47 votes

U.S.Court Decisions confirm "Driving a Motor Vehicle" is a right, not a govt granted privilege.

SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:
Case # 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 may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "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."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

MORE|SOURCE<<<



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Does right to travel and transport property differ from right to

operate a motor vehicle? A man can travel as a passenger and transport his property on the public highways without operating a car. I don't see anywhere in these cases the decision discussing operation of a motor car as a protected right. Has a court ruled that personally operating the vehicle is a right or is merely being transported in your person and property a right? I can see someone who is physically unable to safely operate an automobile claiming it to be a right based on the right to travel.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

The true reality of the situation,

and it has been stated a few times below, is that the system will bankrupt you if you dare question it. I took the time to read the case cited above in Kent vs. Dulles. As interesting as it was you would have a hard time threading that camel through the eye of the needle pertaining to operating a motor vehicle. What I found particularly interesting was that the case revolved around the issuance of a passport and the Government utilizing it's war powers to institute the requirement of having a passport to travel overseas or to enter the country. does the governments premise sound familiar? Read on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles
One issue I'm interested in is the Governments contention that roadways are constructed and maintained through the use of tax monies which were aquired solely through their fees collected from multiple sources, such as liquid fuels taxes as well as license fees, totally related to vehicular travel.
It would be interesting to see a case brought before the courts challenging this "closed system" due to the fact that Obama released billions of dollars from the general fund to the transportation departments of all states as a part of his economic stimulus bill. A lot of this money was spent in my state upgrading the intersections by building handicapped ramps to bring them into compliance with ADA rules. Can the government place restrictions or require a license for anyone who uses these improvements. Many of the dollars were also used to repave the interstates in my area so I can see a relationship here.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

It would be helpful if

someone would provide links to actual cases and decisions.

Many people have taken actions based on this information and have gotten themselves in pretty uncomfortable and tough situations, including the loss of their liberty to go anywhere while steering a private automobile.

In researching this subject, I see a lot of references, but no links to actual Supreme court cases.

I just did a search again and can not find any link to an actual case except within this article on Wilipedia:

>
The following case precedents are typically cited in defense of unencumbered travel within the United States:

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200; 169 N.E. 22 (1929).

"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 law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, Supreme Court of Virginia, 155 Va. 367; 154 S.E. 579; (1930).

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move 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 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938; 96 U.S. App. D.C. 287 (1955).

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938; 96 U.S. App. D.C. 287 (1955) at 941.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 (1958).
<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States

The only case listed above that has an active link on Wikipedia is Kent v. Dulles; but when you click on that, it takes you to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Kent v. Dulles". In that article, there is a link, 357 U.S. 116, but when you click on that link, it merely takes you to yet another Wikipedia article entitled, "United States Reports". No links to an actual case or decision. Only editorial liberties are exercised.

Could someone please provide a link to a case or decision so we can read the actual law or decision for ourselves instead of just taking the word of some "patriot" guru or organization?

I admit, I am not the best surfer of legal documents as I have had very little need to respond to any legal documents or charges in my life.

Any help out there?

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

I wouldn't call driving a right

Liberty and property are rights.

No govt should ask questions, require paperwork or interfere in any way with the individual's activity unless they have violated someone else's liberty.

No individual should seek permission or answer to the govt in any way if they are not violating someones right or risking their liberties.

This is why PUBLIC roads are a threat to our liberty. Because we are FORCED to pay for them and then have to ASK for permission to use them. We have to register our property with the govt and we have to be certified by the govt. We are subject to speed traps and checkpoints.

A govt by the people my ass. You are subjects.

more info.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

This is no different then

TAXES. Which are completely voluntary. Not Mandatory.

However. If you want to open a bank account, a corporation or deal with any financial institution. You volunteer yourself to mandatory pay your taxes.

How many of you know. Since 1931 when the U.S went BANKRUPT. The maternity act was created. Creating social security number's so you could be tracked so you can pay taxes.

LIES, what actually happens is they created a mirror corporation of you when your born. What you don't realize is your going around representing a corporation that is named you! Look at your license and ask why is you name in ALL CAPITALS. It's because that's your corporation. Not the human being that is you!

THIS IS HOW THEY ARREST YOU FOR STATE STATUTES LIKE DRIVING!!!! Your acting as a CORPORATION AND YOU DONT EVEN KNOW IT!

taxes are mandatory

that's why they are taxes.
The question is, do your facts and circumstances fit within the taxing authority of the legislature.

your all capital name equal corporation isn't correct. drop the patriot guru legal garbage, and pick up good law. We need bright people like you exercising valid law to make a dent in the system.

Mandatory for?

Are they mandatory for a China man in China?
Are they mandatory in the absence of income?

I could go on but if they are mandatory you ought to be able to explain who taxes apply to and what activities are taxed in honest terms. If your explanation is not all people are taxed for all activities at all times in all places then ... they are in fact voluntary by choosing to operate in specific taxable capacities while engaged in specific taxable activities at specific taxable times or places!

correct- When it's taxed...

Yes,
When something is taxed, then payment is mandatory.
When something isn't taxed, then payment isn't mandatory.

So ...

A China man in China pays income tax because income tax is mandatory?

It would appear your "when it's taxed" application is full of logical holes that have not been thought completely through ...

Find one circumstance

that can't be answered with something like:
If blank is taxed then payment is mandatory.
If blank is not taxed then payment is not mandatory.

And I'll buy you a pizza.

Its one of the characteristics that makes a tax a tax.
If a government taxes a thing they are taking regardless of the victims consent. Another characteristic is the government has no obligation to provide anything in return.

So ...

If ___nothing___ is taxed then payment is not mandatory.

Papa John's sounds pretty good, I haven't had pizza from a pizza joint in a couple years.

The Automobile and Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcFIj8OuIEI

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

understanding liberty law

... is a crucial part of restoring the Republic.
Fully Informed Juries, a well-informed moral people, and judicial-branch full accountability through yearly voting are keys to achieving liberty. Mount a local campaign to throw out your worst judge this year

The way I have heard it

off the top of my head...

An automobile is an extraordinary use of the highway. Horse and buggy is still considered the ordinary use.

Also the "public highways" are now mostly the state's highways, and most automobiles are now the state's automobiles. (And most people are the state's people.)

So, yes, you can move your property on public roads by the ordinary conveyance without a license, but I don't recommend driving the state's automobile on the state's highway without the state's permission unless you just like the state's boot on your head.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

RE: Extraordinary Use

Extraordinary use is using the public highway as a place of private gain or to derive a profit.

Another use is use in the ordinary course of life pursuing happiness.

Some of the early cases after the invention of the automobile were about does an automobile have the same rights to the road as a horse and buggy to which the judicial response was ... yes.

I challenge you to look up the term "use" in a cross selection of legal dictionaries. "Use" means to hire or employ anything to do something. The very term use, like all legal terms has a business or commercial connotation ... "hire or employ."

Now if we apply a little common sense here it becomes perfectly clear. Does the government have authority to command you how to live your life at any given moment? Can it tell you what to eat in one instant, drink in the next, or when you can excrete waste? Of course not, nor do they outright claim it because if they did people would rebel en masse.

Government is a business. Government is in business. Government is a protection racket. Because it can not charge fees for uses in the ordinary course of life without open rebellion, government has conflated activities in the ordinary course of life as if they are commercial activities subject to regulation. Government says if you want to do business using our laws, corporations, money or anything else maintained by government ... then we get a cut.

So government says driving is a privilege and everyone thinks driving is a privilege or driving = traveling. What is not disclosed is that driving is a for hire activity transporting persons or property (ie. I am pretty confident you will find that phrase or similar in almost all if not all motor vehicle statutes). Look up some legal definitions here ... "transporting." Once you get into legal definitions it becomes clear everything is defined in a context of business and activities which derive a profit using government privileges. So driving is a privilege. Do you think it is a coincidence truck drivers are issued a class E license versus a class A license? We are talking about two classes of the same type of occupational driving license. The only distinction between A and E is vehicle weight.

Attorneys, truly the scum of the earth, have taken plain language and created a legal language in which ordinary words are defined in a commercial or business context. A legal dictionary in essence is a business dictionary. It is a wholly dishonest and deceptive profession.

Even if one seriously reviews the history of public roads and regulations of horse and buggies ... horses and buggies which operated for profit using the common right of way in cities, such as a taxi, were subject to some regulations in some areas.

In addition there were no public roads originally in America. Roads were analogous to rivers, a common right of way. People seem to think all public roads are owned by the state but if the state paved over a common right of way using the public purse ... how does it acquire ownership? The state did not originally create the right of way, nor can it be said a state homesteaded a right of way if a right of way was still in use while being paved, nor can it be said it was purchased. About all that can be said is a state improved a common right of way. Now for an important question ... what was the intention to improve rights of way? Was it so the American people can take a leisurely cruise to pursue happiness? No, it was to improve commerce which is the extent of a states interest in a paved common right of way (ie. in judicial terms a states interest can be summed up as legislative intent).

American Majesty, you are absolutely...

MAJESTIC in this response!

Best comment I've ever seen you make!

Thank you!

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

YES-and it does daily

"Does the government have authority to command you how to live your life at any given moment? Can it tell you what to eat in one instant, drink in the next...?"

Just ask the legislature they will tell you that their power ends where constitutional rights begin. (and those are growing weaker by the day).

If you cross them, they will take your property and or put you in a cell, and if you resist, they will put you in the ground. And they are more than happy assist you in your learning this fact 24/7.

The revolutionary war won political independence from england, it did not win the individual freedom from government. (unfortunate)

There is a difference between the way things ought to be and the way things are.

Do you think the government could announce tomorrow

that everyone is its slave? Of course not.

The state does loot, pillage, and plunder but it does not do so premised under any authority everyone is a government slave. It is a carefully crafted deception by a profession of liars.

When you state "[T]he revolutionary war won political independence from england, it did not win the individual freedom from government" you are arguing a conceptual point.

Political independence for who?
Was it political independence from British rule and being a British subject?

Let's use slavery as an analogy. Is it just for one to enslave another in a tribunal of force? Is it unjust for a slave to rebel against and kill their master in a tribunal of force? Can a slave establish anything while under the power of a master or must a slave first obtain independence in order to establish a new form of self government?

I am just not seeing how your argument could logically fly when you are conflating two separate events. People did rebel against British rule and after they had rebelled they established a new government. Two completely separate events. I am not fan of priests in black robes but that it is two separate events is probably an explanation for opinions like:

" ... at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ... and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." -Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 440 (p. 471)(1793);

"Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people … " -Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court (1794);

"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound." -People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825);

"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states." -Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854);

"People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative." -Lansing v Smith, 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY)(1829);

"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty." -Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (p. 404)(1857);

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." -Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884);

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. -Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356 (p. 370)(1886);

"A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority." -Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250 (1912);

“[A]s general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others." -In Re Newman, 71 C.A. 386, 235 (p. 664)(1925);

“'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution ... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community ... (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases." -U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990);

YES!

I think they could, and I think they have done as much. They claim the power to determine the disposition of you, your stuff, your contracts, and anything else they wish. Feel like going to viet nam? :)

you are arguing a conceptual point.
I though it was a legal point. But I guess all points are conceptual.

Political independence for who?
Read the dicta you quoted for the answer.

Is it just for one to enslave another in a tribunal of force?
No- although I am unfamiliar with the phrase tribunal of force.

Is it unjust for a slave to rebel against and kill their master in a tribunal of force?
Yes-same caveat as above

Can a slave establish anything while under the power of a master
-No

must a slave first obtain independence in order to establish a new form of self government?
-yes

I am just not seeing how your argument could logically fly when you are conflating two separate events.
-many people associate the war for independence with a war that won them freedom from government. I was untangling that association.

People did rebel against British rule and after they had rebelled they established a new government. Two completely separate events.
-agreed

About your quotes, i studied bill thornton's work for 2 years and this DICTA is very familiar to me.

And while I want to believe the individual, living soul, american citizen is one of the people and, therefore, in a position above the governments that occupy this land, my eyes and ears show me the opposite. I sure would like to see some rulings where this position has prevailed. Do you have any to show? Can you point me to any?

RE:

"And while I want to believe the individual, living soul, american citizen is one of the people and, therefore, in a position above the governments that occupy this land, my eyes and ears show me the opposite. I sure would like to see some rulings where this position has prevailed. Do you have any to show? Can you point me to any?"

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

In nature, majority of force prevails. Men and women are only in a position above "the governments that occupy this land" as a superior force when operating in a majority, unified, capacity called people. If there was a majority consensus and will to abolish government tomorrow does anyone think it would not be abolished? That is an extreme but when men and women can agree on how to live and treat each other, so they shall ... as it is often said in unions ... for better or worse :).

I subscribe to a force more powerful than any government. For instance, I wholly believe if a people want a benefit of Justice they can not have it unless they are willing to treat others as they want to be treated. My own eyes and ears tell me this is true.

I would agree with you an individual does not possess the same amount of force as a government to be in a position of superior force. I would assert force and freedom are not synonymous. I would assert freedom does not derive from force. I would assert any government that repeatedly trespasses against men and women who are inherently free is on a path toward its own destruction.

If history were an authority it might indicate the rise and fall of governments are repeating cycles. Is there anyone who claims the present cycle of the United States is set on a stage of liberty? If the stage is not set for liberty then any liberty parts or roles are unavailable. It seems the only parts or roles available are for actors willing to point out injustice. If your expectation is to exercise liberty and prevail you are seeking a part or role that is not presently available. As I have exercised any natural or fundamental right to travel I have been optimistic for a good outcome but I do not expect it because I have not done it expecting to prevail or with any expectation my liberty will be respected on the current stage.

well put

to answer this question:
If there was a majority consensus and will to abolish government tomorrow does anyone think it would not be abolished?
-A minority tried before and succeeded, and majority have tried before and failed. Not majority consensus but superior force (majority force).
Even politically, it does not take a majority to change regimes.

Correct, the stage is not set for individual liberty.
The statutes, legal system, standard practices of government, and conventional thinking do not support individual liberty. That is the reform I wish to see happen.

http://www.dailypaul.com/298184/logical-proof-for-individual...

I am not of the belief force lies ...

it seems more like something people do.

When you say:

"A minority tried before and succeeded, and majority have tried before and failed. Not majority consensus but superior force (majority force)."

I would restate:

Minorities have tried and succeeded because they were a more powerful force, and majorities have tried and failed because they were a less powerful force.

Morals:

Never underestimate the power of a minority because it may turn out they are more powerful than a majority.

Never underestimate your own power.

The opposite of both, do not overestimate, being equally wise.

then you restate it well

you have a real talent for clear writing.

Your missing part of the decision!

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways ... includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day"

The term "ordinary" does NOT apply to the usage, it applies to the conveyance. The most ordinary conveyance of our day is indisputably a CAR.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

His point is that the roads

His point is that the roads are no longer public property, but state has split off into its own thing, not owned by the people, so the roads are state property. If you title your car you give up ownership to a state. Therefore to have a car you've entered into contract with the state and must use their property how they tell you do. 99.999% (pulled that out of my ass to make a point) of people don't understand this, so things will never change. Even if people hear the information, they refuse to believe it. Even if people believe it, they refuse to think anyone should be done, because 99.999% of people think their own behavior needs to be regulated.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

agreed

nicely put

that's neat but,

"the state" isn't lawfully in the right for stealing highways and roads from The People. If they bought it with The Peoples money then it is The Peoples.

article 1 section 8 clause 17. the state can own 10 square miles, and no more than 10 square miles, to conduct their business. The highways and public access roadways belong to The People and anything purchased by "the state" is directly given to The People; since it is The People's money which purchased said object or service.

and the normal roads we see today are shared property lines, we allow others to travel on our property line so that we may travel upon theirs.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

the state can

and does own property in its own right.
It is an entity separate and apart from society and it can own property, incur debts, do what it pleases.

That is a legal reality. A matter a pure civics.
The government is a militant entity that occupies society.
You/we don't own it. It has no obligation to you...to us.
It has the ability to harm you with legal impunity. And it has the power to take what it wants, when it wants, and it is not obliged to give you anything in return.

I don't want to see the day

I don't want to see the day the state cedes back anything to the people that it's stolen. It certainly wouldn't be a day without much death. The people's money is gold and silver. The dollar is no longer defined as so many grains of silver. A birth certificate is a contract of debt based on presumed human labor. Paper money are used to transfer these debts around. Nothing is paid for and the whole system is just a house of cards. The roads have been the states' since before any of us were born, and any time you title a car you willingly transfer ownership to the state. And your property and its lines are not yours. A deed is equal in level as the title to a car. Tenancy.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.