Right to Travel Court Cites

[Charlie Blue]

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from in your analogy. I guess you're trying to pinpoint the definition.

Anyway, along the lines of what you seem to be talking about, to me, the bottom line, is that person engaging in any type of commerce. If so, he or she is a driver. If not, he or she is just a traveler.

Although, I suppose if you're doing some type of governmental function (i.e. a cop driving a patrol-car), you also have to have a license too. That I'm not sure.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Charlie Blue

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from in your analogy. I guess you're trying to pinpoint the definition.

Anyway, along the lines of what you seem to be talking about, to me, the bottom line, is that person engaging in any type of commerce. If so, he or she is a driver. If not, he or she is just a traveler.

Although, I suppose if you're doing some type of governmental function (i.e. a cop driving a patrol-car), you also have to have a license too. That I'm not sure.

Yes- pinpoint the definition. Call it what you will, the statute defines vehicle in the way posted above- so a device that is used for a kind of commerce called transportation is by law a vehicle, and no other thing is.

Driver vs traveler misses the point. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but there are many court cases that have been lost on just this basis (some posted on this forum). All drivers travel and some travelers drive. Travelers who aren't driving aren't behind the wheel.

A license is only required to operate a classified motor vehicle. It is only possible to operate when there is a vehicle. Operate = drive a motor vehicle. Or be in physical control of same.

no vehicle, no operation. No operation, no license required. The "sell" on the mass TV-mind is that there is any such thing as a "Driver's License". There isn't. There are only (driver's) License to Operate, the permit for a driver to operate a device used or registered in a certain manner- for transportation of "persons and property" fka "passengers and cargo"

[ezrhythm]

Unfortunately one is assumed to be a resident and in commerce anyway even if you say that you are not.

I was told by a sheriff's supervisor to prove that I wasn't in commerce. This must mean to have an affidavit notarized or witnessed that one is not in commerce and/or not to have or not to let them find what could be used as evidence that one is a resident in commerce.

516. "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or
be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient
basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month
period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle
registration:
(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher
education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other
privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.
(h) Possession of a California driver's license.
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in
the state is more than temporary or transient.

[Shoonra]

You can quibble about whether you are a "resident" of a particular jurisdiction, but, according to the Supreme Court, the state can insist that you have a DL from somewhere. Being a non-resident does not make you immune to the traffic laws. In fact, insisting that you are not a resident will probably inspire a court to require an extra-large bail to assure that you show up for court.

[netwrkranger]

Could you cite those Supreme Court cases and their holdings to back up your claim?

Regards,
netwrkranger

[Shoonra]

Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140;
Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 US 160, 61 L.Ed 222, 37 S.Ct 30.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Unfortunately one is assumed to be a resident and in commerce anyway even if you say that you are not.

I was told by a sheriff's supervisor to prove that I wasn't in commerce. This must mean to have an affidavit notarized or witnessed that one is not in commerce and/or not to have or not to let them find what could be used as evidence that one is a resident in commerce.

516. "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or
be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient
basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month
period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle
registration:
(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher
education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other
privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.
(h) Possession of a California driver's license.
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in
the state is more than temporary or transient.

I conditionally accept your claim that I am engaged in commerce, upon proof of claim, under your full commercial liability officer.
Failure to provide proof shall be deemed to be evidence that your claim has no basis in law or fact and is vexatious.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You can quibble about whether you are a "resident" of a particular jurisdiction, but, according to the Supreme Court, the state can insist that you have a DL from somewhere. Being a non-resident does not make you immune to the traffic laws. In fact, insisting that you are not a resident will probably inspire a court to require an extra-large bail to assure that you show up for court.

There's no quibbling. You either have evidence that you are a state citizen instead of a resident or you don't have evidence and they search you and your automobile looking for evidence of residency.

The State can only do it's insisting if you have evidence of residency.

Bail for what?

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

I conditionally accept your claim that I am engaged in commerce, upon proof of claim, under your full commercial liability officer.
Failure to provide proof shall be deemed to be evidence that your claim has no basis in law or fact and is vexatious.

I'm all for that rob. Is that something you keep with you while traveling? Have you shown it to a "corporate soldier"?



Found this. I believe it's by Roger Elvick;

If it has the Vehicle Identification Number on it, there is a presumption created of commerce
Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. 6 Pet. R. 622, 632; 14 Pet. R. 334. See, generally, 7 J. J. Marsh, 425; 3 N. H. Rep. 484; 3 Stew. & Port. 267; 5 Rand. 701; 1 Pick. 332; 1 South. 77; 1 Yeates, 347; Gilp. 147; 2 N. & McCord, 320; 1 Miss. 334; 11 Conn. 95; 2 Root, 286; 16 John. 66, 136; 1 Bailey, 174: 2 A. K. Marsh. 244.
Auto registration was authorized to the States from federal power over interstate commerce and over those whose citizen status depended on the 14th amendment who are residents and nonresidents.
The registration was enforced under the State power to regulate commerce.
A car is pulled by a locomotive and car movement and is in commerce on a navigable river of rails. Even mere "movement" ought to be suspected as a term.
You have to remove your means of going your way from commerce and remove prima facie evidence of the fact of commercial status.
A notice of Not For Hire [helps] reverse presumptions.
Removal of the VIN removes prima facie evidence creating & presumption requiring rebuttal.
A good bill of sale for Household Goods is good and sufficient evidence of title.
Record it with the register of deeds and have it certified and authenticated per title 28 section on nonjudicial records, and it is good and sufficient evidence of title in any court.
Arizona Constitution Article IX, sec 2 clause 4 "All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit of such exemption."
Household Goods are not in commerce and this exemption exists in every State, although it is well hidden in some of them.

[Shoonra]

There's a reason Elvick is in a psychiatric hospital.