[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/VYMRHZMdoaw” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_video][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/2QJDhrnuPYM” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_video][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/-djc4h3x49s” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_video][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/QPvUoNe67Gc” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_video][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/oycyqDTaPYI” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″][\/et_pb_video][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/danellaconsulting.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/banner1.jpg” title_text=”banner1″ url=”https:\/\/www.youhavetheright.com\/home\/” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/danellaconsulting.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Americas-Assembly.jpg” title_text=”Americas Assembly” url=”https:\/\/americas-assembly.com\/f\/right-to-travel-freely—us-supreme-court” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/danellaconsulting.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/AALibrary.jpg” title_text=”AALibrary” url=”https:\/\/americas-assembly.com\/library-part-1″ align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font_size=”18px” header_2_text_color=”#E02B20″ custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n
We are NOT U.S. CITIZENS or UNITED STATES CITIZENS, et al.<\/p>\n
STATUTES ARE NOT LAW \u2013 TO BE CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE THEY MUST HAVE YOUR CONSENT.\u00a0<\/p>\n
We do NOT GIVE OUR CONSENT, EVER.\u00a0<\/p>\n
We are NOT U.S. CITIZENS, i.e.\u00a0 We are Living Souls.\u00a0<\/p>\n
We are NOT a dead entity written in all upper-case letters on a piece of paper, or bond paper, being claimed as a vessel owned by another living or dead entity.<\/p>\n
A \u201cSTATUTE\u201d is NOT a law! \u2013 Flournoy v. First National Bank of Shreveport, 197 LA 1057-3 So. 2d 244,248.<\/p>\n
A \u201cCODE\u201d in NOT a law! \u2013 In Re Self v. Rhay, Wn 2d 261, in point of fact in law.<\/p>\n
A concurrent or \u201cjoint resolution of the legislature is NOT \u201claw\u201d. Knowing v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292,179 N.E. 705,707, Ward v. State, 176 OKL,368,56 P. 2d 136,137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash. 2d 43, 110.P.2d 162,165.<\/p>\n
STATUTE.\u00a0 Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.\u00a0 The writing will of the legislature solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.<\/p>\n
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION \u2013 \u201cThe common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are \u201cnot the law\u201d. \u00a0Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261.<\/p>\n
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION \u2013 \u201cAll codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities ONLY, not human\/Creators in accordance with God\u2019s Laws.\u00a0 All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process\u2026\u201d \u2013 Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d,1344, 1348 (1985).<\/p>\n
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION \u2013 1796 \u2013 \u201cThere, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.\u00a0 He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent\u201d. Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. This decision has never been overturned:<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are no Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. \u201cJudges\u201d do not enforce Statutes and Codes.\u00a0 Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. \u2013 FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178\u2033.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere have NOT been any \u201cJudges\u201d in America since 1789.\u00a0 There have only been Administrators. \u2013 FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178\u2033.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Supreme court has warned, \u201cBecause of what appears to be Lawful commands {Statutory Rules, Regulations and Codes- Ordinances and Restrictions} on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance\u2026{deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts}\u201d. \u2013 United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 178,76, S.Ct. 281,L.Ed. 185 (1956).<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Common Law is the real law, Supreme Law of the land.\u00a0 The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are \u201cnot the law\u201d. (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261),\u00a0 They are the law of government for internal regulations, not the law of man, in his separate but equel station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.<\/p>\n
\u201d A concurrent or \u201cjoint resolution\u201d of legislature in not \u201cLaw\u201d, (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707: Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136,137: State ex rel. Todd v Flynn, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162,165).\u00a0 All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human\/Creators in accord with God\u2019s Laws, \u201cAll codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of law..\u201d (Rodriques v, Ray donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344,1348 (1985):\u2026lacking due process of law, in that they are \u201cvoid for ambiguity\u201d in their failure to specify the statutes applicability to \u201cnatural persons\u201d, otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their constitution by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to \u201cartificial or fictional corporate entities or \u201cpersons\u201d, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, and property of the government, but not the \u201cNatural Person\u201d or American\u00a0 citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
A \u201cStatute is not a Law\u201d, (Flournoy v, First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197, La. 1067, 3 So.2d 144,148).<\/p>\n
A \u201ccode\u201d or Statute is not Law\u201d,( Flournoy v. first Nat. Bank of Shreveport 197, La 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font_size=”18px” header_2_text_color=”#E02B20″ custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n
“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. \u00a0It 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.20 784.
“… 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, 672, see also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 p.20136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways 15 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 Parts 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… 15 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).
“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 00 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. 2. 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 20 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 aright 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 Kentucky 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 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 Novae (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 589, 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 Rv. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.
“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]” U.S. V Bomar, C.A.S.(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) Pocket Part 94. “[it is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]” United States v Johnson, 718 F.20 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Other right to use an automobile cases:<\/p>\n
Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font_size=”18px” header_2_text_color=”#E02B20″ custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cThe 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\u2019s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 \u201cThe 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.\u201d \u2013<\/p>\n
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 \u201c\u2026 the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference\u2026 is a fundamental constitutional right\u201d -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) \u201ccitizens 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.\u201d
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 \u201cThe 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. . .\u201d<\/p>\n
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). \u201cThe 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.\u201d
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). \u201cA 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. \u201cThe 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.\u201d
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. \u201cThe 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.\u201d People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. \u201cThe 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.<\/p>\n
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00a0Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. 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 2 2 \u201cA 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.\u201d Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 \u201cThere 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.\u201d Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 \u201cThe word \u2018automobile\u2019 connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0-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: \u201c(6) Motor vehicle. \u2013 The term \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways\u2026\u201d 10) The term \u201cused for commercial purposes\u201d 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. \u201cA 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term \u2018motor vehicle\u2019 is different and broader than the word \u2018automobile.\u2019\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 \u201cThus 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\u201d \u2013 Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 \u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0The 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). \u201c\u2026a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon\u2026\u201d 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;\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 \u201cThe 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Chicago 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 \u201cthe right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business\u2026 is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.\u201d \u2013\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 \u201cEvery 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.\u201d People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. \u201cNo State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways\u2026 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. \u201cTraffic infractions are not a crime.\u201d People v. Battle \u201cPersons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right\u2026 may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Shuttlesworth 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 \u201cThe word \u2018operator\u2019 shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 \u201cHighways 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.\u201d Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 \u201cRIGHT \u2014 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. . . \u201c Bouvier\u2019s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. \u201cThose who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. \u201cA license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.\u201d Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. \u201cThe object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. \u201cThe 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). \u201cIf [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.\u201d \u2013\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). \u201cWith 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.\u201d Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O\u2019Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. \u201cThe 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0(Paul v. Virginia). \u201c[T]he right to travel freely from State to State \u2026 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.\u201d (U.S. Supreme Court,\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: \u201cIron curtains have no place in a free world. \u2026\u2019Undoubtedly 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.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. \u201cOur 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.\u201d Id., at 197.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13\u201414. \u201cThe 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.\u201d Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. \u201ca person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is \u201cnot obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.\u201dJustice White, Hiibel \u201cAutomobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. \u201cEach 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Swift 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 \u201cstatute.\u201d A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Cecchi 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Chicago 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. \u2026automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Matson 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Draffin 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;\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. \u201cA soldier\u2019s personal automobile is part of his \u2018household goods[.]\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235\u201d 19A Words and Phrases \u2013 Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. \u201c[I]t is a jury question whether \u2026 an automobile \u2026 is a motor vehicle[.]\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: \u2013\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 \u2013\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 \u2013 WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 \u2013 CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 \u2013 THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 \u2013 U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) \u2013\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) \u2013 CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 \u2013\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) \u2013 CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/danellaconsulting.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Silver-Bullet.jpg” title_text=”Silver Bullet” url=”http:\/\/www.coppermoonshinestills.com\/id71.html” align=”center” force_fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”20px||20px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.19.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n