Source: https://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=864
Timestamp: 2020-06-06 20:33:15
Document Index: 482560771

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 42', '§ 33', '§ 155', '§ 101', '§ 49', '§ 63', '§ 21', '§ 23', '§ 41', '§ 16', '§ 9', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 8', '§ 17', '§ 10', '§ 9', '§ 10', '§ 6', '§ 5', 'art 5', '§ 78', '§ 9', '§ 340', '§ 39', 'art 1', '§ 59', '§ 163', '§ 233', '§ 31301']

Right To Travel info to share with others - Lawful Path Forums
Post by MyCountryIsLost » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:08 pm
I have a few docs that are my own compilation of some pretty useful stuff that I have found to be spread out all over the place and some of which has taken me significant time to accumulate. Some of this stuff, I've compiled myself. Others have done their own work/research and I have found their documents. I tell you one thing I've learned, there certainly isn't a Silver Bullet for ANY of this stuff. You MUST study to comprehend...BUT...have good documentation and good sources for cites and caselaw is hugely helpful.
Also---here's a link to my google drive with a plethora of good/useful examples of documentation, phrasing used. Some is better than others but it's a repository of what I've found....have at it.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0VFk ... TI4X3FzRDA
Here's some stuff on Right To Travel. You have to go through it and see what fits/applies/works for you. You might find you end up taking bits and pieces from several sources to create your own documentation.
- Public Vehicular Travel "As A Matter of Right" -
"A license is a privilege granted by the state" and "cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a Right...to ride and drive over the streets".
"A person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S. Ct. 935, 22 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. at 452-453, 58 S. Ct. at 669 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. at 159, 165, 60 S. Ct. at 149, 152 (1939); Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. at 319, 78 S. Ct. at 280 (1969); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 56-57, 85 S. Ct. 734, 737-738, 13 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1965).
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 945.
"The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen..."
“RIGHT - A legal Right, a constitutional Right means a Right protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of Right or original Rights; it acknowledges them.“
"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 a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to 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 his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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 and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
"Personal liberty - Consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed. Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare Constitution, Pg. 777
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of. . .”
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive..."
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right, of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
"The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions."
"It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access."
Article II, Section 3 of the constitution provides that: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right * * * of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; * * *" A motor vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the right to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable right to acquire.
[2-3] Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.
People v. Nothaus 147 Colo. 210, 214
I AM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. I BELIEVE I HAVE THIS RIGHT.
(14) "Highway" means every way or place of whatever nature within the state open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular traffic and includes public streets, alleys, roadways, or driveways upon grounds of colleges, universities, and institutions and other ways open to travel by the public...
(16) “Highway” means every way or place of whatever nature within the state open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular traffic and includes public streets, alleys, roadways, or driveways upon grounds of colleges, universities...
Arizona - § 42 5062(A): 5
"Public highway" means any way or place in this state that is constructed or maintained with public monies and that is open to use by the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular travel, including a highway under construction.
Colorado - § 33-14-101. Definitions:
(12) "Street", "road", "freeway", or "highway" means the entire right-of-way between boundary lines of any of such public ways when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of motor vehicle travel.
Colorado - § 155-3. Definitions:
"Public Right-of-Way" All streets, roadways, sidewalks, alleys and all other areas reserved for present or future use by the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular or pedestrian travel, utility installation and for snow storage by the Town of Frisco.
Delaware - Title 21, Part I, Ch.1 General Provisions, § 101. Words and phrases.
(22) "Highway" means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular travel...
20. "Street" or "highway" means the entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular travel, except in public areas in which the boundary shall be thirty-three feet each side of ...
Idaho - § 49.301
Idaho - § 63-2401. Definitions
(12) "Highways" means every place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular travel which is maintained by the state of Idaho...
New Mexico - State v. Roddy Brennan, 1998-NMCA-176, filed 10/22/98 NM Ct. of Appeals:
"Highways as defined in the Motor Vehicle Code include "every way or place generally open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular travel."
New York state - Article 21 General Provisions: § 21.05 Definitions.
9. "Highway" shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of any way or place thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular traffic.
"Highway" is defined as "the entire width between property or right-of-way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms "highway" and "street" and their cognates are synonymous.
"Highway" means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public, for vehicles or vehicular traffic, as a matter of right.
"Trafficway. The entire width between property lines or other boundary lines of every way or place which is open to the public, for purposes of vehicular travel, as a matter of right or custom."
(5) "Public highway" means a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular travel, even if the way or place is temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or repair.
(11) "Highway" the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular travel.
Utah - § 23-13-2 & R657-5-2 & § 41-6a-102. Under Definitions: (20)
(6) "Highway" means the entire width between property lines of every way or place of any nature when any part of it is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for vehicular travel.
Utah - § 16-2-1. Definitions:
(1) "Roadway" or "Street" means the entire width between property lines of every way or place of any nature when any part of it is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for vehicular traffic.
Wisconsin 340.01 (22) "Highway"
" '(5) The term "highway" includes every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel, but shall not be deemed to include a roadway or driveway upon grounds owned by private persons, colleges, universities or other institutions.'"
F. "Street." A way or place, of whatever nature, open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular travel or in the case of a sidewalk thereof for pedestrian travel.
City of Glendale, CA - § 9.04.030 Definitions.
"Street" means a way or place, of whatever nature, open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for vehicular travel or, in the case of a sidewalk, for pedestrian travel.
Park County, CO - § 4-200B Definitions.
Right-of-way: All streets, roadways, sidewalks, alleys, and all other areas reserved for present or future use by the general public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular or pedestrian travel...
Brighton, CO - § IX, Subdivision Regulations, § VI Definitions. B.
Blanca, CO - Article I. In General, § 1-1. Definitions.
Dillon, CO - § 8-3-20. Definitions
Pueblo, CO - § 17.04.040 Definitions
Boise, ID - § 10-01-01 Definitions of words and phrases:
Street or Highway: The words "Street or Highway" shall be used interchangeably and shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the public, as a matter of right, for public vehicular travel but not to include alleys.
Haley, ID - § 9.08.010 Definitions.
A. "Streets" means a way or place, of whatsoever nature, open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular travel.
Haley, ID - § 10.24.020 Definitions.
"Highway" means any way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel or parking of motor vehicles which is maintained by the state or some taxing subdivision or unit thereof...
Topeka, KS - Ordinance 19989 - Article 1 - Definitions:
Ramsey, MN - § 6.04.03 Definitions:
"Street or Highway" shall mean the entire width between boundary lines of any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular traffic (includes the right-of-way or boulevard).
Rochester, MN - City Ordinances - Chapter 134 - 134.01 Definitions: Subd. 23.
"Street or Alley" means the entire width between boundary lines of any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular traffic. The term "street" specifically includes highway.
Diamondhead, MS - Ordinance No.2013-039 Definitions:
(39) "Street" means a way or place, of whatsoever nature, open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel.
Minden, NE - Article IV - Sec 50-53 Definitions:
"Street" is a way or place of whatsoever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel...
Clark County, NV - § 5.02.010 Definitions:
(39) "Street" means the surface, the air space above the surface and the area below the surface of the full width of the right-of-way, including sidewalks and thoroughfares, places or ways of any kind used by the public or open to the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic or vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Allentown, PA - Codified Ordinances - Part 5- Title 3 - Article 527.01 Definitions:
1. "Street"means every way or place of whenever nature, within the City, open to the use of the public as a matter of right, for purpose of vehicular travel
West Earl Township, PA - Code of Township of West Earl - Part II
General Legislation - Chapter 78 § 78-3. Definitions:
B. Street - A way of place, of whatever nature, open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel...
Lindon, UT - § 9.22.020 Definitions:
Revised Code of Washington 36.75.010 - Definitions
(11) "Highway," every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington, open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;
"`Highway' means all public ways and thoroughfares and bridges on the same. It includes the entire width between the boundary lines of every way open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel...."
Weiss v. Holman, 207 NW 2d 660 - Wis: Supreme Court 1973
"Public highways' includes every way or place generally open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel....
Wamphassuc Pt. Prop. Owners Assn. v. Public Utilities Commission, 154 Conn. 674 - Conn: Supreme Court 1967
"The term `public highways' shall mean and include every way or place of whatever nature, generally open to the use of the public as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel, and notwithstanding that the same may be temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance or repair." Identical provision also appears in Section 75-1201(c).
Camden v. Harris, 109 F. Supp. 311 - U.S. Dist. Court, WD Arkansas 1953
"Although "highway" has a broad meaning (basically including any street, city or rural), the purposes of a highway, as used in the statutory definition, are limited. In defining highway, the statute refers to "every way open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel. It includes those roads ... opened to the use of the public for the purpose of vehicular travel." Wis.Stat. § 340.01(22)
Schultz v. Frisby, 807 F. 2d 1339 - U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1986
"We hold, therefore, that a random stop of a motorist in the absence of specific articulable facts which justify the stop by indicating a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has occurred is constitutionally impermissible and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. It follows that a random stop solely for the purpose of a documents check is an unreasonable and unconstitutional detention of those in the stopped vehicle..."
The right to travel means, of course, the right to go from one place to another. It includes the right (1) to start, (2) to go forward on the way, and (3) to stop when the traveler's destination has been reached. To speak to the first two of these as fundamental rights without including the third would be to descend again to the absurd, and so far as the instant case is concerned that is what we have here. But we do not so limit the right. We affirm that it includes the right to stop on the way, temporarily, for a legitimate or necessary purpose when that purpose is an immediate incident to travel. So it is that the texts and authorities declare that the right to stop when the occasion demands is an incident to the right to travel, a proposition so completely self-evident that no authority is necessary to sustain it, and which we would pronounce irrefutable, had it never heretofore been mentioned.
2 Blashfield Automobile Law, Perm. Ed., sec. 1191, p. 321; Fulton v. Chouteau County Farmers' Co., 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025; Morton v. Mooney, 97 Mont. 1, 33 P.2d 262, 263; Albrecht v. Waterloo Const. Co., 218 Iowa, 1205, 257 N.W. 183.
- Other Courts -
" The appellant points out that § 39-741(5), 1960 Reissue of Volume 3, Revised Statutes of Nebraska of 1943, defines the term "highway" to mean "* * * every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel... and that the Nebraska court has adopted this definition in connection with automobile litigation"
Solomon Dehydrating Company v. Guyton, 294 F. 2d 439 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 1961
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right, which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
'The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary...."
"The distinction between the right of a citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized."
"However, a right as precious as the freedom of an individual who has not violated any law to travel wherever he pleases without interruption should not be denied construction not impairing such right is possible."
"It will be observed that . . . a highway, within the contemplation of the act, is, "Every way or place of whatever nature open as a matter of right, to the use of the public, for the purposes of vehicular travel. There can be no question but that this definition is broad enough to include streets in incorporated cities, because they are open as a matter of right, to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel."
Neeley v. Bock, 184 Wash. 135, 140, 50 P.2d 524 (1935).
{13} We recognize that the term “traffic” is limited to travel on a “highway,” which is defined as “every way or place generally open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel, even though it may be temporarily closed or restricted for the purpose of construction, maintenance, repair or reconstruction.”
City of Las Cruces v. Lauren Rogers
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain... The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
State vs. City of Spokane, supra; Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872 | Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles."
“A highway is a public way open and free to anyone who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.”
“Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.”
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210; | Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago. 337 111. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
“Traffic infractions are not a crime.”
“Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83
“A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.
Payne v. Massey 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.
“Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge:
“The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.”
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14.
“a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”
Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.
Justice Hiibel White
“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods."
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.
Bank of Boston v. Jones 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236, A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14
"It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used by the owner in his own business, and not for hire."
Desser v. Wichita (1925) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs, 148 N.W. 20
N.C. Law Review Vol. 32 pg 545, Carolina Discount Corp. v. Landis Motor Co., 190 N.C. 157
"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation of business, bu by being subject only to the local regulation, i.e. ...safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a rivilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago. 337 111. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle
"The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
[1] Fundamentally it must be recognized that in this country "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have ... the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner..."
13 Cal.Jur. 371, § 59.
"Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure ... The use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and [35 Cal.2d 876] individuals cannot rightfully be deprived ... [A]ll persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper means, and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others."
25 Am.Jur. 456-457, § 163; 40 C.J.S. 244-247, § 233.
"The practice of Law is an occupation of common Right"
Sims v. Ahems, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)
"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction."
Some case law (or statutes/codes) on the term Automobile v.s. Motor Vehicle
§ 31301. Definitions: In this chapter -
18 USC 31:
(6)“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
There is a clear distinction between automobile and motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
"The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile."
“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"The term `travel' and traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."
"Privilege" 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons, an exception to a duty. - A privilege grants someone the legal freedom to do or not to do a given act. It immunizes conduct that, under ordinary circumstances, would subject the actor to liability.
A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term.
Webster. The process of stating the exact meaning of a word by means of other words. Worcester.
See Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend., N.Y., 103; Marvin v. State, 19 Ind. 181.
Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes.
Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857, 216 N.W. 33, 37.
"Definition" - Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition
A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term. The process of stating the exact meaning of a word by means of other words. Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes.
“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.”
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160; TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78; WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274; U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) – GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978); CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44; THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
"Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty."
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210, 363 P.2d 180 (1961).
"Article II, Section 3 of the constitution provides that: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; A motor vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the right to make full use of the property which one has the inalienable right to acquire.
[2-3] Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. ... Any unreasonable restraint upon the freedom of the individual to make use of the public highways cannot be sustained.
CONSTITUTIONS RECOGNIZE NATURAL RIGHTS. The constitutions of the state and the nation recognize unenumerated rights of natural endowment. Colo.
Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Case, 151 Colo. 235, 380 P.2d 34 (1962).
SOURCE OF NATURAL RIGHTS. All men have rights which have their origin as natural rights independent of any express provision of law; constitutional provisions are not the sources of these rights.
Colo. Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Case, 151 Colo. 235, 380 P.2d 34 (1962)
"RIGHTS GRANTED BY CONSTITUTION APPLY TO MINORS as well as adults."
In re Hartley, 886 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1994).
An individual's right to use the public highways of this state is an adjunct of the constitutional right to acquire, possess, and protect property, yet such a right may be limited by a proper exercise of the police power of the state based upon a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare.
People v. Brown, 174 Colo. 513, 485 P.2d 500 (1971), appeal dismissed, 404 U.S. 1007, 92 S. Ct. 671, 30 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1972).
Share your knowledge and comprehension of the law and how this stuff works once you figure it out...freely, with your brother, so that he too may begin the process of taking the chains from around his neck too.
Post by editor » Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:05 pm
Thanks, MyCountryIsLost, for this large collection of cites.
Post by notmartha » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:05 pm
Welcome, and thank you for your willingness to share.
Post by cobra2411 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:08 pm
“But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that
hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon
the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value.”
167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.
“waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)”.
Same, more detailed...
By Marbury Vs. Madison: ” No provision within the Constitution is designed to be without effect.” “Anything thats in conflict is null and void of law.”
American Jurisprudence Book 16, Sections 256:
Bary Vs. United States: “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” (you are the beneficiary of the United States Constitution.)
American Jurisprudence Book 16, Sections 97:
This is a good one for property rights (automobile) as well as freedom of travel.
Achilles4435
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:20 am
Post by Achilles4435 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:40 am
I just went to court today and got hammered by a judge for exercising my right to travel. They have on record that I have a restricted driver's license. Two years ago I applied for a license. The secretary of state offered me a restricted license but I never accepted it. I got a state I'd card. The four days I have this restricted license.....The secretary of state says I have a valid state id card. I told the judge I didn't have a license and didn't intent to get one. He said the law says I have a license with restrictions and now I'm on probation for a year with $725.00 worth of fines and fees??? What can I do? How long do I have before I can appeal? HELP???
Post by cobra2411 » Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:43 pm
Appeals must be done in a timely manner, typically 30 days. What court was this? Most traffic courts, appeals are De Novo, that is everything starts new.
I would suggest starting a new thread with some details. One of the first things is that it sounds like you accepted their jurisdiction. Motions for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction come before all other pleading.
Judges like crushing "constitutional" folks when they slip up... You have to understand what you're getting into.
Post by notmartha » Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:37 pm
Achilles4435 wrote: I just went to court today and got hammered by a judge for exercising my right to travel. They have on record that I have a restricted driver's license. Two years ago I applied for a license. The secretary of state offered me a restricted license but I never accepted it. I got a state I'd card. The four days I have this restricted license.....The secretary of state says I have a valid state id card. I told the judge I didn't have a license and didn't intent to get one. He said the law says I have a license with restrictions and now I'm on probation for a year with $725.00 worth of fines and fees??? What can I do? How long do I have before I can appeal? HELP???
You have established residency by having a STATE ID, among other things.
Residents are required to have drivers' licenses to travel.
You have shown your intent to have a driver's license by applying for one, whether your application was rejected or not.
If they don't have an application for a restricted license with your signature on it, but charge you as if they do, then you could charge them with a misrepresentation of a material matter of facts.
But that will not eliminate the charge of driving on a suspended license, if that is what the charge was. Your post is not exactly clear on what the charge was. If they claim you have a license with restrictions, do they claim that was expired/suspended too?
BTW, you can challenge jurisdiction at any time, but the earlier the better. If you are doing so, however, you should know how they claim it.
Post by cobra2411 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:00 pm
I guess because it's general right to travel information I'll respond here. I hate when threads get co-opted. They're hard to find and hard to follow, so if the OP is reading please start a post with your specific information.
Having tried to use only a passport as ID I can attest to how difficult it is. So many people are conditioned to see a driver's license or a state ID - aka a "Non-Driver's license" that they refuse anything else. By getting a non-driver's license you're still agreeing to their contract.
What to do? You carry them under duress to protect yourself from extreme harassment. That's what I do anyway. Then you keep your nose clean and stay under the radar as much as possible and read, and learn.
Are you a resident? I'm not. A resident is someone who resides somewhere permanently or for a long time. To the kingdom of heaven I'm here but a moment... Just food for thought.
Jurisdiction be challenged at any time, but why even enter their court? No court is bound to uphold unconstitutional law. They'll assume their laws are constitutional, so you have to show them, but that should be the first and only thing you argue. You're not arguing about if you drove on a suspended license or not but rather than the state has no authority to make you have a license therefore it's irreverent. The state has arbitrarily and erroneously converted your right to a privilege and Murdock v Penn. says that no state may convert a secured liberty to a privilege for the purpose of issuing a license and charging a fee.
Since unconstitutional laws are invalid, null and void they can be ignored with impunity. Since you are relying on previous decisions of the supreme court and other constitutional defenses you have a defense against any claim of willfulness. You have no duty to abide by an unconstitutional law.
I suggest reading this - http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Particularly the very first part: NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:...
You are not submitting to their jurisdiction but rather showing them they have none.
Post by bluddysnoman » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:07 pm
Some great and useful info here but I do not understand the argument.
When has a cop, prosecutor, or judge ever denied your right to travel?
It appears that these government actors are trying to enforce commercial laws on you as a private individual regardless of your status (domocile, resident, sovereign, native, alien...whatever your status is)
Regardless of who you are, if you are engaged in a commercial use of the road, we should see that It is good for the public collectively and individually to impose restrictions for that privileged commercial use of our roads since the wear and tear and deterioration is exacerbated by that use not to mention the safety concerns for unmaintained equipment if left unchecked and those commercial users are making a profit by that use and its fair that they pitch in an extra amount to help us maintain those roads.
HOWEVER, that statutory enforcement should not be imposed on the private non-commercial travel by private individuals which is what I think is being implied here. So the argument should not be about right to travel but should be about not engaged in the commercial use of the road as some have stated.
The problem is that these state and municipal police are acting, under the direction of the prosecutors and or judges, where that's exactly what they are doing...imposing statutory regulations outside of the jurisdiction of those statutes onto the private individual. The answer to how to fight it is under the scope of a different question.
Post by Jenjohnson84 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:50 pm