Redneck Rydes wrote:

---

I think a 45 day permit is $20, just bought a 1985 Chev C10 paid 8% sales tax,no appraisell, Just put on a 2002 PT cruiser on road,paid 1000 for it, plates and tax on the road,$124. No safety, No E test,just buy a car wash it put gas in it,and away you go,no problems with even putting a different engine in anything,No Cats required either, also a new drivers licence $40 for ten years, I can hardly wait till I get home,I have to get My Ontario licence renewed, and put sticker on My Dually, Ouch. Also a sticker down here for a vehicle is $40 a year.

-- Edited by Redneck Rydes on Wednesday 22nd of March 2017 08:59:53 AM

---

 Thank you...Gotta laugh real hard at the statement above :There is no scam and o now, this law has been in effect for 25 years.

Statue an acts are not laws! They are a Legislative rule which require "CONSENT" of all parties of said contact!<however did you notice the said ontario license is signed inside a box?

Said signature is not part an parcel of anything outside the box..[they do such to relieve themselves of liability,While trying to put it all on you]

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu3rsha1ZtI

In 2009 when we were in Florida A paper temp tag as they are refered too cost $4.00 dollars!!! For 30 days.

No cert required as par your statement above put fuel in an go..[An your welcomed in to Canada an can continue to drive such on Ontario roads without a cert for 30 days hmmm lol]. You are also offered a choice to fully plate such conveyance with a proper Florida plate.

South Carolina Paper tag was $7.00 dollars for 45 days.

As far as taxs go i am gonna leave this post alone after posting this below document that was entered into our court case [hence renewed case law in Ontario Canada!! However The A/G sealed said case from public view ,which is an admission of guilt on their part that they are an have been pulling the wool over 90% of peoples eyes!!!!!]

[Registration means to "Consent" to give away an no one is obliged to register anything!] 

Maxim in Law: Consent makes the law. A contract is a lawbetween the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

Must means may does mean one is obliged..

For some you can be pissed off if you wish ,However i am just exposing an sharing these facts of truth..If the truth hurts Look in the mirror ,We have to change these unlawful actions[via lawful excuse] from/by those who claim to be working in our best interests. when in fact they are not!!!

AFFIDAVIT
Information No.
10-15769-00
10-16015-00
10-16019-00
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Durham Region
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
FALSE ACCUSER


All Rights Reserved
Common Law Jurisdiction Claimed.

Of the Geographical area of Ontario Canada.

Regional Municipality of Durham –.
1 September – seventh – in the year two thousand and ten.

  P.C. Mark badge # 3266 [public servant] entered private lands seeking conflict/contract/joinder/-walked over to a private automobile [not in commerce] owned by the private land owner an began a illegal /unlawful- search of said automobile without consent - nor with reasonable cause - nor with a notarized warrant for such time/ place / lands /automobile/persons/.

"In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression household effects, Matter of Winburn's Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 592], stated the test to be ``whether the articles are or are not used in or by the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family''." In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).
"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
"Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
"The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive." McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
"The classification of ``goods'' under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact." Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992).
"The definition of ``goods'' includes an automobile." Henson v Government Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273, 516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).
Household goods
"The term ``household goods'' ... includes everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed there with and that tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App. 75" 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. Cites Mitchell's Will below.
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile



"Bequest ... of such ``household goods and effects'' ... included not only household furniture, but everything else in the house that is usually held and used by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of the household. State ex rel. Mueller v
Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) 514.
"All household goods owned by the user there of and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2

Automobiles classified as vehicles
"``[H]ousehold goods''...did not [include] an automobile...used by the testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).
"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not ``household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.
Automobiles NOT classified as vehicles
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In re
Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.
"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra.
"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile


CONCLUSION
Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle)? No.
This is a question of fact that turns on the use to which the automobile in question is put (i.e., either personal or commercial). While the presumption of an automobile being a vehicle (or motor vehicle) is created by the owner of said automobile registering same with the state as a vehicle, this presumption may be overcome by an
affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile being a vehicle, baring any evidence to the contrary indicating commercial use.

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary
To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT
NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-
drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at
will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under
this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the
public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neitherinterfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe

conduct." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

"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 the 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 operatean automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;

Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a

fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)

“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city
absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life
requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the
public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional

guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a
mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the

federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public

highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.

“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * Atraveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference,
unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a
FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton

14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)

“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer
an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses

or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So.
233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.

“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon
the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways.

The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.

“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in
common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads

superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.

No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name


U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary
To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or

with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga.

104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670

“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of

cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456

"The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on

highways." -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:

"(6) Motor vehicle. - 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…" 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.

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the

transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23

NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than
according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20

112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan,
were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that


automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a
common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be

rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st)

Highways Sect.163

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the
ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right

common to all." - Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

“Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every
Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v.

Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor
waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by
being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is
not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City

of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle

"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a
prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of

such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name


U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own propertyand who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter

412 p.83

"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable
and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur

3d p.27

“RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the
constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it

's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.

acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier

“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already haveright to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.

“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160

P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v.

Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business,
trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of businessenterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individualtraveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213
(1972).

“If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the

assumption that the statute is void.” - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that aRight secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impairedby any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US
540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

"The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it
appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." (Paul v. Virginia).
"[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as
governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the

Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson).

EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the
right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right,

Williams v. Fears,

ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.'

179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186.

“Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape

his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41

Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14.

“The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally,
is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.

“a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled,
and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel

“Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15.
“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it beby wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the solecondition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43

No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name


U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
Kansas 671, 674.

The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is
not a "statute."
A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185.


Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses
and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill.
31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29.
…automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v.
Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591.
A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle,
as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42.


Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E.
677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St.
Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.

"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v
Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition
(West) pocket part 94. "t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is
a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir.
1983).

Other right to use an automobile cases:

-EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160

- TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
-WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
- CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
- THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
- U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
- GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
- CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
-SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
-CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)
Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence.

The proper venue of “justice” for a lawful man or woman is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue-court. However, the Judiciary comprises a “Commercial List” of judges who primarily adjudicate commercial statutory courts, which are “administrative courts” and UNLAWFUL. Any court without a jury present is an “administrative court”.

‘The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for administrative courts in this country, and no Act can be passed to legitimise them.’- Halsbury’s Law 2011

Requests by a man or a woman to a judge to convene a Common Law court de jure are routinely denied, breaching the judge’s Oath of Office to uphold the Common Law, which is contempt of court.

A society of “justice” can only be protected when its members retain the knowledge of their “standing” and exercise their lawful Right to Contract. Without consent, there can be no contract, and no jurisdiction. No Contract = No Jurisdiction.

Good luck finding any lawyer to fight for your rights..The Canadain charter of rights an freedoms states that such charter does not over ride previous existing rights...

Benefits an privileges are not rights!

They the government took your rights an replaced them with Benefits an privileges which can be controlled an revoked.

Canada is a common law jurisdiction..

A real society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate,determine and act for common goal...Does this sound like the free and Democratic society that you now live in????

An there you have it 54vicky

Although not quite 32 pages...

Lmfao

Have a great day folks.