Driving = Comercial

[bman]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Bman must have missed my (several) previous explanations about codification.

A code is a convenient LOGICAL arrangement of the laws in effect, and is worked up from the individual statutes which are published in CHRONOLOGICAL arrangement. The comment about the Code being prima facie evidence of the law simply means that, if the Code editors made a mistake their mistake does not overcome the actual Act of the Legislature -- but the Code is presumably accurate unless and until someone shows that the actual Statutes read differently.

Not many law libraries outside Washington State would have a collection of the Acts of the Washington Legislature, so most of us can't check to see if the Code section does not accurately reflect the original Statutes, but that's OK because the Code is, after all, prima facie the text of the law and the burden is on Bman to show that the statutes read differently.

33 PM
Codee Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorial dissent
Sure it does. Please identify the portion of the code that backs up your delusion.



They just keep taking EVIDENSE of OLD law and trying to make it CURRENT LAW.

Case law is evidense of law. So is the code. The code has a more dirrect evidentiary value then does case law.

ND is right. Those cases are about codes. Where is the code/law to back up this delusion.


Thank you for reafirming my point, we can all now agree that the "code" represents there being a "LAW" somewhere, whether in the form of a statute or judicial decision, even if that judicial decision was from 50-100 years ago, correct.

To all Washington State Law Enforcement I am NOT required to Have a “Drivers License”
to drive a Motor Vehicle
in the State of Washington for
NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES!

In anticipation that the police officer, prosecutor or judge will “lie” to you and tell you that RCW 46.20.001 requires you to have a driver’s license, I will now expose their scam!

“RCW 46.20.001 License required Rights and restriction.
(1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter.”

THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!
It is an undisputed fact of law that RCW 46.25.080 is the one (1) and only license classification statute in Title 46 the motor vehicle code for the State of Washington and it is also undisputed that all three classes of licenses issued under this statute, Class A, Class B & Class C are all COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE’S. See RCW 46.25.080 to wit:

“RCW 46.25.080 License contents, classifications, endorsements, restrictions, expiration Exchange of information.
(1) The commercial driver's license must be marked "commercial driver's license" or "CDL,"...(a) Licenses may be classified as follows:
(i) Class A . . .
(ii) Class B . . .
(iii) Class C . . .”


Please note that the older Washington Drivers licenses used to say “COMMERCIAL CLASSES” on the back side of the drivers license and in the left hand column of back side of driver’s license, it used to say “Class A, Class B and Class C. The Department of Licensing has committed fraud against the Citizens of Washington and has removed the COMMERCIAL CLASSES designation from the back of the drivers license? However, the New Drivers License’s still says in very small print: “CDL END” in the upper left hand corner of the front of the New Drivers License’s. CDL END obviously means COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE ENDORSEMENT! (Emphasis added.)
RCW 46.25.050(1) Drivers of Commercial motor vehicles shall obtain a “commercial driver’s license” as required under this chapter by April 1, 1992. ..., . . . HOWEVER, this requirement does not apply to any person: (c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for non commercial purposes.RCW 46.25.050(1) makes it clear that this requirement does NOT apply to any person: (c) WHO IS OPERATING A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FOR NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES! (Emphasis added.) For clarification, the Washington Administrative Code at WAC 308-100-210 which reads:

(WAC) 308-100-210 Recreational vehicle–Definition. For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050(1)(c), the term “recreational vehicle” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, OR TRAVEL USE. And;

WAC 308-100-210 specifically defines the term “RECREATIONAL VEHICLE” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR RECREATIONAL, CAMPING, OR TRAVEL USE. Hey Officer Friendly, I do not “transport” passengers, freight or commodities for compensation. I use my vehicle solely for NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES such as RECREATIONAL, CAMPING OR TRAVEL USE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT! (Emphasis added.)
The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the “drivers license” is intended to apply only to “for hire” vehicles. (Emphasis added.)

“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ ...”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.) And;

As the above explains in detail the RCW’s make it perfectly clear that traveling for non commercial purposes does not require a “license” any other conclusion would be FRAUD.


There are no provisions within the "RCW's" to obtain anything other than a "COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE" I can only thank you for stating that the "CODE" has more value than previous law, this is all begining to fall in place now.


Shoonra said;
"the Code is, after all, prima facie the text of the law and the burden is on Bman to show that the statutes read differently."

I forgot, Why would I assume "the burden to show the statutes read differently" if you agree the code is the most up to date and is a representation of the most current "laws" and it ,the code,shows that one can only obtain a "COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE", and being exempt from even needing a license of any type to travel upon the public streets and highways?
There is a profound difference between "driver" and travel , at least here in Washington

[Codee]

Originally Posted by bman

THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!
It is an undisputed fact of law that RCW 46.25.080 is the one (1) and only license classification statute in Title 46 the motor vehicle code for the State of Washington and it is also undisputed that all three classes of licenses issued under this statute, Class A, Class B & Class C are all COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE’S. See RCW 46.25.080 to wit:

Here is a dispute. There are no "statutes" in the "code." The spirit of the statute is shown in the code.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by bman

THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!

Seems to me like there is quite a lot of law concerning the issue of the license “under this code”

RCW 46.20.031
Ineligibility.


The department shall not issue a driver's license to a person:

(1) Who is under the age of sixteen years;

(2) Whose driving privilege has been withheld unless and until the department may authorize the driving privilege under RCW 46.20.311;

(3) Who has been classified as an alcoholic, drug addict, alcohol abuser, or drug abuser by a program approved by the department of social and health services. The department may, however, issue a license if the person:

(a) Has been granted a deferred prosecution under chapter 10.05 RCW; or

(b) Is satisfactorily participating in or has successfully completed an alcohol or drug abuse treatment program approved by the department of social and health services and has established control of his or her alcohol or drug abuse problem;

(4) Who has previously been adjudged to be mentally ill or insane, or to be incompetent due to a mental disability or disease. The department shall, however, issue a license to the person if he or she otherwise qualifies and:

(a) Has been restored to competency by the methods provided by law; or

(b) The superior court finds the person able to operate a motor vehicle with safety upon the highways during such incompetency;

(5) Who has not passed the driver's licensing examination required by RCW 46.20.120 and 46.20.305, if applicable;

(6) Who is required under the laws of this state to deposit proof of financial responsibility and who has not deposited such proof;

(7) Who is unable to safely operate a motor vehicle upon the highways due to a physical or mental disability. The department's conclusion that a person is barred from licensing under this subsection must be reasonable and be based upon good and substantial evidence. This determination is subject to review by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Here is more…

RCW 46.20.035
Proof of identity.


The department may not issue an identicard or a Washington state driver's license that is valid for identification purposes unless the applicant meets the identification requirements of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section.

(1) A driver's license or identicard applicant must provide the department with at least one of the following pieces of valid identifying documentation that contains the signature and a photograph of the applicant:

(a) A valid or recently expired driver's license or instruction permit that includes the date of birth of the applicant;

(b) A Washington state identicard or an identification card issued by another state;

(c) An identification card issued by the United States, a state, or an agency of either the United States or a state, of a kind commonly used to identify the members or employees of the government agency;

(d) A military identification card;

(e) A United States passport; or

(f) An Immigration and Naturalization Service form.

(2) An applicant who is a minor may establish identity by providing an affidavit of the applicant's parent or guardian. The parent or guardian must accompany the minor and display or provide:

(a) At least one piece of documentation in subsection (1) of this section establishing the identity of the parent or guardian; and

(b) Additional documentation establishing the relationship between the parent or guardian and the applicant.

(3) A person unable to provide identifying documentation as specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section may request that the department review other available documentation in order to ascertain identity. The department may waive the requirement if it finds that other documentation clearly establishes the identity of the applicant.

(4) An identicard or a driver's license that includes a photograph that has been renewed by mail or by electronic commerce is valid for identification purposes if the applicant met the identification requirements of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section at the time of previous issuance.

(5) The form of an applicant's name, as established under this section, is the person's name of record for the purposes of this chapter.

(6) If the applicant is unable to prove his or her identity under this section, the department shall plainly label the license "not valid for identification purposes."

RCW 46.20.021
New residents.


(1) New Washington residents must obtain a valid Washington driver's license within thirty days from the date they become residents.

(2) To qualify for a Washington driver's license, a person must surrender to the department all valid driver's licenses that any other jurisdiction has issued to him or her. The department must invalidate the surrendered photograph license and may return it to the person.

(a) The invalidated license, along with a valid temporary Washington driver's license provided for in RCW 46.20.065, is proper identification.

(b) The department shall notify the previous issuing department that the licensee is now licensed in a new jurisdiction.

INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.) And;

As the above explains in detail the RCW’s make it perfectly clear that traveling for non commercial purposes does not require a “license” any other conclusion would be FRAUD.

And this just shows your damn ignorance. I am not even from Wshington however I would like you to show me please "Sec. 103" Please tell me why they are realying in a definition in "Rem. Comp. Stats." and you are siting the "RWC". Please tell me why you site code spefic for Seattle and try to apply it to the entire state. Are you sure this is not from a Seattly Municipal Code violation?
Oh that would be rich.

In actuality you are going t ofind most likely that the distinction that the court was making in those types autos, were FOR THE LAW BACK THEN. THE CODES USED TO READ DIFFERENTLY. This is the most ass way of thinking. Oh here is the code right here... and here is a case that is about a different code. Oh gee.


There are no provisions within the "RCW's" to obtain anything other than a "COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE" I can only thank you for stating that the "CODE" has more value than previous law, this is all begining to fall in place now.

[/quote]

[bman]

Codee Quote:
Originally Posted by bman

THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!

Seems to me like there is quite a lot of law concerning the issue of the license “under this code”

I am so sorry that you cant read and understand english so well, the only chapter that claims authority to issue licenses does in fact not issue anything it is blank

Codee said;
"The code has a more dirrect evidentiary value then does case law."

As far as looking up current "statutes" or "law" that the "CODE" represents that to is an impossibility because there are none to be found, this section of the "CODE" is nothing more than a seies of rules written by who knows who, as I stated in an earlier post the "CODE" doesnt change any previous "LAWS" that also includes WASINGTON SUPREME COURT decision ,INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.) ,by the way I only included this single cite because of size costraints of these reply boxes,there are many more so numerous from this STATE as well as other STATES it would be immpossible to post them all here.Also this same lack of "CODE" as above is also prevelant in the neighboring
STATES.
I really do not understand each of your positions what are you trying to convey to us? First you say the "CODE" is the ultimate authority ,then when confronted with the plain black and white of the "CODE" you say it is too old or some such jibberish.

[Shoonra]

You can add RCW 46.20.161:

The department, upon receipt of a fee of $25 ... shall issue to every qualifying applicant a driver's license. ... The license must include a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee, the name of record, date of birth, Washington residence address, photograph, a brief description of the licensee, and either a facsimile signature of the licensee or a space upon which the licensee shall write his or her usual signature with pen and ink immediately upon receipt of the license. ....

As for the decision in International Motor Transit Co. v. City of Seattle (1926) 141 Wash. 194, 251 Pac. 120, this is as antiquated as the Model T. This case arose in those ancient times when cities tried to issue their own DLs additional to the DL already issued by the State DMV. In this case, the Seattle City ordinance required any "driver for hire" in Seattle to obtain a city DL issued by the Seattle City Comptroller; the Seattle requisites were age of 21 or more, a medical exam, English literacy, "good moral character", four references(!), an exam in local geography(!), and so forth, and required additionally the supporting certificates from two city departments, and an additional city investigation into the applicant's background. There were also other inconveniences, red tape, fees and so forth, and the court decision sets out the ordinances in full.

The plaintiff, a bus company and one of its drivers - who had, as the court noted (Pac at 196), gotten a State of Washington DL, contended that the city did not have the authority to enact its own municipal DL laws. The trial court and then the Washington Supreme Court both held that the Seattle ordinances were an illegal burden on interstate commerce, forbidden by the US Constitution.

There was absolutenly nothing in this decision that suggests that "non-commercial" drivers don't need a DL. The only issue was whether a city could, on its own, require a city DL additional to the state DL.

I would assume the references to "Rem. Comp. Stat." in the 1926 decision are to an edition of the state's compiled statutes that was in use in 1926, before the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) was worked up. I don't know what the "Rem." meant but probably something like "Remington's Compiled Statutes."

[palani]

Originally Posted by bman

Codee Quote:
Originally Posted by bman

THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!

Seems to me like there is quite a lot of law concerning the issue of the license “under this code”

I am so sorry that you cant read and understand english so well, the only chapter that claims authority to issue licenses does in fact not issue anything it is blank

Codee said;
"The code has a more dirrect evidentiary value then does case law."

As far as looking up current "statutes" or "law" that the "CODE" represents that to is an impossibility because there are none to be found, this section of the "CODE" is nothing more than a seies of rules written by who knows who, as I stated in an earlier post the "CODE" doesnt change any previous "LAWS" that also includes WASINGTON SUPREME COURT decision ,INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.) ,by the way I only included this single cite because of size costraints of these reply boxes,there are many more so numerous from this STATE as well as other STATES it would be immpossible to post them all here.Also this same lack of "CODE" as above is also prevelant in the neighboring
STATES.
I really do not understand each of your positions what are you trying to convey to us? First you say the "CODE" is the ultimate authority ,then when confronted with the plain black and white of the "CODE" you say it is too old or some such jibberish.

Code is information only the author and intended recipient should understand. Hence, derivation of the usernamed CODEE. Kindly prepare for additional gibberish and/or profanity.

[Shoonra]

I don't know what you think "chapter" means, but the RCW itself considers 46.20 a chapter, and that includes the sections cited that speak of the issuance and contents of a DL.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I don't know what you think "chapter" means, but the RCW itself considers 46.20 a chapter, and that includes the sections cited that speak of the issuance and contents of a DL.

I don't know either Shoonra. I don't know either.

[FreeFromContract]

Has the designation of "Chapter" in the heading of the web page:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20

[Shoonra]

The "Rem.Comp.Stat." abbreviation is to Remington & Ballinger's Compiled Statutes, published by Bancroft-Whitney (later part of Lawyers Co-op) in 1910 and updated at least through 1914. It was an early codification, perhaps the first codification, of Washington State statutes.