Traveling with out insurance?

[chapka]

Fulltitle, you've taken an awful lot of time and bandwidth to prove my point.

Remember what we're talking about. You're positing, as far as I can tell, a statute that states that (for example) a motor vehicle is a "device or conveyance" and stating that "or" in this case could mean the same thing as "and." (Apologies if this isn't what you meant; your original statement was somewhat unclear).

First, let's establish what "and" would mean. Assume for the purposes of this exercise that a private noncommercial automobile is a "device" but not a "conveyance." (Of course, it's actually both, but that's another issue).

So a statute that said something had to be a "device and conveyance" would not include your car, because for an "and" statement to be true, both arguments must be true.

Now let's consider the two types of logical "or" which I originally mentioned several posts ago and you finally conceded to in your last post.

First, the "exclusive or" which you call "really-really-or". Under this test, the statement is true only if exactly one argument is true. So a car which was a device but not a conveyance would be covered by the statute, but one which was both a device and a conveyance (which actual cars are, of course) would not be.

Now consider the inclusive "or", which you call "and/or". Under this test, the statement is true if one or more of the arguments is true. So a car which is a vehicle but not a conveyance, which would be excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" by an "and" statement, is included in the definition of an inclusive "or" statement. The only difference is that once we've established that a car is a vehicle, it doesn't matter if it's also a conveyance (which, of course, it is.)

[2501]

a private non-commercial automobile is private property.

Sovereigns may travel about at their inclination.
2501

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by chapka

Fulltitle, you've taken an awful lot of time and bandwidth to prove my point.

Remember what we're talking about. You're positing, as far as I can tell, a statute that states that (for example) a motor vehicle is a "device or conveyance" and stating that "or" in this case could mean the same thing as "and." (Apologies if this isn't what you meant; your original statement was somewhat unclear).

First, let's establish what "and" would mean. Assume for the purposes of this exercise that a private noncommercial automobile is a "device" but not a "conveyance." (Of course, it's actually both, but that's another issue).

So a statute that said something had to be a "device and conveyance" would not include your car, because for an "and" statement to be true, both arguments must be true.

Actually, I dont recall referencing any code having in it the phrase "device or conveyance". Nice try.

One key point was showing that *statutory* reference to terms 'vehicle', 'conveyance' and even 'device' may at their core have meanings that have to do with commercial paper, negotiable instruments, contracts, arrangements, transfer of rights all of which being squarely in the cognizance of the State (after all its the State's code, no?).

If one writes bylaws for an association and the bylaws have a clause that reads "all vehicles must be returned to the garage by midnight", is it not clear that the clause is only referring to vehicles in the cognizance of said association?

Furthermore, is it not clear that if drivers license and license plates can be 'devices' then vehicle is probably also a commercial instrument of some kind? Might a state-issued 'certificate of title' be a vehicle, conduit or device for facilitating transfer of rights to an automobile?

A point was also along the lines that 'conveyability' may have a lot to do with the "certificate of title" issued by the State of ___. Perhaps there is a presumption under such circumstances that one intends to sell the vehicle and that the state would be involved in some way in facilitating the sale (i.e. the state issued certificate of title being the conduit for transfer of title to the underlying property).

Originally Posted by chapka

Now let's consider the two types of logical "or" which I originally mentioned several posts ago and you finally conceded to in your last post.

First, the "exclusive or" which you call "really-really-or". Under this test, the statement is true only if exactly one argument is true. So a car which was a device but not a conveyance would be covered by the statute, but one which was both a device and a conveyance (which actual cars are, of course) would not be.

Now consider the inclusive "or", which you call "and/or". Under this test, the statement is true if one or more of the arguments is true. So a car which is a vehicle but not a conveyance, which would be excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" by an "and" statement, is included in the definition of an inclusive "or" statement. The only difference is that once we've established that a car is a vehicle, it doesn't matter if it's also a conveyance (which, of course, it is.)

The and/or issue wasnt really to do with any "device-conveyance" issue. I was alluding to the definitions of 'motor vehicle' and "vehicle" in Michigan code. That said, can someone drive a vehicle but not operate it at the same time? Can someone operate a vehicle and not drive it?

Are school buses either operated or driven or both? Do chauffer's drive? Concerning school buses operators and chauffers, whats the difference?

If the City of Chicago is a 'person' (i.e. municipal corporation) created by a paper charter from the State of Illinois, can it have cognizance of vehicles or automobiles?

[BOBT12]

SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:



Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

[...]FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.



Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.



Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

Emphasis added.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/dr...is_a_right.htm

The Supreme Court and the Constitution:

Saenz vs Roe [526 US 489]:"The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another state; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State... The word 'travel' is not found in the text of the Constitution. Yet the constitutional right to travel from on State to another is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. Indeed as Justice Stewart reminded us is Shapio vs Thompson [394 US 618] the right is so important that it is assertable against private interference as well as governmental action... a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all... the right is so important that it is assertable against private interference as well as governmental action... a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all"

Emphasis added.


Many of us have always known that licenses are a govenmental interference to our right to travel freely. Licenses are forced on individuals in order for them to enjoy a right, thus, they are void contracts. Thats right, a RIGHT, and not a privilege! Now, there should be no question regarding this issue!

[Akira]

Honestly... I don't know what all the fuss is about...

All those statutes are for legal and commercial entities created by congress or the state legislature. The statutes don't apply to flesh and blood, men and women.

Title 29-A: MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
§101. Definitions

54. Person. "Person" means an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate or any other legal or commercial entity. (emphasis mine)


and yes, it's a Right acknowledged by the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court:


Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "

Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”


End of story...

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Shoonra]

There once was a pretended auto insurance outfit that called itself "The Puget's Sound Agricultural Society" (even though it was HQ'd in Southern California). It seemed to me a total ripoff, and evidently it seemed that way to several state govts.

Did anyone here ever use, or know someone who used, the Puget's Sound Agricultural brand of insurance???? If so, what happened?

[Shoonra]

States differ on who needs either insurance or proof of financial responsibility; some places require it of every driver, some only of the owners of the vehicles, some of drivers who have already been in a major accident, etc.

"Financial responsibility" usually means a conventional insurance policy. But not just any insurance, it has to be approved by the state authorities, usually either the insurance commissioner or the highway commissioner (or whatever those positions are called in a particular State).

There are methods of establishing financial responsibility without insurance, such as an earmarked fund, -- but any alternative to insurance also requires the approval of the state authorities.

If you had the required insurance when you got your license or renewal, and thereafter allowed the insurance to lapse, the state can suspend your license or registration. Driving without the requisite insurance coverage can also be ticketed as a traffic offense, much like driving on a suspended license.

[Sweed]

Here is Washington, proof of insurance is not required unless you are in an accident with damage greater than $700.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by kgod999

rookard, read it again, it says every person other than a chaffuer driving a motor vehicle. its tricknology. a motor vehicle is any vehicle engaged in commerce. this is where it gets tricky again, when you define vehicle, it says motor vehicle. they go back to motor vehicle. you are confused. see, they have attornies write these things so that you THINK in every day terms, but they "code" the truth in there. why you think they call statutes code? it means you have to decipher every word and how the words are used. we have broken the code and they are upset. See, they ARE following the constitution, they are just tricking you into contracts which are protected by the constitution. they have put EVERYTHING under admiralty, contract. they know you dont have to be licensed to do anything lawful. they were given the right to REGULATE commerce though, and thats what they are doing. i had a declaratory judgment request a couple of years ago and the judge said and i quote " petitioner (me) is CORRECT in that the state cannot condition his right to travel upon obtaining a drivers license, but the state CAN CONDITION his ability to DRIVE upon getting a drivers license.. Rookard, dont make yourself look bad, a federal judge agreed with me. then, this where he started HIS TRICKNOLOGY. after agreeing with me, he did a legal manuever that judges and attornies do when things didnt go their way and that is change the subject matter of the petition. (i forgot the word they use for it when they do that) , came to me now, the word is RECAST, THEY RECAST THE SUBJECT MATTER INTO SOMETHING WHERE YOU LOSE .he denied my petition based on me not filing the correct informa pauperia request. (which i didnt need), that way, it APPEARED i lost my judgment. now, if i wanna go back and get clarify, i will have him define the word drive in legal terms. heres a little project for u. get a copy of the definition of driver and motor vehicle from the federal codes. write up a affidavit stating the definitions (which are commercial in nature), petition a judge to repeat what the code says and see how fast they run from the subject matter of your request into some mumbo jumbo which doesnt have anything to do with what your petition is about. they dont wanna address the truth. they are devils.

--

for "code" read "encrypted" as the code is NOT written in the King's English.

It's a different language that we are trying to decode!!!