|
LINKS and RESEARCHABLE INFORMATION
 Download a Public Opinion Survey on the Washington's Courts
“The Liberty to Use the Common Ways”
IN BRIEF - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, CONSTITUTIONS
Constitution for the United States of America,
Amendment 9 16.1 Constitution of the State of Florida Article I § I, II
Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd] 12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70 25 Am.Jur.
(1st) Highways, Sect.260 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717 CASE HISTORIES Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120;
95 NH 200 Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60 Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31 Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532. Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW
607 Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616. Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22 City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232. Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876 Connolly
vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540 Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46 Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171 Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43 Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333 Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey
vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592 Hale v. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75. Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516 Hurtado vs. California,
110 US 516 International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958) Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848 Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934 Locket vs.
State, 47 Ala. 45 Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882 McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316 Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623,
661 Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658. Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26. O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313 Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682 People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2,
4 People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715 Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290 Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018 Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619 Robertson vs. Department
of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147 Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203 Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660 Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946 State vs. City of
Spokane, 186 P. 864. State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487 State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073 State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020 Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs
Banton, 264 US 140 Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427 Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389 Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294 Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A.
60. Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579 Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11 Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526 Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118. Willis vs. Buck,
263 P.l 982. Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356. LAW DICTIONARIES Bergh Business Law 25.1, 55.1.4, 61, 63 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 5.1, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 14.1, 25.3, 27, 28, 29.1, 71.1, 88, 92.1,
93 Century Dictionary, p.2034. Woodward Quasi Contracts 9 72 Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES Webster Unabridged Dictionary 9.1
The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its
inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome
of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"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 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." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional
Law, Sect.329, p.1135. ....and further... "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may
direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary,
5th ed.
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties, " the Right of movement, the Right
of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters).
Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States
Supreme Court has stated:
"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has
no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry
on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation,
so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are
such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights
are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights.
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives
certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it
so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange
anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed,
and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected
from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police
power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction
between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The
former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute
prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l,
168, p.516.
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege."
We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those
positions to modern case decision.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona,
384 US 436, 491. ...and... "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489. ...and... "There can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business
or pleasure.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the
public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur.
(1st) Highways Sect.163. ...and..."The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is
not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson
vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his
Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
"...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, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege
or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct.
256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon
the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners,
17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982. and... "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business,
differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P.
864.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better
to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went
on to explain just what the difference is:
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." and...
"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state
courts to the federal courts.
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs
radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary
right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781. ...and... "The right of the Citizen
to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty,
to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes
of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines
vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by
its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember
the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using
the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?
"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes,
and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US
251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett
Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business
is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...
1.Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and...
2.Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right
to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience
of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.
"[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith." Ibid.
"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in
the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate...the use of the highways for gain." Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary
course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right
to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."
"Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the
exercise of this Right is not a "Privilege." "
 How
to get a Warning
Beat a Bad Ticket
Learn to ask the proper questions of a government employee, and you may win!!!!
Whatever the charges are, know the answers before asking the questions, this way you can get them disqualified.
Questions :
How long were you in the academy?
Were you trained in the proper application of the law?
As an officer enforcing the vehicle code, are you not required to know and understand the meanings and proper application of such law?
Officer, do you have personal knowledge of the meaning of the term (vehicle code) as it is defined in the law you were taught to enforce?
OBJECTION (by the prosecution)
Your Honor I am attempting to lay a foundation to establish that the officer has been improperly trained, is biased, is involved in a civil conspiracy
to deprive me of my property and lacks personal knowledge, and therefore is an incompetent witness as it relates to the issue before the court.
Proceed
In the academy how may hours were you trained in the proper application of the vehicle code, and were you taught that it applied to everyone without
exception?
Were you taught that the Vehicle Code is a special law with general applicability and not a general law applying to everyone?
Do you have personal knowledge of the meanings of the terms DRIVE, RESIDENT, OPERATOR, DRIVER, MOTOR VEHICLE, VEHICLE. as those terms are defined
and used in the state that created the vehicle code? NO?
NO? - then you are stating that you do not know the legal meanings of the laws that you are enforcing
Were you taught that the vehicle code applies to all commercial activities?
(if no) does the vehicle code apply to commercial vehicles?
(if yes) was I involved in any commercial activity at the time you stopped me.
Any time an objection is raised, you should take exception and explain to the judge that the foundation that you are laying is important to your
defense.
After all the questions are asked that you feel are necessary and or you have laid the proper foundation,
then!!!!
Your Honor, I move the court to strike all testimony by this officer, as he has stated on record that he does not understand the laws that he
is enforcing, and as such is biased, and is incompetent to be a witness.
How To Beat Your Next Ticket
Beat Your Ticket
By Philip Reed Photos By Scott Jacobs
My rearview mirror exploded with blue and white lights. I glanced down at my speedometer -- I was pushing 80 mph. But the cars around me were
going about the same speed. Could this cop really be pulling me over?
I carefully navigated my way across six lanes of traffic. I pulled over on the shoulder and waited, my heart pounding. Moments later the motorcycle
cop's helmeted face appeared in the passenger window.
"License and registration, " he said, raising his voice over the roar of the traffic. "What's the problem?" I asked. "You were doing 80 in a 65-mile-an-hour
zone." He disappeared before I could argue the point.
Busted.
I sat there fuming, thinking of the money this would cost me, the increased insurance premiums or the cost and time to attend traffic school.
And for what? Going 80 miles per hour on the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles where speeds routinely reach 80 and even soar into the 90s? No way was I a reckless driver, the kind you see threading
the needle between a tractor-trailer truck and a school bus. Those guys deserved tickets, not me.
Still, I was--Busted.
When the cop returned I tried a few excuses on him.
Me: I was going with the flow of traffic.
Cop: You passed three cars while I was behind you.
Me: Maybe I was speeding, but I couldn't have been going 80 -- not in this little gas/electric hybrid Honda Insight.
Cop: I followed you for a half mile. If you had seen me and slowed down, I wouldn't ticket you.
Me: I'm vulnerable in this little car and need to keep up with traffic.
Cop: You should drive slower and more carefully in a small car.
Obviously, he'd heard it all. I signed the ticket with a shaky hand and surrendered to my fate. But wait! Other drivers at Edmunds.com had received
tickets and beat them. I could do the same thing. I would fight my ticket.
A few days later, I shared this story with Walt Meyer, a friend of mine who is a freelance writer and also teaches at a comedy traffic school.
I told him I was going to fight my ticket.
"You'll lose, " he said.
"Why? I was going with the flow of traffic, " I whined.
"Oh, so there was a road sign saying 'Go with the flow'?"
Jeez, and I thought he was my friend.
"If you really want to try to fight your ticket, read 'Beat the Cops' by Alex Carroll, " Meyer said. "But you'll probably lose anyway."
I ordered the book through Carroll's Web site and read it. And for the first time since seeing those blue and white lights I felt a glimmer of
hope. The book describes how the author got 16 tickets in a short time and was able to nullify 10 of them. He eventually wrote his book based on what he learned.
Even more interesting was the writer's perspective. Unlike traffic cops, who make you feel like a serial killer for speeding, the book states
that the majority of tickets are issued to generate money for government municipalities. Insurance companies benefit from traffic tickets, too, raising your rates when your driving record
shows a moving violation. The National Motorists Association claims that costly radar guns are donated to police departments by some insurance carriers to encourage them to write more speeding
tickets.
Finally, I was getting somewhere in this process. I called Carroll and told him the details of my traffic stop.
"A speeding ticket based on pacing is the hardest kind to beat, " he said.
"Pacing" is when a police officer follows you and checks your speed by looking at his speedometer. Speeding tickets can also be issued based on
an officer "estimating" your speed -- this is nothing more than a cop watching you and guessing how fast you are going.
According to Carroll, there are three ways to beat a ticket: 1. The cop doesn't show up for court 2. You exploit a technicality (such as a problem
with the patrol car's speedometer) 3. You have a good argument for extenuating circumstances (you are speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital)
This reminded me of a story a friend told me. He was driving down a canyon road when he struck a bird, which became lodged under the windshield
wipers. His daughters were in the car with him and they began screaming hysterically. He sped up to dislodge the bird and, at that moment, was pulled over for speeding. When he told this
bizarre story to a judge, the ticket was dismissed.
My pacing ticket didn't fall easily into any of Carroll's three categories. The only technical angle to exploit was to prove that my speedometer
was malfunctioning. I spoke to Edmunds.com's technical editor and he told me the speedometer might in fact be wrong. My heart jumped. "I think it's actually a little low, " he said.
Another tactic Carroll describes is to delay the trial to a time when the ticketing officer can't come to court. He suggested I call the station
house where my California Highway Patrol officer was based and find out when he was on vacation, or what his days off were. This could be done by calling over a number of days to find out
when he was working. Then, when I extended my court date, try to schedule it for a day that he wasn't on duty.
Other strategies might include requesting the officer's notes written on the back of the ticket hoping there is something there which is inaccurate.
I decided to extend the date of my trial to increase the chances the officer wouldn't appear in court. As I attempted to do this I made an alarming
discovery. You can request only one postponement (called an "extension") and it must be requested 10 days before your trial date. This is stated in very small print on the ticket, and it
doesn't really make sense. I mean, you're more apt to have a scheduling conflict arise at the last minute rather than 10 days earlier. But this is the way the law is written so I was committed
to the assigned trial date.
However, I still had one ace in the hole. If the ticketing officer did show up, and my defense was falling on deaf ears, I could quote California
Vehicle Code 41501 allowing me to attend traffic school. But -- and this was important -- I should make a photocopy of the law because some judges weren't familiar with it.
"If it looks like you're going to lose, say, 'Your honor, I see that you're very busy here. I will cite CVC 41501 and take traffic school, '" Meyer
told me.
With this backup plan in mind I set about creating a reasonable sounding argument. But I had to get busy. My court date was in three days. Copyright
2001 by Edmunds.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Beat Your Next Ticket -- Part II
By Philip Reed
On the day of my trial for a speeding ticket I arrived outside traffic court in West Los Angeles to find about 30 people milling around, waiting
for the doors to open. At the other end of the corridor, the police officers who had issued the tickets had gathered. I noticed that these two groups didn't mingle at all.
When the doors finally opened (45 minutes late) we all filed into the courtroom. The police officers sat on one side of the room while the ticketed
motorists sat on the other.
I had prepared for my day in court in several ways: I wore a coat and tie I had read several books about presenting cases in traffic court I had
drawn a diagram of the area where the traffic stop occurred I had copies of the California Vehicle Codes relevant to my case
The only thing I was lacking was a compelling argument to prove that I wasn't speeding. I mean, I was speeding and there were no real technicalities
I could exploit to contradict that. My strategy was to wait until the last possible moment, hoping the ticketing officer didn't show up, and then, if he did make an appearance, invoke California
Vehicle Code 41501 stating my right to go to traffic school.
The judge finally appeared and told us that he would be reading off our names. If we were prepared to proceed to trial, we should respond by saying,
"Ready." The judge sternly warned us that this was our last chance to opt for traffic school. If we went to trial and lost, there would be points on our license. If we took traffic school
now our sins would be forgiven.
Surveying the room, the judge then said to one of his clerks, "You know, I saw a lot of officers downstairs. Let them know we're starting now."
The clerk disappeared. This, and several other comments showed that the judge was trying to scare us into taking traffic school rather than tying up the court with a trial.
|
(2004 Spokane, WA. True Story 7mph over) except for toaster...I think!
The same Judge and day I was there, issued a fine to a man that had not gotten a ticket in 22 years of driven. The man had diagrams and while I listened to this man's case which in my
opinion was a perfect legit explanation.
The Judge's body language read like a bored over paid extremely bias official and his ridiculous reason he didn't drop the citation convinced me that the Spokane Traffic Court he's running
was less fair then a 2 headed quarter. At that time I knew I was screwed, even with more then 10 court appearances of experienced traffic court history backing me. Just See what happens
next time Judge...Surprise Witness! or maybe a Video Camera!
|
The judge then began reading our names. In several cases, the defendant answered, "Ready, " and the police officers
responded by saying, "The people are ready." The judge set these case files to one side for trial. But in over half of the cases there was no response from the police. In other cases the
police responded by saying, "Officer doesn't remember, " and the case was dismissed.
In one case, the judge got no response when he called the police officer's name. He told his clerk, "Check downstairs.
I know I saw the officer down there." This case file was set to one side, and the defender slouched in his seat, muttering an obscenity. The people whose cases were dismissed usually said,
"All right!" and left the courtroom with a spring in their step.
When my name was called I responded with a confident, "Ready!" The judge then called out the police officer's name.
I held my breath. He called it again. No response. The judge glanced over the case and said, "People unable to proceed. Case dismissed. Watch your speed."
I left the courtroom feeling a load was lifted, and joined the other celebrating ex-offenders in the corridor.
As I walked back to my car, I realized that I had won in a number of ways:
The charges were dropped and my $77 fine would be returned No points would be put on my license My insurance premiums would not
go up I wouldn't have to spend the money or time on traffic school.
All of these benefits were the result of taking the time to go to traffic court.
Several days later a friend of mine had a different experience in court. So far this year my friend has beat two tickets and lost two. The two
tickets he successfully challenged were for speeding based on radar and were given to him by California Highway Patrol; the two he lost were from city police departments for non-speeding
moving violations. In this particular case he was ticketed for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He went to court in West Los Angeles and waited for the entire afternoon
for the chance to argue his case.
My friend reported that the judge in his courtroom was like a flamboyant game show host. When he ruled in favor of the driver, he seemed to share
in the excitement of the moment by boisterously proclaiming, "Looks like you won't be going to traffic school! And we'll even be mailing you your money back!" But when he ruled against the
motorist he became sarcastic and abrupt.
The order of the events in the trials were: 1.The officer described the circumstances under which he issued the ticket 2.The judge asked the officer
follow-up questions about the case 3.The defendant told his or her side of the story 4.The judge questioned the defendant and referred further questions to the officer.
In some cases, the defendant was allowed to tell his story only to discover that the officer had shot a video of the traffic stop. These cases
always went against the driver.
When my friend was stopped he had asked the police officer: "Are you saying that I blew off the stop sign completely?" The officer said, "No.
You just rolled through it." But in court, the cop told a different story.
The officer described the location where he was parked and stated that he had an unobstructed view of the intersection. He then told the judge
that my friend had gone through the stop sign at 15 mph. The judge then asked, "What's the error factor in your speed estimation certification?" The officer said it was "plus or minus 3
mph."
When it came time to issue a ruling, this judge used this fact against my friend. He said, "Assume for a minute that the officer had been having
a bad day. That still means you were going at least 9 mph. Suppose he was having a really, really bad day. That still means you were going 6 miles an hour."
My friend felt that he had learned an important lesson from this trip to court. Since the police officer presents his side of the story first,
you should try to anticipate what he will say and create your strategy accordingly. Clearly, this officer had presented what he thought would be an ironclad story to refute someone trying
to say that they didn't "roll" through the intersection. If he had said that my friend had gone through the intersection at 5 mph without stopping, that 3 mph variation in his speed estimation
certification would be cutting it pretty close.
This brought up another important point. Walter Meyer, a traffic school instructor and freelance writer who lives in San Diego, Calif., said that
if the case hinges on your word versus the police officer, the judge will usually rule in favor of the officer. This is because police officers are perceived as experts in traffic rules.
Furthermore, Meyer said, "The judge knows that he can walk out the door of the courthouse and find a dozen people breaking the traffic laws." This leads to an attitude of "guilty until proven
innocent" — at least in traffic court.
This was echoed by my friend who had some advice for anyone going to try his or her case in traffic court: "Make sure your case is based on concrete
evidence and don't rely strictly on what the officer said at the time of the traffic stop. Don't just go in there and say, 'I didn't do it.'"
For example, one woman who successfully challenged her ticket convinced the judge that the stop sign she supposedly ran was resting on a concrete
pylon that was too low to see. She brought photos to court to show the judge and her case was dismissed.
Although my case was dismissed, I still had one important step. Experts advise that you contact the DMV and get a copy of your driving record
to make sure your dismissed case hasn't inadvertently wound up on your license. While the clerical error is the court's fault, you could be the one spending a night in jail.
As my friend and I discussed our experiences we agreed that there was very little reason not to go to traffic court. There was some chance that
the officer wouldn't show up and your case would be dismissed. If the officer did appear, you could always opt for traffic school at the last minute. Furthermore, some speeding tickets (most
notably radar tickets) can be challenged on a technicality. Other tickets can be dismissed by presenting evidence such as diagrams or photographs.
It's important to take a larger view of this whole subject. The police write many tickets knowing that the motorist will simply pay their fine
by mail hoping to put the whole incident behind them. Other offenders will choose traffic school. Only a small group of motorists will ask for a trial in traffic court. And an even smaller
number will actually go to trial. Clearly, if everyone went to traffic court, the system would become overburdened and collapse. So, if you feel your ticket was unwarranted, ask for your
day in court — you could walk out a winner.
Copyright 2001 by Edmunds.Com, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/Legal/KennedyCSPAN.htm
SC Lustice Kennedy on the Constitution
[In response to student question:]
Justice Kennedy: "Of course, weapons in schools has emerged as a problem of tremendous concern to students, to teachers, to parents, to the society
at large. And it's a serious problem and we_must_do something about it. In the initial instance, who has been charged with enforcing and making legal policy? State officials, local officials,
school boards, school principals, school experts. And courts will always give them a substantial amount of deference. They're on the front lines, they're on the front, and they're going
to have to cope with the difficult problems that this presents. I wonder if what you had in mind is a case called United States v. Lopez, or Lopez v. United States. Does anybody [here] know
what that case is? I was wondering if you had that in mind in your question.
[Recognizes student] What is that case?"
Student: "It was a case where Lopez had a gun at school, and the Supreme Court had to rule as to whether they [Congress] could make a federal
law banning guns from all campuses."
Justice Kennedy: "There was a federal statute, enacted by the_Congress of the United States_and signed by the President that made it unlawful
to possess a weapon or to have a weapon within a thousand yards of a school, or in a school, of course. And this Court declared that law unconstitutional._ [rhetorically] Does this mean
that the Court_wants_guns in schools? What possibly was in the Court's mind when they made this decision? [recognizes student] Yes."
Student: "I think it's possible that they would prefer that schools are under local jurisdiction, and the state jurisdiction, rather than the
national."
Justice Kennedy: "You would say the courts_prefer_that. Are you happy with the verb you used? Is that your final answer?"
[laughter]
Student: "Possibly not."
Justice Kennedy: "Do we rule under the Constitution by what we_prefer?_"
Student: "No. Absolutely not."
Justice Kennedy: "So you want to amend your answer slightly."
Student: "I think I would perhaps."
Justice Kennedy: "How would you amend it?"
Student: "The courts... well, education is normally under the jurisdiction of the states."
Justice Kennedy [repeating]: "Education is normally under the jurisdiction of the states."
Student: "...therefore the courts would state that that's where it should stay?"
Justice Kennedy: "And the Court felt, _determined, _in this case and it was a closely divided case, it was five to four, as I recall. The Court
held that the federal government had exceeded its power by acting_itself_to enact legislation to prevent guns in schools. [rhetorically] Does this mean that they thought guns in schools
were a good idea? The underlying principle that drove the decision is what... as you've indicated?"
Student: "Whether the jurisdiction was state or national."
Justice Kennedy: "This was a very important case on federalism. This was one of these cases, instances when I'm going to ask a question and I
don't want to convey a false impression: 'Who cares about the states anyway? What do they need the states for? Some states are a little slow... they don't have really great laws on guns
in schools... why doesn't the Congress do it? What difference does it make? Who cares?' Somebody from the Bell School [Washington, D.C.]. I'm sure if you're from the District of Columbia
you may have a different opinion about that.
[Laughter]
Justice Kennedy: "'Why do we need states anyway?'"
Student: "I think as a country we decided the states would be one way to maintain local authority."
Justice Kennedy: "Why... you know what's going to happen now..."
[Laughter]
Justice Kennedy: "Why do we want local authority?"
Student: "Well we learned all our lessons from King George and the gang..."
Justice Kennedy: "What did King George and his cronies teach us about local authority?"
Student: "Well, the colonists didn't have any local authority, and they weren't happy about it, and a lot of their rights were taken away. And
when we wrote the Constitution they decided one way to maintain the rights of the people would be to establish states that could make their own decisions on a smaller scale than a national
government."
Justice Kennedy: "One of the things that I want you to remember in thinking about the Constitution is that our Constitution has a certain design,
a certain structure. There are some architectural features to our Constitution, and one of them is federalism. The Framers, because of their experience with tyranny under English rule, decided
that local government, local control, was very important for liberty. And so they established this idea of federalism. Now, federalism is something that our students, our people at large,
don't think about often enough, and I don't think the Congress thinks about it often enough. Federalism is a very important principle. Federalism rests on the proposition that it is wrong
for you to delegate so much power, so much authority over your own lives to a remote_central_power in Washington that you lose all democratic control. Now we were talking earlier about the
Constitution changing. The Framers of the Constitution didn't think about modern transportation, they didn't even know what steam engines were, steamboats were just coming into play, obviously
not jet airplanes, and internets, and a nationwide telecommunications system. And yet, we have an obligation to preserve, and protect, and defend the principle of federalism they designed
and to make it work in a modern world. And you should ask yourself whether or not: A. the people of the United States, B. the people who study the Constitution, C. the Congress of the United
States think often enough about the consequences of their actions for a federal system. You could hear political science professors get up and tell you that 'federalism is outmoded, we should
abolish it. New Hampshire, Rhode Island have two votes in the Senate just like the state of California does. What is the reason for this? How can we justify it?' You must understand that
federalism is part of the dynamic of freedom that the Framers insisted upon, that the Framers designed. This was the most brilliant political theory breakthrough of many centuries, this
was the Framers' unique contribution to political science --the idea that you have two loyalties, two responsibilities, two obligations, to two governments, to the United States as the national
government, and to the state. If you break into a bank, you're going to be prosecuted by the state and the federal government, because you're violating both laws. If you rob the mails, you're
going to be punished by the United States. You have a direct obligation to the United States. You also have a direct obligation to your state. What were the Framers talking about, that_two_governments
gives you more freedom than one? I mean, how does this work? How do you get more freedom if you have two governments than if you have one? Somebody who hasn't had a chance to talk yet...
we've covered it in part. Yes." [recognizes student]
Student: "Perhaps because having two governments keeps the power balanced, so that one doesn't go only to everyone, and becoming maybe the whole
power of ruling over people. So having two governments will, like, balance this power and giving more freedom to the people."
Justice Kennedy: "Yes, I think that's the core of the principle, that two governments somehow keeps a balance. How does that work? Take the example
of guns in schools."
Student: "Well, like, keeping the power, between like, well like for example in many other countries that only have the one ruler, it keeps the
people restricted from their freedom for doing whatever they want. So having two governments, one giving one law, and the other giving the other law. Having these two powers balanced means
that the people can, like, be neutral, and have a more freedom of doing what they think is right for them. So having two governments, the opinion of the people can keep them balancing, and
not allow one to take the whole power."
Justice Kennedy: "We have more... I think that's a well stated answer... we have more opportunity for people to make choices as to what their
government ought to do. And there are many ways of controlling guns in schools, there are many different policies. And our Court had held that under that particular statute --perhaps there
could be a statute designed a different way-- but under that particular statute, the federal government had just overreached its powers. The federal government, believe it or not, is a government
of limited powers. [smiling] Now in this day and age, of our global military responsibilities, of our national economy, of our national transportation system, of a national banking system,
it's hard to think of how the federal government's power is limited. But it's very, very important to recognize that federalism is part of the structure of the Constitution, and that the
structure of the Constitution is the reason our Constitution has lasted. I teach in Europe every year, a law course, an international law course, and have students many of whom come from
the United States, and they love Europe. They see cathedrals and ancient castles, and marvelous paintings that are hundreds, sometimes thousands of years old, and they think 'oh well, America
is kind of new, we're a young nation..." But I tell them, remember, your Constitution is the oldest working constitution in the world. It's lasted. Now there are constitutions around the
world today that are written in very, very beautiful inspiring language, perhaps you might even think more inspiring than our own, but they're not worth the paper they're written on. Because
there's no political structure, there's no political tradition, there's no tradition of liberty and freedom to guarantee that they exist. And federalism is one of the neglected subjects
of the American political discourse. And the school gun case was a way for this Court to teach that, to tell the people 'be careful about thinking that the government in Washington solves
everybody's problems.' That's not the design of the Constitution. Now, newspaper writers tell me that federalism doesn't get people too excited. It's not an exciting issue, and yet it's
part of the features of the Constitution. And when you go back to your classroom I want you to ask yourself, and ask your students, 'What are the other elements of the architectural design
of the Constitution?' What are the other structural components of our Constitution? What are the elements of our governmental design that distinguishes our constitution from others?' Federalism
is one, and there are others, and you can talk about that when you get back to your classes. Other questions... that was kind of a long answer to the guns in school question, but it was
a good question, and one that helped me." [later]
Student: "Regarding your comments earlier about how the Constitution does or does not change with the times --about the Second Amendment, the
language of the Second Amendment is often subject to debate, particularly regarding the language about a 'well regulated militia', and how, being that you talked about global involvement
with our military, it's clearly not... it's clearly obsolete. So what is the Supreme Court's opinion, how does it interpret the language of the Second Amendment, in regards to 'well regulated
militia' and the necessity of it today? Especially particularly with a rise in gun violence in schools, and everything, the need and the necessity for the Second Amendment."
Justice Kennedy: "Again, our lower courts are just beginning to confront the terms of the Second Amendment, to see what it means in the context
of gun control. There are going to be some years of litigation and debate on that before it comes to the [Supreme] Court. I do think that it's wrong to say that the Constitution is going
to change with the times. The times will illuminate the meaning of the Constitution. And the Constitution must be interpreted in a way so that in modern times it is preserved. Be very careful
about saying that the Constitution changes. Remember this, too. The Constitution lasts only so long as it's respected by the people. It's just a piece of paper --in one sense. It's the meaning
of our nation, in another sense. But every generation has to learn it all.. over.. again. Democracy isn't inherited. It's not something that's in your genes. It's taught... and it's learned.
And when the Court decides a case, under the Constitution, people can understand the Constitution in the context of their own times. The Constitution isn't some dusty old document. When
we had the flag burning cases, whether or not it's permitted under the First Amendment to burn a flag in order to make a point. I thought it was a very important teaching lesson. Because
there are a lot of people who didn't like flag burners, that get infuriated that this magnificent symbol of our country would be trashed by a bunch of hoodlums. Who likes that? On the other
hand, it was a good lesson, to show that the First Amendment demands that you acc... tolerate certain views that you don't like. It was a good civics lesson for our country, to show how
the First Amendment works. And we'll have more difficulty... and I think after our decision, people began to think about the First Amendment in a different way. So when decisions come out
you should be very careful to remember what the Court is doing is trying to preserve the traditions and the values and the principles of the Constitution in a world that is changing very,
very fast. And this is difficult to do."
NOTICE READ SEN. W. STUMP
*****Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens)*****former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump (1989)
HOT INFO
Larry Becraft
defence = your Reliance on Government Information
Warning - Please NOTE !!!! There are articles & links on UCC REDEMPTION on these pages, the information is interesting to read but case loses linked below tells
it not a good way to go !
UCC REDEMPTION Court Loses
UCC lost cases
UCC lost cases
Fight the Finger Print
ALSO Read - invisible contracts http://www.doprocess.net/books/incon002.htm & the UCC Contection on the other pages
------------------------
BRIEF ON TRAVELING IS A "RIGHT, " NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE
BRIEF
------------------------
A fla case - right to drive
Source = http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/fl-brief.text
Another victory against "licensed" "driving".
The following is the email I received from a correspondent who took the Washington driver brief, modified it suitably for his state (Florida),
and went into court with it.
He won.
No surprise, to many of us. Note, e.g., the substitution of Florida's definition of "drive" at the appropriate point in the brief, and how it
relates to "traffic" and other important verbiage.
He has agreed to placement of this modified brief in my web pages, on the condition that his name be removed -- apparently, he doesn't feel any
desire to be publicly identifiable in web pages of this sort. So I have done; if you have a burning need or desire to contact this person, drop me a note and I will forward to him, single-blind.
If he wants to chat with you, he will respond directly.
His intro paragraphs are below, followed by the modified brief. --karl ________________
To let everyone know how the case turned out. I was looking at $810.00 in fines and court cost and 2 mo. in jail. I bargained out with a no-contender
plea $150.00 in court cost and judgment of guilt withheld.
I do believe the jurisdiction brief on travel worked. We both know I could have won but time is money and there was no reason to go to court if
the record will not show guilt. Below is a copy of the brief: ________________
In the County Court in and for County of , State of Florida
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTIONS
Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9 16.1 Constitution of the State of Florida Article I § I, II
STATUTES
Florida Statute Chapter 322 DRIVERS' LICENSES
Florida Statute CHAPTER 318 DISPOSITION OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS
Florida Statute CHAPTER 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL Title 18 USC 3116 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd]
12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717
CASE HISTORIES
Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31
Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607
Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876
Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171
Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43
Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592
Hale v. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45
Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661
Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290
Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018
Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147
Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020
Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140
Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427
Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389
Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11
Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
LAW DICTIONARIES
Bergh Business Law 25.1, 55.1.4, 61, 63
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 5.1, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 14.1, 25.3, 27, 28, 29.1, 71.1, 88, 92.1, 93
Century Dictionary, p.2034.
Woodward Quasi Contracts 9 72
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES
Webster Unabridged Dictionary 9.1
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
NOW, comes the Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxx, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with
this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, " stating as follows:
ARGUMENT
If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
Justice Tolman stated:
"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.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been
monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.
RIGHTS
The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its
inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome
of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
"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 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." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional
Law, Sect.329, p.1135. ....and further... "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may
direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary,
5th ed.
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties, " the Right of movement, the Right
of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters).
Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States
Supreme Court has stated:
"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has
no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry
on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation,
so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are
such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights
are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights.
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives
certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it
so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange
anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed,
and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected
from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police
power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction
between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The
former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute
prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l,
168, p.516.
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege."
We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those
positions to modern case decision.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona,
384 US 436, 491. ...and... "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489. ...and... "There can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business
or pleasure.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the
public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur.
(1st) Highways Sect.163. ...and..."The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is
not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson
vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his
Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
"...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, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege
or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct.
256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon
the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners,
17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982. and... "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business,
differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P.
864.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better
to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went
on to explain just what the difference is:
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." and...
"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state
courts to the federal courts.
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs
radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary
right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781. ...and... "The right of the Citizen
to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty,
to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes
of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines
vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by
its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember
the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using
the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?
"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes,
and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US
251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett
Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business
is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...
1.Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and...
2.Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right
to their use in carry | 
City
of 
