This petition will be sent to the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the Board of Judicial Conduct.

HB 1778-FN-A-LOCAL - AS INTRODUCED
18-2144
03/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eighteen
AN ACT relative to registration of commercial motor vehicles and operator's/drivers'
licenses.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Statement of Purpose. The general court finds that the authority of the department of safety
is limited to only the commercial users of the public ways and that the corporate state employees
have, by their silence, failed to fully inform the sovereign people of this state that an automobile has
been confirmed by Chief Justice Grimes, in 108 N.H. 386, to be "private property" defined by
current RSA 382-A:9-109, as "household goods" and "consumer goods" not for commercial use or for
profit or gain. Further, the courts have found that corporate public servants who ignore their
accountability as mandated in Article 8, N.H. Bill of Rights have by their silence and failure to fully
inform the sovereign people of the consequences arising from the corporate "offer to contract," is
deemed silent deception and inducement by fraud.

Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that
traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval
by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the
individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was
considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that
there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore
requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these
cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not
a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals
cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which
he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v.
Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a
common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is
protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles,
357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe
its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural
right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for
speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable
right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain
drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without
question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the
beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have
acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that
case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual
in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by
the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The
revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises
profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The
first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that
are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state
can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance,
vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's
constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very
issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common
reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no
lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the
people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be
defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution
itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the
U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme
Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by
officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places
officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation.
For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally
protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally
remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people
have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the
state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state
law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups
of people in this category:
1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this: "...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...as a place for private gain. For the
latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it
is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v.
Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the
difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege
and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in
these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions,
we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are
those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel
unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory
insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes
this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they
knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced,
coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is
a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question.
What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received
licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by
their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this
important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the
majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no
knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S.
Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at
all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most
important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is
not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws --
the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the
supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the
U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in
mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of
a most basic right.

Right to Travel
Citations from Court Cases
1. 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.”
2. 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”
3. 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.”
4. 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. . .”
5. 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.”
6. 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.”
7. 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.”
8. 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.”
9. 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.”

This proves that the Sheriff and his Deputies are in violation of oath to office as well as all judicial actors involved--that all towed vehicles by towing companies, contracted with the Municipal/Parish, was indeed stolen and owners are owed Compensation.

Submitted by: PROFESSOR FELON
Vance Scott Senior