Time: Wed Oct 30 13:00:53 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Traveling is a right [2/7]
Cc:
Bcc:
And so, it ain't called a RIGHT-o'-way
for nothing.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 10:19 AM 10/30/96 EST, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
> >>> Part 2 of 7...
>
> or withhold at its discretion. . . . (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Hadfield, supra;
> State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
> Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171;
> Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other
> cases too numerous to mention.
>
>8. The Washington State Supreme Court stated:
>
> 8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights
> of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply
> interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public
> highways freely for all lawful purposes. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at
> 139.
>
>9. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873:
>
> 9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the
> use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a
> private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel
> upon it, not its exercise. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Ind 455, 461.
>
>10. 11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:
>
> 10.1 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. Under this
> constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal
> conditions, travel at his inclination along the public
> highways or in public places, and while conducting himself
> in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with,
> not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not
> only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis
> added).
> See:
> 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329,
> page 1123.
>
>11. The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled:
>
> 11.1 In this connection it is well to keep in mind
> that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of
> the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel,
> the use of the streets from the purpose of parking
> automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the
> privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as
> the city may place as conditions to the exercise of the
> privilege. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135.
>
>12. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado discussed
>
>the issue in the following way in 1961.
>
> 12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article
> II, 3 provides that: All persons have certain natural,
> essential and unalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be
> reckoned the "RIGHT" . . . of acquiring, possessing and
> protecting property; . . . .
>
> 12.1.1 A motor vehicle is property and a person cannot be
> deprived of property without due process of law. The term
> property, within the meaning of the due process clause,
> includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which
> one has the unalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.
>
> 12.1.2 Every Citizen has an unalienable "RIGHT" to make
> use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has
> full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment
> of life and liberty. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
>
>13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:
>
> 13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have
> certain unalienable "RIGHTS," among which are . . . ;
> acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. . . .
> (Emphasis added).
>
>14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and
>purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The
>Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, 1, states as
>follows:
>
> 14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to
> be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that
> they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable
> rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of
> the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.
>
> 14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen
> of the rights of person or property without a regular trial,
> according to the course and usage of common law, would not
> be the law of the land.
> See:
> Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677.
>
>15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it
>would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same
>manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.
>16. Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:
>
> 16.1 The Constitution for the United States of America,
>Amendment 9:
>
> 16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain
> rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
> retained by the people.
>
>17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I,
> 36:
>
> 17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of
> rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or
> deny others retained by the people.
>
>18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to
>travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of
>America.
>19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I,
> 2:
>
> 19.1 Sovereignty of the people. All political power is
> vested in and derived from the people; all government of
> right originates from the people, is founded upon their will
> only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
>
>20. As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am
>entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of
>America, I have an inalienable right to use the highways and byways.
>
> 20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has
> a "RIGHT" to use. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> 3 Angel Highways 3.
>
> 20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which
> every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
>
>21. I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common
>point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this
>common point:
>
> 21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway.--The entire width
> between property lines of every way or place of whatever
> nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the
> public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular
> traffic. (emphasis added.)
> See:
> Idaho Code.
>
>22. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:
>
> 22.1 Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT"
> to remove from one place to another according to
> inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the
> "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
> territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the
> Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the
> Constitution. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274.
>
>23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Sovereign
>travels upon the streets or highways in North Carolina, he does so as
>a matter of "RIGHT" and not privilege. The authority for such travel
>is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE
>RIGHT," an "UNALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the
>Constitution of the United States. Let us then examine the importance
>of these terms to this Sovereign by defining their meaning.
>
> 23.1 "RIGHT" -- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or
> title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to
> something out of possession; (c) a power, prerogative, or
> privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation.
> See:
> Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
>
> 23.2 "RIGHT" -- As relates to the person, "RIGHTS" are
> absolute or relative; absolute "RIGHTS," such as every
> individual born or living in this country (and not an alien
> enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own
> personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and
> reputation; or to his personal liberty; "RIGHTS" which
>
> >>> Continued to next message...
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail