Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22. Texting Dating Sites!

Chicago Coach 169 Ne V Chicago 22 Motor

McDonald v Chicago oral arguments 3/2/2010

4 Jun Read 1 Answer from lawyers to Motor Coach V. Chicago NE 22 andMaranda V. Arizona US , Do these cases rule that it is a right to drive - Alaska Constitutional Law Questions & Answers - Justia Ask a Lawyer. 14 Jul By that, you presumably mean Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, Ill. , N.E. 22, 66 A.L.R. (), in which the court had held that municipalities do not possess the authority to prohibit a public utility's use of public streets pending execution of a franchise agreement, and more. Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE ; Boon vs. Clark, SSW ; 25 (1st). Highways Sect "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.

The phrase "Am I being detained? According to Wikipedia, Freemen on the Land are people who claim that all statute law is contractual, and that such law is applicable only if an individual consents to be governed by it. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of government jurisdiction, holding that the only "true" law is common law, as they define it. The "Freeman on the land" movement has its origins in various United States-based groups in the s and s, Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22 Ireland and the United Kingdom soon after The FBI considers those sovereign citizen extremists who tag themselves "Freemen" to be a domestic terrorist movement.

Essentially, these people believe that the law which governs them is the law they create themselves. Subsequent to becoming a freemen on the land, one will eventually discover that their philosophy has no merit in the court of law and that their shenanigans are laughed at as they are posted on websites such as YouTube. While other subreddits are devoted to hating police and authority figures, this subreddit is in the interest of those who want to laugh at the spastic civilians on the other side of the policing spectrum.

If you have any questions, just message the moderators. Please report any posts or comments that are against click at this page rules.

Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22

Thanks for viewing this subreddit, and please feel free to subscribe. If you're wondering why they stopped him - the driver doesn't believe he needs to register his vehicle, due to a Supreme Court ruling stating what California is doing is illegal. He has a "no license or registration required" plate on the back.

Yes, they asked for his last name a few times and he said he didn't need to give it, and it wasn't a work truck at the moment so he didn't need to show them registration. The cop eventually gave him a parking ticket I think and said he can fight it out with the judge. Does anyone know the Supreme Court case he is referring to when he says that the Supreme Court ruled that individual states requiring vehicle registration is unconstitutional?

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22 gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual.

Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i. Some of these cases are:. Case 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.

NOT a privilege that requires permission i. Case 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by go here or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction licenseand that this right is protected under the U.

Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:. Case 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22 process of law under the 5th Amendment. Case 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.

Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22 know how valid they are, but I'm hoping someone who knows more than I do can chime in on this. I'm a lawyer out of the State of Ohio and, for fun, I've decided to read these cases and see what they actually say and see how this argument is going to go: So, this is a case out of the Supreme Court of Illinois from Not really sure how that factors into a California law, but let's continue forth, shall we?

So apparently, Chicago in prohibited the operation of "motor busses" as common carriers on any street in the city without a license. The case specifically states that the Illinois Commece Commission had comprehensive power over the streets, not the City, hence the quote in the case.

Ironically, the Court said: The state, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate their speed and provide other reasonable rules and restrictions as to their use. I've seen this one before actually. The case is about a police chief who revoked the license of a person who was caught speeding twice. The Court said "ya know I've seen this case used by those who say that you don't need a license.

Funny since a license is all the case is about From the US Supreme Court in So at least we have a case that could actually have precedence The Secretary of State denied two applications for passports for two citizens of D.

Maryland US In other words, it was there argued that even though some local transportation was involved in this operation, it was generally interurban and was expressly authorized by the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act. Where the issue of law is difficult and the court needs to be advised thereon, or where it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts in issue and the need for the preservation of the status quo is urgent, the court would be warranted in issuing a temporary injunction without waiting to be fully advised on the law.

The case is all about denying these people the right to leave the country and reenter as American Citizens by denying them a passport without cause to do so outside of fears they were "Communists. DullesF. That quote IS, however, found in: FearsU.

Chicago Motor Coach V Chicago 169 Ne 22

This case is about the imposition of taxes by Georgia on persons who engaged in the hiring of laborers to be employed beyond the State's borders. The case holds that it is not an unreasonable burdon on the freedom of transit, or the freedom of contract to tax the person doing this hiring. Honestly I would love to see a case specifically about needing a license or registration to drive in the Supreme Court so we can finally put this nonsense to bed.

The way I always looked at it with sovcits is they do have the right to travel. They just don't have the right to travel using any form of transportation they wish.

read article


If they want to use public roads using a car, they need a drivers license, they need registration, and they need insurance. Case 2 would disagree with that, and I seem to remember something stating that citizens cannot be denied use of "common transportation" or something similar. It was pretty old, so I believe it was in reference to horse and carriage, but should apply to cars today.

It's frustrating at the end the dude thinks he got to leave cause he's a sovereign citizen. When really, they just didn't want to deal with the paperwork, and would rather him deal with a judge. This cop was great. He just said it like it is, and didn't play into the legal-bs stuff. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new link. Submit a new text post. No fighting, hating or abusing other people without provocation. Don't stray away from the theme of idiotic civilians and freemen on the land; irrelevant posts are not welcome.

Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and subscribe to one of thousands of communities.

Join Date Jan Posts 36, You must be a lawyer or something because you are good at twisting things around. Thanks for viewing this subreddit, and please feel free to subscribe. The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.

This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.


Want to add to the discussion? Some of these cases are: Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: Chicago Motor Coach Co. ChicagoN.

McDonald v. Chicago: An Exclusive Heritage Foundation Interview

SmithVa. Five cases that, overall, mean absolutely nothing they claim they do: Thanks for breaking this all down man. I know nothing of American law. But a few of those look pretty old.