Federal judge puts sovereign citizens, others on notice: You need an actual driver's license to get behind the wheel in Massachusetts

A federal judge on Friday not only dismissed a Worcester man's latest lawsuit against two police departments for arresting him for driving without a license, he warned that if he tries to sue them again, he could face sanctions and even fines.

In the latest of three suits against the Paxton and Quinsigamond Community College police departments, Kevin Dela Kemeh had been seeking $1.5 million on the grounds that he wasn't "driving" a car but only "traveling" behind the wheel of it, since he was not engaged in any sort of commerce and that laws related to driving can only be enforced against truck and ride-share drivers and the like, not people simply pursuing the constitutionally protected freedom of "traveling." So his arrests after he tried to use his passport as his proof of being an American man were actually "kidnappings" and the Registry's refusal to rescind the learner's permit he had somehow been convinced to apply for was "involuntary servitude."

Sovereign citizens love making a big deal of the supposed difference between "driving" and "traveling." In one of his filings, Kemeh, who says he is not a sovereign citizen but who came to his beliefs independently, asserted:

The right to travel is simple, it is like riding a bike, except you are in an automobile. You are simply going from point A to point B. As long as one is not engaged in commerce (for profit) in an automobile all men and women can travel freely without a license. The right to travel in a private automobile is a natural inalienable right that is secured in the United States and Massachusetts constitution. Going from place to place freely everyday is an essential right.

The purpose of a Driver's License is for commercial (for profit) activity. The notion that you [need a "license" to quot on quote ["drive"] is merely a fiction of the mind (sic).

Yeah, no, enough's enough, US District Court Judge Timothy Hillman wrote: Getting behind the wheel of a car is a privilege, not a right.

Kemeh's claims against all Defendants in these cases are based on a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate refusal to recognize Massachusetts law regarding the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public ways. More specifically, it is clear from his submissions in these cases that Kemeh is taking the position that he is not required to have a valid driver's license to operate a "private" motor vehicle in the Commonwealth (and elsewhere) and is not required to register or insure his "private" motor vehicle. Kemeh is incorrect as all are requirements for driving any motor vehicle, including a "private" vehicle, on a public way in Massachusetts. See Mass.Gen.L., ch. 90, §§ 9, 10, 34(J). Failure to comply with these laws is a criminal offense. Moreover, under Massachusetts law, all private motor vehicles are required to have a vehicle identification number. See Mass. Gen. L., ch. 90, §§2-5, 7(R). Accordingly, The alleged actions taken by the Defendant police officers of impounding his vehicle, confiscating and destroying his license plates (which were not official plates), and arresting him were lawful under the circumstances.

In a footnote, Hillman - whom Kemeh specifically asked not be assigned his case, but was, anyway - added:

The Court notes some of the observations made in this opinion are [not directly related] to the issues before it, however, they have been addressed only because of the concern that given Kemeh's apparent misunderstanding of the legal requirements for driving a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth (and generally in this country), he may subject himself to future traffic stops and arrests. Kemeh is advised to seek counsel regarding such legal requirements before continuing to drive a motor vehicle. Moreover, Kemeh is now on notice (if he wasn't before) that any future suit filed against any individual or entity based on his abject misinterpretation regarding the law applying to operation of motor vehicles will be reviewed to determine whether such suit is frivolous and/or vexatious. If the Court determines that such suit is frivolous or vexatious, Kemeh will be subject to summary dismissal of the complaint and/or monetary sanctions.