I'm not going to get into the sovereign citizen stuff. As interesting as it is, courts reject this stuff outright.
Motofixxer, while I appreciate your drive and have no actual disagreement with any of your constitutional conclusions, it is my opinion that the charges against you were dropped because they were on their face not a valid application of the state's penal code, as written. In short, your claims related to sovereign citizenship had nothing to do with it. They simply didn't have a case, because
you hadn't actually violated any California laws in the first place.
Now, with that said, what I really want to comment on is this:
Bwahahahahahaha!
Folks, this right here is all the evidence you need to prove my regular assertion of eye95's insidious latent statism. Don't let his articulate arguments for the very few freedoms he supports fool you; the man is an apologist, nay, a shill, for the state, of the highest order. His cogent defense of the liberties relevant to this forum is little more than bait to seduce the unwary into blind acceptance of every element of the state not inimical to the aim of this forum. His preference for state tyranny to the exclusion federal tyranny doesn't make mitigate his statism in the slightest.
Drivers' licensure
facilitates our ability to travel!
Bwahahahahahahaha! The guy would be a comedian if he didn't sincerely believe this tripe.
Edit: Incidentally, illegals get away every day, for years on end, with traveling unlicensed upon the highways. They would find motofixxer's appeal to the constitution superfluous.
The notion that state enforcement of drivers' licensure actually accomplishes its stated aims is a total farce. Licensure serves as nothing more than a boon to the "authority" of petty tyrants and parasitic tax-feeding productivity-grabbers everywhere.