Sovereign Citizen Tries “Right to Travel” Defense — Magistrate Destroys the Argument

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]Okay, well, I I I see what it's about, so >> I know there will be no further arguments because I see that you're not going to agree to for an informal hearing in two different cases that arise out of one citation, um and those two cases are both entitled The People of the City of Battle Creek versus Roosevelt Lashon Williams. Is that your name, sir? That is my name.

[00:00:21]>> All right. Basically, what happens is you were issued one citation. It had two violations listed on it, so it became two different cases, uh one with an A and one with a B at the end. But, we have one informal hearing um scheduled for both of those cases because they both arise out of the same transaction, so to speak.

[00:00:42]Uh and uh I guess Officer Cullums, is there anything before I begin?

[00:00:46]No, sir. All right. Mr. Williams, uh >> [clears throat] >> you're here because you were issued a citation. And in each of those two cases, uh so for each of those violations, you have three possible responses to the citation.

[00:01:01]You can um first, admit responsibility, uh be assessed the fines and costs, and be done with it.

[00:01:10]You could, as a second option, admit responsibility with an explanation, hoping that the explanation would cause the court to decrease the fines and costs a little bit.

[00:01:19]Or, you can deny responsibility and have your hearing.

[00:01:23]It's my understanding that as to both cases, you wished to deny responsibility. Is that correct?

[00:01:32]That is correct. Okay.

[00:01:34]Well, [clears throat] here's how the hearing works.

[00:01:37]First of all, I guess I should read uh the citation. Um in the case ending with the letter A, it's alleged that back on November 19th of 2024, you were over at Fountain Street near Meachem Avenue in the city of Battle Creek, and you were issued a citation for not being able to provide a proof of insurance.

[00:01:56]This is a civil infraction. If you are found responsible, all other things being equal, the court would assess $125 fines, costs, and fees. It is a zero-point ticket. Uh and in the second case that ends with the letter B, um that same date, time, and place, uh you were issued a citation for having an expired uh registration plate.

[00:02:19]That is also a civil infraction. It is also a zero-point civil infraction. If you were found responsible, all other things being equal, the court would assess $110 fines, costs, and fees. So, first question, is that the ticket or the two cases that you thought you were appearing about, Mr. Williams?

[00:02:38]It is.

[00:02:40]Okay. And same question to you, Officer Cullums?

[00:02:43]Yes, sir.

[00:02:44]Very good. In every civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and in a case like this, that burden of proof is called by a preponderance of evidence. Uh only question I have is will we be will the laws of the US Supreme Court be applicable?

[00:03:00]And the federal statutes and definitions of motor vehicle and automobile be applicable in this proceeding?

[00:03:08]They are the the state of Michigan laws that will be applicable.

[00:03:14]Okay. The other question is, are you all right not bound by US Supreme Court rulings?

[00:03:19]Um every court is bound by relevant Supreme Court rulings. Okay.

[00:03:26]All right. I'm not sure I'm not [clears throat] sure why you're asking that, but that's okay. Um all right. So, if you would both raise your right hands.

[00:03:33]Very good. All right. Officer Cullums, if you would begin, please.

[00:03:38]So, on November 19th, 2024, I was on patrol for the Battle Creek Police Department uh when I observed the vehicle that Mr. Roosevelt was driving.

[00:03:47]Um I observed that it had expired uh tags on the vehicle.

[00:03:51]I then conducted a traffic stop on Fountain Street near Meacham Ave.

[00:03:57]Um, found Mr. Williams who was driving the vehicle where I issued him the citations.

[00:04:02]Um, when speaking with Mr. Williams, he could not provide insurance and his tags were expired.

[00:04:09]Okay. Um, do you happen to know when they expired?

[00:04:13]I do not off the top of my head, sir.

[00:04:16]Okay.

[00:04:17]Um, what I guess what made you think they were expired? The the wrong color and the wrong year on the plate itself or something like that?

[00:04:23]>> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. All right. Did did Mr. Williams say anything to you during the stop about having insurance or not having insurance or anything about the the tags on the plates anything like that?

[00:04:36]Uh, he informed me that he did not have to have insurance, um, due to he was traveling and to drive a vehicle you don't have to have insurance. Um, something regarding Supreme Court. Um, that's about all he said.

[00:04:51]Okay.

[00:04:52]All right. Do you want me to consider anything else at this point, Officer Collins? No, sir.

[00:04:56]Okay, Mr. Williams, could you hear Officer Collins' testimony?

[00:05:01]Yes, I heard his testimony. Very good.

[00:05:03]Thank you for your patience. What do I need to know, sir? Okay, I did inform Officer Kelly that I am not operating a motor vehicle, but I am operating an automobile.

[00:05:15]I did inform Officer Kelly of the ruling of Rodriguez v. United Donovan, US Department of Labor, 769 Federal 2nd 1344 where the US Supreme Court's decision has ruled that all codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only and not for human creators. In accordance with God's laws, all codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lack lacking due process. Okay, can I interrupt you just for a second? Are you telling me that a case at 769 Fed Second 1344 indicates that all laws are unconstitutional.

[00:05:55]All codes, rules, and regulations. Yes, sir. Rodriguez v. Ray Donovan. And I I'm not mistaken.

[00:06:00]>> he said that was Department of what?

[00:06:03]US Department of Labor.

[00:06:05]Okay. US Department of Labor doesn't publish decisions in the Fed Second.

[00:06:10]Um Do you Can you tell me a little bit more about the case? What was What was that issue in the case?

[00:06:17]Uh it was regarding what we're discussing here, the requirements uh the requirements of a driver's license and the need when this required to have one.

[00:06:27]Stating that uh when you're not operating commerce, to which I informed the officer that I am not operating commerce as stated in US C 18 USCA 31 paragraph A6 states that a motor vehicle the term of a motor vehicle meaning every description of carriage contrivance propelled or drawn or mechanical powered and used for commercial purposes.

[00:06:55]This is what Title 18 USCA Section 31 A6 states or defines as a motor vehicle, to which I am not operating in commerce.

[00:07:05]I'm not using >> purposes of of of that particular chapter of the United States Code, it would not control what happens um in terms of the Michigan legislature defining in chapter 257 what a motor vehicle is and an automobile >> Right. under Michigan law is a motor vehicle. But Okay. Continue.

[00:07:27]>> right is a motor vehicle which is described as anything even by the Michigan compliance statute of 751 which you just stated is uh determined as something that's transporting goods, which I am not transporting goods.

[00:07:42]I understand your position and I can tell you that that position doesn't happen to be legally correct.

[00:07:49]But, go ahead.

[00:07:51]So, you're basically stating that there's a misinterpretation of what's in black and white?

[00:07:58]No, I'm telling you that you have misinterpreted the application of 18 USC 31 A6 and 769 F second or Fed second 13 44.

[00:08:11]Okay, well, I I I see what you're saying. So, >> Uh no, there will be no further arguments because I see that you're not going to agree to cuz like I said, I have and I have given it to you the cases where they have like Shapiro v. Thompson where the US Supreme Court has said that this is a driver's license is not a requirement, that this is you're trying to convert a a a right into a privilege to which is covered by Article 1 Section 8 to I'll I'll ask you this. Is that right the right to travel?

[00:08:43]That is a right to travel, convey however you want it by the art by the US Constitution.

[00:08:48]What you just told me was that uh somehow I, but regardless, am trying to convert a right into a privilege.

[00:08:58]Now, the question I have for you is what right has been converted to a privilege?

[00:09:07]My right to freely travel un- and un- and unfettered. I will ask you this.

[00:09:13]How is your right to travel removed by creating the citation?

[00:09:19]By trying to require me to have a license to operate a automobile, which is my private vehicle.

[00:09:27]Okay.

[00:09:28]All right, is there anything else you want me to consider?

[00:09:31]No, sir. All right, well, I can tell you this.

[00:09:35]Um the Michigan motor vehicle laws including the laws that require you to carry insurance, that require your vehicle to be registered, and require that registration to be current, do not run in violation of any um, right to travel under the Constitution or the United States Supreme Court decision that you have cited. In fact, um, Michigan courts have held that uh, essentially the right to travel means the right for you to move from A to B, uh, not the right the not the right for you to travel from A to B under your most convenient way. So, you could walk from point A to B all you wanted. You could take a taxi or a Uber or a plane or a train or a bus. But, if you wish to travel by using a motor vehicle, the Michigan laws are applicable and don't unconstitutionally interfere with the right to travel. It doesn't convert the right to travel into a privilege. You are not denied the right to travel. You may be denied the privilege of traveling via an a motor vehicle that you are operating.

[00:10:51]So, >> Okay, so I I stopped you at that that is what the law says and that's what I'm finding. Is there anything else you want me to consider about that finding?

[00:11:01]Shuttleworth v. Birmingham, US 147.

[00:11:06]Do you mind telling me what the US Supreme Court ruled in that? Uh, US 147 doesn't give me the site of a case. It's an incomplete site of a case, okay?

[00:11:15]>> It was Shuttleworth And if you wish me to consider the case, why don't you tell me what was at issue in the case and what year it was decided?

[00:11:24]I said Shuttleworth v. Birmingham, US 147, 1969.

[00:11:29]Where it says Hold on. US 147 is not a complete site. You The way you cite to a case is by name and then volume number and then the name of the publication and then the page number. So, for instance, when you said 769 Fed. 2d 1344, what that means is volume 769 of a of a book or volumes called The Federal Reporter, Second Edition, at page 1344.

[00:12:03]So, when you're asking me about this most recent case that you've talked about, what you said was US 147, I think.

[00:12:10]That's not the citation to a case. So, you're going to have to tell me more about that case.

[00:12:15]Who were the parties to that case and what issue was before the Supreme Court in that case?

[00:12:21]Okay, so you didn't hear me cite the name of Shuttleworth v. Birmingham?

[00:12:27]I heard you say the name. That doesn't tell me what That's not a complete site of the case.

[00:12:32]All right. Do you not have the documents that I filed when I filed to say that I wanted to have an informal hearing? The affidavit that writes to my uh >> I There are There are documents that have been scanned into the court that you dropped off.

[00:12:46]Okay. So, even >> those documents, why don't you tell me the proper citation for Shuttle versus Birmingham?

[00:12:54]Okay, traffic infractions are not crimes, blah blah blah. Person faced with Okay. But, traffic infractions are not crimes. That's absolutely correct.

[00:13:03]They are civil infractions.

[00:13:04]>> I don't I don't mean from a different case, but the case that I'm citing from states that no license necessary to drive automobile on public highways, streets, no license is necessary. The word operator should not include any person who solely transport his own property and who transport no persons or property for hire or personal use.

[00:13:28]>> from?

[00:13:29]Okay, I'm going to You know, I just appealed it and that way I can make sure all citations are are >> That's fine. I mean, I The idea is I can't look up what you're telling me, right? Without a proper citation. So, you can read I mean, for all I know and I I don't mean this I'm using a farcical example, you know, for all I know you're quoting the the municipal court in Honolulu, Hawaii, which has no >> Right. jurisdiction over Michigan.

[00:13:56]>> It's understandable. Okay, so so I will cite Payne v. Massey, 19 196 Southwest 2nd 493 Texas 273. Okay. Well, and I can tell you that Texas law a a court interpreting Texas law, that decision wouldn't be controlling on a a Michigan court. But, that's that's fine.

[00:14:17]I think I understand where you're going.

[00:14:18]If you want, I don't need to consider anything else. I'm just asking you, is there anything else you want to present to me?

[00:14:23]>> if you're not going to consider anything else, then we can proceed on to your ruling of which I know you're going to find. So, and like I said, like you said, I have a right to appeal it. So, Yeah, and and I'm willing to listen. I just If you're going to quote something, I need to know what you're quoting and I need a proper citation so I can look it up myself, right? Cuz otherwise people could just run around quoting Mickey Mouse if they wanted. Right. Okay, so So, nothing against you. So, the question to you is what else do you want me to consider at this point that you haven't yet told me?

[00:14:54]Okay, Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55.

[00:15:00]And what is Why are you citing that case? What is it telling me?

[00:15:04]Because it states that uh let me see the above blah blah blah to travel on unencumbered federal uncom public uncom common public way or highway which is their right to so do.

[00:15:17]Absolutely.

[00:15:18]>> the the right to travel is constitutionally protected.

[00:15:23]>> It is. So, it it don't it don't say that.

[00:15:26]>> me to consider?

[00:15:27]No, sir. No, sir. Nope. Nope. No. No.

[00:15:30]No.

[00:15:31]Okay. I mean, I have no problem telling you you have the right to travel. I have no problem telling you you have the constitutional right to travel.

[00:15:41]All citizens do.

[00:15:42]No doubt about that. One question.

[00:15:45]Is there a difference between a motor vehicle and an automobile? Is there a difference? Yes.

[00:15:51]All automobiles are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are automobiles.

[00:15:55]Okay, so is my automobile not my private personal automobile that's not being used in commerce?

[00:16:05]I would have no idea the use of your your motor vehicle, and it's not relevant to me for the purposes of deciding whether you're responsible for these civil citations.

[00:16:14]Okay. Well, I have nothing else for you to consider.

[00:16:17]Very good. I And I'm I'm letting you know the law does not make a distinction between your using the vehicle for personal reasons or you're using the vehicle for commercial reasons when your registration plate is expired and when you fail to show proof of insurance.

[00:16:39]Both of those are required >> language Both of those are required under Michigan law for anyone operating any motor vehicle.

[00:16:47]That's what I can tell you. So, Correct.

[00:16:49]>> if you a motor vehicle to which I am not operating a motor vehicle, and this is what we are trying to uh I guess circumvent.

[00:16:57]Yeah.

[00:16:58]>> I am operating my automobile, not a motor vehicle. I can tell you that an automobile is considered a motor vehicle under the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code. So, that's fine. Um is there anything else you want me to consider?

[00:17:11]>> No.

[00:17:12]Nope.

[00:17:12]>> Very good. All right. So, I've listened very carefully to the evidence. I do find that it's more likely than not that when you were required to by Officer Kellems at a traffic stop show proof that your vehicle was insured that you failed to do so and that it is more likely that your operators not your operator's license, I'm sorry, the registration plates on the vehicle were expired. So, I'm going to assess the $125 on the no proof of insurance case and $110 on the expired plates case. What I'll do is I'll type up two judgments. I'll be sending them out to you. I believe we have your current address, but I'm going to confirm that the address that you want things sent to Benton Harbor 49022. Is that correct?

[00:18:01]That is the address. I don't know where the other address is coming from, but that is my address. Well, I don't know what other address you're speaking of, but that's the address the court now has for you. So, both of those judgments will go out in the mail on Monday.

[00:18:16]Um and so, it'll take, you know, a couple days to get to you or whatever, but you should have copies of them. Uh certainly, I would say by the end of next week. If you don't, you can always come to the court and obtain a different copy or you can call the court and if they have to, they can try to email one to you, but they'll go out in the mail on Monday.

[00:18:35]And what I'll do is I will put um February 14th as the date that those payments are due.

[00:18:47]14th of this year.

[00:18:49]All right.

[00:18:50]Thank you both for your time and patience. You're all set. Have a very good day.

[00:18:54]Thank you, sir. You too. You too.