Welcome To The Rabbit Blog

This is for people who fell downand made a great discovery!

Snowbird Complaint

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

 

"The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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."

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "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." -

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "? the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference? is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) ?citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.?

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 ?The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .?

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). ?The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.?

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). ?A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.?

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. ?The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.?

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) ?The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.?

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. ?The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. ?The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.?

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 ?A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.? Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 ?There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.? Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ?automobile? connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways?" 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ?motor vehicle? is different and broader than the word ?automobile.?"

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "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."

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 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business? is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." -

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 ?Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.? People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 ?RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . ? Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. ?Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.?

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. ?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. ?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 court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.?

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). ?If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.? -

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution."

(Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: ?Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.'

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. ?Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.? Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13?14. ?The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.? Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. ?a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is ?not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.?Justice White, Hiibel ?Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.?

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. ?Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.?

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. ?automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ?household goods[.]?

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]"

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: -

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 -

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) -

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 -

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

Central Bankers Converted The US Into A Corporation To Control The People: Anita Whitney

Central Bankers Converted The US Into A Corporation To Control The People: Anita Whitney

 https://youtu.be/8K-aYesBY0U

ignorant and free

If a nation [the people] expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson, A. D. 1816.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Importance of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

All courts have been granted subject matter jurisdiction to hear case of a particular type.

 Many who go before the courts declare that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,yet cannot or do not tell the court why or how they lack subject matter jurisdiction.

 What is missing is the argument of how the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction ofthe instant case before it.They fail to tell the court what is missing,or what rule has been violated that denies the court jurisdiction.

 There is overall subject matter jurisdiction and there is particular subject matter jurisdiction.

If the court has been granted jurisdiction to hear a debt case,it can;yet if the pleadings are insufficient the court cannot.There must be a complete question before the court to answer or it cannot answer.

 If the pleadings lack authenticated evidence,and a competent fact witness,the question is incomplete.You cannot cross examine a document,someone must be there to testify to the document.

 If the court has in some way denied access to courtor denied due process,the court cannot proceed,it has lost jurisdiction.

 If the service of process is not perfected,the court lacks personal jurisdiction to hear the case. (These rules are very strict and it is always a surprise when they are not known and followed.)

 The differences in having jurisdiction to hear a type of case and hearing a particular case are subtle,yet very important.

 Evidence is a critical part of any case.You must know the rules of evidence,the rules for a particular type of evidence.For example,you must know what the rules of evidence are for business records,what the hearsay exceptions are,if any.You must also know the difference between statement of facts and conclusions.An example of a conclusion is a bill or invoice that has only a total amount due,while an example of a statement of fact is a bill or invoice that itemizes each item that makes up the total amount due.

 You must know what makes a witness a competent fact witness,versus one who is stating hearsay,and whether that hearsay is admissible.Many times a witness is uncovered in court has not being competent.That is,they are reciting hearsay (inadmissible hearsay)or conclusions and not facts.An example of this is a supposed witness to an auto collision.They may not have seen the actual occurrence of the collision,only after the noise of the collision did they turn and see the results of the collision,and subsequently drew their conclusions.Not a competent fact witness to the collision.

1.  The real Issue inVoid JudgmentsisSubject Matter Jurisdiction!

Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction,either of the subject matter or the parties.Wahl v.Round Valley Bank38Ariz,411,300P.955(1931),Tube City Mining &Milling Co.v.Otterson,16Ariz.305,146p203(1914);andMillken v.Meyer,311U.S.457,61S.Ct.339,85L.Ed.2d278 (1940).

I can go into void judgments at great length,with enough court case cites to make anybody's eyes glaze over but I shall refrain.Let it be said that the really big deal with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed,never be waived,and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties.Subjectmatter jurisdiction is two part;the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the caseand the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness,in other words,sufficiency of pleadings.

Even if a court (judge)has or appears to have subject matter jurisdiction,subject matter jurisdiction can be lost.

Major reasons why subject matter jurisdiction is lost:

(1)No petition in the record of the case,Brown v.VanKeuren,340Ill.118,122 (1930).

(2)Defective petition filed,same case as above.

(3)Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction,Fredman Brothers Furniture v.Dept.of Revenue,109Ill.2d202,486N.E.2d893(1985)

(4)Fraud upon the court,In reVillage of Willowbrook,37Ill,App.3d393(1962)

(5)A judge does not follow statutory procedure,Armstrong v.Obucino,300Ill140,143 (1921)

(6)Unlawful activity of a judge,Code of Judicial Conduct.

(7)Violation of due process,Johnson v.Zerbst,304U.S.458,58S.Ct.1019;Pure Oil Co.v.City of Northlake,10Ill.2d241,245,140N.E.2d289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros.,363Ill25 (1936); (8)If the court exceeded its statutory authority.Rosenstiel v.Rosenstiel,278F.Supp.794 (S.D.N.Y.1967)

(9)Any acts in violation of11U.S.C.362(a),InReGarcia,109B.R.335 (N.D>Illinois,1989).

(10)Where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings,Ligon v.Williams,264Ill.App3d701,637N.E.2d633 (1st Dist.1994)

(11)Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party,Charles v.Gore,248Ill App.3d441,618N.E.2d554 (1st.Dist.1993)

(12)Where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction.

(13)When the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (theAlemann cases,Bracey v.Warden,U.S.Supreme Court No.96-6133(June9,1997)

(14)Where a summons was not properly issued.

(15)Where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules,Janove v.Bacon,6Ill.2d245,249,218N.E.2d706,708 (1953)

(16)When the rules of the Circuit court are not complied with.

(17)When the local rules of the special court are not complied with. (One where the judge does not act impartially,Bracey v.Warden,U.S.Supreme Court No.96-6133(June9,1997)

(18)Where the statute is vague,People v.Williams,638N.E.2d207 (1st Dist. (1994)

(19)When proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant,Wilson v.Moore,13Ill.App.3d632,301N.E.2d39 (1st Dist. (1973)

(20)Where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment,Austin v.Smith,312F2d337,343 (1962);English v.English,72Ill.App.3d736,393N.E.2d18 (1st Dist.1979)or

(21)Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated,Martin-Tregona v Roderick,29Ill.App.3d553,331N.E.2d100 (1st Dist.1975)

And another that can and should be checked on is does the judge have a copy of his oath of office on file in his chambers?If not,he is not a judge and yes,you can go into his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time.The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at5U.S.C.3331,28U.S.C.543and5U.S.C.1983and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court.If he is proven a trespasser upon the court(upon the law)not one of his judgments,pronouncements or orders are valid.All are null and void.

In all,there are22indices which tell us whether or not a court had subject matter jurisdiction and when examining a judgment one has to know each and every one of them by heart.If he knows them by heart he can go through a judgment like Sherman going though Georgia and point out all of the errors which might make the case a voidjudgment,null and void upon its face.

Summary of the Law of Voids

Before a court (judge)can proceed judicially,jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys-although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party,only the parties can testifyand until the plaintiff testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially),and the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction =the statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory of indemnity)and thetestimony of a competent fact witness regarding the injury (the cause of action).If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record,the matter is void,subject to vacation with damages,and can never be time barred.

A question which naturally occurs: "If I vacate a void judgment,can they just come back and try the case again?"Answer:A new suit must be filed and that can only be done if within the statute of limitations.

?Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc.The only proper office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records;it cannot be used to rewrite history.?See:e.g.,Transamerica Ins.Co.v.South,975F.2d321,325-26 (7th Cir.1992);United States v.Daniels,902F.2d1238,1240 (7th Cir.1990);King v.Ionization Int'l,Inc.,825F.2d1180,1188 (7th Cir.1987).AndCentral Laborer's Pension and Annuity Funds v.Griffee,198F.3d642,644(7th cir.1999).

The number of void judgments on the books in America's courthouses is so great,there is no practical way to estimate how many there are!

IF EVERY VOID JUDGMENT WAS VACATED WITH DAMAGES,IT WOULD REPRESENT THE GREATEST SHIFT IN MATERIAL WEALTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!

Links of Value

For legal research go to:

1.Dictionary with pronunciations:http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

2.Legal Dictionary online:http://dictionary.law.com/

3.Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch41schV.html

4.USC Fair Credit Billing Act:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1666.html

5.CFR Fair Credit Billing Act:

6.State Code Publication,limited number of states:http://www.michie.com

7.Versus Law-search for court cases,$14.95per mo.plan will serve most people:http://versuslaw.com

8.Cornell University Law Library-search for court cases,codes and more:http://www4.law.cornell.edu

9.Judicial Accountability Initiated Law a.k.a.Jail4Judges:http://jail4judges.org

10.U.S.v.Laugenour (IRS)case,shows governmental corruption on a level that is almost beyond belief:Laugenour.pdf

11.Brief and Memorandum In Support of Parallel State and Federal Litigation:Parallel State and Federal Litigation.doc

12.Brief and Memorandum regarding Judicial Immunity:Judicial Immunity.doc

13.Brief and Memorandum Private Attorneys General.doc:Private Attorneys General.doc