August 16, 2016 - Driver's Licence

Who is required to have a driver's licence?

It seems the government knows you don't. If you did the licence would be in your name. As it stands, what you have is not in your name. It's in an all capital letter NAME that is similar but not the same—in an improper form.

Talis non est eadem, nam nullum simile est idem. What is like is not the same, for nothing similar is the same. 4 Co. 18. - a maxim of law.

According to the government issued manual of style, called The Canadian Style, a proper noun/name (epithet) is to be written as "John Diefenbaker" not as "JOHN DIEFENBAKER."

Who is JOHN DIEFENBAKER or DIEFENBAKER, JOHN? A legal "person," a corporation if your will, that they created, and over which they have authority, and which they hope you assume is you. Only this "person" requires a licence.

Driver’s licence

32. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless the motor vehicle is within a class of motor vehicles in respect of which the person holds a driver’s licence issued to him or her under this Act.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 32 (1). Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990

person” includes (encloses, in limited to) a corporation; Legislation Act, 2006(italics mine)

Only a "person," i.e. a corporation, require a driver's licence. Who or what is that is that person/corporation? 

The government creates an incorporation named JOHN DIEFENBAKER, which is incorporeal (without a body) and presents it to the man, John Diefenbaker, who has a body. As John becomes the holder, the incorporation shares his body and becomes a corporation, corporeal (having it a body)—a person. Only this corporation, being under the authority of government, must have a licence.

“No state shall convert a right (liberty) into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Can you, a man/woman, at any time act without involving their incorporation and ultra vires to the government?

If you were in the employ of Tim Hortons™ Inc., or McDonalds™ Inc., are you required to wear the uniform after hours? You can have a live of your own then. You choose when it is to your advantage to be "JOHN DIEFENBAKER" and when you'd rather act alone as "John Diefenbaker" the man. JOHN DIEFENBAKER is subject to the corporate statutes, but John, alone, is not.

Who were you when you last drove a car and was ticketed? Were you acting as JOHN or John? Who did they assume you were? If you gave them JOHN's licence when they asked for yours they naturally assume you were JOHN DIEFENBAKER. Look at the name on the ticket?

Choose who you want to be and when you want to be. That right to choose is your primary, God-given, unalienable, human, right. Assert it!

Use what you read here as a part of your research to establish your understanding.
Your actions remain your responsibility.
All natural rights reserved. © 2012 steven, a man. <><