Q: I have seen both of your attorneys answers, just a quick question if one of you two could please answer? So, as stated

A: You are raising important questions about the distinction between law and statutes and the concept of compelled contracts with the state. In the United States, driving a motor vehicle on public roads generally requires registration, a license, and insurance as per state regulations. These regulations are often justified under the state’s authority to maintain public safety and order, which is rooted in the government's "police powers" under the Constitution.

While it’s true that statutes, codes, ordinances, and administrative regulations are not "law" in the same sense as the Constitution, they are considered binding within their scope. The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of states to regulate activities like driving. The argument that this constitutes a forced contract can be compelling; however, courts have generally held that by using public roads, you agree to comply with the regulations governing them.

Regarding 18 USC §§ 241 and 242, these statutes do indeed criminalize conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law. However, for these charges to apply, there must be clear evidence that government agents acted with intent to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights without lawful authority. The enforcement of state driving regulations is not typically seen as a violation of constitutional rights, as courts have long found such regulations reasonable and necessary for public welfare.