Time: Wed Oct 30 20:23:55 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: autarchic: Traveling is a right [1/7]
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists
<snip>
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: autarchic
>To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>Subject: Traveling is a right [1/7]
>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:19:21 EST
>Message-ID: <19961030.141737.4327.14.autarchic@juno.com>
>
>
>Greeting All,
>
>This is a sample of some of the work I have done in the past.
>
> >>> Part 1 of 7...
>
>
> BRIEF ON TRAVELLING IS A "RIGHT,"
>
> NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE
>
> by John Freeman <autarchic@juno.com
>
> TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
>
>Note: = Section symbol.
>
>CONSTITUTIONS PAGE #
>
>Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9 . . . . . 5
>Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, 3 . . . . . . . . .
>. . .4
>Constitution of the State of Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . .4
>Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, 1. . . . . . .
>. .5
>Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, 2. . . . . . . . .5
>Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, 36 . . . . . .
>. 5
>
>STATUTES
>
>3 Angel Highways 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . 6
>11 American Jurisprudence. 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page
>1123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . . .4
>60 Corpus Juris Secundum 1, Page 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
>American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
>Idaho Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . .6
>Idaho Code 49-301 (6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
>Idaho Code 49-301 (13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . 9
>Idaho Code 49-301 (14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . 9
>Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. 10102 (17). . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. .10
>
>CASE HISTORIES
>
>1 Chitty Pr. 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .7
>Barron v. Burnside 121 U.S. 186. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . .12, 21
>Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . 2
>Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . 8
>Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>.1, 2
>Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
>Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E. 2d 1000 (1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208,
>211, 49 N.J. 432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . 9
>Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
>Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
>Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
>Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,
>12
>In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . 8
>Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . .1
>Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . .2
>McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942) .11
>Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. 20, 21
>Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. .20
>O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . 8
>Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
>Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . 20
>Parish v. Thurston 87 Ind. 437 (1882). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
>People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
>Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139. . 3
>Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or.
>352. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . . . .9
>Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 20
>State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864. . . . . . . . . . . .
>2, 3
>State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . .3
>Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580 . . . . . . . . .2
>Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
>Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . .16
>Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>.23
>Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . 6
>
>LAW DICTIONARIES
>
>Bergh Business Law 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . .11, 16-18
>Bouvier's Law Dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-8,
>11, 12, 18, 21-23
>Woodward Quasi Contracts 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . . . 19
>
>ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES
>
>Webster Unabridged Dictionary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
>
>
>
> BRIEF ON TRAVELLING IS A "RIGHT,"
> NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE
>
>
>1. The issue is whether this Sovereign is required to obey the
>provisions in North Carolina General Statutes. It is the contention of
>this Sovereign that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has
>given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the North Carolina General
>Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this
>Sovereign that travelling upon the streets or highways in North
>Carolina by this Sovereign is an unalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is
>not subject to regulation or legislation by the State of North
>Carolina General Assembly.
>2. Let us first consider the contention of this Sovereign that
>travelling upon the streets or highways in North Carolina is a
>"RIGHT." Various courts 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 Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of
> the law under the 5th Amendment. (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, includes toll roads--any road which the public have a
> "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal
> sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public.
> (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 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 "RIGHT" to travel upon the highway and transport
> his property in the ordinary course of his business or
> pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in
> accordance with the public interest and convenience.
> (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22.
>
>5. "Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop
>lights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.;
>licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..
>
>6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?
>
> 6.1 The use of the highway for the purpose of travel
> and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON
> AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals
> cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra;
> Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934;
> Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607;
> American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163.
>
> 6.2 Citizen's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways
> includes right to use usual conveyances of time, including
> horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes
> of life and business. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580.
>
> 6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the
> public highways and to transport his property thereon,
> either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege
> which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON
> RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and
> the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Thompson v. Smith, supra.
>
>7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Sovereigns of
>the states have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction,
>(license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S.
>Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The
>People-At-Large. Here are other court decisions that expound the same
>facts:
>
> 7.1 . . . [T]he streets and highways belong to the
> public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and
> customary manner.
> See:
> Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;
>
> 7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their
> property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary
> conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary
> course of life and business.
> See:
> Hadfield, supra;
> State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.
>
> 7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the
> highways 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 highways his place
> of business and uses it for private gain. . . . (Emphasis
> added).
> See:
> State v. City of Spokane, supra.
>
> 7.4 . . . [F]or while a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to
> travel upon the public highways and to transport his
> property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of
> the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of
> business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person
> has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is
> a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant
>
> >>> Continued to next message...
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail