Reader Question: “Drivers” and “Commercial” Law?

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!

Kiran asks: I have been a listener of Eddie Craig, on ruleoflawradio.com. He is able to address most of these right to travel issues from a legal basis and how to battle these things in court. For instance, almost all traffic stops are illegal in that they are commercial in nature and that the officers are acting out of their jurisdiction because all traffic law is for those acting in a commercial nature, where you traveling in your car in a private manner does not fall under the jurisdiction of the commercial code.  You can look up the statutes of your state and verify.  He is winning cases in TX. Many of the radio shows are on youtube as archives.  Listen to a few and see if it grabs your interest.  He has appeared on infowars before.  I have included a link to the shows.  http://tinyurl.com/y3tmg7co

My reply: I have no idea whether, as an abstruse technical matter of law, this business of “commercial” law has any validity. I do know that as a practical matter, it is an irrelevance. If you are stopped by an armed government worker and don’t have your “papers” in order to his satisfaction, he will impose his Authority on you. As will the judge, later on.

Arguing with an AGW that you aren’t a “driver” is of a piece with claiming you are a “sovereign” citizen. Or not subject to Maritime law.

Etc.

I don’t argue with the moral point of view here.  I agree that none of us – including “commercial” drivers – are morally obliged to carry “papers” of any kind.

None of this is relevant as regards the fact that the law will be enforced – and the law is what those who enforce it say that is.

It is terrible advice to advise people to assert their own view of what the law is when it is clearly at odds with what those who have guns and badges say that it is.

You are advocating that the unarmed woman tell the 220 lb. thug he can’t rape her because it says he’s not permitted to, under Section 231 Subsection c.

Or that one tell the EySoress that one isn’t legally obliged to pay income taxes because the amendment was never properly ratified or the Constitution prohibits it.

…