Right to Travel Court Cites

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

AND THEN it must be proven that you were driving in commerce;

Not quite. The "operating" is what is in commerce. The driving is only regulable if you are "engaged" in "employment" for the state of California.

[ezrhythm]

OK, I see what your saying.

Then the prosecution (if there is any) would have to prove that you were "operating".

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Private. Not for hire.

That says a lot right there.

[weishaupt1776]

From Michael ODonnell ;

Originally Posted by Michael ODonnell

This is not complicated. You start by getting the first vehicle and traffic laws enacted in your state. In* NY it was in 1898. Those laws were very clear as to who is required to have or participate in licensing scheme. They spell out very clearly who the class and or craft the legislature is regulating. The next step is to contact the State AG's office and ask for all the opinion letters that the Attorney General's office has issued on the subject. In NY the current opinion letter on who is required to possess a driver's lincense is a letter written in 1909. When I show this to town justices in NY and NJ my charges are dismissed. The prosecutors cannot rebut the gov'ts own opinion. The next thing you do is put together all the case law on the subject of freedom of assembly and the corresponding freedom of travel. Remember you cannot exercise your freedom of assembly if you cannot freely travel to the point of assembly. There is a plethora of case law that says you cannot license a right there is no judge in the country who will contradict this principle. Sounds like BS doesn't it? I guarantee you if you state it and have the state's original traffic statutes and AG opinion letters you will walk. You must prove that you are not part of a class and craft that is required to be licensed because you are operating in commerce. Do the research it's all there. Once you win on this issue you will have more confidence to take on the bigger issues. I guess the fundamental point in all of these rights issues is what was the intent of the legislature who enacted the particular licensing statutes. Remember all licensing of whatever activity is basically an attempt to raise revenue for the use of the legislature.*

*




*

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Codee

Not quite. The "operating" is what is in commerce. The driving is only regulable if you are "engaged" in "employment" for the state of California.

I don't know about the rest of this country but here in California the registration sticker has on it in small print *FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY*
I'm not an official and I am certainly not a state employee.
I can't possibly have one of those stickers on my

----- Private------
-For purpose of travel only-
---Not For Hire---

automobile *legally*

[Big Al]

To bad the courts don't care because they work from presumption that you are guilty because that the way administrative law works. Believe me these clowns that run traffic courts are at the vary bottom of the food chain in the law community. Do not fall into the presumption that they know the law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of the crap that is spread by the pay-tree-rot community is because they listened to these idiot public servants as to how they understand the law. BIG TROUBLE when you do that as these clowns don't have a clue either!

[fighting_father]

So to clarify for myself:

If I'm self Employed and do not work for the State or Province then I am not engaged in 'commerce', therefore no DL is required ? And it is my right to 'travel'.

Does carrying your tools for a specific job, while travelling to a job site consider it to be 'commerce' ?

Makes sense to me, why would I need a DL to work for myself, and create a livelihood.

I ask because I do 'work' for customers, which requires me to bring my tools to the job site.

As far as the PO (Peace Officer) is Concerned, I'm not dealing in 'commerce' and therefore no DL is required.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by fighting_father

So to clarify for myself:

If I'm self Employed and do not work for the State or Province then I am not engaged in 'commerce', therefore no DL is required ? And it is my right to 'travel'.....

If any of this were true, someone would have come up with a court decision where the court actually said "You shouldn't have gotten a ticket because you were motoring for noncommercial purposes." No such case. Ever.

[Codee]

DUH. As soon as it is found out that you were not in a regulable activity the administrative adjunct loses SMJ and can do nothing but dismiss,,, including writing oppinions.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

DUH. As soon as it is found out that you were not in a regulable activity the administrative adjunct loses SMJ and can do nothing but dismiss,,, including writing oppinions.

Duh to you too. Dismissals frequently turn into published opinions, explaining why the case is being dismissed. No such dismissal for "non-commercial" driving. Not a single one.