Here is Charlie

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

"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.

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:

“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.

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.

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