Here is Charlie’s Winning Demurrer. We have more almost like this
one.
The
prosecution did not even bother to answer this brief. They gave up after a year
and dismissed the case.
Paste
your own personal facts into this demurrer and Voila! you have a memorandum of
law and your own demurrer!
Charlie
cannot be charged with driving on a suspended license - because he rejected his
license. He drives without license! He uses the public roads.
At
first the Mexican affirmative action judge blew off Charlie’s demurrer with a
scornful wave of his hand saying “this is just constitutional stuff.
Denied.” This mexican affirmative action welfare recipient did not even read
this brief. Is that the end? Heck no! We appealed and demanded a transcript.
Many months elapsed before we received a transcript.
The
transcript was the beginning of the end for the prosecution. The written
transcript failed to even say who the judge was! A judge may not summarily deny
a demurrer with no response from the other side and without a hearing.
Eventually the prosecution dismissed the entire case. They always try to make it
look like your papers were not the reason for dismissal.
Related pages:
Page
of 40 motions. This page is listed on the Steve762 page: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
Lawyerdude’s
demurrer page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
Lawyerdude’s
former main traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
How
to write a motion. Motions 101: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html
How
to talk back to the judge polite but firm: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
Go
on the offense: Actual section 1983 complaints. Sue em! http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
Were
you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html
General navigational links:
Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com
Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334
Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude
Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com
Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional
Issues:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the
past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
Charles Sprinkler
1273 Rice Road
#48, Ojai CA 93023
640 0439
Chas@ojai.net
In Pro Per
Combined Superior and Municipal Court of
California
800 S. Victoria, Ventura CA 93003
People
v
Charles Sprinkler
Case # 2002: 013,
441
Document #5613
preliminary version #1
Notice of
Demurrer.
Memorandum of
Authorities.
Notice of
concurrent motions:
Motion #5614 to
continue Arraignment until I receive police report
#2-36250.
Motion #5615 to
continue Arraignment I receive the confidential
papers in my
court file.
Proof of
service.
Date: Thursday
January 9th,
2003
Place: Court 10
Time: 1:30 pm
Notice
of Demurrer
To the district attorney: Please take note: At
the venue shown in the caption of at such venue as the
court may order, Defendant will demur to the
accusation. Signed Steven Laubly, pro se. 3 Nov 2002.
Sign on side of Grandpa’s truck: “Not for Hire”
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well
established a blessing that we have forgotten
the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an
act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be
completely monopolized, if, through lack
of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most
sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more
or less rapid encroachment."
-Robertson
vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147
"Personal liberty largely consists of the
Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so
far restrained as the Rights of others may make
it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. 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 the common
Right which he has under his Right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional
guarantee one m ay, 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 nor
disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not
only in his person, but in his safe conduct." American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law,
Sect.329, p 1135.
2
Table of Contents:
Tables of Authorities cited herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table #1 U.S. Supreme Court cases cited
herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Lower Federal Court Cases cited herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Cases from other states cited herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3
Pennsylvania statutes and rules cited
herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Constitutional clauses cited herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 4
Learned Treatises and Encyclopedias cited
herein: .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Memorandum of Authorities .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
History of the driver license .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
In the Beginning we built roads. We shared
common tenancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Declaration of Douglas Palaschak re: The
law of licensure of farm trucks. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Defendant did not suddenly lose his right
to drive. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 5
We use the road as common tenants - not as
renters from the state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Comparison of Tenant in Common to Licensee .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Nature of a License: permission to do
something that one otherwise may not do. . . . 7
Supreme Court’s Views on the right to
Locomotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 7
The Department of Motor Vehicles has by
stealthy encroachment overstepped its bounds . . . . . 8
Supreme Court’s older Traditional View of
Right to Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
States m ay not compact with each other
without permission of Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Some cases that flesh out the difference between
“rights” and “privileges” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 9
Liberties may not be licensed - although by
stealthy encroachment that was the trend . . . . . . . . 12
The Constitutional Right to Travel.
Locomotion. Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
General Ancient Libertarian Premise .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 13
Argument .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Right to Use Roads and Highways. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 14
The Common Law Right to Travel .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 16
Automobiles and the Right to Travel. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 18
Defendant is not required to have a driver
license. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
There is no compelling state interest . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 22
Some would say that the right to travel is
limited to travel without a car. They are wrong. .
. . . . 24
Licensing distinguished from mere
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 28
The California Constitution contains no grant of
power to take away our right to use the road - and such a
grant would violate the privileges and immunities
clause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Abrogation of the Right of Property by
stealthy encroachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Conclusions applicable to Defendant’s use
of the roads in common tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3
Tables of Authorities cited herein:
Table #1 U.S. Supreme Court cases cited
herein:
Aptheker
v. Secretary of State,
378 U.S. 500 (1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 9
Boyd
v. United States (1886)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Edwards
v California (1941)
314 U.S. 160. The court held that a state may not condition interstate travel
upon wealth. I contend that driver license fee is
a wealth based restriction on travel - especially when the
license requires proof of insurance and the cost
of a smog check. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Gibbons
v. Ogden (Feb
1824) 22 US 1, 6 L Ed 23, 9 W heat 1. Steamboat licensing dispute. . . . . . 7
Graham
v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 9
Kent
v. Dulles,
357 U.S. 116 (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Oregon
v. Mitchell,
400 U.S. 112 (1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Shapiro
v. Thompson, 394
U.S. 618 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
U.S.
v Mersky (1960)
361 U.S. 431: An adm inistrative regulation, of course, is not a
"statute." . . . . . . . 8
United
States v. Guest,
383 U.S. 745 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Zemel
v. Rusk,
381 U.S. 1 (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lower Federal Court Cases cited herein:
Douglas
v City of Jeannette 130 F 2nd 652, 655. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Knoll Golf Club v U.S., 179 F Supp 377 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 9
Cases from other states cited herein:
Beard
v City of Atlanta (__)
86 SE 2nd 672,
676; 91 Ga. App. 584. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel
and
transportation is not a mere privilege, but a
comm on fundamental right of which the public and individuals
cannot rightfully be deprived." . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 8
City of Louisville v Sebree (19__) 214 SW 2nd
248, 308 Ky
420 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Littleton
v Burgess 82
P 864, 866, 14 W yo 173. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd
493, 145 Tex
273. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Robertson
vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147 "Complete freedom of the highways is so
old and well established a blessing that we have
forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and
yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily
administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through
lack of interest, the people submit, then they
may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from
them one by one, by more or less rapid
encroachment.".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4
Taylor
v Smith,
140 Va. 217, 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Thompson
v. Smith,
154 SE 579. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wool
v Larner,
26 A 2nd 89,
92, 112 Vt. 431. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Pennsylvania statutes and rules cited
herein:
Constitutional clauses cited herein:
California Constitution .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Edwards
v California. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
equal protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Equal Protection Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 9
U.S. Constitution : Art. 1 Section 10, Clause 3:
“ No state shall, without Consent of Congress, . . . enter into
any Agreement or Compact with another State. .
.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 9
U.S. v Guest .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Learned Treatises and Encyclopedias cited
herein:
Am.Jur.
(1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the
public
highways and to transport his property thereon,
by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere
privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at
will, but the 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
him self in an orderly and decent manner, neither
interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his
safe conduct."………………………………………..9
5
Demurrer
Defendant demurs pursuant to the common law.
Penal code section 1004 is a bit stingy. The purview
of demurrer is broader than this penal code
admits. See Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England.
“1004. The defendant may demur to the
accusatory pleading at any time
prior to the
entry of a plea, when it appears upon the face thereof . . .4. That
the facts stated do not constitute a public
offense” VC
12500 is void. It violates the constitution.
Signed Steven Laubly, Defendant pro se
Memorandum of Authorities
History of the driver license
In the Beginning we built roads. We shared
common tenancy.
The townships generally required citizen s to
contribute approxim ately 10 days in the spring to fix the
roads. Those citizens with wagons hauled macadam
rock and other materials.
Evolution of Driver License - as related by
Charles Sprinkle of Ojai, California
Charles was born in 1939 in West Virginia. He
says that volunteers patrolled the roads carrying gasoline for people with car problems. Eventually every
driver paid 25 cents toward the gasoline fund. The
receipt for this 25 cents was your license to use
the road and partake of the services should you become
stranded.
Declaration of Douglas Palaschak re: The
law of licensure of farm trucks.
I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under
penalty of perjury: I remember. I was raised on a
grand corn and soybean farm in Illinois. W hen I
was age 9, each of my Grandfathers owned a grain truck.
Both trucks said the same thing on the side:
“Not for hire”. I pondered this strange message for many years.
Why would you not hire your truck out? Why make
an issue of it before anybody even asks? The answer
seemed to be that if you hired out your truck
then you became subject to a higher tax on the truck . In fact to
this day there is a rule, perhaps unwritten, that
a farmer may drive his truck to the nearest grain elevator just
as he may drive his tractor and wagon, to wit:
without regard for licenses on the driver or the truck – because
none are needed for the tractor and wagon hauling
corn in from the field. I
drove a grain truck again on the farm in the harvests of 1996, 1997, and 1998. I
drove it without a driver
license for a truck, and, as I recall, the trucks, or at least one of them was
not currently registered. That
is how the
issue arose.
________________
Douglas Palaschak
Defendant did not suddenly lose his right
to drive.
By stealthy encroachment the state takes away our
liberty and sells is back to us as a license. The
stealth encroachment process of the corporation/
state against the human depends on time for its success.
The hum an lives perhaps 85 years. The
corporation/ state has eternal life. As each succeeding generation
dies off, the next generation fails to remember
the lessons and history of the previous generation. The
corporation state counts on that. Defendant
remembers the way it was.
6
We use the road as common tenants - not as
renters from the state
Stealthy encroachment at work: The state counts
on this generation to forget that we use the roads
as tenants in common - not as licensees! Teodor
Marian and his Mentor Richard McDonald have researched
this vein. By looking back at old disputes
regarding roads, rivers, and other ways of passage, we see clearly
that the view was that public property is nothing
more than property held in common tenancy for use by the
1 Edwards v California (1941)
The facts of this case are simple and are not disputed. Appellant is
a citizen of the United States and a resident of
California. In December, 1939, he left his home in
Marysville, California, for Spur, Texas, with the
intention of bringing back to Marysville, his wife's brother,
Frank Duncan, a citizen of the United States and
a resident of Texas. [314 U.S. 160, 171] When he arrived in Texas, appellant learned that Duncan had last been
employed by the Works Progress Administration. Appellant thus became aware of the fact that Duncan
was an indigent person and he continued to be aware of it throughout the period involved in this
case. The two men agreed that appellant should transport Duncan from Texas to Marysville in appellant's
automobile. Accordingly, they left Spur on January 1, 1940, entered California by way of Arizona on January 3,
and reached Marysville on January 5. When he left Texas, Duncan had about $20. It had all been spent by
the time he reached Marysville. He lived with appellant for about ten days until he obtained financial
assistance from the Farm Security Administration. During the ten day interval, he had no employment.
1. In Justice Court a complaint was filed against
appellant under Section 2615 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code of California, St.1937, p.
1406, which provides: 'Every person, firm or corporation, or
officer or agent thereof that brings or assists
in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a
resident of the State, knowing him to be an
indigent person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.' On demurrer to
the complaint, appellant urged that the Section
violated several provisions of the Federal Constitution. The
demurrer was overruled, the cause was tried,
appellant was convicted and sentenced to six months
imprisonment in the county jail, and sentence was
suspended. On appeal to U.S. Supreme Court, Edwards won.
7
Comparison of Tenant in Common to Licensee
The licensee must request the license from the
licensor, he cannot demand it from him. The licensor cannot require the licensee
to take his license under the licensee has encroached upon the thing or act that
the licensor has competent authority over. You cannot demand a liquor license.
By comparison you can use the road without even demanding anything. It is there to be used by
all.
The Nature of a License: permission to do
something that one otherwise may not do.
You may not hunt pheasant in my corn field
without my permission. However, we each have the right,
barring abuse, to use the road. We are tenants on
common on the road. To
license means to confer on a person the right to do something which
otherwise he would not have the right to do. City
of Louisville v Sebree
(19__) 214 SW 2nd 248, 308 Ky 420
The state cannot sell a right to drive; it was
already ours.
The object of a license is to confer a right or
power, which does not exist
without it. Payne v. Massey (19__)
196 SW 2nd 493,
145 Tex 273.
The word “license” means permission, or
authority; and a license to do any particular thing, is a permission
or authority to do that thing; and if granted by
a person having power to grant it, transfers to the grantee the
right to do whatever it purports to authorize. Gibbons
v. Ogden (Feb 1824) 22 US 1, 6 L Ed 23, 9 Wheat
1.
Supreme Court’s Views on the right to
Locomotion
A good place to start is Edwards v
California (1941) 314 U.S. 160. The court held that a state may not
condition interstate travel upon wealth1.
I contend that the driver license scheme is merely a regressive tax (Here is the Loyola Law School's page on "Right to
Travel" http://faculty.lls.edu/~manheimk/cl2/travelx.htm)
8
and therefore an impermissible barrier to
interstate commerce. People are commerce. Interstate commerce
includes, ironically, instate commerce, for
purpose of this analysis.
The Department of Motor Vehicles has by
stealthy encroachment overstepped its bounds
There is a case that says that all administrative
law is unconstitutional. We need not be that drastic.Certainly there are some
things that the Department of Motor Vehicles can do lawfully. They can assist in
transferring
title of a car. They can administer a driver test. Even if the state legislature
cooperates and passes
a “statute” for the motor vehicle code, that “statute” is really more
like a “regulation” in that even the
legislature
has no power to impede commerce absent com pelling state interest.
The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960)
361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." While in practical
effect regulations may be called "little laws," 1. 7 they are at most
but offspring of statutes.” I cite this case
only to point out that indeed there is a difference between regulations
and statutes. Furthermore, not all laws are created equal.
Furthermore, a statute that regulates without constitutional authority is a nullity even
though it be published in the books, recognized by the police and
lowers
courts, and even though it be unchallenged for decades. Such is the current state of driver license
laws in
these United States. We are in the age of government excess. Over half the
working people work for some
form of government. By manipulating the money, by
imprisoning dissenters, by owning the bulk of the stock
of public corporations, by deceptive bookkeeping,
and by other oppression, fraud, and malice, the
governments have lulled the populace into a
belief in the presumed regularity of whatever the government
says. Well, I am here to tell you it ain’t so!
Supreme Court’s older Traditional View of
Right to Travel2
"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.
"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.
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old
and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days
of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet,
under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may
be completely monopolized, if, through lack of
interes t, the people submit, then they may look to see the most
sacred of their liberties taken from them one by
one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs.
Department
of Public Works,
180 Wash 133,147.
9
"Personal liberty largely consists of the
Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so
far restrained as the Rights of others may make
it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right
of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage,
wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege
which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the 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 nor
disturbing another's Rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [em phases
added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law,
Sect.329, p.1135.
The leading cases regarding travel in general
are:
Kent
v. Dulles,
357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Aptheker
v. Secretary of State,
378 U.S. 500 (1964)
Zemel
v. Rusk,
381 U.S. 1 (1965)
United
States v. Guest,
383 U.S. 745 (1966)
Shapiro
v. Thompson, 394
U.S. 618 (1969)
Oregon
v. Mitchell,
400 U.S. 112 (1970)
Graham
v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)
States m ay not compact with each other
without permission of Congress.
Consider the compact by which all states seem to
want you to have a driver license from one state only.
U.S. Constitution: Art. 1 Section 10,
Clause 3: “ No state shall, without
Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any
Agreement or Compact with
another State. . .”
Some cases that flesh out the difference
between “rights” and “privileges”
The permission or license is a special right or
privilege. Once a license exists only the licensee has
he right to do the thing the licensor allows. The
licensee is privileged over others who do not have a license.
It thus is a privilege to have the right to do
the thing that is licensed. In other words, the right or permission
granted by the licensor is a privilege since he
controls who can and who cannot exercise the right. If the
licensor grants the licensee a right or benefit,
it is called a privilege:
The word privilege is defined as a peculiar
benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not
enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under
special conditions. Knoll Golf Club v U.S., 179 F Supp 377
Since the right or permission to do a thing is
called a license, and since the right is “peculiar” to the licensee
alone, the license is called a privilege.
Anything that requires a license is a privilege. A license fo r the sale of intoxicating liquor is a
privilege. Chiordi v Jernigan 129 P 2nd 640, 642; 46 NM 396.
Even privileges must be administered
even-handedly. Authority: Equal Protection Clause.
10
Also, grandfather clauses, and implied clauses,
forbid the state to take away a vested right.
Those have the right to do something cannot be
licensed for what theyalready have right to do as such license would be
meaningless. City ofChicago v Collins (19__) 51 NE 907, 910.
Also, those things which are considered as
inalienable rights, which all Americans possess, cannotbe licensed since those
are not held to be a privilege.
The right to freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religiousworship are not privileges. Douglas
v City of Jeannette 130 F 2nd 652, 655.
A license bypasses a legal barrier or makes an
otherwise unlawful act lawful. The nature of a licenseallows the licensee to do
something he could not otherwise legally do. Thus, a license gives the licensee
theright to do something that would otherwise be illegal or unlawful for him to
do.
A license is a mere permit to do something that
without it would be unlawful. Littleton v Burgess,82 P 864, 866,
14 W yo 173.
A license is a right granted by some competent
authority to do an act which, without such license,would be illegal. Beard
v City of Atlanta (__) 86 SE 2nd 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584.
A licensee is one privileged to enter or remain
on land by virtue of the possessor’s consent, whethergiven by invitation or
permission. Wool v Larner, 26 A 2nd 89, 92, 112 Vt. 431.
The licensor has the power to prohibit. Since the
licensor is in the position to grant a right or
permission it logically follows that he has the
power to prohibit the act also. Likewise, having the power to
prohibit something from being done, it follows as
a corollary that power also exists to permit its use. Taylor
v Smith,
140 Va. 217, 235. Thus, where the power to license exists so does he power to
prohibit.
The authority to license implies the power to
prohibit, such being the meaning of the term. The City of
Burllington v. Bumgardner, 42 Iowa 673, 674.
The power to license necessarily includes the
power to inhibit unlicensed persons from doing the acts
authorized by license. The power to refuse
license necessarily gives the power to limit the issuance of
licenses. Ex Parte M.T. Dickey, 76 W . Va.576,
585; 85 SE 781. A
license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent. Blatz
Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.
Since the Motor Vehicles Departments, i.e.,
licensors, the Motor Vehicles Department(s) can issue
or refuse to issue a license and thereby permit
or prohibit anyone from exercising the right or privilege they
has authority over.
A license carries limitations, restrictions and
requirements. Whenever a license is issued the licensee
is under certain limitations and requirements
established by the Motor Vehicles Department (licensor), which
may be implied or expressed when the license was
issued. These limitations and requirements are often in
the form of rules and regulations and may be
referred to as the “terms” of the license, which the licensee is
subject to. The following decision reveals these
characteristics:
11
“Licensee,” as used in Pub. St. c. 100, in
reference to certain licensees, and providing that no such
licensee shall place or maintain any screen,
curtain, or other obstruction on the licensed premises, refers to
every licensee, and not merely such as have been
required by the licensing board to remove a screen, curtain,
or other obstruction. Commonwealth v. Rourke, 6
N.E. 383, 384; 141Mass. 321.
Those that are licensed under the statute cited
above are restricted in their ability to erect curtains,
screens, or other obstructions on their premises
due to the terms of the license. It matters not where these
terms were directly stated to the licensee or
stated in the rules and regulations that cover such licensed
businesses, the licensee still becomes subject to
the terms of the license. There can be no argument that
such terms are unreasonable as the licensor is in
authority to make any such rules.
If a city chooses to grant permission [a license]
to individuals to conduct a taxicab business in its
streets, it can prescribe such terms and
conditions as it may see fit, and individuals desiring to avail
themselves of such terms and conditions, whether
they are reasonable or unreasonable. Eason v. Dowdy,
219 Ga. 555.
Also, any argument that such terms are in
violation of one’s rights has no legal standing. When
person(s) takes a license, he in effect must
waive any rights that would otherwise conflict with the terms of
the license. The licensor has the authority over
the thing being licensed therefore his term must prevail over
the rights of the licensee and out of respect of
the licensor’s right to control the thing or act. Thus, the rights
of the licensee are limited by the terms of the
license.
The rights of a licensee can rise no higher than
the terms of the statute or ordinance by which he became the holder. Steves et al. v.Robie, 139 Me. 359, 363.
The licensee must submit to the rules,
limitations, and requirements the licensor sets out as the terms
of the license.
A license is revocable by the licensor. W hen a
license exis ts, it is within the power of the Motor
Vehicles Department(s) (licensor) to revoke the
license at any time this entity wishes.
Permits to carry on a liquor business issued
under Liquor Control Act are mere licenses revocable
as provided in such act. State v. Hawlew, 44 N.E.
2d 815, 820.
A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal
privilege, and it is revocable at law, at the pleasure
of the licensor, even when money has been paid
for it. River Development Corp. v. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d
373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.
A license is one to whom an owner of realty has
granted a mere right of occupancy, and such license
is revocable at the option of the licensor.
Caldwell v. Mitchell, 158 N.Y.S. 2d 868, 870.
The licensee cannot possibly revoke the license
he is the holder of since he did not give him self the
permission or license in the first place. Only
the licensor can revoke a license.
The terms and rules of a license are amendable.
Restrictions, limitations, and requirements can be
added, deleting or modified at a future date and
become new terms of the license. Here again only the licensor
is able to amend the terms and conditions of the
license. Thus, when the licensor makes a requirement after
the license is issued, the licensee is subject to
that requirement just as though it were an original condition
of the license.
12
The foregoing characteristics of a license reveal
the legal principles that potentially exist whenever
licensing takes place.
A license is often found under the law of
contracts and apparently shares some attributes of contract.
However, in its truest sense, a license is not a
contract and it has generally been so held.
A license is merely a privilege to do business
and is not a contract between authority granting it and
grantee nor is it a property right, nor does it
create a vested righ t. Mayo v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Fla.,40
So. 2d 555, 559.
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do
what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract
between the authority, federal, state, or
municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted, and is not
property or a property right. American States
Water Services Co. of Calif. v. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31
Cal. App. 2d 606.
A license requires that one of the parties have
competent authority over the thing or the act involved
in the agreement whereas a contract does not. A
license can be terminated by one of the parties at any time
but a contract cannot. These authorities also
show that a license is not property right because it is not in itself
property. Neither is a license a vested right but
only a privilege.
The Undersigned now brings to light in what
manner can a license be used when controlling the acts
of individuals that are regarded as “natural
rights,” or in exercising [3] “constitutional l rights.”
Liberties may not be licensed - although
by stealthy encroachment that was the trend
The terms liberty and license are often viewed as
two different things. Liberty being a sacred right
everyone has and a license being a grant that is
often assigned and documented by way of a piece of paper.
This is true where we use these words as if they
are commonly understood.
Liberty is viewed as an inherent and inalienable
right, and one all free men naturally possess. This is to be
distinguished from the type of right given by an
individual or government, which is commonly called a license.
Thus, the latter is not, and cannot be,
considered as a substitute for the former.
However, the technical and legal definition of
these two words is actually synonymous.
A license gives one the right or “liberty” to
do a certain thing.
Definition: “License”: Leave; permission;
authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license
may be verbal or written; when written, the paper
containing the authority is called a license. A man is not
permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he
has obtained a license. Webster’s American Dictionary, 1828.
It can be seen by this definition that a license
is a liberty. Once one has a “license” one has “liberty”
or is at liberty to do something.
The Constitutional Right to Travel. Locomotion. Association.
U.S. v Guest
Edwards
v California.
13
The basis of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL primarily
centers around the peoples inalienable and natural right of
“liberty.” At times, both “The State” and
the U.S. Constitution recognize liberty.
General Ancient Libertarian Premise
Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every
citizen under our Constitution and laws, consists of the
right of locomotion - to go where one pleases,
and when, and to do what may lead to one’s business or
pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of
others may make necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.
One may travel along the public highways or in
public places. *** These are rights which existed long
before our [their Federal] Constitution, and we
have taken just pride in their maintenance, making them a part
of the fundamental law of the land. Pinkerton v.
Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 584, 44 N.W . 579 (1889).
There now exists policies/laws that attempt to
prohibit travel in the several state s that attem pt to prohibit
travel by way of “driver’s licenses” and
taxes, along with other quasi-State laws.
The two rights of liberty and property which are
taken for granted, are extremely important rights and when
claim ed and asserted should not be taken lightly
by the courts.
This court has consistently held to the view that
liberty of the person and the right to the control of
one’s own property are very sacred rights which
should not be taken away or withheld except for very urgent
reasons. In re Guardianship of Collition, 164
N.W. 2d 480, 483; 41W is. 2d 487 (1969).
Since the Governors Convention on March 6, 1933
and the bankruptcy of this Nation by the infamous Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933, the States have come
increasingly m ore and more aggressive in controlling the people and their property, and these States will
now not tolerate anyone traveling in their domain without their permission, i.e. license. Just a short tim e
after this bankruptcy, on April 21, 1933, the license law was passed, but not enforced....?
When government passes an unlawful act, such as
the licensing of a right, people need to know they
have no obligation to obey it, for it is void
from the time it was enacted:
An unconstitutional legislative enactment, through law in form, is in fac t not law at all. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had