If they could they would not be able to work their jobs after reading this.
Collection of Legal Citations supporting the Right to Travel
Guard your jurisdiction and do not admit it incorrectly!
This manual is the the standard for compliance for all 50 states for the posting of signs. Signs failing to comply with the guide are deemed not to exist and have no force and effect of law. In other words - if the sign does not comply it does not exist and there is no law in effect making the summons null and void ab nitio.
This case Washington v. Port is important s it details how the case for the right to drive can be won. Port lost the case because of her error in admitting the state had a right. Read the case and you will soon see how she could easily have won. She actually had won the case until she said the wrong thing.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
If someone asked me how I have defended myself and my position, and took a stand to defend my natural rights, based on the principles of freedom, in honor, without intent to offend, but in realization that many in government who as we have been, were programmed that what they are dong is the normal course of business, may be offended, I would say... here you go.
But understnd, the government functionaries who have long excersised their power without many to challenge it will take it personlly as if you are questioniong their character.
Your response to that shouylkd be youir own but mine would be...
I would only question the character or honor of someopne whom has been informed of the subject matter andwhopm ignores historical fact for what has become the norm of the day...
This would be how I present myself.
Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
- Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads,
which is our Right; and ...
- Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of
business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business."Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra."When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways."Thompson vs. Smith, supra."[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith."Ibid."We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309
- Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the
public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of
- Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
"2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
"3. Is this regulation reasonable?
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power"
Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887
". . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]
". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
[Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)]
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356
Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333
Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
Ask yourselves... why do those using this information find themselves being accused of domestic terroristoic activity and labeled as "sovereign citizens"? It would appear to me that is the pot calling rthe kettle black to assume one has the right to infrionge on the rights of another who has caused them no injury because a bunch of guys in suits said so. In La Cosa Nostra that is called collections, and is extortion. Why is it any different what the orghanization calls itslef that acts in this way?
But everyone has been so programmed that we need ouir private lives invaded for public safety...
ok... safety huh? So then a government policy enfiorcer should then have a duty to protect you.... whoops... they don't?
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.