“Common Law Dictates That Everyone Has The Free Right To Trav”

Since Canada is a British Colony and the only real law which governs the people is God's law, Common Law dictates that everyone has the right to free travel unobstructed by any person(s) places or thing's. Driving is a right instead of a privilage in this case.

Also, in accordance to the Black's Law dictionary the definition of a driver is anyone who engages in commerce. Commerce meaning taking money and such like a chauffeur, taxi driver etc.

My question is then , why do we need a license to drive up we are not engaging in commerce.

Nonsense.

Your entire argument is taken apart piece by piece in Meads vs Meads, you can read about it at your leisure.

In the meantime, wishing that something is so does not make it so.

Such "freeman of the land" arguments have been around for a while and have never gotten anywhere in Court. The ideology is based on a very narrow, selective interpretation of laws that are convenient to the movements beliefs. Its certainly not a belief or strategy thats supported on these forums.

A good read for anyone considering such an approach is the above mentioned divorce case involving a self-declared "freeman on the land" heard by Chief Justice John Rooke. He wrote a 185-page analysis of the freeman arguments and their legal implausibility.

Here's the ruling in non-PDF form: http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/201 ... qb571.html

And here's a NP article on the ruling: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/28 ... -movement/

You sound like one of those kooky Sovereign Citizen rejects.

For those who are unaware of them, here is a related video about how they operate:

Stanton is correct when he points out you're attempting to use a very narrow and selective view of the law. Regardless, lets lay it out for you...

The Constitution Act of Canada (Commonly called refered to as "The Charter") is what gives individuals their legal rights. Section 6 gives you the right to remain in Canada or to move from province to province. Section 6(3) however puts limits on those rights:

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

Another section that may apply is Section 9, which focuses on arbitrary detention. While I'm sure you would argue that by not being able to drive that it is impossible for you to excersize your right to move from Province to Province, there is nothing anywhere that says you must be able to excersize your rights in whatever fashion is most convenient to you. Therefore, take a bus, plane, horse, bicycle, skateboard, roller-blades, snowshoes, skis, or simply walk. Without a valid driver's license, you're not allowed to drive.

The law for driver's licenses and the fees behind them are to protect all people on the roads and sidewalks. The rules ensure people know how to drive safely, even if they choose not too. And the money helps to pay for maintenance to those roads, emergency services for those injured on the roads, and for enforcement to reduce those injuries.

So feel free to test your argument in court. My guess is you'll only annoy the judge and the fine will be increased, meaning that more money is collected for keeping our roads safer.

I've seen this bullcrap before so I'm going to lock the thread. In fact, when I lived in Michigan, one of the organizations I volunteered for helped track and monitor Freemen/Sovereign Citizens, so I'm quite familiar with their tactics.

Simply put, the nonsensical garbage on the OP is pure fiction and no court in Canada accepts it. Black's Law Dictionary is not Canadian legislation. If you think it is, you are wrong.

This forum is here to help people understand and fight traffic offences, and/or get a better understanding of traffic laws, safety practices and driving. We are NOT here to act as a soapbox for neurotic anti-government fringe groups.

Also, for your information, Canada stopped being a colony in 1867.