Driver license and registration please?

[Shoonra]

First to SanRecours: Traffic law is almost entirely a matter of state, not federal, legislation. The major exception might be the traffic laws Congress enacted for the District of Columbia - but they'd be collected in the DC Code, not the US Code. So looking thru the US Code is not going to be a lot of help figuring out the law on drivers licenses or traffic court.

Second to MRG: Every traffic court I ever heard of, was entirely done by a judge without any jury trials. Even in a jury trial, your "instructions" would first have to be submitted to the judge for his approval. I can bet the mortgage that the judge will strike out every suggestion toward nullification and all the references to court decisions (since the jurors are not supposed to be looking up court decisions), and any attempt to confuse the right to travel (which does not embody the right to a particular mode of travel) with the right/privilege/opportunity to pilot a vehicle on the public roads. The Chicago Motor Coach case arose from an attempt to give one bus line a monopoly on public transportation - not from drivers licenses; the Dulles case dealt with the refusal to issue a passport; none of the cases cited dealt with the requirement to have a drivers license to pilot a motor vehicle.

Third to AKSIS: Special appearance is confined to quibbling about jurisdiction. State law created the traffic courts and gave them jurisdiction over traffic cases; the one possible quibble about jurisdiction might be geographic and that would be decided by the location of the stretch of road where you were doing something (allegedly) wrong. These other arguments have nothing to do with a special appearance, and, moreover, have already been rejected by courts.

[Shoonra]

Kitchie: 28 US Code sec. 3002 is part of the chapter devoted to "Particular Proceedings: Debt Collection", meaning debts owed to the federal govt, and the first words of sec. 3002 are "Definitions: As used in this chapter:" Which means the definition given here is exclusively for the topic of debt collection and not for other legal topics, which probably have their own statutory definitions.

So the definition you quote for United States is not geographic, but a list of the various agencies, departments, offices and the like which are entitled to bring an action in federal court for a debt owed to the federal govt or a part thereof. "A federal corporation" would describe a number of governmental or quasi-governmental bodies -- I think the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is an example, maybe also the Federal Reserve System -- but it does not describe the whole federal govt. It makes no sense for the federal govt to downgrade its inherent sovereign immunity for the mere limited liability of a corporation. "A agency, department, commission, board or other entity" pretty much covers anything else in the federal govt that might want to collect a debt, and "an instrumentality of the United States" might mean (I think) some temporary creation of the govt, not necessarily incorporated, and possibly a private outfit which the federal govt retained to do some federal function (such as the printing plants which the federal govt contracts with to print out govt publications).

[SansRecours]

Now y’all are posting yourselves WAY off the point! Some are even attributing to me things I never said. Let’s get back to the reality of the situation. Further, if you are going to post mere two word non sensical responses, go watch TV or read a fifth grade level reading book.

Shoonra is right that an affidavit of special appearance is confined to quibbling about jurisdiction and venue. But, venue and jurisdiction is way more than geographic. It is everything.

I will try and spell this out-

Q: Who is the ONLY public official that has the constitutional and/or statutory authority to commence an action in the name of the State and/or the People of (insert your state here)?

A: Every state constitution and statutes thereafter place this duty and obligation on an elected official called a prosecuting attorney, or district attorney, or similar attorney. Look it up! Is this a fact. Is it provable, and not subject to dispute.

Q: Every city has a charter or articles of incorporation. Who is the ONLY public official that has the statutory authority to commence an action in the name of the municipality and/or the People of (insert your municipality here)?
Every city charter, or articles of incorporation, in laying out its governmental function, places this duty and obligation on an elected (sometimes appointed, but rarely) official called a law director or some similar title. He is always an attorney.

A: Whenever an action commences in the name of a fiction, according to ALL rules of pleading, that fiction must be represented by an attorney.
Where did the police officer, who is NOT AN ATTORNEY get the authority, by his signature alone, to commence an action in the name and the authority of the City of, the State of, or the People of, ANYWHERE?

Does that police officer’s signature on a traffic ticket, have the power to bind any one or any thing but himself?

If it does have that power (which it cannot) then where does this authority emanate?

If it does not, then who or what is the plaintiff in a traffic case?

If I get a ticket from a police officer (read my previous posts so I don’t have to reiterate) the LAST thing on my mind is showing up on the date and the time on the ticket. If I did I will be conveying presumptions (a majority of which are listed in my post #46).

Get this straight- the traffic ticket IS NOT ABOUT ME. It is about the officer’s signature Secondarily it is the signature causing a denial of civil remedy (federal question) and due process. I know who I am and where I stand. I am under NO compunction, duty or obligation to set one foot in any courtroom unless a proper party bring a complaint against me in my proper person, (whatever that might be) in a proper jurisdiction and venue.

If I am under a duty and an obligation to show up in a lower inferior court, and aid a mysterious plaintiff in my own prosecution, and at the same time giving the signer of the ticket qualified immunity for bearing false witness, then someone is mistaken as to my identity. And I, a stranger to that identity, am still under no duty or obligation to show up and say I am not that thing.

In a courtroom scenario, it is always "he who alleges must prove." Does the traffic ticket allege a status, standing, or agency, or the administrative nexus in a charge of NO DRIVER LICENSE???? Is there a document in existence showing that everyone that gets on the road (or whatever one wants to call it) must throw their constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, nature and cause, proper jurisdiction etc., in the trash?

Now venue is the place. It is more than Confusion County Courthouse at 1313 Mockingbird Lane.

The venue is administrative. The res (thing) is administrative (the ticket and the license). The whole stinking thing is administrative and the trail goes to the Administrative Procedures Act, which many states have codified into the statutory scheme. Where did I exchange my right (inalienable, remember) to judicial due process, for mere administrative due process? Traffic tickets raise HUGE federal questions!

If one maintains that the people effected a trade off from due process of law to expedient administration of justice (oxymoron statement if I ever heard one), then, when and where was the constitution modified to where my guarantee is now for an expedient administrative form of government??

The purpose of this thread is that we might all be able to establish by fact and evidence if necessary exactly what is a traffic ticket, and what is a driver license. This post (although if it has the tone of a rant- I'm sorry) is an attempt to get back to where I left off.

I appreciate the commentary.

SansRecours

[RickA]

I wasn't thinking that it was administrative at all. I was thinking it still had to be a contract, which was broken and the hoops that one jumps through are the penalty.

I'm waiting for more.

Thanks.

[Livefire]

In Michigan, the state police have also promulgated the Uniform Traffic Code of 2002 to supplement the Motor Vehicle Code (PA 300 of 1949) This is for use by the townships, cities,and townships. Traffic tickets can be prosecuted under state law or local ordinance here. The main difference is how the loot is disbursed. The state APA act also says that a matter cannot be adjudicated before a final agency determination is rendered. That there tells me a court official is acting purely adminstratively on behalf of agency. The appeal is where there matter is actually adjucated and most folks wont go that far.

We can either use the default method and use the mandamus to force a recalcitrant court officer to enter a dismissal due to lack of SMJ. OR one could abate the matter under common law or use David Merill's method of refusing the presentment for cause under Admiralty Restricted Appearance Rule E8.

Shoonra, THAT'S why no judge can rule contempt on TS paperwork. Unless they are on an appellate level, they are only wearing a ministerial hat, not a judicial one.

[mrg]

When I realized I was off point I tried to get all of my posts out of here and could not.

Sorry.

I will be more careful.

[KITCHIE]

Shoonra said: So the definition you quote for United States is not geographic, but a list of the various agencies, departments, offices and the like which are entitled to bring an action in federal court for a debt owed to the federal govt or a part thereof. "A federal corporation" would describe a number of governmental or quasi-governmental bodies

You are absolutely wrong. Since the states are sub-divisions of the Federal gov't and the states legislators scheme to get federal funds for highways you can bet that federal laws apply. They ARE acting as debt collectors. You are (in their minds) required to pay a debt due to a civil gone criminal ticket.

Have you ever heard the term " He paid his debt to society"?

4th of July weekend is refered to as "Revenue Weekend".

Remember statutes are oblagations and these obligations have to do with the bankrupt US. Another topic.

Kitchie

[aksis]

What is a "drivers licence"?

Arizona Revised Statutes (where are the enacting clauses? ;-)

Title 28

101 - Definitions

...
17. "Drive" means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

18. "Driver" means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

19. "Driver license" means a license that is issued by a state to an individual and that authorizes the individual to drive a motor vehicle.
...

32. "Motor vehicle":

(a) Means either:

(i) A self-propelled vehicle.
(ii) For the purposes of the laws relating to the imposition of a tax on motor vehicle fuel, a vehicle that is operated on the highways of this state and that is propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel.

(b) Does not include a motorized wheelchair, an electric personal assistive mobility device or a motorized skateboard. For the purposes of this subdivision:

(i) "Motorized skateboard" ...
(ii) "Motorized wheelchair" ...

33. "Motor vehicle fuel" includes all products that are commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline, including casinghead gasoline, natural gasoline and all flammable liquids, and that are composed of a mixture of selected hydrocarbons expressly manufactured and blended for the purpose of effectively and efficiently operating internal combustion engines. Motor vehicle fuel does not include inflammable liquids that are specifically manufactured for racing motor vehicles and that are distributed for and used by racing motor vehicles at a racetrack, use fuel as defined in section 28-5601, aviation fuel, fuel for jet or turbine powered aircraft or the mixture created at the interface of two different substances being transported through a pipeline, commonly known as transmix.
...

38. "Operator" means a person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.
...

56. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

601 - Definitions

...

(e)
...
8. "License" means any license, temporary instruction permit or temporary license issued under the laws of this state or any other state that pertain to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.
...
[see below for definition of licence from Blacks Law 6th]

Arizona Administrative Code
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_17/17-04.ht
TITLE 17. TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER 4. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TITLE, REGISTRATION, AND DRIVER LICENSES

ARTICLE 4. DRIVER LICENSES

R17-4-401. Definitions
The following definitions apply to this Article unless otherwise specified:

(no definition of the "drivers licence" or "licence" that I could find in the admin code)

The Admin Code for this section is mostly repealed or reserved <--what ever that means... still in effect but not published? Bullsh|t.:
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_17/17-04.ht

(Don't forget to check your own[ed] states code)

The definition of "licence" in A.R.S isn't compleat, so I went to Blacks Law 6th for the def. of licence:

Licence. The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a tresspass, or a tort.(Case Cites)
....
A permit, granted by an appropriate govermental body, generally for a consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. A licence is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but a mere personal permit.(case cites)
....
Streets and Highways. A permit to use the streets is a mere licence revocable at pleasure. (case cites) The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by premission or licence from the state or its political subdivisions.
...
(incompleat definition - applicable parts only)

Anyone have anything to add to this? I haven't gone hunting in the U.S. code yet...

Now to get a licence, wasn't there an agreement made?
Would this be a contract? http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1238&lngFormInfoKey=1238
I don't remember if there is another "form" before you actualy get the licence.

“[F]or while a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion ....” See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140

"the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registration .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures Quackenbush v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 454

"While there exists a fundamental right to travel, neither this court, nor our [state] supreme court, nor the US Supreme Court has ever held that there exists a fundamental right to drive a moter vehicle." State can require display of official registration tag, and that driver present police with valid license and car registration, even against purported religious objections, and can punish for use of homemade license plate)” Terpstra v. State (Ind.App 1988) 529 NE2d 839

“The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

So it is established from the definitions in the code/reules/regulations and from a few of the many court opinions that a 'drivers licence' is a permit to use the roads, streets, highways, what have you, as a place to conduct business, because this is not a Right and requires a licence. (We the People want our cut ;-)

It is issued by a political subdivision of theSTATE OF WHATEVER's (DMV/MVD) and is "revocable at pleasure".

1) What is the code/rules/regulations that govern the state agencies that have the ability to to grant permission to someone to "do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a tresspass, or a tort."?

2) Is the agency obligated to "police" & "regulate" the persons they issue licences to? I belive this is a definat yes. In general, (not just driving for hire), if something would be illegal/trespass/tort and We the People were going to allow *some * People to do it, we would want it supervised, for our own best interest. ie Many types of surgury. Cutting someone would be a trespass, so to allow it, licences are granted.

[SansRecours]

I am sorry if I did cause an offense and I apologize to mrg.

If there is a reason for me to take offense (which I do not, its a learning curve thing) it is the fact that others are posting off-point messages and watering down the thread.

Kitchie says: "Since the states are sub-divisions of the Federal gov't and the states legislators scheme to get federal funds for highways you can bet that federal laws apply. They ARE acting as debt collectors. You are (in their minds) required to pay a debt due to a civil gone criminal ticket."

What Kitchie states says above is called a conclusion. Please post the facts, law, case history, evidence to support what you say. If you cannot, then do not say it. It is not enough in a court to make a conclusion without facts to back it up. That is what gets just about everyone in trouble. It should be the same on this thread. Can you factually establish the 28USC Part VI link to your state subdivision conclusion?

One can easily factually state and prove that states recieve federal monies. One can also support the fact that when a state does recieve federal monies (in your instance highway funding) it does so at the expense of its sovereignty in that area of receipt (can you show me a recent case?). Now if you can find the link, without making conclusions, between the receiveing of monies, the subsequent loss of sovereignty in the area of receipt, and the Administrative Procedures Act you will be close to being on point with this thread. THEN, we can link this all of that to a traffic ticket and a driver license, the law enforcement agency and the ticketee and discuss the character of the parties in a traffic case, and be right back on point.

SansRecours

P.S. Now Aksis is really making an attempt to "get his mind right" Way to go!

[SansRecours]

And what is a "self-propelled vehicle"? What a humorous definition! In all my day I have not seen a car start, move, or propel itself. (Snicker)

Seriously,

If a license is as the definitions say, then WHOSE license is it?
In Arizona, who is the authority for its issuance?

I'll keep it to two question at a time.

Did you know that in New York, I found an attorney general opinion where a on duty cop ticketed another on duty cop because the ticketing cop knew that the ticketed cop did not have a driver license, and cited him for just that thing. The attorney general for New York said that is was not necessary for a police officer to have a driver license because the cruiser was not by definition a motor vehicle! Therefore there was no infraction. Awesome!

You know, I might consider a license if the state can tell me in what way my signature on that thing changes my character. This issue alone had a federal judge just shaking his head.

It might also not be a problem if I could sign the form without bearing false witness against my character.

Sans Recours