Right to Travel Court Cites

[charlesa6]

Yep!! I mention the right thread on my other post. "Success Stories Thread"

[612Actual]

Shoonra wrote - "You mentioned a "Supreme Court" case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that states have the authority - and duty - to require licenses of all drivers (no exception for "noncommercial" ones) to promote public safety."

-

-------------------

The term DRIVER applies to someone who is getting or AUTHORIZED to get compensation to go from Point A to Point B. "DRIVING" is a privilege because it's a BUSINESS activity. The LICENSE is evidence of the State's PERMISSION to engaged in the REGULATED COMMERCIAL activity by someone identified by the term "DRIVER", as in cab DRIVER, tow truck DRIVER, UPS DRIVER, cattle DRIVER, stage coach DRIVER. The terms "NONcommercial driver license" is a "legal term of art" because a LICENSE is for BUSINESS purposes. The terms in the VC are used to identify commercial activity ie: TRAFFIC, PASSENGER, TRANSPORTATION. The term DRIVER identifies the privilege holder. The privilege holder has requested the State's permission to engage in commerce. The State doesn't care if the privilege holder earns any money as long as they pay the fees when they come due. Whether you charge a fee to carry someone or something is up to you, the fact remains that you've been GRANTED the State's permission to charge a fee and you've agreed that the TERMS and conditions in the Vehicle Code are applicable to you.

DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914)p. 940.

DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951

[Buzz Sawyer]

Originally Posted by 612Actual

Shoonra wrote - "You mentioned a "Supreme Court" case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that states have the authority - and duty - to require licenses of all drivers (no exception for "noncommercial" ones) to promote public safety."

-

-------------------

The term DRIVER applies to someone who is getting or AUTHORIZED to get compensation to go from Point A to Point B. "DRIVING" is a privilege because it's a BUSINESS activity. The LICENSE is evidence of the State's PERMISSION to engaged in the REGULATED COMMERCIAL activity by someone identified by the term "DRIVER", as in cab DRIVER, tow truck DRIVER, UPS DRIVER, cattle DRIVER, stage coach DRIVER. The terms "NONcommercial driver license" is a "legal term of art" because a LICENSE is for BUSINESS purposes. The terms in the VC are used to identify commercial activity ie: TRAFFIC, PASSENGER, TRANSPORTATION. The term DRIVER identifies the privilege holder. The privilege holder has requested the State's permission to engage in commerce. The State doesn't care if the privilege holder earns any money as long as they pay the fees when they come due. Whether you charge a fee to carry someone or something is up to you, the fact remains that you've been GRANTED the State's permission to charge a fee and you've agreed that the TERMS and conditions in the Vehicle Code are applicable to you.

DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914)p. 940.

DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951

These old, outdated definitions will hold up before the court? Shouldn't you be looking into your states statutes, and taking the definition from there?

I doubt very much in 1856, they had very many people with vehicles that could do well over 100mph.

I'm not into copy/paste, but if you read over post's on this forum, several (Shoonra being one) have shown that you don't have a right to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads.

The only exceptions I can find, and these aren't all, are FARMERS and MILITARY PERSON'S.

612Actual, can you provide a case that ONE individual has ever won this type of case in court?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The interesting thing is that ALL state vehicle codes expressly exempt "federal employees on federal business" from any license requirements.

Is that because the states are prohibited from interfering with the federal jurisdiction- interstate and international commerce?

In that case driving is definitely commercial- although for what reason may be an open matter at this point.

If we could stay in 'extra-state commerce' maybe then the same sort of restriction could be used in our favor.

If I merely transit the state without doing any business therein...but this depends on whether the courts have held (or will hold in the future) that such transit creates a nexus for the state's jurisdiction. They certainly cannot interfere with the right of foreign vehicles and drivers to travel across the state- they are subject to the int'l treaty and this must be at least part of the reason that all state codes exempt 'duly registered/licensed' vehicles/drivers from other states and countries.

(so what is the due license and registration, in any given case? Can any 'public employee' define these requirements and make any 'verification' beyond my own declaration? Can anyone controvert my own claims? )

Obviously, all federal activity is outside the state jurisdiction, by virtue of having delegated exactly that authority to the feds in the first place.

Maybe since we are being taxed as 'federal employees', and according to the IMF of the IRS we are 'engaged in federal business'...we should be exempt!

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by 612Actual

Shoonra wrote - "You mentioned a "Supreme Court" case. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that states have the authority - and duty - to require licenses of all drivers (no exception for "noncommercial" ones) to promote public safety."

-

-------------------

The term DRIVER applies to someone who is getting or AUTHORIZED to get compensation to go from Point A to Point B. "DRIVING" is a privilege because it's a BUSINESS activity.

You won't find this narrow meaning of Drive or Driver in any court decision issued in the last 90 years. The US Supreme Court used the word "driving" to describe operating a personal automobile at night, without any indication that the motoring was for a commercial purpose. Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 US 1, 61 L.Ed.2d 321, 99 S.Ct 2612.

And particularly what you won't find is a court decision issued in the last 90 years that says that steering one's personal automobile, with no other passenger and no commercial purpose, onto the public roads was not within the definition of Driving or the person behind the wheel was not a Driver.

Indeed, there is no word used in the law dictionaries or in the court cases for someone operating his own car for non-commercial purposes on a public road, other than Driver and Driving.

Nearly all the "citations" made in support of the anti-DL argument turn out to be from cases that had nothing to do with DL. The Chicago case dealt with anticompetitive monopoly given to one transit company. The Thompson case dealt with the revocation of someone's DL at the local police chief's whimsy without any proceding, but it did not deny the necessity of having a DL to operate a car.
Many of the other cases dealt with a "right to travel" in the sense of getting a passport or someone new in town getting public benefits. No case held that there was an inalienable right to operate or drive (or whatever word you want to use) a motor vehicle (or whatever ...) on a public road without having a valid and current DL.

Even the invocation of First Amendment rights does not entitle a person to drive his own personal automobile on the public road, even to church services, without compliance with the driver's license and car registration. Cosby v. State (Ind.App 2000) 738 NE2d 709.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You won't find this narrow meaning of Drive or Driver in any court decision issued in the last 90 years. The US Supreme Court used the word "driving" to describe operating a personal automobile at night, without any indication that the motoring was for a commercial purpose. Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 US 1, 61 L.Ed.2d 321, 99 S.Ct 2612.

And particularly what you won't find is a court decision issued in the last 90 years that says that steering one's personal automobile, with no other passenger and no commercial purpose, onto the public roads was not within the definition of Driving or the person behind the wheel was not a Driver.

Indeed, there is no word used in the law dictionaries or in the court cases for someone operating his own car for non-commercial purposes on a public road, other than Driver and Driving.

Nearly all the "citations" made in support of the anti-DL argument turn out to be from cases that had nothing to do with DL. The Chicago case dealt with anticompetitive monopoly given to one transit company. The Thompson case dealt with the revocation of someone's DL at the local police chief's whimsy without any proceding, but it did not deny the necessity of having a DL to operate a car.
Many of the other cases dealt with a "right to travel" in the sense of getting a passport or someone new in town getting public benefits. No case held that there was an inalienable right to operate or drive (or whatever word you want to use) a motor vehicle (or whatever ...) on a public road without having a valid and current DL.

Even the invocation of First Amendment rights does not entitle a person to drive his own personal automobile on the public road, even to church services, without compliance with the driver's license and car registration. Cosby v. State (Ind.App 2000) 738 NE2d 709.

Could be that driving is an act of ownership rather than a commercial act?

In truth, one does not establish ownership unless there is meshikha [pulling] – when acquiring a camel – or hanhaga [driving, or leading] – when acquiring a donkey." Thus, one formally takes possession of a camel through meshikha, by pulling it, and of a donkey through hanhaga – by driving it.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutwtsU...etzia/29bm.doc

If you are 'driven', are you owned?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Ministers and judges have been, traditionally, exempt from registration and so therefore licensing as well. I have seen both names used on plates before.

Somewhere in all this there is an exception.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Ministers and judges have been, traditionally, exempt from registration and so therefore licensing as well. I have seen both names used on plates before.

I have never heard of this, nor found any legal authority for this claim. Do you have ANY legal authority for this??

I have heard of many instances of clergymen given tickets for driving infractions and having to pay fines.

In some states (maybe all) there are, perhaps, reduced fees for clergy and maybe special license plates identifying them as such (possibly giving them a break on parking tickets if they have to drive to some urgent purpose such as counseling the dying), but they still have to meet the qualifications for a license and their car still has to have registration plates and inspection sticker.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I have personally seen this- all in front of the courthouse cars with plates that read, "judge", in big letters, without any other identifier. And I have seen minister as well, and now that I think about it, something related to 'funeral procession'.

I also know 1st hand of a case around where I was at the time of some folk plating their own cars with the "minister", intending to claim the same right. They kept being harrassed by the police and even thrown in jail for the night, I was led to understand. When they finally got in front of the right judge, he dismissed the case with the comment to the effect of "...I have a judge plate myself and if this rule isnt valid then I would have to get my car registered"... something like that.

And these "ministers" were able to continue on their mission, without further problems from that quarter.

Maybe it isn't written law but rather customary, which has the force of law. Also there is the fact of diplomatic immunity, which creates an exception; and I am sure the popemobile had private plates.

I do count on the basic nature of laws being substantially similar everywhere; and I also know for a fact that in other countries it is clearly openly marked on the equivalent DMV form/registration card the possibility of 'deactive registration for transit purpose', basically 'putting down' the active account in exchange for a use which is clearly labeled, 'transit'.

And after all how does a non resident buy a car in one state and take it to another without violating the registration laws. Do I buy the car, some how arrange for tags and wait till this is all ready before I can take the car on the road? Isnt that an interference with interstate commerce? And there are temporary tags as well, which reminds me that as recently as 20 years ago I remember it was customary to stick a hand-written sign in the rear window, "waiting for tags", when aquiring a car. Registration took some time and the tags were not instantly available.

[Buzz Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I have never heard of this, nor found any legal authority for this claim. Do you have ANY legal authority for this??

I have heard of many instances of clergymen given tickets for driving infractions and having to pay fines.

In some states (maybe all) there are, perhaps, reduced fees for clergy and maybe special license plates identifying them as such (possibly giving them a break on parking tickets if they have to drive to some urgent purpose such as counseling the dying), but they still have to meet the qualifications for a license and their car still has to have registration plates and inspection sticker.

You would think someone would post a picture of all of these "special" plates. If we did see something like that, it would probably have been a cut out of a rice crispies box, painted, placed over an actual plate, and then posted as "proof".

Shoonra, of course you have never heard of it. Pick a state at random, and look at exemptions. There is no mention of judges or preachers. This site seems to contains tons of mis-information pertaining to legal matters.