Right to Travel Court Cites

[Codee]

OK you want to see how weak most of these opinions are?

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.

That is it. At will means your argument don't work. Did the state say "No you can'y drive, because I don't feel like letting you." NOPE. Do they give you an administrative hearing before revokation of the privlidge? YEP. So there is absolutly NO at will denial of the license or privlidge. Now can we all agree to stop citing that lame case. This is the second or third time I have pointed this out,,, I believe in this thread. Take every case which has "at will" in it and throw it as deep in the trash can as you may. Those decisions mean nothing to your rights.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

Shoonra, what are your thoughts on Cody's continuous dismissals of traffic violations?
Thanks in advance for humoring me.

Assuming that Codee is accurately reporting these dismissals, I am baffled ... unless they are being dismissed for a reason other than the much discredited "right to travel" argument. For example, Codee has referenced some detail of the California court system that puts traffic tickets into a special traffic court which evidently doesn't exist in his neck of the woods. I do not have any particular knowledge of the California court system on this matter, but if this is what happened then it would be a valid dismissal - from the court in which he appeared - but if the appropriate traffic court became available the claim might be re-processed there.

I am not trying to humor anybody. I am trying to inform people.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Assuming that Codee is accurately reporting these dismissals, I am baffled ... unless they are being dismissed for a reason other than the much discredited "right to travel" argument. For example, Codee has referenced some detail of the California court system that puts traffic tickets into a special traffic court which evidently doesn't exist in his neck of the woods. I do not have any particular knowledge of the California court system on this matter, but if this is what happened then it would be a valid dismissal - from the court in which he appeared - but if the appropriate traffic court became available the claim might be re-processed there.

I am not trying to humor anybody. I am trying to inform people.

Correct. It has nothing to do with an explicit right to travel. The whole thing is implicit. I implicitly have the right to do anything that is not legislated against. There is no legilation requiring me to follow traffic REGULATIONS. Therefore a formal complaint can never be made alledging all of the essential facts. The dismissal for California traffic tickets is %100 of time won due to failure to file a formal complaint. Now there are other and more lengthy arguments that I have used with success too.

But the lack of formal complaint tied right into the STATUTE requiring such is bingo give away.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

OK you want to see how weak most of these opinions are? (here a quote from Am.Jur. [1st])

I made an effort to find a court decision that actually used these words, because you have quoted a legal encyclopedia -- one more than 50 years old at that -- rather than a court decision.

The statement you quoted does not appear in the current edition of Am.Jr.2d. The precise words used 50 years ago appear to be knitted from two court decisions: Thompson v. Smith (1930) 155 Va 367, 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604, which did not dispute the statutory requirement of a DL but held that a DL could not be revoked on the mere whim of the town's police chief; and Ex parte ****ey (1915) 76 W.Va 576, 85 SE 781, LRA-1915F 840, which upheld the authority of a city to require bus companies operating within the city to obtain and pay for business licenses. In particular, the ****ey court said that a citizen's right to travel on the highway was a common right, so that the legislative power over it was one of regulation, while the privilege of operating a business which uses the public roads for private gain is not a common right and may be more severely controlled or even denied. The ****ey case was quoted on this point in Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Augusta (1938) 59 Ga.App 260, 200 SE 503, which upheld the authority of a city to require a bond and insurance coverage of a delivery truck business.

There have even been some cases in which the defendant driver quoted the very same words you did, but the court held that this did not mean a "right" to drive without a DL (nor prevent the state from revoking DLs of dangerous drivers); e.g. Hawkins v. State (Texas App Sept 8, 2005); Escobedo v. State (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P2d 1; Hough v. McCarthy (1960) 54 Cal.2d 273, 353 P2d 276, 5 Cal.Rptr 668; [i]Maxfield v. Corwin[/2] (WD Mich March 17, 1987).


Now, in none of these cases, nor any other that I have found, did a court say that someone may operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without first obtaining a DL.

You mentioned a "Supreme Court" case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that states have the authority - and duty - to require licenses of all drivers (no exception for "noncommercial" ones) to promote public safety. Supreme Court decisions upholding a "right to travel" - usually involving a denial of a passport or a state's discrimination against newcomers -- still did not say that a person has a right to insist on a particular method of travel, much less insist on being the pilot of the vehicle.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There have even been some cases in which the defendant driver quoted the very same words you did, but the court held that this did not mean a "right" to drive without a DL (nor prevent the state from revoking DLs of dangerous drivers); e.g. Hawkins v. State (Texas App Sept 8, 2005); Escobedo v. State (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P2d 1; Hough v. McCarthy (1960) 54 Cal.2d 273, 353 P2d 276, 5 Cal.Rptr 668; [i]Maxfield v. Corwin[/2] (WD Mich March 17, 1987).

I quoted those words from someone else and CLEARLY put into context (which you even have in your quote) that the argument was weak. I find that you trying to pin that argument on me as mine to be using the real strawman tactic. If you persist in claiming that I stand behind these court cases you will just be deemed a liar by me. Our other debates have been cool... If you put other's quotes and deliberatly state that I am arguing for what I am against... you are going to lose all the respect I have for you. It is a shame because until now I? had a lot for you. I take the time to answer all your posts to the best of my ability and just because my arguments are new and foreign to you does not give you the right to start assaigning old tired pay-tree-rot crap to my studies. You are way more familliar with the US court cites then I ever care to be. That said I hope you change your tune and start arguing against what I post AND NOT what you wish I had posted.



...
Now, in none of these cases, nor any other that I have found, did a court say that someone may operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without first obtaining a DL.

Exaclty why I do not use CASES.

You mentioned a "Supreme Court" case.

Did I say it was gold that fell out of Zuse'e ass or did I tell people to not bother with it? In what context did I cite this "case" with no name or other identifier since you did not bother to post the quote you are referring to?

Thank you for agreeing with me 100% again.

I did not dig up that quote. someone else did. I reposted to "Show how weak it was." Yes it is from an encyclapedia. Weak. Just as weak as a court case. Even weaker maybe. I do not think you read my posts. Either that or you read little key words and then make HUGE presumptions as to what I am arguing. If you even read what I wrote you would simply agree.

My entire analysis of the quote you mis-assigned to me WAS THAT IT WAS A FOLLY TO USE THAT QUOTE IN ANY RIGHT TO TRAVEL BRIEF. PERIOD.

QUIT ARGUING AGAINST THINGS I DID NOT EVER SAY.

You have your head shoved so far up somewhere you can not even see that half the time I am in complete agreance with you.

The only thing we disagree on is I like seeing people go free and you do not.

Secondly you say that I cited a supreme court ceas or some thing and then you never say what it was. There are supreme court cases which state that a person has the right to travel "by automobile" NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IN ANOTHERS AUTO. My point is that those same cases STATE THAT THE RIGHT CAN BE LIMITTED. JUST NOT "AT WILL." Does this fit your LITTLE picture of what is going on... It should.

Take all the above Shoonra and KNOW this is the base to all my dismissals.

I realy on ZERO court cases and rely on ZERO am. jur. I rely on ZERO opp. onf the attorney general. I use the statutes the legislature has given up to the people.

Good Luck Shoonra.

I need none.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Assuming that Codee is accurately reporting these dismissals, I am baffled ... unless they are being dismissed for a reason other than the much discredited "right to travel" argument.

Most of the reportings have not come from me but rather from VERY HAPPY friends of mine and other posters. I personally have a "Don't arrest for less then a felony" IN MY HOME TOWN on the muni cops computers. So I get very few tickets these days. But others (not me) are getting tons dismissed and the ones I know I try to encourage to post. Cole and the guy from southern Cal. reported their own experiences.

And yes they are being dismissed for "some other reason." The reason is lack of SMJ.

[mrg]

When I made that post I also said that it could be useless BS, and that anything I write could be wrong, and that I am here to study.

I will post what I will post, and if wrong so be it.

If I feel I have been accurate in my posts I will defend what I have written.

If not, hey, I am here to study, and posting, right or wrong, is part of it.

I thought the quote was saying that it was definitely a right and definitely not a privilege.

I still do not quite get why it was not saying that, but do not want to beleaguer you with what is irrelevant to what you are doing.

I posted it in response to someone else.

I am agreeing with your points about leaving court opinions out of any briefs or do***ents or whatever.

(I do, personally, think that many or most so-called "laws" suck, and that the way they are written and "codified," also sucks, and that those who are doing this have neither right nor lawful privilege to do so.)

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

When I made that post I also said that it could be useless BS, and that anything I write could be wrong, and that I am here to study.

I will post what I will post, and if wrong so be it.

If I feel I have been accurate in my posts I will defend what I have written.

If not, hey, I am here to study, and posting, right or wrong, is part of it.

I thought the quote was saying that it was definitely a right and definitely not a privilege.

I still do not quite get why it was not saying that, but do not want to beleaguer you with what is irrelevant to what you are doing.

I posted it in response to someone else.

I am agreeing with your points about leaving court opinions out of any briefs or do***ents or whatever.

(I do, personally, think that many or most so-called "laws" suck, and that the way they are written and "codified," also sucks, and that those who are doing this have neither right nor lawful privilege to do so.)

I have no problem with you posting a quote. I will repond if I think it is in error.

My problem was with Shoonra starting to say that I advocated that quote somehow.

Your opinion is always welcome MRG because you have a good sound mind. Please keep posting. Your posts are great even if I disagree with some of them.

The quote may be dumb but you are not MRG. Thank you again for all your contributions and high standard for the truth in words.



The problem with the quote is it says "at will". Well... No state denies you that right "at will" They use process to deny it. Thus the quote is ineffective to your endevores. If you don't understand continue to ask.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

The problem with the quote is it says "at will".

Well... No state denies you that right "at will"

They use process to deny it.


Thus the quote is ineffective to your endevores.

If you don't understand continue to ask.

Yes, I see now, thanks.

The bawstawds!!!!

[Sandman]

wrong thread...