Driving = Comercial

[Codee]

CTC, whatever.

I do not accept ONE of those books as an authority on law.

"I" am my authority on law. "I" decide if something makes sense. You need to read LAW and not just "books on law."

In the end using these books is the same thing as hiring an attorney. You are expecting someone else to do all the thinking for you.

Good luck to you Clarkee,

PS yes I can prove that the citations used on that site are horse ****... so just fond the argument you like and post it here so I can explain how wrong it is. I will say that I did not read the entire site... so there may be some issues that are legitimate... however I did not see ONE on my initial once over of the site.

[tsunamix1]

I have been in search of the commercial nexus , as it pertains to the motor vehicles laws , in south carolina. Here is the definitions that are on the books and maybe someone , can give me a clue as to where i might find the nexus


SECTION 56‑1‑10. Definitions.

For the purpose of this title, unless otherwise indicated, the following words, phrases, and terms are defined as follows:
(1) “Driver” means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
(2) “Operator” means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.
(3) “Owner” means a person, other than a lienholder, having the property or title to a vehicle. The term includes a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle subject to a security interest in another person, but excludes a lessee under a lease not intended as security.
(4) “Department” means the Department of Motor Vehicles when the term refers to the duties, functions, and responsibilities of the former Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Public Safety and means the Department of Public Safety otherwise and in Section 56‑3‑840.
(5) “State” means a state, territory, or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(6) “Highway” means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part of it is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.
(7) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self‑ propelled, except ‘moped’ as defined in Article 9 of this chapter, and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails.


also i fiqured the the definition of person , might hold the key , so here it is:


(21) “Operator” or “driver” means a person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.
(22) “Person” means every natural person, firm, partnership, trust, company, firm, association, or corporation. Where the term “person” is used in connection with the registration of a motor vehicle, it includes any corporation, association, partnership, trust, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals which owns or controls the motor vehicle as actual owner, or for the purpose of sale or for renting, as agent, salesperson, or otherwise.

my defensive angle , from a commercial standpoint , it appears has dwindled or disappeared altogether. Its my opinion that maybe its hidden in another section of the law, a tactic not unheard of.

I believe that the rules of civil procedure might be a better approach, all of your opinions on this are greatly appreciated , thanx in advance

[Codee]

What is the definition of "Driver's License" in SC?

I also notice that operator or driver is in control of a motor vehicle while driver is just vehicle.

Also what is hte definition of Opperator.

In california we have

21052. The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of
vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while
engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district,
including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions
granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.



21053. This code, except Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 20000)
of Division 10, Article 2 (commencing with Section 23152) of Chapter
12 of Division 11, and Sections 25268 and 25269, does not apply to
public employees and publicly owned teams, motor vehicles, and other
equipment while actually engaged in work upon the surface of a
highway, or work of installation, removal, repairing, or maintaining
official traffic control devices. This code does apply to those
persons and vehicles when traveling to or from their work.

The first statute appears to make the code applicable to state employees. It actually makes the code generally applicable to state employees.

The second statute seems wierd. If the state needs laws to make the state subject to the law... then why have a law making them exempt?

[Fed-Up]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Whether or not you are involved in a commercial activity, you run a serious risk of making what might be a minor inconvenience into a major headache.

Additional to the law requiring cooperation with traffic cops, there are laws criminalizing a failure to carry and present your DL when requested by a traffic cop, there is also a more serious offense of obstructing the police.

Since, technically, a traffic stop is an arrest - usually very temporary, you might be charged with resisting arrest. You may regret all those cute signs and pantomimes. The cops may feel justified in cutting short your attempt at vaudeville by smashing your window and hauling you forcibly out of your car and into handcuffs.

Where in the law does it state that We the People are slaves to our elected officials?
Are we not the masters and the politicians servants?

[Fed-Up]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It is a misdemeanor under Calif. Vehicle Code sec. 12951.

See also, Validity and construction of statute making it a criminal offense for the operator of a motor vehicle not to carry or display his operator's license or the vehicle registration certificate by B. Finberg, 6 ALR3d 506 (1966 & supplements)

does the Calif. vehicle code supercede the Constitution for the United States of America? I do not think so. As long as we give up our God Givin rights in exchange for government priviledge,we will have castrated ourselves legally.
I'm rather fond of my Constitutional Balls,and I'm kepping
the set!!!

[Fed-Up]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As for resisting arrest, some of you might think it's worth antagonizing a traffic cop, but the cop is almost certain to be able to justify his actions (which could include smashing your window, pulling you forcibly out of the car, etc.).


It wouldn't be too difficult for the cop to justify his use of sudden and forcible actions with explanations like: He wouldn't let me hear his slurred speech, he wouldn't speak Englsh to me so I thought he might be an illegal alien in a stolen car, he wouldn't let me smell his breath, he wouldn't get out to do a sobriety test, he wouldn't keep his hands in plain view, I saw his companion make a furtive move which might have been to a weapon, etc. etc. Things being what they are, a jury is almost certain to side with the cop.

At that point you realize that giving the traffic cop a rough time means you are the one who suffers a broken window, a faceful of gravel, some bruises, and probably a night (or more) in jail.

For me,If some some cop decided on smashing my automobile window in my face,two things will happen,maybe three if i have extra
time. One: I would make damn sure that this traitor
would have a very bad day,two: I'd go Philistine on his sorry ass and remove a few digits, Three: I'd advise him to call his wife/girlfriend/other an announce he'll be late
for supper!!!
Where does this notion come from that puts public officials above the Citizen? If the Citizen who goes about his business chasing after life,liberty,and happiness,injurs nobody throughout his day,why then are police intent on violating the common law rights
of US? How can any sane individual defend the cops
on these grounds? Wake the hell up and smell something other than the stench of fascism!!! K'?

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Codee

What is the definition of "Driver's License" in SC?

I also notice that operator or driver is in control of a motor vehicle while driver is just vehicle.

Also what is THe definition of Opperator.

In california we have



The first statute appears to make the code applicable to state employees. It actually makes the code generally applicable to state employees.

The second statute seems wierd. If the state needs laws to make the state subject to the law... then why have a law making them exempt?

21052. The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of
vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while
engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political
subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district,
including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions
granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.



21053. This code, except Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 20000)
of Division 10, Article 2 (commencing with Section 23152) of Chapter
12 of Division 11, and Sections 25268 and 25269, does not apply to
public employees and publicly owned teams, motor vehicles, and other
equipment while actually engaged in work upon the surface of a
highway, or work of installation, removal, repairing, or maintaining
official traffic control devices. This code does apply to those
persons and vehicles when traveling to or from their work.

After looking up those quotes that you gave I continued reading in the code under
DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
and got to.
Article 3. local regulation
RULES AND REGULATION SUBJECT MATTER
21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by
ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:
(a) Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the
highways.
(b) Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire
and drivers of passenger vehicles for hire.

Wouldn't "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another" be applicable here?
I have yet to find in the code somewhere that says it has the ability to regulate any Wo/Man who is not committing commerce. As in (b)
especially without their consent.

[Fed-Up]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Not in Russia but in the Real World.

Shoonra,please be kind enough to give me your EXACT co-ordinates where your 'real world" exists, this way I'll be able to forward the GPS data to a Predator Drone thus allowing it to deliver you a wake up call !!!!
He-He-He.... A Torrie perhaps? Are you a Sarah Brady fan as well? Don't mind licking the boots of your masters?
At any rate,may your chains set lightly upon you,you seem to be quite confortable with them.
Happy Trails.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by rentiap

Wouldn't "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another" be applicable here?
I have yet to find in the code somewhere that says it has the ability to regulate any Wo/Man who is not committing commerce. As in (b)
especially without their consent.

There is better is better than that Craig for this one. 21100 is a law giving "local" authorities the power to do various things related to the subject matter of the vehicle code. No local authority can pass a rule or any conflicting law or any law at all on the subjects of the vehicle code unless explicitly given such power by statute of the state. This is all because of section 21 of the vehicle code.

So no. The local city cannot make you get a diving license.

Also you will note this law at the begining of division 11.

21001. The provisions of this division refer exclusively to the
operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is
specifically referred to.

Division 11 is out for drivers.

[weishaupt1776]

check ARTICLE 13

Connect with ARTICLE III. SECTION 17

Oh and don't let Shoonra's NON-RELEVANT obfuscations bother you

She's just a clerk for the VA court in DC who posts on "taxpayer" dollars