a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person for no license

[freebeme]

That means somebody made the above argument and lost with using it. Read whole cases and not just internet snippets.

[Lawdog]

Mr. Folda advanced many of the same theories many of you folks do...and lost. Here's the full text of the case. It can be found in 267 Mont. 523 or 885 P.2d 426.

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dean Wade FOLDA, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 94-144.

Supreme Court of Montana.

November 21, 1994

Submitted on Briefs October 28, 1994.

[267 Mont. 524] Dean Wade Folda, Pro Se.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Atty. Gen., Brenda Nordlund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Atty., Carol Donaldson, Deputy County Atty., Billings, for respondent.

TRIEWEILER, Justice.

Defendant Dean Wade Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County Justice Court of four counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-3-301, MCA; and one count of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda was convicted in Billings City Court of four counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-3-301, MCA; and two counts of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. On appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County, the charges
[885 P.2d 427] originating in Billings City Court were consolidated and the charges which originated in Yellowstone County Justice Court were consolidated separately. Bench trials were held on both appeals; [267 Mont. 525] Folda was convicted in both cases and appeals his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the District Court.
The issue on appeal is:

Were Folda's constitutional or statutory rights violated as a result of his multiple convictions?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Folda was cited in Yellowstone County Justice Court for four counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-3-301, MCA; and one count of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda was cited in Billings City Court for four counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-3-301, MCA; and two counts of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA.

Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his vehicle, wear a seatbelt, or maintain liability insurance. Folda also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or federal laws.

After bench trials, Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County Justice Court and Billings City Court on all counts.

On appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, bench trials were again held pursuant to both appeals; Folda did not cross-examine any opposing witnesses, nor did he offer any evidence on his own behalf. Folda was convicted in both cases. He was fined $125 and sentenced to ten days in jail (which would be suspended upon the completion of eight hours of community service), for each count of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance. He was fined $100 for each count of operating an unregistered vehicle. Finally, he was fined $10 for each count of driving without a seatbelt. The District Court also found that Folda is unable to pay the fines.

DISCUSSION

Were Folda's constitutional or statutory rights violated as a result of his multiple convictions?

When we review the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, we will presume the statute to be constitutional and will uphold the statute on review except when it is proven to be unconstitutional [267 Mont. 526] beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lilburn (1994), 265 Mont. 258, 261-63, 875 P.2d 1036, 1039 (citing City of Billings v. Laedeke (1991), 247 Mont. 151, 154, 805 P.2d 1348, 1349).

Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he no longer has to abide by any state or federal laws, including registering his vehicle or maintaining liability insurance for his vehicle. Folda also argues that in order to be prosecuted for a statutory violation, a person must injure or damage other persons or property and that, in this case, he has done neither.
In 1837, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governments have an inherent power to enact regulations concerning the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the public. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Co. (1837), 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420, 9 L.Ed. 773. We relied on this decision in City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986), 224 Mont. 84, 87, 730 P.2d 371. We have recognized that regulations enacted pursuant to the state's police power "[w]ill be presumed reasonable absent a clear showing to the contrary." Skurdal, 730 P.2d at 373 (quoting Bettey v. City of Sidney (1927), 79 Mont. 314, 319, 257 P. 1007, 1009).

Operation of a motor vehicle and abiding by the regulations and statutory licensing procedures that follow is a privilege. State v. Skurdal (1988), 235 Mont. 291, 295, 767 P.2d 304, 307. An individual's ability or [885 P.2d 428] privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads is "[a]lways subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power." Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307 (quoting Gordon v. State (1985), 108 Idaho 178, 179, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193). Reasonable regulations include Montana's requirements for vehicle registration, insurance, and mandatory seatbelt usage. "[This] ... privilege ... [of operating a motor vehicle on public roads] may be revoked for noncompliance [with statutory regulations]...." Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307.

The statutes that Folda violated "[a]re regulatory in nature and no person in the state is exempt from [regulatory statutes]...." City of Whitefish v. Hansen (1989), 237 Mont. 105, 107, 771 P.2d 976, 977. Persons are not exempt from regulatory statutes, even if they claim they are "free" men who are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens and do not have to obey state or federal law.
We conclude that Folda has not shown that §§ 61-6-304, 61-3-301, and 61-13-103, MCA, are unreasonable or unconstitutional. We conclude that neither Folda's statutory nor constitutional rights were violated by requiring him to register his vehicle, carry liability [267 Mont. 527] insurance, or wear a seatbelt. We conclude that Folda's argument is without merit and affords no basis for relief. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

TURNAGE, C.J., and GRAY, HUNT and WEBER, JJ., concur.

[Lawdog]

The notion that laws about driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and related matters only apply if you are "in commerce" is another guaranteed loser argument. As was said in by the Montana Supreme Court in State v. Skurdal, 235 Mont. 291 at 296-297, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988):

We reject Skurdal's claim that because he owes nothing on his car (private property) and is not engaged in commercial travel, his liberty interests are infringed by stopping his vehicle. That claim is baseless in Montana, and we find no law in any other jurisdiction to support it either. We will not entertain it further.

See also County of Fond du Lac v. Derksen, 256 Wis.2d 490, 647 N.W.2d 922 at 925 (Wisc. Ct. App. 2002):

Derksen also argues that the licensing requirement may be invoked only when the operator is engaged in interstate commerce. In support, he relies on Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915). Derksen's reliance is misplaced. In that case, Hendrick argued that the state of Maryland was attempting to regulate interstate commerce when it insisted that automobiles be registered as a condition precedent to being driven on the highway. Id. at 620-21, 35 S.Ct. 140. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that registration was a method of collection by which the citizens of the state could finance the building of roads in return for Hendrick's use of the roadway. Id. at 622-23, 35 S.Ct. 140. There is no hint in Hendrick that the Supreme Court was reaching beyond the issue raised in that case so as to rule that traffic laws are not enforceable against motor vehicle users not engaged in interstate commerce. No case coming out of the United States Supreme Court since Hendrick has ever reached that conclusion.

Another good example is State v. Davis, 745 S.W.2d 249 at 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988):

Davis next contends that he was not operating a motor vehicle, but was merely "travelling in a conveyance" when arrested, and therefore, he did not violate the statute. His reasoning for this premise that the statute in question is for the purpose of regulating commerce and has no application to individuals who are merely "travelling," is not based on any relevant statute or case precedent, and has no merit. Section 302.010(13), as previously noted, defines an operator as a person, not a chauffeur, "who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway." Davis concedes that he is not a chauffeur. Since Davis was in actual physical control of the pickup truck, he was operating a motor vehicle.

[freebeme]

I guess I kind of agree with you lawdog. However I have not made the assertion that I am a "free man" not subject to the law.

Further I have shown case and codes.

Further the guy never made the argument that there is no state power to punish for non-rimes. He did not make argue the nature of the offense he was charged with, he did not argue that there was a separation of powers issue, he did not argue that there was a bill of attainder issue, he did not argue that that there was promulgation of rules issue, he did not argue a improper venue of "criminal" for his civil offense, he did not argue that there is no definition for motor vehicle making every law that references the term "motor vehicle" void for vagueness, etc...

Essentially the case you just cited is precisely why I have started this thread... to show that the arguments used are above are insufficient, and that one must have a compete understanding of legislative schemes, and must be able to show evidence of such knowledge.

You cannot just go into court and spew patriot garbage one-lines and expect to get remedy.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by gldskr

In the quote above, the state has presumably licensed you to operate a motor vehicle. I would highly doubt that this license would allow you to assign to a third party this privilege. If that were the case there would be no reason to have A DL since it could be leased through a third party.

One Invited to Ride in Private Automobile Is a Licensee. A person invited to ride in the private automobile of another is a licensee, and the duty of the person giving invitation is to refrain from doing any negligent acts by which the danger of riding in the automobile is increased, or a new danger created. The duty of the owner to his guest is to use ordinary care not to increase the danger of the guest, or create any new danger. Such licensee can recover for only the active negligence of the licensor. 158 Ky. 154, 184 S. W. 319.
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, Baldwin's Students Ed. (1946), p. 103.

There is a statute in this state to the effect that a guest passenger in an automobile can recover damages from the driver or owner of the car for injuries suffered only because of his intoxication, wilfull misconduct, or gross negligence. Suppose a passenger in a car brings suit against the driver for damages suffered in a collision and the testimony shows beyond dispute that the driver was guilty only of ordinary negligence and that the passenger, instead of having paid for his ride, was but a guest of the driver. A motion for nonsuit is made and is, of course, granted. This is for the reason that the court determined that plaintiff cannot recover because of the statute as to guest passengers.
Hayward v. Superior Court (1933), 130 Cal.App. 607, 610.

That is where I was coming from GldSkr

[criminal.politics]

Originally Posted by freebeme

That means somebody made the above argument and lost with using it. Read whole cases and not just internet snippets.

why do you always assume stupidity, when asked a question. you my friend seem very defensive in your nature. Stop doing that! years are shed of a persons life age expectancy from that kind of aggravation. I thought you and i were past that argumentative stage...LOL

The full case or its outcome had nothing to do with the question! I READ THE CASE! THIS WAS THE PART I DID NOT UNDERSTAND! what was he claiming!

the question again in greater detail for you.
What was he trying to say or do there that did not work?

my exact question again "what does that mean? was he claiming to be sovereign?

some times i find it much easier to figure out a better solution by understanding why something failed. Science is based on this theory.

[Tigron-X]

Lawdog, I agree with you. If one goes into court making arguements, then he/she better have the evidence to back up one's claims. A court is a place where evidence is established. As I cannot go into court establishing claims as evidence, neither can my accusers.

So I ask again,

(1) What rule of law gives this government lawful right or legal right to limit how one shall travel?


Now, in the case you presented above, it stated: In 1837, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governments have an inherent power to enact regulations concerning the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the public.

However, stating another claim is not evidence.

So I ask, (2) what rule of law established this inherent power?

Anyone can clearly see that I'm asking my accusers to establish evidence.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

#1: Its not about travel. Its about doing business on the public roads. Or the appearance of doing business.

#2: Ancient custom.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by criminal.politics

why do you always assume stupidity, when asked a question. you my friend seem very defensive in your nature. Stop doing that! years are shed of a persons life age expectancy from that kind of aggravation. I thought you and i were past that argumentative stage...LOL

You asked a question. My answer did not call anyone stupid. I answered it as simply as I could and there is no reason to find offense in the following statement
"That means somebody made the above argument and lost with using it. Read whole cases and not just internet snippets."

the question again in greater detail for you.
What was he trying to say or do there that did not work?

It appears to me that he tried some sort of expatriation and then thought that simply claiming that he was not a 14th amendment citizen that the law being applied should not be applied. He probably had no evidence to support such a conclusion, so the court could not understand him either. Why would federal citizenship have anything to do with a local traffic law? That is what the court is going to want answered.

As to your general feeling that we are arguing or whatever, it seems to me that you want me to use "nice" words. There is no meaning to the term "nice" as it means something different to everyone else. I simply treat others the way I wish to be treated. I do not wish to be coddled or bull****ted. I like my internet interactions clean, crisp, and COLD! I am hear to teach you if you want to learn. I am not hear to be nice, just accurate. Sorry if you cannot deal that way. If you cannot, maybe I will just email you my essay.

You seem to want me to explain to you what I consider crack-pot theories that people who I simply do not respect have generated. I do not respect "redemption" in any way. I think it is ridiculous and that those who subscribe to it only do so out of ignorance and an unwillingness to hold research to the correct degree of accountability.

I respect you and think that you are eager to learn. I will answer your questions without ever referencing "you" from now on, so if you take something personal, that will be entirely your perception. Take care and good luck to you.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

(1) What rule of law gives this government lawful right or legal right to limit how one shall travel?

The legal rule of law used by the state is "Police Power."