Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

1
CommentGo Back

BRIEF ON TRAVELINGIS A"RIGHT,"NOT A GOVERNMENTGRANTED PRIVILEGE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESNote: § means SectionCONSTITUTIONSConstitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9 Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, § 3 Constitution of the State of Idaho Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 1 Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 2 Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 36 STATUTES3 Angel Highways 3 11 American Jurisprudence. 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123 60 Corpus Juris Secundum § 1, Page 148 American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways § 163 Idaho Code 49-301 (6) Idaho Code 49-301 (13) Idaho Code 49-301 (14) Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. § 10102 (17) CASE HISTORIES1 Chitty Pr. 32 Barron v. Burnside 121 U.S. 186 Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607 Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74 Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171 Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E. 2d 1000 (1943) Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208,211, 49 N.J. 432 Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135 Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677 In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934 McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966) Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37 Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257 Parish v. Thurston 87 Ind. 437 (1882) People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210 Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139 Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352 Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513 State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864 State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073 Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580 Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98 Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485 Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359 Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274 LAW DICTIONARIESBergh Business Law 30 Bouvier's Law Dictionary Woodward Quasi Contracts 9 ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARIESWebster Unabridged Dictionary

BRIEF ON TRAVELING IS A"RIGHT,"NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE!

1. The issue is whether this Sovereign Man is required to obey theprovisions in the Motor Vehicle Code/statutes of the 50 united Statesof America. It is the contention of this Sovereign Man that because heis a Free and Natural Man and not an artificial creation of governmentwho has given up none of his RIGHTS, that the Motor VehicleCode/statutes do not apply to him. It is also the contention of thisSovereign Man that traveling upon the streets, highways and bywaysin the 50 united States of America by this Sovereign Man is anunalienable RIGHT. Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislationby the States' legislative bodies.2. Let us first consider the contention of this Sovereign Man thattraveling upon the streets or highways in America is a RIGHT. Variouscourts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:2.1 The RIGHT to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizencannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5thAmendment. (Emphasis added). See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116,125.3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:3.1 The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includestoll roads--any road which the public have a RIGHT to use evenconditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roadswhich are wholly public. (Emphasis added). See: Weirich v. State, 140Wis. 98.4. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the RIGHTto travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinarycourse of his business or pleasure, though this RIGHT might beregulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.(Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22.5. "Regulated" here can only mean traffic safety enforcement, stoplights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.;licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..6.PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?