Right to Travel Court Cites

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

I'm all for that rob. Is that something you keep with you while traveling? Have you shown it to a "corporate soldier"?

That is what you say to em, not show em.

No, I haven't said that to a cop, cause I don't get caught travelling.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There's a reason Elvick is in a psychiatric hospital.

Yeah, I asked him to go in and prepare a kosher rubber room for you and your mate.

You know, good ol Abe Foxman?

[Charlie Blue]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

I conditionally accept your claim that I am engaged in commerce, upon proof of claim, under your full commercial liability officer.
Failure to provide proof shall be deemed to be evidence that your claim has no basis in law or fact and is vexatious.

I lllllllllike that!!!

I'll add more of what I know later on today. And Shoonra, I want to address some things in the two cases you sited as well.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140;
Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 US 160, 61 L.Ed 222, 37 S.Ct 30.

Originally Posted by Hendrick v. Maryland

The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state.

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce.

A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles, when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce, does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

A state may require registration of motor vehicles, and a reasonable license fee is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horsepower of the engine. Such a classification is reasonable.

The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to inquiry insofar as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress.

A state which, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce may exact compensation therefor, and if the charges are reasonable and uniform, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. The action of the state in such respect must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/235/610/case.html

As usual, Shoonra provides cites he claims backs up his position, when in actuality they do not. The decision makes multiple references to commerce (both inter and intra state) and cites many other cases concerning commerce.

Originally Posted by Hendrick v. Maryland

In Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 480, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness and obtaining a license, for which a fee was charged. The language of the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said:

"But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the state or in commerce among the states."

To read between the lines, Hendrick's argument was that the licensing fee was not uniform and a burden on interstate commerce. Naturally, the court's presumption was that he was in commerce.

Originally Posted by Hendrick....

In view of the many decisions of this Court, there can be

Page 235 U. S. 624

no serious doubt that, where a state, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the state itself, and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691, 699; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543, 548-549; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 329-330; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352, 405, and authorities cited. The action of the state must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case, there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the state, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed, and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

No need to look up the Kane cite, as I am quite certain it would provide more of the same.

[Friendsplacect]

Did you notice the Hendrick case is posted on Quatloose?

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/port.htm

[protrust]

Dear brothers and sisters please understand that while the supreme court cites are valid...they are moot if you have and hold a drivers license.

Wall vs King....by applying for drivers license...you WAIVE the right to travel.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by protrust

Dear brothers and sisters please understand that while the supreme court cites are valid...they are moot if you have and hold a drivers license.

Wall vs King....by applying for drivers license...you WAIVE the right to travel.

I would say that this should be common sense.
If you use a privilege, it can be deemed that you stand back from your right.
UNLESS you rebut that and stand back from the privilege and use your rights.
Don't expect em to give up easily though. I found that out the hard way.

[Shoonra]

The decision is Wall v. King (1st Cir. 1953) 206 F.2d 878 cert. den. 346 U.S. 915. But it doesn't say the things it's claimed for.

In Massachusetts, Wall's DL was suspended by the DMV for DUI without a hearing. After about a year of litigation, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court held that this suspension was improper and ordered the DMV to restore Wall's DL. So Wall got his DL back.

But Wall got greedy. He tried to sue the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for money under the federal civil rights law. The federal courts threw his lawsuit out on the grounds that the civil rights law enabled lawsuits only for violations of "any right, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution" -- and that the Constitution did NOT guarantee a right to a DL or to driving on the public roads.

[Charlie Blue]

Originally Posted by protrust

Dear brothers and sisters please understand that while the supreme court cites are valid...they are moot if you have and hold a drivers license.

Wall vs King....by applying for drivers license...you WAIVE the right to travel.

There you go!!!

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

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.

I know many of you didn't agree with what Codee had to say. But what he has stated in his posts have merit.

[ezrhythm]

...like the quote from him you posted, YES!