but I know that this is a valid way to remove the vehicle from the DMV computers because a salvaged vehicle has to go through a whole process to be re-registered.
For those of you that have had your rights trampled on and you believe that you have a good civil case as the plaintiff (or you are having to now defend criminal charges as the defendant), my recommendation is that you look into joining a group called Operation Wisedome with Cameron James Wilson.
Cameron’s Instagram profile can be found at @tlatoani.machi. Please look over his various videos and see what he is doing and presenting.
I have been invited to 2 or 3 meetings with Wisedome and I am quite literally blown away by how active, serious and cohesive this group is. THIS IS A GROUP THAT IS ENTIRELY LITIGATION AND ACTION-CENTRIC. If you are looking to take affirmative action and you would like a supportive, enthusiastic and strong group… I cannot recommend Operation Wisedome more than I do.
In full disclosure, there is a monthly fee to be a part of the group of around $72. So I recommend that you take a serious look at Cameron’s Instagram and maybe other material he has put together, then make a determination for yourself if you are ready to pay the monthly fee to become a member and truly buckle down to take massive action and be a part of a group that is absolutely putting their foot down when it comes to the right to travel outside of the provisions of the Commerce Clause.
The website for Operation Wisedome is https://www.piitp.com/o1wisedome. And, again, I want to be abundantly clear here as to not cause a bunch of hooligans to enter into their group and sully how much fun they are having: IF YOU ARE NOT READY TO TAKE MASSIVE ACTION AND REALLY BUCKLE DOWN AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, VIA LITIGATION OR ANY OTHER MEANS, TO FULLY RETAIN AND EXCERCISE YOUR RIGHTS AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS… UNDER ANY AND ALL DIFFICULTIES THAT YOU MAY ENCOUNTER… DO NOT BOTHER TO JOIN THIS GROUP. THIS WILL NOT BE A GOOD MATCH AND YOUR UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES TO PAY WILL HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY WASTED BY PAYING THE MONTHLY FEE TO JOIN.
Bonus Section: The Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program
I’m not entirely sure exactly what State registration is, but the closest thing I have ever found that seems to function, essentially, exactly the same as what police do now regarding a traffic spot is the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program.
34 U.S. Code 12611 covers what the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program actually is. Let’s break it down by section:
First and foremost we see how the program works when someone “may voluntarily sign a consent form with a participating State.” There is technically no one forcing us to go into the DMV and buy registration so, as far as the State operates, it is considered “voluntary.”
“Persons” involved in the program agree to: “display program decals or devices on the owner’s vehicle” - this would be the colored sticker that you put on your license plate.
By being a part of the program, you “permit law enforcement officials in any State to stop the motor vehicle and take reasonable steps to determine whether the vehicle is being operated by or with the permission of the owner, if the vehicle is being operated under the specified conditions” - which is exactly what officers do when they pull you over. They determine the “RO” (meaning registered owner) and if you, as the “driver” are permitted to be operating that motor vehicle at that time.
It says the decal must “be highly visible” and must “explicitly state that the motor vehicle to which it is affixed may be stopped under the specified conditions without additional grounds for establishing a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is being operated unlawfully.”
While the little sticker does not explicitly say that, that’s essentially what happens. People are pulled over all the time without the need to have reasonable suspicion.
It says that the voluntary consent form must contain the following:
clearly state that participation in the program is voluntary;
clearly explain that participation in the program means that, if the participating vehicle is being operated under the specified conditions, law enforcement officials may stop the vehicle and take reasonable steps to determine whether it is being operated by or with the consent of the owner, even if the law enforcement officials have no other basis for believing that the vehicle is being operated unlawfully;
include an express statement that the vehicle is not normally operated under the specified conditions and that the operation of the vehicle under those conditions would provide sufficient grounds for a prudent law enforcement officer to reasonably believe that the vehicle was not being operated by or with the consent of the owner
Obviously, when you sign the little digitial pad to get your driver’s license, none of this is shown or told to you. In fact, I have dug around trying to find the contract for registration or a driver’s license and have not been successful.
Think about this… if a license or registration really wasn’t voluntary, then why aren’t they forcibly and automatically issued by the State? Why isn’t there one automatically sent in the mail every 5 years when it’s time to renew? Well, it’s because it is voluntary. Anything you need to drive someplace and pay to get is ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
28 CFR § 29.10 - which is entitled “Owner withdrawal from the program” clearly explains how to exit the program… which is this simple:
An owner may withdraw from the program at any time by completely removing the program decal and changing the license plate if necessary. The owner is also encouraged to notify the participating agency in writing of such withdrawal.
We have the evidence that the “International Registration Plan” is commercial, which is covered in 49 USC 31704, which says:
After September 30, 1996, a State that is not participating in the International Registration Plan may not establish, maintain, or enforce a commercial motor vehicle registration law, regulation, or agreement that limits the operation in that State of a commercial motor vehicle that is not registered under the laws of the State, if the vehicle is registered under the laws of a State participating in the Plan.
And the above section defines “International Registration Plan” in 49 USC 31701(4), which is: “International Registration Plan” means the interstate agreement on apportioning vehicle registration fees paid by motor carriers, developed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
“Vehicle registration” is, straight up, defined in 49 USC 14504a(a)(10) as:
The term “vehicle registration” means the registration of any commercial motor vehicle under the International Registration Plan (as defined in section 31701) or any other registration law or regulation of a jurisdiction.
Is registration the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program? I’m honestly not entirely sure but a majority of the program sure does look like what is actually going on in the world. If it is then it not being openly voluntary makes it entirely defunct. You be the judge!