Right to Travel Court Cites

[Leiahi]

Does anyone know or heard of what the colored lines on the highway represent? Could this be a key to open that door.....to their doom in court standing?

Are we not in Admiralty/International Law re "sojourning"?

I was recently reprised of the fact that anything in yellow, represented that of {international/piracy law}, and that we are under those terms, and really travel as such.... We are Pirates?!?!? Not!! But we are certainly subjected to them! As such, when using international law in dealing with traffic related issues, Ticket Master WINS!

Any takers to expand on this idea? I'm certainly curious as I PT, professionally travel, completely, "illegal" to the terms of statutory law..............

Statutory Law is a piracy......."colorable" and against the Common Law......is it not!?

Looking for answers and a way out of the jam!!!

[idknow]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Acts 17:28

i just realised that the Right to Travel *also* covers hitch-hiking!

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Leiahi

Does anyone know or heard of what the colored lines on the highway represent? Could this be a key to open that door.....to their doom in court standing?

Are we not in Admiralty/International Law re "sojourning"?

I was recently reprised of the fact that anything in yellow, represented that of {international/piracy law}, and that we are under those terms, and really travel as such.... We are Pirates?!?!? Not!! But we are certainly subjected to them! As such, when using international law in dealing with traffic related issues, Ticket Master WINS!

Any takers to expand on this idea? I'm certainly curious as I PT, professionally travel, completely, "illegal" to the terms of statutory law..............

Statutory Law is a piracy......."colorable" and against the Common Law......is it not!?

Looking for answers and a way out of the jam!!!

Time could be better spent researching facts, law, and procedure

[Codee]

I am not sure "travel" is the way to go. Here are some cites concerning "Passage." I also look to freedom instead of rights.

"In the present case if it can be said that the state holds the easement to all the highways within its boundaries, which under our statutes cannot, we think, be upheld, still, if it does so hold, it is as the representative of the people, and in trust for the objects of their creation, viz., to enable the people to pass and repass over the such roads at will, and such easements are not held in the same right as the title of the state to lands which it has purchased." People v. County of Marin (1894), 103 Cal. 223, 231-232.

The ordinary traveler, whether on foot or in a vehicle passes to and fro along the streets, and his use and occupation thereof are temporary and shifting. The space he occupies one moment he abandons the next to be occupied by any other traveler. This use is common to all members of the public, and it is a use open equally to citizens of other states with those of the state in which the street is situate.
City of St. Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (1892), 148 U.S. 92, 37 L. Ed. 380, 13 S. Ct. 485.


The terms "public highway" are most general in their meaning, and include all kinds of thoroughfares in which the public have a right of way or passage.
Parsons v. The City and County of San Francisco (1863), 23 Cal. 426, 463.


the old common-law freedom of use of the king's highway has not been modified in this state by any positive enactment. So that it still remains the law that foot passengers have the right to use and traverse the highway at all its points, being chargeable only for the exercise of a due amount of care, which due amount of care, in its quantum, is governed by the circumstances attending the use which the pedestrian actually makes. Thus, in this state, even in populous streets of cities, pedestrians are not restricted to the crossings in traversing the street, but may cross it at any point. And the same is true of their right to walk along the roadbed of a highway.
Raymond v. Hill (1914), 168 Cal. 473, 482.

[Big Al]

Gee, Thats supper! What ever happen to Common Law Right of Ways? If a State is a Common Law (and only one isn't) State. Then I think one needs to look to Common Law Right of Way. Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by Codee

I am not sure "travel" is the way to go. Here are some cites concerning "Passage." I also look to freedom instead of rights.

"In the present case if it can be said that the state holds the easement to all the highways within its boundaries, which under our statutes cannot, we think, be upheld, still, if it does so hold, it is as the representative of the people, and in trust for the objects of their creation, viz., to enable the people to pass and repass over the such roads at will, and such easements are not held in the same right as the title of the state to lands which it has purchased." People v. County of Marin (1894), 103 Cal. 223, 231-232.

The ordinary traveler, whether on foot or in a vehicle passes to and fro along the streets, and his use and occupation thereof are temporary and shifting. The space he occupies one moment he abandons the next to be occupied by any other traveler. This use is common to all members of the public, and it is a use open equally to citizens of other states with those of the state in which the street is situate.
City of St. Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (1892), 148 U.S. 92, 37 L. Ed. 380, 13 S. Ct. 485.


The terms "public highway" are most general in their meaning, and include all kinds of thoroughfares in which the public have a right of way or passage.
Parsons v. The City and County of San Francisco (1863), 23 Cal. 426, 463.


the old common-law [/b]freedom[/b] of use of the king's highway has not been modified in this state by any positive enactment. So that it still remains the law that foot passengers have the right to use and traverse the highway at all its points, being chargeable only for the exercise of a due amount of care, which due amount of care, in its quantum, is governed by the circumstances attending the use which the pedestrian actually makes. Thus, in this state, even in populous streets of cities, pedestrians are not restricted to the crossings in traversing the street, but may cross it at any point. And the same is true of their right to walk along the roadbed of a highway.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Gee, Thats supper! What ever happen to Common Law Right of Ways? If a State is a Common Law (and only one isn't) State. Then I think one needs to look to Common Law Right of Way. Just my two cents.

Well I already suggested it once Big Al... But maybe sue the state for littering its "Highway" in our "right of way."

But I will say this. The right of way is both a place noun and a "right" noun. The right of way is where you have a right to pass. If you cannot pass because there is some obstical (like a black and white) then someone is in your way. They are effecting however your right to pass/(Ingress & egress). Just my 5 on it.

[Shoonra]

[quote=Codee]I am not sure "travel" is the way to go. Here are some cites concerning "Passage." I also look to freedom instead of rights.
People v. County of Marin (1894), 103 Cal. 223, 231-232.
City of St. Louis v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (1892), 148 U.S. 92, 37 L.Ed. 380, 13 S.Ct. 485.
Parsons v. The City and County of San Francisco (1863), 23 Cal. 426, 463.
Raymond v. Hill (1914), 168 Cal. 473

I am willing to bet that the 1863 decision had nothing to do with drivers licenses, and I doubt that the two decisions from the 1890s did either (back then automobiles were still rarities and hardly anyone drove one far, fast, or without his own toolkit).

The 1914 case dealt with whether a pedestrian had been contributorily negligent when he was struck by a car because he had tried to cross the road (this evidently before jaywalking laws). Held, "it is manifest that the amount of that care by law exacted of the driver of a motor vehicle is far greater than the amount exacted of foot passengers [= pedestrians]." Raymond v. Hill (1914) 168 Cal. 473, 143 Pac. 743.
(In case somebody wants to fantasize about what is meant by "driver", the fact recital makes it clear that the motorist was piloting his own car with his wife as a passenger, clearly not a "commercial" event.)

The replacement of the horse as a mode of urban transportation by the automobile necessitated new restrictions on the person doing the steering. There were very definite limits to the sort of damage a horse would do no matter how blind/drunk/senile/stupid the person holding the reins. The elimination of the horse from the transporation equation removed (at least) half of the brains that had been controlling the vehicle, and put all of the responsibility onto the person at the steering wheel.

[Codee]

I am tlking about travel Vs. Passing in the above quote you are refering to. NOT DRIVING. God Bless You.

Now my point is that the right to free passage predates driving and also I believe is the propper title of the right used my common man to get from one place to another. It has nothing to do with "Interstate travelling" or "intrastate" travelling. Passage can even be across DC which is not a state at all.

[Shoonra]

The courts have heard about the "right to travel" a million times in DL cases. They have made it very clear that the Right to Travel is the right to start from point A and end up at point B -- but does not include a right to a specific mode of travel (e.g. airplane vs. boat vs. car) and certainly not a "right" to insist on personally controlling steering whatever vehicle is used.

[ezrhythm]

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

Citizen's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.