Florida Statutes "Drivers' Licenses"

[antjraf]

322.03 Drivers must be licensed; penalties.--

(1) Except as otherwise authorized in this chapter, a person may not drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license under the provisions of this chapter.

Definitions:
(26) "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003.

(42) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway or operated upon rails or guideway, except a bicycle, motorized wheelchair, or motorized bicycle.

(15) "Drive" means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

(25) OPERATOR.--Any person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highway, or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.

(29) PERSON.--Any natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.

(57) TRAFFIC.--Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances either singly or together while using any street or highway for purposes of travel.

Seems to me the only place that one can challenge this code is the definition of "PERSON". We are not a "natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation." We are flesh and blood humans. A "natural person", as I understand it, is a legalized entity. Any thoughts?

[indago]

antjraf wrote:

Seems to me the only place that one can challenge this code is the definition of "PERSON". We are not a "natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation." We are flesh and blood humans. A "natural person", as I understand it, is a legalized entity. Any thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

hmm...

what the code actually says- it all depends on the definition of a vehicle. Which should raise some eyebrows to begin with, since "vehicle" has very commercial connotations, like "a vehicle for business" "a trust vehicle" etc. Its a means, but a means to do what?

So here is my "challenge":

42) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway

How about the case where the device is not and may not?

What if "may"= allowed?

So a device which is "allowed", ie engaged by permission, must be registered (obviously), and the driver must be licensed. (by permission)

Its a twisted way of stating the obvious- for a device to be 'allowed', it must be registered.

[antjraf]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

hmm...

what the code actually says- it all depends on the definition of a vehicle. Which should raise some eyebrows to begin with, since "vehicle" has very commercial connotations, like "a vehicle for business" "a trust vehicle" etc. Its a means, but a means to do what?

So here is my "challenge":


How about the case where the device is not and may not?

What if "may"= allowed?

So a device which is "allowed", ie engaged by permission, must be registered (obviously), and the driver must be licensed. (by permission)

Its a twisted way of stating the obvious- for a device to be 'allowed', it must be registered.

Okay, so where do we find the definition of "is or may be"? It isn't in the Florida code. How do we reconcile this so we can have remedy when we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having the pseudo "judge" question our dispute? The Florida code seems to have no clear definition that a "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" is considered to be used in commerce as many posts have indicated.

[weishaupt1776]

322.51 is the real deal, though

read that, then do a search on "walter Kenaston" "florida traffic brief"

You have to show that you are not a regulated person

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by antjraf

so where do we find the definition of "is or may be"? It isn't in the Florida code.

at some point we must rely on the English language. The code means what it says, I guess.

I am seeing that the aspect that makes a device a vehicle is what it does or may do for "any person or property".

So a passenger bus transports riders. Does it transport the driver?

A freight truck transports cargo. How about the operator?

From this I deduct that we dont transport ourselves, it something that happens to what or who is carried.

Which excludes those who, like the driver, just come along for the ride and their incidental private property.

This also makes sense when viewed in light of the legislative history. This is an administrative body of law that certainly includes commerce and trade...so it should come as little surprise that any activity regulated here is somehow under that heading, one way or another.

Which is why I am getting that may=allowed: if the device is registered then it is presumed by implied consent to be treated as coming under the Vehicle Code Laws. the phrase "implied consent" appears over and over again there for some good reason. Somebody felt it was important to stress this.

[weishaupt1776]

The word "natural person" does indeed indicate a living, breathing, flesh and blood being.

However, it also denotes a "proprietary capacity" tht that being is operating in

If you have not cancelled/rebutted/formally challenged the preumption that you are a "U.S. Citizen" pursuant to the 14th Amendment, then you will always be presumed to be a "person" or "natural person" who is operating within their 14th amendment private law system.

The Law of Persons stems from Roman Civil law

this is discussed in great detail in the Red Amendment

[antjraf]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

The word "natural person" does indeed indicate a living, breathing, flesh and blood being.

However, it also denotes a "proprietary capacity" tht that being is operating in

If you have not cancelled/rebutted/formally challenged the preumption that you are a "U.S. Citizen" pursuant to the 14th Amendment, then you will always be presumed to be a "person" or "natural person" who is operating within their 14th amendment private law system.

The Law of Persons stems from Roman Civil law

this is discussed in great detail in the Red Amendment

So as long as we can demonstrate that we are people and not "statutory" persons, and if we disconnect our private cars from the certificate of title and registrations of any kind, then we can succeed in our endeavor to be let alone.

Articles of Confederation

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.


The Right To Travel

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
from www.usconstitution.net


"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486, 489.

[weishaupt1776]

http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/...c/Traffic.html