Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:05:26 -0700 From: spooner@gbis.com (Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer) Subject: [lpaz-repost] we do it to ourselves with help from gov. To: lpaz-repost@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: we do it to ourselves with help from gov.
>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:44:06 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>
>
>Right to Travel
>
>
>DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT
>AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
>
>By Jack McLamb
>from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
>
>
>For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on
>the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given
>to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of
>a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be
>granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered
>legal.
>
>Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that
>there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a
>privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a
>license. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: "The use of
>the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere
>privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and
>individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v.
>Chicago, 169 NE 221.
>
>CASE #2: "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 law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
>
>It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the
>states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction
>(license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
>CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
>citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
>Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
>
>CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that
>does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by
>the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225
>F2d 938, at 941.
>
>As ard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is
>no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do
>indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any
>manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights
>of others.
>
>Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and
>accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question --
>is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to
>travel.
>
>Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This
>means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts,
>and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in
>error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is
>overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the
>individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious
>breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state
>constitutions.
>
>That means it is unlawful.
>
>The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable
>right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in
>making and enforcing state laws.
>
>The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have
>been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would
>seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put
>restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance,
>vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a
>citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
>
>For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
>determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,
>the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish
>rights of the people."
>
>And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and
>obvious principles of common right and ommon reason are null and void."
>
>Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the
>point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions
>or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
>
>Other cases are even more straight forward: "The assertion of federal
>rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the
>name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
>
>"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, therecan be no
>rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.
>Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
>
>"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
>into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
>
>"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
>exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
>
>We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the
>Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government leglly put
>restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any
>reason?
>
>The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This
>Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
>Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
>in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
>laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."In the same Article,
>it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
>"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
>the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
>both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
>Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."Here's an
>interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts
>by officials?
>
>If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this
>places officials who involve themseles in such unlawful acts in an
>unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to
>violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
>Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove
>a right belonging to the people.
>
>These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person
>knowingly waiving a particular right.
>
>Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many
>millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and
>volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly
>given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must
>acquire the proper permits and registrations.
>
>There are basically two groups of people in this category: 1) Citizens
>who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.Here is
>what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the
>right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
>thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a
>place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested
>right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which
>the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson,
>245 P 1073.There are many court cases that confirm and point out the
>difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government
>privilege and there are numerous other court decisions tha spell out the
>jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However,
>because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research
>it further for themselves. (2) The second group of citizens that is
>legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have
>voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and
>unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the
>acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory
>insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)We should remember what
>makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is
>that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they
>were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the
>courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
>
>This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the
>people in each state have applied for and received licenses,
>registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by
>their government that it was mandatory?
>
>Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming
>informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges
>and rights.
>
>We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state
>licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they
>waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly
>states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at
>all.
>
>An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to
>understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an
>oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or
>county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S.
>Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict
>with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the
>officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
>
>Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling
>--discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning
>licensing, registration, and insurance: "The claim and exercise of a
>constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230
>F 486, 489.And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's
>daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
>
>< http://lvdi.net/~willys/index.htm >SOURCE OF ARTICLE
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/JdSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-repost-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:55:03 -0400 From: bobhunt@erols.com Subject: Re: [lpaz-repost] we do it to ourselves with help from gov. To: spooner@gbis.com (Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer) Cc: lpaz-repost@yahoogroups.com, wjb3@mindspring.com, neil@cjmciver.com (Neil McIver)
Great post.
I usually try to remember to trim replies, but with so much "legal" in this I hope I can be forgiven for not trimming to retain context.
Scoll down to "contracts"
bob hunt
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:05:26 -0700, Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer <spooner@gbis.com> wrote:
>>Subject: we do it to ourselves with help from gov.
>>Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:44:06 -0700
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>>
>>
>>Right to Travel
>>
>>
>>DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT
>>AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
>>
>>By Jack McLamb
>>from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
>>
>>
>>For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on
>>the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given
>>to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of
>>a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be
>>granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered
>>legal.
>>
>>Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that
>>there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a
>>privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a
>>license. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: "The use of
>>the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere
>>privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and
>>individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v.
>>Chicago, 169 NE 221.
>>
>>CASE #2: "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 law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the
>>pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
>>
>>It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the
>>states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction
>>(license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
>>CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
>>citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
>>Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
>>
>>CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that
>>does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by
>>the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225
>>F2d 938, at 941.
>>
>>As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is
>>no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do
>>indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any
>>manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights
>>of others.
>>
>>Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and
>>accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question --
>>is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to
>>travel.
>>
>>Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparetly not. This
>>means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts,
>>and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in
>>error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is
>>overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the
>>individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious
>>breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state
>>constitutions.
>>
>>That means it is unlawful.
>>
>>The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable
>>right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in
>>making and enforcing state laws.
>>
>>The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have
>>been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would
>>seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put
>>restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance,
>>vehicle registration, vehicle inspections toname just a few -- on a
>>citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
>>
>>For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
>>determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,
>>the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish
>>rights of the people."
>>
>>And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and
>>obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
>>
>>Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the
>>point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions
>>or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
>>
>>Other cases are even more straight forward: "The assertion of federal
>>rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the
>>name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
>>
>>"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
>>rule making or legislation which wold abrogate them." Miranda v.
>>Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
>>
>>"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
>>into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
>>
>>"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
>>exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
>>
>>We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the
>>Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put
>>restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any
>>reason?
>>
>>The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This
>>Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
>>Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
>>in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
>>laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."In the same Article,
>>it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
>>"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
>>the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
>>both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
>>Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."Here's an
>>interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts
>>by officials?
>>
>>If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this
>>places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an
>>unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to
>>violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
>>Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove
>>a right belonging to the people.
>>
>>These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person
>>knowingly waiving a particular right.
>>
>>Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many
>>millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and
>>volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly
>>given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must
>>acquire the proper permits and registrations.
>>
>>There are basically two groups of people in this category: 1) Citizens
>>who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.Here is
>>what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the
>>right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
>>thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a
>>place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested
>>right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which
>>the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson,
>>245 P 1073.There are many court cases that confirm and point out the
>>difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government
>>privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the
>>jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However,
>>because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research
>>it further for themselves.
>>(2) The second group of citizens that is
>>legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have
>>voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and
>>unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the
>>acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory
>>insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)We should remember what
>>makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is
>>that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they
>>were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the
>>courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
I thought for contracts to be binding there are to be "consideration" received by both parties.
By "getting a driver license", what "consideration" did I get from the state that I did not already possess? Without such consideration how have I obligated myself to the state?
>>
>>This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the
>>people in each state have applied for and received licenses,
>>registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by
>>their government that it was mandatory?
>>
>>Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming
>>informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges
>>and rights.
>>
>>We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state
>>licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they
>>waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly
>>states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at
>>all.
>>
>>An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to
>>understand that the most important law in our land hich he has taken an
>>oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or
>>county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S.
>>Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict
>>with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the
>>officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
>>
>>Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling
>>--discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning
>>licensing, registration, and insurance: "The claim and exercise of a
>>constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230
>>F 486, 489.And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's
>>daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
>>
>>< http://lvdi.net/~willys/index.htm >SOURCE OF ARTICLE
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com
> Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: lpaz-repost-owner@onelist.com
> Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-repost-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/