Watch for Updates

Originally Posted February 21, 2017
by Robert Baty

Ken Scott v. Robert Baty – Driver’s Licenses

Ken Scott Video: 

Ken Scott Says: “Driving is hauling passengers or goods for pay.”
Neil Rowe Says: “The definition of the term ‘driving’ is transporting persons or property for profit.”
Brady Byrum’s 5,000 Words on the Subject:
The Ken Scott (aka River of Life News) v. Robert Baty Exchange (from the comments section of Scott’s video above)
1. From Robert Baty 02/18/2017
“Driving is hauling passengers or goods for pay.”
OK, but there is no “ONLY” in that definition.
2. From James Barnes 02/18/2017
The definition means what it means……
3. From Robert Baty 02/18/2017
“The definition means what it means…” is not meaningful and does not address the issue I presented for consideration.
Did I miss something?
Besides simply asserting the legal definition that “driving is ONLY hauling passengers or goods for pay”, I saw no legally citable on-line reference to consider.
So, maybe we have a proposition for consideration:
The legal definition of driving is that it “ONLY
includes hauling passengers and goods for pay”.
– (Enter real name): Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
We might advance that conversation if there is someone really interested and we can work out the logistics.
4. From Ken Scott 02/18/2017
At least Robert Baty is always polite, ty for that Robert.
5. From Ken Scott 02/18/2017
Let me share this video with you of a NH state rep. in court, we still have more to share with each other on the Hoims case, have not forgotten
6. From Ken Scott 02/18/2017
What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Definition of DRIVER: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor …
Driver legal definition of Driver – Legal Dictionary – The Free Dictionary
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals. 2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
7. From Robert Baty 02/18/2017
Black’s Law Dictionary, huh!
I had that discussion some time ago with Mark Hill (aka knome king). He lost.
Here’s an excerpt from that discussion:
(Begin quote.)
Somewhere I read that you took your irrelevant
reference from the 3rd edition while the more
current editions might include something like this:
– Driver:: A person actually doing driving, whether
– employed by owner to drive or driving his own
– vehicle. Black’s 6th edition.
I win!
Thanks for playing, Mark!
(End quote.)
8. From Ken Scott 02/19/2017
so what your saying is driving apply’s to all?
9. From Ken Scott 02/19/2017
see if this makes any sense to you …
10. From Robert Baty 02/19/2017
So, what you are saying is that you were wrong in your use of Black’s Law Dictionary but you aren’t about to admit to it, explain it, or correct it.
So, were you saying you are or are not wanting to affirm the proposition to my denial and negotiate for the production of a exchange about that?
Proposition for Discussion
The legal definition of driving is that it “ONLY
includes hauling passengers and goods for pay”.
– (Enter real name): Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
11. From Robert Baty 02/19/2017
As to Rod Class and his North Carolina case, I ran across this discussion which brings it more up to date:
12. From Ken Scott 02/19/2017
not right this moment, you do really feel one must have papers to use a car?
we agree to disagree, or why are there so many people doing it?
13. From Robert Baty 02/19/2017
Look me up when you are ready to try and advance the discussion if we can find some matter of mutual interest to discuss.
14. From Ken Scott 02/19/2017
It would seem we have many people who feel the d/l is a fraud.
I am one of those people, but never mind my feeling/s on the matter, with so much info leaning towards no d/l needed, information from many sources, you would think that the matter would be put to rest, but it in fact has not been put to rest.
Charlie Sprinkle case.
Alex Jones does a very long presentation on this subject as well.
You would think they would shut down this kind of information being shared. It is not 1st amendment to mis inform people. It would be a lie.
I do not see your “ONLY” wording in the “Driving is hauling passengers or goods for pay” being a valid reason to say the wording does not say what it says.
(OK, but there is no “ONLY” in that definition.)
Being an end to this confusing issue, but do tell me, who would be the injured party in these no D/L cases?
How can anyone justify jailing people for NO PAPERS ?
Keep in mind they make this a crime, not just an inconvenience.
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and WELL ESTABLISHED a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the robber barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act such as this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may become completely monopolized. If, through LACK OF INTEREST, the people submit, THEY MAY LOOK TO SEE THE MOST SACRED OF LIBERTIES TAKEN FROM THEM, ONE BY ONE, BY MORE OR LESS RAPID ENCROACHMENT.” /1 (emph. added)
180 Wn 133, 147 (1934) Dissenting Op.
“I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, BUT I AM DEEPLY INTERESTED IN
ROBERTSON, supra at 139.
The words of Justice Tolman ring prophetically in the ears of the citizens of every state, as today, the public highways have become completely monopolized by the very entity with WE THE PEOPLE have entrusted to protect our Right and stand guard over our
whats correct Robert Baty ? less freedom? or more freedom? what are people to do with this information ? especially with real I.D. now at work within the DMV , shall we all get on our knees ? shall we have no straight answers ? I have witnessed men run for Governor using no license, as well as N.H. state rep. who is currently involved in a suspended d/l case, also have people getting their no tag no d/l cases dismissed. there are answers to these problems, but STATE OF .. will not make mad money off people in the simple answers to these issues, therefore it does not interest the corporate states to find simple answers to these easy to solve issues.
15. From Ken Scott 02/19/2017
“Personal liberty, or the right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental and natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution, and may not be submitted to a vote, and may not depend upon the outcome of an election. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST SACRED AND VALUABLE RIGHTS … and is regarded as inalienable.”
16 CJS, Const. L., Sec. 202 [Pg. 987].
This concept is further amplified:
“Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion — to
go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the
rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other
citizens. THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZEN TO TRAVEL UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORT HIS PROPERTY THEREON, by horse — drawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, BUT A COMMON RIGHT which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination, along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly manner, neither interfering with, nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” (emph. added)
11 AM JUR (1st). Const. L., Sec. 329 (Page 1135).
And further …
“Personal liberty — consists in the power of locomotion, of
changing situation, of removing one’s person to whatever place
one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint,
unless by due course of law.”
16. From Ken Scott 02/19/2017
17. From Robert Baty 02/19/2017
Let’s see where we are at, based on my impression from your foregoing latest posts.
Ken, you agree with me on the following proposition, right?
The legal definition of driving is that it “ONLY
includes hauling passengers and goods for pay”.
– (State real name): Affirm
– Ken Scott / River of Life News: Deny
– Robert Baty: Deny
Ken, you made a significant blunder in your misuse of Black’s Law Dictionary and you are not yet up to admitting to it, explaining it, or correcting it, right?
If I am correct in my analysis, let me know. If not, let me know and maybe we can work on those 2 issues.
If you wish to pursue another matter, set up your affirmative proposition that clearly sets forth your fundamental claim applicable to driver’s licenses. Maybe I will join you in affirming, or maybe I will deny and set up another opportunity to advance a discussion.
18. From Ken Scott 02/20/2017
I do not use black law, but it is part of the confusion, for there to be a jailable crime, there has to be a injured party, so D/L is being used improperly, without regard to welfare or fairness, but all roads lead to commerce & contracts, my point is, so much debate on the matter leaves the door open to lack of regard for truth and welfare of the people.
seems that many court cases dealing with this shows all driving to be commercial activity, lets see how this works out in court, you can bet it will be put to the test, that will be the ultimate test of this advice given by Neil Rowe, but Carl Miller seemed to have it down.
19. From Ken Scott 02/20/2017
20. From Robert Baty 02/20/2017
We have many points of disagreement, so it seems, and you don’t seem to be able to put together one proposition that you think sets forth one of your fundamental points for advancing a reassonable and reasoned conversation regarding driver’s licenses.
You apparently are not even willing to try and come to agreement with me on what a “driver” is.
Despite your earlier reference to Black’s Law Dictionary, you now wish to run away from it.
There is not “so much debate” as to give your supposed fundamental position any credible legal weight. Just getting up a bunch of misguided folks to make a fuss is not evidence that their position has legal merit.
There seems to be many court cases that stand for the proposition that you and yours are simply wrong.
If you have one in process, available on-line, that you think will change the course of legal history on the matter, please set it forth and I will try to keep up with its development and conclusion.
I just noticed your last evasion, that video link, seems to continue one of your kind’s standard misdirections regarding “travel”.
I’ll pass on further consideration of his video unless you want to promote some specific point he makes, in proposition form, and can give me a time marked link to see what he says about it.
While drivers may be traveling, the driving is quite distinct from the traveling.

Update October 13, 2017


Clickable link to Hendrick case cited in screenshot above:
YouTube presentation on the issues broadcast April 15, 2018

Update January 7, 2020

Ken Scott has been spotted making the rounds in social media and promotion sovcit nonsense in the context of the anti-CPS movement.

Link to Video Referenced Above

Update October 25, 2020

Randy Davis had a live FaceBook program on Ken Scott recently which is posted at the following link:



Ken Scott (River of Life News) v. Robert Baty – Driver’s Licenses — 1 Comment

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>