Please stay in your vehicle

[Shoonra]

Most traffic cases take place without a jury. Juries are used for really ugly stuff, like vehicular manslaughter cases.

I had mentioned Hendrick. I have since scouted up some other court cases that make it clear that traffic laws, including the requirement of a drivers license, apply to "noncommercial" motorists: a very recent federal decision is Crouch v. Elliott (ED Tenn, Sept 1, 2005); City of Spokane v. Port (1986) 43 Wash.App 273, 716 P2d 945 app.denied 106 Wash.2d 1010; Humphreys v. State (Okl.Crim.App. 1987) 738 P2d 188; City of Eau Claire v. Larson (1990) 155 Wis.2d 467, 455 NW2d 914; Haney v. City Court for City of Empire (Colo.Supreme 11989) 779 P2d 1312; State v. Fergerstom (Haw.Interm.App 2004) 106 Haw. 43, 101 P3d 652 aff'd (Haw.Supreme 2004) 106 Haw. 41, 101 P3d 225; and a bunch of decisions that are not published in book format.

The Spokane case is especially concise and direct on this discussion. http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/...Cites/port.htm.

IF traffic laws and licensing requirements apply only to "commercial" motoring, then you wouldn't expect the highway cops to be out in force, say, after midnight of New Year's Eve, when most businesses are closed.

By the way, drivers licenses are personal to the human being who will be behind the wheel. They are not issued to corporations, trusts, fictional characters, etc. They are not even issued, necessarily, to the person who commands the chauffeur. They are issued to a human being who has demonstrated, to the state's satisfaction, that he knows how to drive, and has the eyesight and reflexes required to drive safely; without a license there is no reason to believe that a person is fit to drive a car. The person to whom a license is issued is the one whose photo soils the license, and who is named (regardless of whether in block print or upper & lower case) on the license. The statutes, in every state, not only require everyone operating a motor vehicle on the public roads to have a license, but to carry it when driving and to show it to a policeman who asks to see it; this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, this is one of the conditions on which a license is issued.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

IF traffic laws and licensing requirements apply only to "commercial" motoring, then you wouldn't expect the highway cops to be out in force, say, after midnight of New Year's Eve, when most businesses are closed.

That's simple !! and I've said on this site many times before...

If folks want to voluntarily offer up their private conveyances to the state, and register them as commercial 'motor vehicles' (read your registration), then they get what they pay for...

Let's look at the case you've cited...

McINTURFF, Judge. We are asked to determine whether RCW 46.20.021 and Spokane Municipal Code 16.20.021, requiring a motor vehicle operator to be licensed, unconstitutionally restrict one's right to travel.

Heck no, it doesn't... You see, Shroona, I quite agree.. the court is correct.. driver/operators in motor vehicles should be licensed.

However, when I sojourn (travel privately) in HIS name, to spread the good news, which is (for the time being anyway) protected under the 1st amendment, no man, nor group of men, have the authority to detain myself, my guests, or my personal/private conveyance, for any reason. These rights have been repeatedly recognized by the USSC.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - 1st amendment

Originally Posted by Shoonra

They are not issued to corporations, trusts, fictional characters, etc

Really? What's this about then?

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.

And according to the following cannons of construction, men & women aren't referenced, directly or even implied.. in fact, they're clearly excluded.

"expressio unius est exclusio alterius" or "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative." Black's Law Dictionary pg. 602 (7th ed. 1999).

EJUSDEM GENERIS All the same kind, class, or nature

In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, the "ejusdem generis rule" is, that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. of Laws, 141; Goldsmith. v. U.S., C.C.A.N.Y.,N.Y., 42 F2nd.133,137

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS It is known from its associates.1 Vent.225 "The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words"

"the doctrine means that general and specific words are associated with and take color from each other, restricting general words to sense analogous to less general." Dunham v. State,140 Fla. 754, 192 So. 324,325,326.

"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction - that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there - is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 117, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992]

Seems pretty clear to me....

To travel privately.. your conveyance must be privately owned (not offered up to the state thru registration in their data banks, for chattel (mail in the old reg as 'junked') nor have any state 'flags' (reg. plates, stickers, ect) flying off the vessel. Such as Kitchie's, and others on this site.

It's not any easy stance, especially if you're the first in your area, but it is lawful.


For HIS GLory,
Akira

P.S. Please notice the case cited above, is a "tax protestor" case. Read the first link in Weis' thread "the nexus" here.)

[Shoonra]

The courts have held, repeatedly, that there is no religious exemption to the drivers licensing laws.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The courts have held, repeatedly, that there is no religious exemption to the drivers licensing laws.

What's that have to do with right of travel in the private?


For HIS GLory,
Akira

[RickA]

Religion is a construct of man, not God.
It clearly means that any man following God's Laws are not subject to the laws of man.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I have spoken to police officers and they have their own, rational, explanations for advising people to stay in their cars. They have experienced, or heard of other cops' experiences, with people who came out of their cars armed and eager to do harm. Also, instances of people running off, throwing away drug baggies when the cop couldn't see them, and, on a few occasions, people getting out and slipping on the mud, stumbling over something in the dark, or being clipped by a passing vehicle. All in all, safer for everyone if the person stays seated in the car, where the cop can generally keep an eye on him.

The story about the secret insurance policy is total fantasy. So is the notion that the UCC governs traffic tickets or that traffic laws apply only to "commerce".

Then the first words out of our mouths must allay their fears of the unknown -
to wit (i love that phrase

me: Greetings in the name of Jesus and our heavenly father.
I am not a corporation, nor am I an agent for any corporation.

(the second sentence were the first words out of my mouth when I was stopped
and I'm convinced that they struck home because the PO made no attempt to enter
my car, nor his compatriots who later arrived!)

and from there we must only respond with our heavenly father's word.

PO: do you know why i stopped you?

me: I'm just going about my heavenly father's business - i'm not committing commerce.

(i would suggest not mentioning how you are going about His business, it's not about
you, make it about Him)

PO: give me your license and insurance papers.

me: my Heavenly father has not sent me to committ commerce.
Or, repeat your previous words, "I am going about my heavenly father's business."

(dont argue! we see these two words here regularly.
also, assume they say "stay in car" for their safety and ours, so comply.
we lose nothing by complying with that simple "command" unless you're
fortunate enough to stop your car on private property, off and away
from moving traffic)

Remember we are ambassadors for christ, anointing, while you're waiting
for the PO to arrive at your window to do his job, do yours and

1. pray for you, him, the traffic - he is probably a fellow member of christ!
a. for peace, and love, forgiveness
b. Father's word and will in action
c. peace.
2. wisdom for both of you

and remember the word out of your mouth *IS* as powerful as your Father's
as Jesus said, "my words are spirit" and so also are ours.

and `the power of life and death is on the tongue' (James) so use that power
to speak life and love and safety for all involved in the stop, even when more
arrive.

Kitch showed us an excellent example recently.

we are children of light, let us walk IN the light towards each other -
Declare your membership in the body of christ he most likely knows exactly
what you say.

Of this I am sure: you tell him where you sit, stand, walk (psa 1.1)
your sit, walk, and stand ARE your jurisdiction.

I sit on the right hand of the Father.
I stand in the heavenly temple next to my Lord Jesus.
I walk in the kingdom of my heavenly father's dear son.

and you by your words will give Father the invitiation to work the situation for His purpose.

If we are to be adjudicated, and convicted let us be convicted for doing the will of our heavenly Father!

I hope this helps you all.

[David Merrill]

me: Greetings in the name of Jesus and our heavenly father.
I am not a corporation, nor am I an agent for any corporation.

More importantly; make it clear there is no participation and close shop.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

[cut]

The person to whom a license is issued is the one whose photo soils the license, and who is named (regardless of whether in block print or upper & lower case) on the license.

[cut]

Why oh why pls esplain why one's ``photo soils the license''?

I've not seen nor heard of this phrase in context.

[Shoonra]

What's that have to do with right of travel in the private?

Right of travel is one thing. "Right" to drive on the public (not private) roads is something else.

Courts have held there is no "God-given" right to drive on the public roads. Unlicensed drivers are far more likely than licensed drivers to bring people, themselves included, into a much closer proximity to God and very suddenly.

Courts have occasionally put a contumacious unlicensed driver in an environment where he doesn't get to turn a doorknob, much less a steering wheel, for an extended period. About four years ago, the State of Nevada sent one such unlicensed driver, Clark Morse, to such a place for forty years, which will probably exceed his natural lifespan.

[KITCHIE]

SHOONRA,

Apparently there is no law requiring people in their private capacity traveling the public roads have registration and license plates. Here in Nevada it is $250 plus $50 per day for every day your "motor vehicle" is not licensed and registered.

Seems as though the RPD let an awful lot of revenue to go by the way side (April 15 to November 17) just so he could write me up for no DL, which he new I had on the spot.

It is not just NHP that has not cited me. It is ALL the Law enforcement agencies, i.e. Sparks PD, Sheriff, NHP and now RPD. I have been traveling with no plates and registration for over 1.5 years. I was stopped about 6 times, cited once as mentioned before and after trial case dismissed.

Only asked for proof of ins one time and handed over a card from 2000. Still no citation.

As always the court publishes only the cases THEY win.

Kitchie