parsing the code

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Here is the common legal definition of a vehicle, there are other variations:

Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway

"motor"= 'self-propelled' so a motor vehicle is "every self-propelled device etc..."

Then there are classes of motor vehicles; type B is the international norm for an automobile/car/light truck.

So a class B motor vehicle is a particular device, an

automobile/car/light truck in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway

Hmmm... so a class B motor vehicle is for example an automobile by which a person may be transported: but isnt that already what an automobile does? What other kinds of automobiles are there?

There must be another kind!

Like those automobiles by which a person may not be transported. What sort are those?

Notice the definition: it doesnt say " an automobile is a device by which..."; it says "an automobile by which" ie - for what purpose the device is or may be used .

Does "may"= allowed/privileged?
---------------------------------------------------
which takes us to:

highway

every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel

ok- here are the 'uses' and 'purpose'. Try 'scope' and 'purpose' and thats the definition of a police encounter.

Use=privilege. Its an administrative term, as opposed to enjoy


Now the purpose: "vehicular travel".

(See above for definition of a vehicle)

How about "class B motor vehicular travel"? That would be for example:

travel in an automobile by which a person may be transported upon a way publicly maintained ... open to the use of the public for (this) purpose

So much for the "right to travel", since this is about common uses not ancient liberties. Travel will be regulated where 'transportation for the purpose of use' is involved.

I wonder if there are any publicly-maintained ways open only for the enjoyment of the public without permitting use...

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Where is the statute defining Motor Vehicle? Does it say "Every" or "A..."

Its says "every":

Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway

but how would that make a difference?

Originally Posted by freebeme

Is there any law limiting or making more specific the laws about driving in your state?

there are obviously many more laws but I dont know what you mean exactly.

I also dont know more than what I picked out of the VC, in the very first section, "definitions".

Probably like every other state and country, an examination of the legislative history would show the growth from "for-hire" and "commercial operators" to the current state of things. And the guarantees on fundamental rights, which all courts in any case I ever saw have already pointed out is irrelevant, since the very statutory construction implies a separate administrative body of law for a special cir***stance- transporting or moving "persons and property"

Outside of this activity, other persons and properties will ride or travel in the device.

Inside the activity, the device will carry these same ones.

The relationship is "who does what to whom" (which sounds funny) meaning- do I ride the automobile, or does it carry me?

Its sort of like 'which is dependent on which', being the difference between "vehicular travel" and "mere transit".

In vehicular travel the items carried are passive, the machine is defined by this activity, doing something to the passengers and cargo

("moving", "carrying", "transporting", ie taking from one place to another)

The device has to carry "any person or property" to be a vehicle, aka "a means by which".

Whereas the reverse by definition excludes a device from being a vehicle- the persons and property are not at the mercy of a service, which needs to be regulated, but are free and easy masters (and guests). Now the device is passive and the "persons and property" are active.

I mean, when I ride a public bus, there is a constructive trust created. But when I just go along for the ride, there is no special duty such as the one established by payment and public offerings.
------------------------------------------------

The hypothesis is that all prior classes and privileges were lumped together to create a system where people could elect to be treated 'as-though' in the business of transportation, by implied consent through registration and licensure.

So the whole thing is built on the same concepts and presumptions from decades back before DL's etc were so common. Just like income taxes originally applied only to government benefits, and were later expanded so that anyone could voluntarily choose to be treated 'as-though' doing business with the government.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

ok- it says "A"

"motor vehicle" is defined generally as "a self propelled vehicle", leaving the need to define 'vehicle':

so it still turns on the definition of vehicle.

but now i see the point, because if i want to get into it: "a thing" is different from "every thing"- or could be different.

like, does "may"= allowed, legally possible...or just "physically could, at some time in the future"

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

ok- it says "A"

"motor vehicle" is defined generally as "a self propelled vehicle", leaving the need to define 'vehicle':

so it still turns on the definition of vehicle.

Amazingly accurate definition, as even the body of the human character is also classified as a 'vessel' capable of carrying cargo, and it is also 'self propelled'. Therefore, just your physical presence on the highway (with or without an automobile/motor vehicle/motor car etc.) can technically get you a citation for operating a 'vehicle/vessel' without a class-specific license. I have seen it happen.... would-be hitchhikers being cited for being on the highway without being caught in the act of attempting to hitch a ride.

Jerry Carlos

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

life really is a journey, the human vessel sails the seas of fate...are we being transported by another's will, or are we enjoying the ride? I think its a mix of both.

I thank God for every moment- may I do better next time.

[antjraf]

Seems to me that we must concentrate on the definitions of "person or property". Since we already have a good idea that we are not "persons", let us look at the definition of property...

PROPERTY - Not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth.

The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law.
All things are not the subject of property - the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away.

Property is divided into real property, and personal property.

Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.

Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have redueed to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi.

But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without ally relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property.

Personal property is further divided into property in possession, and property or choses in action.

Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal. The former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise and the like; the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like.

Property is lost, in general, in three ways, by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God.

It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. 2d. By the voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the abandonment be purely voluntary, the title to the property is not lost; as, if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the right is not lost. Poth. h. t., n. 270; 3 Toull. ii. 346. But even a voluntary abandonment does not deprive the former owner from taking possessiou of the thing abandoned, at any time before another takes possession of it.

The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfil his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By prescription. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

The title to property is lost by the act of God, as in the case of the death of slaves or animals, or in the total destruction of a thing; for example, if a house be swallowed up by an opening in the earth during an earthquake.

It is proper to observe that in some cases, the moment that the owner loses his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing: animals ferae naturae, as mentioned above, belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of them. But, in general,' the loss of possession does not impair the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a certain time allowed by law.

Notice that the definition includes "intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth."
Hmmm... what could that mean? Anyway we need a solid definition as to what the vehicle code considers property. If I have a TV in my car with me, am I transporting property? The code says "is or may" which means either. So taking out "may" will make it read... "Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is transported or drawn upon a highway".
We know we are not "persons" but what is property?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Property is cargo.

We are persons if there is an applicable situation, "human beings subject to a special criteria".

The "may" part is important and ought not to be ignored, because some VC definitions (like Calif) only use "may". At this point things are way past actual commercial transportation, "is transported" covers for-hire situations. And these actually have their own separate license and regs.

Most of the rest of the time we are in "may": ie "allowed to be treated as though it were"", by implied consent through registration.

Further along these lines here is another reduction, from the legal definition:

means by which ... may be transported

is another way of saying "carry", like the older statutes did, and which are still in the current intl convention.

So back to "class B motor vehicular travel", there is:

travel in an automobile that may carry any person upon a way...open to...public...use...

Want to stay out of the REALM? Drive an automobile without carrying any subject persons or properties.

Interestingly enough, even heavy trucks and buses are excluded from "vehicular travel" if in mere transit. "recreational vehicles" dont need a CDL either.

I have no idea why the system cant directly regulate private enjoyment on the grounds of public safety but it apparently doesn't. hmmm....

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

life really is a journey, the human vessel sails the seas of fate...are we being transported by another's will, or are we enjoying the ride? I think its a mix of both.

I thank God for every moment- may I do better next time.

Because you acknowledge the existence of God and the fact that we human vessels, I will add the following information. Not only are we "being transported by another's will", but we are also carrying His cargo. The 'soul' is stated in the Bible as belonging to God, whereas the 'spirit of man' belongs to the man.

So in one sense of the word (and the precedent being that which God declares), we are actively involved in the commerce of the secular system. The secular system has borrowed ideologies from the scripture, and have twisted them just enough to keep man confused as to what is morally right and wrong; what is from God and what is not from God. The secular world is practicing a religious belief that is derived from the ancient Greek mythologies surrounding the entity known as Hermes. Hermes was the Greek god of Commerce (amongst other titles).

Jerry Carlos

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by antjraf

Seems to me that we must concentrate on the definitions of "person or property". Since we already have a good idea that we are not "persons", let us look at the definition of property...

It is true that we are not "persons". We are spiritual beings, that are inhabiting physical bodies, and it is these physical bodies with which the secular world looks upon as "person". The persona is according to the definition, a mask that conceals the real entity behind the mask.

Originally Posted by antjraf

PROPERTY - Not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth.

The intangible 'right considered as a source or element of income or wealth', can be construed as either the Spirit of man or the energy used for production by the human vessel, and controlled by the Spirit of man. Therefore, the physical body belongs to the Spiritual man and the 'cargo' which the man is carrying (the Soul) is property that belongs to God. When man disregards his obligation to safeguard the property of God, and engages in activities of 'commerce' for a purpose that is counter productive to the primary obligation of protecting the property of God, then man has 'gone a whoring' and has become involved in serving two masters. Man has then breached his contract with God, and subsequently, man will then have to answer to the authorities that control commerce in the secular world.

Originally Posted by antjraf

The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law.

Which 'law' are you referring to? Surely you must be talking about secular law as opposed to Gods' Law. I suggest that you refer to secular law, as you have designated that those 'rights' are based upon that which 'pleases'; presumably these pleasures are also based upon the physical senses and not necessarily the spiritual guidance of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, with the 'provision' you have stipulated, it is not to be discounted, the possibility that you could be referencing the Laws of God, thus the reason for my opening question 'Which law?'.

Originally Posted by antjraf

All things are not the subject of property - the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away.

The exclusive ownership of ALL THINGS belongs to God. With the whisper of His voice, ALL THINGS can return to nothingness from whence the came. Therefore, as long as the man is obeying the dictates of the Exclusive Owner, then no other man has any right to interfere with those rights granted to the man that is faithfully obeying the dictates of the Only Potentate.

Originally Posted by antjraf

Property is divided into real property, and personal property.

Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.

Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have redueed to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi.

But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without ally relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property.

Personal property is further divided into property in possession, and property or choses in action.

Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal. The former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise and the like; the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like.

Property is lost, in general, in three ways, by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God.

It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. 2d. By the voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the abandonment be purely voluntary, the title to the property is not lost; as, if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the right is not lost. Poth. h. t., n. 270; 3 Toull. ii. 346. But even a voluntary abandonment does not deprive the former owner from taking possessiou of the thing abandoned, at any time before another takes possession of it.

The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfil his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By prescription. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

The title to property is lost by the act of God, as in the case of the death of slaves or animals, or in the total destruction of a thing; for example, if a house be swallowed up by an opening in the earth during an earthquake.

It is proper to observe that in some cases, the moment that the owner loses his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing: animals ferae naturae, as mentioned above, belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of them. But, in general,' the loss of possession does not impair the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a certain time allowed by law.

The above assertions are primarily based upon secular law, as they appear to be almost direct quotations from some legal dictionary. Correct me if I am mistaken in this analysis of the above dissertation that you have made. The exception being those references to property lost by an act of God.

Originally Posted by antjraf

Notice that the definition includes "intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth."
Hmmm... what could that mean? Anyway we need a solid definition as to what the vehicle code considers property. If I have a TV in my car with me, am I transporting property? The code says "is or may" which means either. So taking out "may" will make it read... "Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is transported or drawn upon a highway".
We know we are not "persons" but what is property?

Let us not forsake the use of a rickshaw when used to transport another man or woman or other cargo. It is not a motor vehicle, but surely will get you a citation for using it on the roadways.

Jerry Carlos

[antjraf]

I do not dispute any of your observations. The law of God reigns supreme. However, what I am questioning is the definitions of the statutory code. I want to know what the "STATE" considers "property" to be. If we do not transport property as they define it, then we can assert our rights to, "drive", "travel", "ingress and regress" or what ever is the proper non-statutory term. I am trying to find the best way to completely disarm the "STATE" by using their own definitions. Unfortunately, the mere assertion that we follow God's supreme law does not translate into victories when we are in the modern court. Let us try to beat them using their own codes against them. The remedy is available, even though they try to hide it under layers of ambiguity.