If this is all true, just think of how much more we have been deceived
about in law for the purpose of collecting our money to use for immorality and
evil.
It's one thing to tax us for the roads. It's something else entirely to
substitute our rights for government granted privileges, then charge fees for
those so called privileges. Licensed privileges are NOT rights. See some links
below this article for my comments on this and related subjects. You will see a
big picture as to how they have twisted the laws to do this to us. People will
only be pushed so far, and that point is being reached at breakneck speed these
days.
I wonder when people will have had enough. I wonder when the "enforcers" of
tyranny will realize they took an oath to the Constitution before God, and stop
their tyranny? Will it be only when they are forced to do so? God Forbid!
We have agents of this fraud going around the country fleecing the people
under fraud, threat, duress, coercion, and intimidation, sometimes at the point
of a gun, to take their hard earned cash and to make the elite rich beyond
belief, while forcing good law abiding people to lose their livelihood, and soon
to steal their very bank accounts to prop up the big banks once again.
I fear we don't have much longer to wait for a
total breakdown of society, and a crash of the currency. How about some comments
on this?
Just click the comments link below.
Paul
Posted: 08 Oct 2013
04:18 PM PDT
Please prove this wrong if you think it is, with cites from cases as the author has done below.
U.S. Supreme Court says No
License Necessary To Drive Automobile On
Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary
To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely
YHVH.name 1 1 U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT
CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE
ON COMMON WAYS
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn 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." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579,
11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
"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 a
horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for
the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -Thompson vs. Smith,
supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with
freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White,
97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
“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.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the
earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to
conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of
the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. .
.” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v.
Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon
the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of
liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal
and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho
99 (1966).
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a
means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in
common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.)
41.
“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner
of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right
to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with
freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct
associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667
(1971)
“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of
travel long 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.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57
So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
“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. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762,
764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.
“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on
public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to
occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse
has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the
right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465,
468.
“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has
occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v.
City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford,
137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136
Conn. 670
“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.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"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 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1
Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:"
(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle"
means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by
mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…"
10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the
carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other
consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or
other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire
is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation
of persons for which remuneration is received." -International Motor Transit Co.
vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the
word ‘automobile.’" -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio
App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the
use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are
propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5
S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as
household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly
disposed of.
" Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon...
" 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; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
"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." 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 "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." - Ex
Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “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. "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 or business, but by being
subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed
limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle
registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337
Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle
"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require
a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and
engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394
U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive
Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share
Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely
transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire
or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "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." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “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. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they
already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago
v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the
licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal.
A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does
not exist without it.” Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The
court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in
profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without
compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the
corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for
personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d
213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally,
the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the
statute is void.” - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "With
regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right
secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any
state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier
vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A.
887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and
egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of
Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." (Paul v.
Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right
broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action.
Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right,
guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v.
Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “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.' Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21
S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside
areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life
as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. Kent
vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “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.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “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.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the
highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.” Cumberland
Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “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.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public
Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4
Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An
administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has
the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other
vehicle. Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive
vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets
with horses and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200,
205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66;
Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29.
…automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with
horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178
N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the
state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen. Draffin v.
Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may
lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
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. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of
his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words
and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question
whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson,
718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: -
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 - TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 -
WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT
43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - 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) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some
citations may be paraphrased.
I agree with your hope that the supine court decision is true... We should NOT be taxed for the RIGHT to freely travel in whatever conveyance we wish. BUT it is the STATES that have the "reserved powers" - IF, and only if, those powers are given by A VOTE by the PEOPLE to let them be exercised by the states (Tenth Amendment) - ie, to license operation of vehicles on roads, and even to tax and require a plate on same... Highway robbery comes in many shapes and forms. The Declaration of Independence outlined many of them.
ReplyDelete- Jim Greaves, Thompson Falls
In addition, taxing secured rights has been struck down by the court numerous times (eg, it was once common to require a stamp on handbills - SCOTUS said "no"). Likewise, a tax on newspapers was stricken in a CA case (I cannot cite it), but they are NOT allowed to sell newspapers and add the state sales tax to the price of the papers.
ReplyDeleteThis is all true than any way to speed up parking ticket for driving suspended license there and only exedra should be entitled to their money back right I like you because possibility
ReplyDelete