Educational Purpose

 United States v. Mitchell (various cases, but see e.g., 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, D. Md. 2005; also referenced in multiple federal filings)

Defendant argued "private travel" in a non-commercial vehicle exempts him from licensing/registration.
Court rejected it: "The motor vehicle definitions used in 18 U.S.C. § 31 do not apply to plaintiff... Title 18 does not cover the entire subject of motor vehicle regulation... It does not preempt state vehicle registration requirements."
Dismissed as meritless.
Taylor v. State (Tex. App. 2008, unpublished but cited in later cases)
Defendant claimed "non-commercial activity" exempts him from driver's license requirement.
Court rejected: "The argument that the license requirement applies only to commercial drivers has been repeatedly rejected as frivolous."
Conviction upheld.
State v. Booher (Ohio Ct. App. 2001, referenced in multiple sovereign/rights cases)
Defendant argued private use of vehicle exempts him from licensing.
Court rejected: "Driving is a privilege, not a right... The distinction between commercial and non-commercial use does not exempt private drivers from licensing."
Conviction affirmed.
Collins v. Williams (D. Kan. 2022, Case No. 22-cv-3208)
Plaintiff argued "not driving commercially" exempts him from license/registration.
Court rejected: "Plaintiff’s argument that he is not required to maintain a driver’s license because he is not engaging in commercial activity fails to state a claim... Title 18 does not preempt state vehicle laws."
Dismissed as frivolous.
State v. Hood (Neb. 2018)
Defendant claimed private travel exempts him from licensing.
Court rejected: "The right to travel does not include the right to drive without a license... The commercial/non-commercial distinction is not recognized."
Conviction upheld.
Commonwealth v. Hunte (Pa. 2025, referenced in recent filings)
Defendant argued private use exempts him from implied consent laws.
Court rejected: "The argument that licensing applies only to commercial activity is without merit... Driving is a privilege subject to regulation."
License suspension upheld.

You missed the point of my comments. Truth and reality is based on metaphysics which involves the intellect. Logic is also necessary.

Since you have gone through Dr Graves course, he acknowledges it’s a game. I simply provided you some key strategies that are used that are not only applicable to contract law, but also public goods in general as well as litigation regarding tort law.

I would recommend learning more about natural law since the goal of the game is jurisprudence and the other virtues. I don’t disagree with what you have provided. It’s reasonable to conclude that if someone injures someone or doesn’t use reasoning when it comes to speed limits, there has to be a deterrence including incentives. I would recommend adding Ward Farnsworth in addition to what you’ve learned from Dr Graves. It’s imperative that we know all the tools that can be used to make decisions about remedies such as incentives and psychology. This requires a lot of learning.

There is nothing to stop Irving from doing the same thing again and again, unless the 5th coa finds the ordinance unconstitutional, finds the complaint unlawful and finds that irving acted ultra vires  without the lawful authority

don’t abandon the path you’re on just bc the bullies backed away to avoid scrutiny.

your habe was for a reason. unlawful restraint of your liberty.

now you can continue to expect a ruling from the 5th, but at this point you have one more thing in your favor: the bullies backing off is a tacit admission of guilt.