Right to Travel Court Cites

challenge subject matter jurisdiction. file motions to subpeona the damaged party and discovery of your liability to the statute. I learned that filing motions doesnt submit you to their jurisdiction, the motions will be used to further show they have no claim or jurisdiction. Base all your actions around challenging subject matter jurisdiction.

[suijuris]

Guys, lets try to keep this thread for new cites only, please continue your discussion in new threads to keep the cites easy to read here.

Sui Juris

[suijuris]

Automobile operator's license suspension file, consisting of the operator's driving record, blue card, reinstatement slip, court abstract and correspondence, constitute records and documents in the possession, custody and control of the state motor vehicle department within meaning of statute prohibiting alteration, mutilation, etc. of such records. State v Cataudella, 159 Conn 544, 271 A2d 99.

Hint: if they are incorrectly altered, that is forgery!

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face="tahoma">I was actually reading through one of my own posts on the Citizenship/Jurisdiction Forum and came across this:

<quote>

"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.[emphasis added]

</quote>

Correct me if i'm wrong, but this seems to imply 2 important points:

1. In a case brought by the Agency against a Licensee, it <u>must</u> be proven that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of
2. To NOT do so is <u>CRIMINAL</u>

I would love some comments on this. Ice, SJ, Jerseee? any takers?



-BT[/color]

[Akira]

Hi All,



Found this in the glossay at www.commonlawvenue.com under 'License'



A permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. <u>A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit.</u> Black’s 6th. (emphasis mine)



For HIS Glory,

Akira

[TheBlackTruth]

Check out this petition for injunction against state in interfering with travel.

http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/hoster.html#TOC2_13

[leatherlips]

If you go to http://www.landrights.com there is a right to travel link near the bottom of the page. There are a ton of court cases and other info on driving and traveling and the drivers license issue. There is also some good info on land rights and the kind of signs to post on your property.

[weishaupt1776]

As the US Supreme Court noted in 1915, "The movement of motor vehicles
over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the
public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways
themselves. ... [A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations
necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon
its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate
commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police
power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to
the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their
citizens." Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610

"the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon
his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registration ....
However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did
the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise
of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather,
based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an
infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public
highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right
to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is
not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that
is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures
Quackenbush v. Superior
Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 454

City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366 "No court has
ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's
constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that ...
every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must
have a valid operator's license.... The legislature has the
constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads.")

City of Salina v. Wisden
103 (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981 "Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to
travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The
right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does
not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public
roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the
safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than
infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor
vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right; it is a
privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory
licensing procedures.

"The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state
law; it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution,
and nothing in that document or in our state constitution has even the
slightest appearance or an implicit guarantee of that right. The
plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is
fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of
interstate travel ... is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being
prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by
common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license
to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel
interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public
highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a
fundamental right.") Berberian v. Petit (RI 1977) 374 A2d 791

state can require drivers license, vehicle registration, display of
license plate, etc., notwithstanding argument about "right to travel")
State v. Weisman (Minn.App unpub 11/1/88) cert.den 489 US 1080

"While there exists a fundamental right to travel, neither this court,
nor our [state] supreme court, nor the US Supreme Court has ever held
that there exists a fundamental right to drive a moter vehicle." State
can require display of official registration tag, and that driver
present police with valid license and car registration, even
against purported religious objections, and can punish for use of
homemade license plate) Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839

"The right to travel on public highways
is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable regulation by the state,
pursuant to the police power granted by the Constitution. We have
previously held that the motor vehicle codes are a valid use of police
power. We have also previously held that requiring automobile
insurance coverage and the registration of vehicles is a valid use of
the police power and does not violate the due process requirements of
the US Constitution.") State v. R.E. Wilson (Mont.Supm unpub
12/3/98)

Courts have already held that driving without a license or
registration is, by itself, indicative of reckless driving; 29 ALR2d 963

police request that driver show them his license and registration and
proof of insurance is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, the
law requires a driver to keep these documents, and driver cannot
insist on search warrant) State v. Reed (1984) 107 Ida 162, 686
P2d 842

"there is no federal legislation that overrides the state's
authority to regulate driving" 883 P2d 644

driving is a privilege not an inherent right and may
be regulated by the state for public safety reasons: Jones v. City of
Newport (1989) 29 Ark.App 42, 780 SW2d 338; (driving not synonymous
with "right to travel") Azubuko v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st
Cir unpub 9/3/96) cert.den 520 US 1157; and again City of Spokane v.
Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 revw.den 106 Wash.2d 1010;
and again (including driver license laws and requirement for vehicle
registration and insurance) Goode v. Foster (D. Kan unpub 10/21/96);
and again Gordon v. State (1985) 108 Ida 178, 697 P2d 1192; and again
State v. Von Schmidt (1985) 109 Ida 736, 710 P2d 646; and again
Endsley v. State (1987) 184 Ga.App 797, 363 SE2d 1; and again Lebrun
v. State (1986) 255 Ga 406, 339 SE2d 227; and again Humphreys v. State
(Okla. Crim. App 1987) 738 P2d 188

"privilege of operation a motor vehicle on the public streets is
"wholly separate from the right to travel No person in the State of
Tennessee may exempt himself or herself from any law simply by
declaring that he or she does not consent to its applying to them" 978
SW2d 953

[leatherlips]

Here in Colorado, at CRS 42-2-101 Licenses for drivers required, the first one on the list says: "Except as otherwise provided in part 4 of this article for commercial drivers, no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has been issued a currently valid driver's or minor driver's license or an instruction permit by the department under this article."

Notice it is for commercial drivers. Are you involved in commerce when you travel around in you car? Are you a "person" as defined by law? What about a "motor vehicle" got one of those? At 18 USC 31(a)(6) a motor vehicle is defined as a vehicle that is drawn by its own power, AND USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. Is that what you drive around in?

[Supsouth]

Those case cites listed are, of course, outstanding and excellent. However I always wonder how many of you have read WALL VS KING???? It tends to bring the argument back where it belongs....on point! Let me know whose read it and WHY it is PARAMOUNT to using ANY/ALL of the case sites listed.

Peace and prosperity,
Supsouth