Marc Stephens Wins Right to Travel Case Proven Citizens are not required to purchase Vehicle Insurance

Marc Stephens Wins Right to Travel Case Proven Citizens are 'Not Required' to Purchase Vehicle Insurance

Yesterday, in the case titled State of New Jersey vs Marc Stephens, Fort Lee Municipal court released the order dismissing the traffic citation against Marc Stephens for driving without liability insurance coverage on a motor vehicle. The municipal prosecutor did not file an appeal.

On Sunday, February 7, 2016, while parked in a private parketing lot, Marc Stephens was ordered not to leave his vehicle, and was ‘detained’ for 50 minutes by Officer P. Kellett of the Fort Lee Police Department.

Officer Kellett asked Marc Stephens for his license and registration. Marc stated he did not have the documents because they are ‘not required to travel’.

Marc Stephens explained to Officer P. Kellett that he has a constitutional ‘right to travel’, and does not need a driver’s license, vehicle registration, or forced vehicle insurance.

Kellett ran Marc’s information and confirmed that his vehicle has never been registered, or contained insurance. Instead of a driver’s license, Marc Stephens only had an identification card that was issued by the State of California.

Officer P. Kellett did not believe Marc’s constitutional right to travel argument, and issued Marc Stephens a ticket for parking an unregistered motor vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:3-4), and for having no liability insurance coverage on a motor vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2). Kellett then called a tow truck, who then removed Marc’s black S-Class Mercedes Benz, which contained California license plates, from the private property without Marc’s consent.

On October 27, 2016, a trial was held at the Fort Lee Municipal courthouse. Marc Stephens raised the argument that New Jersey’s Title 39, which is the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation, ‘does not apply’ to citizens who are not ‘commercial drivers’.

Stephens stated on record that, “Title 39 is for the regulation of “Motor Vehicles” and that pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 31 (a)(6) and also N.J.S.A. 39:3-4.1, 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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo, and that pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 31 (a)(10); and also N.J.S.A. 39:3-6.1 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”.

Marc vehicle was purchased in the State of California, and Marc pointed out California’s Vehicle Code, which reads:

“Passenger vehicles are Exempt and are not required to be registered, see, DIVISION 1: 260: (a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles”.

“There were no citations issued to me for using the highway as a commercial use or persons for hire”, says Marc.

Officer P. Kellet 'testified' that Marc Stephens was driving on Lemoine Avenue in Fort Lee, but was not operating a commercial vehicle.

Marc Stephens closed raising his constitutional argument, and citing the opinion of the Supreme Court:

“The right to travel is equivalent to the right to free speech”, says Marc.

“There is ‘common law speech’ which the State cannot regulate, and then there is ‘commercial speech’ which the State can regulate by permits and licenses because it’s a privilege. The same applies to the right to travel. There is ‘common law travel’ which is a fundamental right that the state cannot regulate, and there is ‘commercial travel’ which is classified as ‘driving’ and is subject to State regulations because it’s a privilege” says Marc.

“Travel is common law, driving is commercial law” says Marc.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled, “The right to travel is an "unconditional personal right," a right whose exercise may not be conditioned”. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 643 (STEWART, J., concurring) (emphasis added); Oregon v. Mitchell, supra, at 292 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined). Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 - Supreme Court 1972 at 342”.

Judge John R. Desheplo stated to Stephens, “You won”.

Judge Desheplo found Marc Stephens not guilty for driving without vehicle insurance.

Marc Stephens is also currently in the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit regarding a $76M lawsuit which he filed against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, Nina C. Remson at Law, LLC, and Comet Law Offices, LLC for false arrest and legal malpractice. read Article.

Marc also has a highly watched second amendment case that will be reviewed by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on February 17, 2017. read Article.

Most shockingly, Marc Stephens has never been to law school.

Like us and Share on Facebook!

Video of the Day


Wayne's Interior Design