Dont remember where I copied this from I know it was from Eddie Craig though on FB known as Tao Law and while there are a few words here, I wouldnt use, it gives you all the fundamentals and reason on the RIGHT TO TRAVEL and the difference between Travel in an Auto and Driving in a Motor Vehicle... Read, learn, know and start exercising your rights.... 2.2 The People’s Right to Travel, Can’t Public Serpents Frickin’ Read? I figure the best way to provide the truth of this is to present the case law from a “legal argument” point of view. This information is taken in part from a brief I located on the internet. I am/have making/made some modifications for its use here in Texas. Be aware that it is not used here in the proper form for a brief per se, so I recommend that you make no attempt to use it for that purpose in this form. It is written here for the purpose of readability, not legal brief formatted argument. My legal arguments are written to be informative and accurate but also with some entertainment value added language, in order to make the material less mundane. So with that said the stage is set, let’s begin. We the People demand that this court and the prosecution pay particular attention to the following, which is presented in the form of judicial notice to this court. Even the federal government admits on the record that the motor vehicle laws and licensing statutes within the individual states exist solely for the purpose of regulating commercial activities upon the roads and highways and is neither intended nor of any effect against the People themselves who are not engaged in commerce upon them, to wit: “The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”. Seth Waxman, Solicitor General U.S. Department of Justice BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000 Supreme Court of the United States We the People also remind the court that THE STATE is obligated by law to provide to the Defense, and to introduce to this court, not only the evidence THE STATE intends to use to secure a conviction, but also any and all exculpatory evidence, law, statements or testimony in its possession or knowledge. This includes but is not limited to the related and relevant state and federal statutes themselves, and any and all case law interpretations thereof, relevant to the subject matter at issue in the instant case, as well as to ensure that any trial on the merits is fair and impartial, to wit: CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1.03. OBJECTS OF THIS CODE. This Code is intended to embrace rules applicable to the prevention and prosecution of offenses against the laws of this State, and to make the rules of procedure in respect to the prevention and punishment of offenses intelligible to the officers who are to act under them, and to all persons whose rights are to be affected by them. It seeks: 1. To adopt measures for preventing the commission of crime; 2. To exclude the offender from all hope of escape; 3. To insure a trial with as little delay as is consistent with the ends of justice; 4. To bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending to produce conviction or acquittal; 5. To insure a fair and impartial trial; and 6. The certain execution of the sentence of the law when declared. Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICERS Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused. Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. We the People assert that any attempt by the prosecution or this court to make or sustain a Motion In Limine that attempts to deny We the People the right to produce and argue the meaning and application of the statutes related to this cause is an abusive and oppressive act of obstruction of justice as well as a violation of the laws relating to your respective offices for which criminal charges will be filed. We the People assert that any failure of the STATE to perform their investigation with all necessary due diligence to ensure that justice is served and the innocent go free is a breach of the public trust and of justice. The Texas statutes above clearly mandate that in the instant case THE STATE’s duties include, but are not limited to, the research and review of all of the “Motor Vehicle v. Automobile” case law referenced and submitted to this court by the People as well as historical and current Texas case law upon that subject. It is also clearly made the responsibility of the prosecutor to thoroughly research and ascertain the correct meaning and application of the respective statutes in their entirety, and said prosecutor is not allowed to present or argue guilt based on presumption and conjecture or even current methodology as We the People are here to argue that the current methodology is unconstitutional and illegal. Anything less on the part of the prosecution is a willful failure to seek and/or exculpatory evidence for the sole purpose of obtaining a conviction at the expense of the accused Peoples and our respective individual right to justice in our own courts as well as a direct violation of the aforementioned state law. The prosecution may not be heard to argue that the People simply do not understand the true and special meaning of these sections of law as a rebuttal to the People’s argument as to its application and intent. As Sec. 1.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure so clearly states, the language and construction of the entire code is intended to be understood not only by the officers acting under its authority, but by everyone whose rights are to be affected by the rules contained therein. Therefore, unless the prosecution can introduce evidence that the mental capacity of the People has been somehow compromised or diminished to the point that the People can be declared “incompetent”, this attempted rebuttal by the prosecution must fail. Most state statutes have similar definitions for the term “Motor vehicle”. The term was originally defined in Florida law as: The term motor vehicle shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public highways (but not over fixed rails) for the transportation of persons or property for compensation either as common carriers, private contract carriers or for hire carriers. Motor vehicle - Laws of Florida c. 14764 (1931) California case law also makes the distinction between private non-commercial use of the roads and highways versus commercial use for gain: It is obvious that those who operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the public highways. * * * Such extraordinary use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for their separate classification and for relieving from the burden of the license tax those who merely employ the public highways for the transportation of their own property or employees. Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 129 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235, 238. (State v. Karel, 180 So. 3 at 8.) ... [T]he exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation License Act of 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their own property or employees, or both, and of those who transport no persons or property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions.” In re Schmolke (1926) 199 Cal. 42, 46. The historical facts and case law relating to the People’s right to travel on the roads and highways are herein presented. In this instance let us first consider the contention that a Sovereign Man that is traveling upon the streets or highways in America is exercising a RIGHT. Virtually every state supreme court as well as the United States Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled thusly on the right to travel: “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.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (Emphasis added). American Jurisprudence 1st Edition also makes this fact easy for even the most inept of judges and law enforcement personnel to comprehend: “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.” 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 (Emphasis added). During a 1909 trial the Wisconsin Supreme Court made the following statement regarding “public highways”: “The term ‘public highway,’ in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads--any road which the public has a RIGHT to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public.” See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98. (Emphasis added). Despite the popular misconception of the lower order constitutionally deficient shade-tree judges and potato IQ’d law enforcement officers that we seem to have so many of these days, the People’s right to travel upon the roads and highways and to use their private automobiles thereon is not a mere privilege. The various state courts proclaim this fact over and over again. “Citizens 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.” See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580. “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.” See: Thompson v. Smith, supra. (Emphasis added) It could not be stated more conclusively that a Sovereign Man in the union of several 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 governments of the several states and the federal government are only stewards of the Peoples property! There are a multitude of court decisions that expound these same facts: “ . . . [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. “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. “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 …” See: State v. City of Spokane, supra. “ . . . [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....” 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. (Emphasis added). In yet another long-standing judicial decision on this subject, one of the justices of the Washington State Supreme Court stated: “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.” See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139. (Emphasis added). The right of the people to make use of their state highways was addressed by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873: 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. See: Ind 455, 461. (Emphasis added). American Jurisprudence 1st, repeats the theme: 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 interfering with, not disturbing anothers RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123. (Emphasis added). The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled: 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 for 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. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135. (Emphasis added). The Constitution of the State of Texas, Article I, § 2 provides that: Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. The People of Texas have reserved the right to abolish, alter, or reform our government at any time and that all political power is inherent in the PEOPLE, not the government. The Texas legislature was not granted any power to control or regulate the People. Their regulatory control is strictly defined by the written will of the People in the instrument known as the Texas Constitution, and its regulatory authority is limited to those things that the People empowered the legislature to create and nothing more: Sec. 17. TAKING, DAMAGING, OR DESTROYING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. No persons property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority shall be subject to the control thereof. The legislature did not grant any privileges or franchises to the People, nor were any part of the People’s rights or property created under the authority of the legislature as such, and are therefore not subject to the control thereof. Sec. 29. PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void. The right to not be subject to the whims and fancies of the legislature was also reserved by and for the People and is forever specifically denied to every level of government in Article 1, Sec. 29: To be that statute 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. See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677. (Emphasis added). The Constitution of the State of Colorado, within Article II, § 3 of its provisions provides that: All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable RIGHTS, among which may be reckoned the RIGHT … of acquiring, possessing and protecting property;… An automobile is private property, and the People cannot be deprived of a single piece of property by anyone, especially THE STATE, except by due process of law. The terms “acquiring” and “possessing” in relation to property and 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 and possess; to argue otherwise requires a special brand of ineptitude in the interpretation and purpose of the respective constitutions. What devious brand of government fool could truly be insane enough to argue “Yes, it says you have an absolute right to acquire property, but nowhere does the constitution say you have the right to use it!” The People have always had the absolute right to use their property for its intended purpose as long as that purpose is not the intentional harm of another man or his property. This right to property includes the roads and highways, because they belong to the People, not to the government. The People say again, government is nothing more than the People’s appointed caretaker of the People’s property, it is not the People’s master, governor, or regulator as no such authority or power is or can be delegated for that purpose. 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. See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. (Emphasis added). The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the following words within its language and provisions: “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain unalienable RIGHTS, among which are . . . ; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. . . . “ The words of the North Carolina Constitution are for all intents and purposes identical to those of the Idaho Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 1, states as follows: 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. (The only meaning that can be assigned to the term “persons” as used in the above constitutional Article is “men”, it cannot mean a corporation or other legal entity since these entities are created with “privileges” and not rights, and these privileges are granted by another man-made fiction known as “government”, not by God). And in the following Article I, § 2: Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. And in Article I, § 36 of that same North Carolina Constitution: Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions, the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. We the People should be demanding the full use of all of our unalienable and unenumerated rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways of the several states of the union. As the Sovereign People, we are not only entitled to use the highways and byways in the several states of America, we have an unalienable right to use the highways and byways: Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a RIGHT to use. See: 3 Angel Highways 3. A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a RIGHT to use. See: Bouviers Law Dictionary. (Emphasis added) The People have emphasized the word RIGHT because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Texas Natural Resources Code even joins in on this common point: NATURAL RESOURCES CODE TITLE 3. OIL AND GAS SUBTITLE D. REGULATION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESSES AND OCCUPATIONS CHAPTER 114. OIL TANKER VEHICLES SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 114.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: ... (5) Public highway means a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular travel, even if the way or place is temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or repair. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that: 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 Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274. (Emphasis added). Vernon’s Civil Statutes of State of Texas Annotated p. 119 Note 9: “Generally “public road” is road used by public as matter of right.” See: Atchison Transportation & Shipping F. Ry. Co. v. Acosta, (Civ. App. 1968) 435 S.W.2d 539 ref. n.r.e. “The streets of the cities of this country belong to the public. Primarily, every member of the public has a natural right to the free use of such streets in the normal pursuit of his private or personal business or pleasure. The right of the public at large to the free use of the streets is paramount to the natural right of the individual. ... The power of the city in exercising such control is limited only by the Constitution and general laws of the state, ... But neither the Legislature nor the city commissioners has the power to take away or unreasonably abridge, the natural rights of the Citizen to the use of the streets in the manner and for the purpose we have set forth above.” See: City of San Antonio v. Fetzer, 241 SW 1034 “… both the transient public and the owners of abutting property have the right to the free passage of vehicles on the public highways.” See: State v. Perry, 130 N.W.2d 343 “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” See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 377 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22, ALR 834; Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 834 [934]; Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 American Jurisprudence 1st - Highways, Sec. 163 The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 infra. ... For 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 for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion. See: 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 “Constitutional right to travel is among rights and privileges of national Citizenship and finds its base not only in Fourteenth Amendment but in Constitution as a whole.” See: U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919 “Classifications which penalize exercise of right to travel are subject to strict scrutiny.” In re U.S. ex relatione Missouri State High School Activities Ass’n, 682 F.2d 147 (In the matter of) (Upon relation or information) “Even though government has legitimate and substantial purpose behind legislation, purpose cannot be sought by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when less drastic means for achieving same basic purpose are available… [There is a] right of “all Citizens” to be free to travel within and between states uninhibited by statutes.” See: U.S. C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 8” Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 “[The] Right to travel is constitutionally protected.” See: Agee v. Vance, 483 F.Supp. 729, affirmed 629 F.2d 80, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 46, certiorari granted Muskie v. Agee, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 453 U.S. 280, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 “There exists a constitutionally protected right to travel.” See: U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14” Wherrett v. Doyle, 456 F.Supp. 203 “Constitutionally protected right to travel is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation.” See: Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217 “Right to travel and to freedom of movement, particularly within United States, are fundamental rights of all Citizens of the United States.” See: Gautier Torres v. Mathews, 426 F.Supp. 1106, reversed Califano v. Gautier Torres, 98 S.Ct. 906, 435 U.S., 1, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 [S]ince the right to travel is a constitutionally protected right, any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional. See: Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995 (1972) The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. See: Schachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955) The right to travel is a basic, fundamental right under the Constitution, its origins premised upon a variety of constitutional provisions. See: Bergman v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1353, 1397 (W.D. Mich. 1983) [T]he right to travel interstate is fundamental. See: Lee v. China Airlines, Ltd., 669 F.Supp. 979, 982 (C.D.Cal. 1987) We are all Citizens of the United States [of America], and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states. See: Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49 (1868) The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113 (1958) “The right to travel is a well established constitutional right.” See: Coolman v. Robinson, 452 F.Supp. 1324 “Freedom of movement is fundamental right which may be restricted only where necessary to further most compelling state interests and such regulations must be narrowly circumscribed in order to withstand constitutional challenge for over-breadth and vagueness.” See: Gayle v. Governor of Guam, 414 F.Supp. 636 It would certainly appear to me that the courts have long recognized the right of the Citizen to use their private automobiles for their personal business and pleasure on the roads, streets and highways of the states. It is now an undisputed and established fact that the Citizen cannot be required to obtain permission from the Federal or State governments in order to exercise a constitutional right. It is in point of fact, the duty of courts such as this to ensure that the Citizens rights are protected against government encroachment and invasion. I would like the court to take judicial notice of the following court opinions on this subject: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO LEGISLATION, OR RULE MAKING which would abrogate them. See: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizen, and AGAINST ANY STEALTHY ENCROACHMENT THEREON. See: Boyd v. US, 116 US 616 (1886). And the People’s final words on what the states may not do in relation to a right are echoed in the following cases: No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore. See: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. See: Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity. See: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262 Thus, there can be little doubt that, when the Sovereign People travel upon the streets or highways in the several states of America, they do so as a matter of RIGHT and not privilege, and THE STATE may not interfere with the exercise of the right. The authority for such use of the roads and highways for the purpose of travel is described variously as a RIGHT, a COMMON RIGHT, an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, an IN/UNALIENABLE RIGHT, and a RIGHT protected by the Constitution for the united States for every Citizen within the several states of the union known as America. Let us then examine the importance of these terms to the Sovereign People by defining their meaning. RIGHT -- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) ones claim to something out of possession; (c) a power, prerogative, or privilege as when the word is applied to a corporation . (Emphasis added). See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary. RIGHT -- As relates to the person, RIGHTS are absolute or relative; absolute RIGHTS, such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his personal liberty; RIGHTS which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth in the kings dominion, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32. 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. . . . (Emphasis added). See: Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. Absolute -- Without any condition or encumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligatio, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or encumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. (Emphasis added). See: Bouviers Law Dictionary. Unalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. (Emphasis added). See: Bouviers Law Dictionary. Put those words together, absolute unalienable right, and the result shows from these definitions that the states have an obligation to acknowledge the RIGHT of the sovereign People to travel on the streets or highways in the several states of America. Further, the states have the duty to refrain from interfering with this RIGHT and to protect this RIGHT and to enforce the claims of the sovereign People to it. Now, if the sovereign People have the absolute RIGHT to move about on the streets or highways, does that RIGHT include the RIGHT to travel in an automobile and that it is a form of private property that may be used accordingly? Many of the cases previously cited have already emphatically stated “YES”, but there are more cases in support of this proclamation. The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question: “Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted RIGHT of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the RIGHT of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren RIGHT. Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513. (Emphasis added). These words of the Supreme Court of Texas were reiterated by the Idaho Supreme Court, which later quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of OConner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. In the original ruling the Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further; To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The RIGHT to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural RIGHT. It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizens natural liberty --an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of RIGHTS. See: Spann supra. (Emphasis added). Let us take a moment and speak to the issue of property, as it is a man’s right to own and make use of his property that is most affected by the issues presented herein. Bouviers Law Dictionary defines property thusly: Property -- The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is not a nuisance in itself. See: In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623. The United States Supreme Court states: “The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law. Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the RIGHT to acquire, use and dispose of it.” See: Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74. (Emphasis Added) These authorities point out that the RIGHT to own property includes the RIGHT to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is to travel upon the streets or highways for our own personal business and pleasure, and it is for those purposes that we the sovereign People have an absolute RIGHT. If THE STATE wishes to argue that the People have no right to “operate” a “motor vehicle” without THE STATE’s permission, then perhaps the STATE would care to refer back to the previous arguments and case law cited herein as it pertains to the People’s rights as at no point have the People argued for the right to conduct commerce on the highways through the use of a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. We the sovereign People have made no argument that anyone has the right to “operate” a “motor vehicle” upon the highways. THE STATE’s own statutes clearly show that in every single instance within the statutes in question the term “motor vehicle” and/or “vehicle” are defined as a “self-propelled device designed and used for the purpose of transporting passengers or property”. The People have so far argued nothing more than the fact that we have the right to use our private automobiles and our own roads and highways for the purpose of private personal business and travel. We the People are certain that the STATE is, or at least should be, fully aware that there is a very legal difference between an automobile and a “motor vehicle” The terms “traffic” and “transportation” are defined as things relating directly to commerce by commercial common carriers. We the People are refuting THE STATE’s presumptive application to the People of the commercial TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, as it does not and cannot apply to the People’s right to travel, but only to those that are using the public way for commercial purposes of gain. But it should be noted and commented upon that due to the obscene influx of revenue that the STATE obtains from the unlawful and illegal enforcement of the TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE statutes by the lower courts and law enforcement, it is far more profitable to ignore the lawless activities and fight off those few individuals that are knowledgeable enough to raise the issue and this maintain the lucrative monetary infusion. The respective constitutions of the United States and the several states guarantee the sovereign People the RIGHT to acquire and own property. The Supreme Courts virtually every state of the union, including Texas, have affirmed that the RIGHT to own property includes the RIGHT to use it while its use is not directed for the purpose of harming anybody. If any representative(s) of THE STATE would argue that these fundamental truths and principles are not true then, I can only recommend that said representative(s) be remanded to the local mental health facility for long-term care and evaluation due to the obvious implication propounded by such argument, which is that they are certifiably insane and in a state of dementia. Life, liberty, and the acquisition and use of property are all part-and-parcel within the limitless declaration of the People’s unalienable rights, THE STATE can neither abrogate nor derogate these principles no matter how hard it tries. We the People have never delegated any such power or authority to our servants in any level of government. THEREFORE, We the People argue for the evidentiary inference of insanity on the part of the prosecution and this court. This inference is based on the simple reasoning that to foment such argument is to endorse and proclaim a new form of slavery, one that requires that the slaves not only serve the master through their labor but, in order to be allowed to live and do so, the slaves are forced to pay a tax for the “privilege” of serving as such in the form of a license. To the knowledge and understanding of We the People, we have never authorized nor empowered any legislature or court in this land to execute an order that would or could cause, or work to compel, any man to become the servant or slave of any city, county or state entity, without a conviction that was obtained in full compliance with the requirements of due process of law as set forth within the respective constitutions. For any city, county or state entity to pretend and argue otherwise is an insane absurdity of the greatest magnitude.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:49:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015