Quantcast
More
Robertson v. Department of Publi... Videos News Slideshows Questions Topics

SLIDESHOW: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

Watch Video

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Note: § means Section

CONSTITUTIONS

Constitution 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

STATUTES

3 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 HISTORIES

1 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 DICTIONARIES

Bergh Business Law 30
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Woodward Quasi Contracts 9

ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES

Webster 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 the provisions in the Motor Vehicle Code/statutes of the 50 united States of America. It is the contention of this Sovereign Man that because he is a Free and Natural Man and not an artificial creation of government who has given up none of his RIGHTS, that the Motor Vehicle Code/statutes do not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Sovereign Man that traveling upon the streets, highways and byways in the 50 united States of America by this Sovereign Man is an unalienable RIGHT. Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the States' legislative bodies.

2. Let us first consider the contention of this Sovereign Man that traveling upon the streets or highways in America 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, though 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 can only mean 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 a Sovereign Man in the 50 united States of America has 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 streets, highways, roadways and waterways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large! The 50 States and the federal government are only stewards of the People's Property! 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 or withhold at its discretion.... (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

8. The Washington State Supreme Court stated:

8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the RIGHTS of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. (Emphasis added). See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139.

9. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873:

9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the RIGHT to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. (Emphasis added). See: Ind 455, 461.

10. American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:

10.1 The RIGHT of the 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 guarantee 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 interferring with, not disturbing another's RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added). See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.

11. The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled:

11.1 In this connection it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute RIGHT to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a RIGHT ;and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of the privilege. (Emphasis added). See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135.

12. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado discussed the issue in the following way in 1961.

12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, § 3 provides that: All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable RIGHTS, among which may be reckoned the RIGHT . . . of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; . . . .

12.1.1 A 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 unalienable RIGHT to acquire.

12.1.2 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. (Emphasis added). See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.

13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:

13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain unalienable RIGHTS, among which are . . . ; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. . . . (Emphasis added).

14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 1, states as follows:

14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added).

( The only persons which can be the meaning of the Article above are man,and not a corporation, since corporations are created with privileges granted by government not rights ).

14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the RIGHTS of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. (Emphasis added). See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677.

15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.

16. Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:

More to follow!

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Alexander 2010/03/27 15:10:51
    Alexander
    +2
    Under Barry Soetoro (Obama) the Democrats are showing their true colors. One thing that used to be puzzling is why would anyone spend millions of dollars to be elected to a job that pays $174,000 a year. I think Nancy Pelosi has shown us why very clearly.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • tmtbonem 2012/05/11 21:33:49
    tmtbonem
    +1
    This is real. This is law not ignorance. This is the truth
  • mustangluver 2010/03/27 16:00:11
    mustangluver
    * At a time of rising unemployment, the government would raise the cost of hiring workers by requiring employers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize government coverage.
    * Every American would be required to buy an insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even individuals who are currently insured — and happy with their insurance — will have to switch to insurance that meets the government's definition of "acceptable insurance."
    * A government-run plan similar to Medicare would be set up in competition with private insurance, with people able to choose either private insurance or the taxpayer-subsidized public plan. Subsidies and cost-shifting would encourage Americans to shift to the government plan.
    * The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results of that research to impose practice guidelines on providers — initially, in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually extending such rationing to private insurance plans.
    * Private insurance would face a host of new regulations, including a requirement to insure all applicants and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk.
    * Subsidies w...


    * At a time of rising unemployment, the government would raise the cost of hiring workers by requiring employers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize government coverage.
    * Every American would be required to buy an insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even individuals who are currently insured — and happy with their insurance — will have to switch to insurance that meets the government's definition of "acceptable insurance."
    * A government-run plan similar to Medicare would be set up in competition with private insurance, with people able to choose either private insurance or the taxpayer-subsidized public plan. Subsidies and cost-shifting would encourage Americans to shift to the government plan.
    * The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results of that research to impose practice guidelines on providers — initially, in government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually extending such rationing to private insurance plans.
    * Private insurance would face a host of new regulations, including a requirement to insure all applicants and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk.
    * Subsidies would be available to help middle-income people purchase insurance, while government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be expanded.
    * Finally, the government would subsidize and manage the development of a national system of electronic medical records.

    Taken individually, each of these proposals would be a bad idea. Taken collectively, they would dramatically transform the American health care system in a way that would harm taxpayers, health care providers, and — most importantly — the quality and range of care given to patients.
    (more)
  • Autarchic mustang... 2010/03/27 16:16:52 (edited)
    Autarchic
    +1
    What does your comment have to do with traveling?
  • mustang... Autarchic 2010/03/28 09:25:08
    mustangluver
    +1
    Health care is not a right, it is a priv...
  • Autarchic mustang... 2010/03/28 12:58:52
    Autarchic
    What does your comment have to do with traveling?
  • tmtbonem mustang... 2011/12/30 18:32:46
    tmtbonem
    +4
    Insurance is a scam too. I am sure you would agree to that.
  • Autarchic tmtbonem 2011/12/30 18:47:38
    Autarchic
    +1
    No doubt!
  • tmtbonem tmtbonem 2012/02/26 20:37:18
    tmtbonem
    +1
    So what I'm saying is ignorance of the law is no excuse and that does not mean what you seem to think it does.As long as I cause you no injury or property loss I have broken no laws and will be expecting to be treated with dignity as I do others. This is the truth and if you know it and it may help to site it you can be assaulted but only illegally arrested for exercising your rights. But you must know them and statutes do not trump common law or juris-prudence THE CONSTITUTION
  • Alexander 2010/03/27 15:10:51
    Alexander
    +2
    Under Barry Soetoro (Obama) the Democrats are showing their true colors. One thing that used to be puzzling is why would anyone spend millions of dollars to be elected to a job that pays $174,000 a year. I think Nancy Pelosi has shown us why very clearly.
<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-cell-phone-use-during-driving-be-completely-banned/question-2336917/" title="Should Cell Phone Use During Driving Be Completely Banned?">Should Cell Phone Use During Driving Be Completely Banned?</a>

About Me

Autarchic

Autarchic

Trenton, NC, US

2010/01/01 01:06:57

Esse Quam Videri - To be rather than to seem!

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals