The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." But you only choose what you want to choose! The thinking goes, If the Supreme Court says it's a right to use the highway, the state can't require me to get a license and then grant me permission to drive, because it's already my right . If this is all true, just think of how much more we have been deceived about in law for the purpose of collecting our money to use for immorality and evil. 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. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Part of those go to infrastructure to keep the roads safe and maintained along with a ton of other programs. "The Supreme Court Has Spoken: The Affordable Care Act Is the Law of the Land," was the title of a statement from the Democratic group Protect Our Care, founded to fight GOP repeal efforts in. Name 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. Snopes and the Snopes.com logo are registered service marks of Snopes.com. I was pulled over last night I was doing speed limit and cop said I was 48 miles in 35 but my car was on cruise control on 38 miles a hour which was clocked by a police radar set on road it said 38 two miles down the road he said I was doing 38 I refused to show my driver licence and asked for a supervisor the supervisor said if he comes out I am going to jail cop refused to give me a print out on the radar and arrested me for not giving my licence and charged me with resisting arrest without violence bogus charge did not resist got bad neck they couldn't get my arms to go back far enough I told them I have a bad neck my arms don't go back that far they kept trying so now I have serious neck pain. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; 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. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his household goods[. Kim LaCapria is a former writer for Snopes. Lead Stories is a U.S. based fact checking website that is always looking for the latest false, misleading, deceptive or A processional task. hbbd``b`n BU6 b;`O@ BDJ@Hl``bdq0 $ 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways., -American Mutual Liability Ins. -American Mutual Liability Ins. "Our goal is to create a community of truth-seekers and peacemakers who share a commitment to nonviolent action," the site says. The Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan, Benton Harbor, MI, September 23 . 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. 6, 1314. 186. He WASHINGTON The Supreme Court, which has said that police officers do not need a warrant to enter a home when they are in "hot pursuit of a fleeing felon," ruled on Wednesday . 234, 236. It was about making sure every Americanreceived DUE PROCESS wherever in the country they were. A Kansas deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a pickup truck, dis-covering that the truck belonged to respondent Glover and that Glover's driver's license had been revoked. (Paul v. Virginia). 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) This case was not about driving. 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 . 2d 588, 591. VS. 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. Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. As I have said in the introduction at the top of the blog "You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. The decision could mean thousands of Uber drivers are entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay . It is sometimes said that in America we have the "right to our opinion". Wake up! For years now, impressive-looking texts and documents have been circulated online under titles such as "U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Highways/Streets," implying that some recent judicial decision has struck down the requirement that motorists possess state-issued driver's licenses in order to legally operate vehicles on public roads. There are two (2) separate and distinct rationales underlying this . The email address cannot be subscribed. - 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. 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). We are here to arrive at the truth about what has been done to our country, and true history, not as we see it, but as our Creator sees it. 351, 354. Driving without a valid license can result in significant charges. Look up vehicle verses automobile. 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." ; 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. While the right of travel is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules. Elated gun rights advocates say the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen has opened the door to overturning many other state gun restrictions. It's time to stop being so naive and blind and wake up and start making changes that make sense. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 677, 197 Mass. Why do you feel the inclination to lie to people? v. CALIFORNIA . 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. Lead Stories is a U.S. based fact checking website that is always looking for the latest false, misleading, deceptive or Glover was in fact driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. See who is sharing it (it might even be your friends) and leave the link in the comments. So if you refuse to read the 10th AMENDMENT to see that in our Bill of Rights that it says anything not specifically laid out in the constitution is up to the states to decide. We have all been fooled. "[I]t is a jury question whether an automobile is a motor vehicle[.]" After doing a search for several days I came across the most stable advise one could give. (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). It only means you can drive on YOUR property without a license. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. Supreme Court Most Recent Decisions BITTNER v. UNITED STATES No. If you want to verify that the supreme court has made a ruling about something, go to supremecourt.gov and search for it. Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Lead Stories LLC: You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. In fact, during the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 events combined, Clerks of Court held more than 200 events and helped more than 35,000 . 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt.The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. 22. Many traffic ticket attorneys offer free consultations. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. A lot of laws were made so that the rich become more rich and disguise it by saying " it's for the safety of the people" so simple minded people agree with that and blindly assume that is the truth or real reason for a law. Supreme Court in the 1925 case of Carroll v. United States,7 and provides that, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle has evidence of a crime or contraband located in it, a search of the vehicle may be conducted without first obtaining a warrant. We never question anything or do anything about much. I did not read the article because the title made me so angry that you don't actuality read the cases that I went straight to the bottom. 3d 213 (1972). The decision if the court was that the claim lacked merit. Generally . 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. Your left with no job and no way to maintain the life you have. 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." Select Accept to consent or Reject to decline non-essential cookies for this use. hb``` cb`QAFu;o(7_tMo6wd+\;8~rS *v ,o2;6.lS:&-%PHpZxzsNl/27.G2p40t00G40H4@:` 0% \&:0Iw>4e`b,@, USA TODAY 0:00 2:10 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to give police the automatic power to enter homes without a warrant when they're in "hot pursuit" for a misdemeanor. The case stemmed from several Republican-led states (including Texas) and a few private individuals . In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone. You're actually incorrect, do some searching as I am right now. "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." Read the case! This article first appeared on SomeNextLevelShit.com and was authored by Jeffrey Phillips. Barb Lind, you make these statements about laws being laws, and that it only means that you can drive on your own property without a license. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot always enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime. That case deals with a Police Chief trying to have someone's license suspended. The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. Your arguing and trying to stir more conspiracies and that's the problem. Our goal is to create a community of truth-seekers and peacemakers who share a commitment to nonviolent action," the site says. Complex traffic tickets usually require a lawyer, Experienced lawyers can seek to reduce or eliminate penalties. Only when it suits you. %%EOF The 10th Amendment debunks the anti-Americans claims about States being unable to enact laws. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 10th Amendment gives the states the right and the obligation to maintain good public order. In July 2018, the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously sided with Glover, ruling that Mehrer "had no information to support the assumption that the owner was the driver," which was "only a hunch . Hasn't there been enough proof throughout many many years that they could care less about us and more than not play on our trust for them use it in their favor just to get what they want. 887. No, that's not true: This is a made-up story that gets re-posted and shared every couple years. 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. Is it true. The Supreme Court on Monday erased a federal appeals court decision holding that former President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by blocking his critics on Twitter. People v. Horton 14 Cal. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) Driving is an occupation. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. A license is the LAW. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that motorists need not have licenses to drive vehicles on public roads. Speeding tickets are because of the LAW. So, let us start with your first citation: Berberine v Lassiter: False citation, missing context. [I]t is a jury question whether an automobile is a motor vehicle[. - 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. VS. 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.. It came from an attorney who litigates criminal traffic offenses, which driving without a license is a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree in most states. 21-846 argued date: November 1, 2022 decided date: February 22, 2023 The Supreme Court NEVER said that. 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. And this is not meant for the author of this article in particular. I suggest those interested look up the definition of "Person" or "Individual". Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. 241, 28 L.Ed. You don't think they've covered that? -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. ]c(6RKWZAX}I9rF_6zHuFlkprI}o}q{C6K(|;7oElP:zQQ Please prove this wrong if you think it is, with cites from cases as the author has done below. Just because you have a right does not mean that right is not subject to limitations. Some citations may be paraphrased. 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. KM] & at page 187. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. The Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a federal cybercrime law, holding that a policeman who improperly accessed a license plate database could not be charged under the law.. He wants you to go to jail. Because the consequences for operating a vehicle poorly or without adequate training could harm others, it is in everyone's best interest to make sure the people with whom you share the road know what they are doing. 20-18 . The United States Constitution provides the legal basis for many of the rights American citizens enjoy. The Decision Below Undermines Law Enforcement's Efforts To Promote Public Safety. . Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. Everything you cited has ZERO to do with legality of licensing. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 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. 0 Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. Answer (1 of 4): I went to Supreme Court of the United States and searched for the topic of 'drivers license,' and receive this result: Supreme Court of the United States So, it does appear some people have sued over losing their State drivers' license, and taken their case all the way to the U.. People who are haters and revolutionaries make irrational claims with no basis of fact or truth. 967 0 obj <>stream If you talk to a real lawyer (and not Sidney Powell or Rudy Giuliani) maybe your lack of critical thinking would be better. Co., 24 A. U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS. Contact us. 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. 9Sz|arnj+pz8" lL;o.pq;Q6Q bBoF{hq* @a/ ' E David Mikkelson founded the site now known as snopes.com back in 1994. I have been studying and Practicing both Criminal and Civil law for 25 years now. 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. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. 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. 662, 666. And be a decent person so when you hit my kid because you don't know how to drive because you never took training to get your license and he knew what do in a bike, I don't lose my entire life because you refuse to carry insurance. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 1907). But I have one question, are you a Law Enforcement Officer, a JUDGE, a, District Attorney, or a Defense Attorney. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets. 2d 639. A. If you truly believe this then you obviously have never learned what a scholarly source is. 3d 213 (1972). (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. %PDF-1.6 % ARTHUR GREGORY LANGE, PETITIONER . (Paul v. Virginia). Just because there is a "law" in tact does not mean it's right. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling has made these traffic stops now even more accessible for law enforcement. 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. inaccurate stories, videos or images going viral on the internet. The right of a citizen to drive a public street or highway with freedom from police interfering .is there fundamental constitutional right. Because in most states YOU would've paid out that $2 million and counting. You can update your choices at any time in your settings. If you want to do anything legal for a job, you need the states the right to travel does not pertain to driving at all and usually pertains to the freedom of movement of a passenger. 942 0 obj <> endobj I will be back when I have looked at a few more, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/. 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. 128, 45 L.Ed. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website. 185. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Because the decision below is wrong and jeopardizes public safety, this Court should grant review. No matter which state you live in, you are required by law to have a valid driver's license and all endorsements needed for the type of vehicle you are operating, e.g., motorcycle endorsements, commercial vehicle endorsements, etc.Driving without a valid licensecan result in significant charges. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. 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. Firms, Sample Letter re Trial Date for Traffic Citation. 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. 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 purposes of life and business. 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. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. 887. Who is a member of the public? Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Other right to use an automobile cases: , TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 WILLIAMS VS. People will only be pushed so far, and that point is being reached at breakneck speed these days. wKRDbJ]' QdsE ggoPoqhs=%l2_txx^_OGMCq}u>S^g1?_vAoMVmVC>?U1]\.Jb|,q59OQ)*F5BP"ag8"Hh b!9cao!. 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. 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. [d;g,J dqD1 n2h{`1 AXIh=E11coF@ dg!JDO$\^$_t@=l1ywGnG8F=:jZR0kZk"_2vPf7zQ[' ~')6k As I have said many times, this website is here for the express purpose of finding solutions for the big mess we are in here in America, and articles are published from several authors that also have freedom in America as their focus. Will it be only when they are forced to do so? Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Question the premise! App. 26, 28-29. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Snopes cited the fuller context of the ruling, which said: The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. Anything that is PUBLIC doesn't have that "right". at page 187. 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.". 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. Share to Linkedin. 465, 468. Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 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." 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. EDGERTON, Chief Judge: Iron curtains have no place in a free world. 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 anothers 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. Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 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. June 23, 2021. 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.. 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. If you have a suspended license and outstanding fines, Operation Green Light could be your ticket to getting back behind the wheel. 6, 1314.
Abandoned Places In Solihull,
Owners Direct Isles Of Scilly,
Why Is Baklava So Expensive,
Articles S
