<font color=darkblue face=verdana>This is another excellent brief in support of the Right to Travel. However, like many such briefs, I think, it is deficient in a few areas.
- Although clearly stating a case for one's right to travel in one's private capicty, there is no affirmative establishment that the instant case has anything to do with the Right to Travel.
- The prosecution in the instant case will undoubtedly do everything they can NOT to address constitutional rights of travel, but your driving priviledge instead.
- There is no affirmative case made for the accused not being a "person" subject as per the vehicle code.
- There is no affirmative case made that the accused was not "driving" as defined by the vehicle code.
- There is no affirmative case made that the accused's conveyance is not a "vehicle" as defined by the vehicle code.
In summary, my study has led me to believe that its just as important to establish on the record who you
are as well as who you are
not.
Without all these points made, you stand to lose your argument simply because the prosecution doesn't have to disagree with you to get a summary judgment. This brief presents no conflict.
-Truth[/color]