Please stay in your vehicle

[rentiap]

In traffic stops in years past when stoped by a police(y) man I have tried to get out of my automobile only to be told by the police(y) man to please stay in your vehicle(his words)

I'm wondering if this is a way to keep us in our automobile (even though he is saying that it is for our own safety) could he be compelling us stay in there to do business(Commerce)within our means of travel?

If we were to say to him. After getting out.
No thank you I don't do any comerce in my privately owned not for hire automobile,
Stating to him---- that By law I must tell you that I am not a corporation or person. I am a living breathing flesh and blood sovereign man and I reserve all of my rights (I haven't decided if I would leave out stating UCC1-207)Why are you dishonering me and keeping me against my will?
Could this keep us from them construing/ mis-construing that we are in commerce or under their jurisdiction?
Maybe I'm all wet here! (I did just get in from a long walk in the rain that's when I do my best thinking)
Comments?? Please

[idknow]

Originally Posted by rentiap

In traffic stops in years past when stoped by a police(y) man I have tried to get out of my automobile only to be told by the police(y) man to please stay in your vehicle(his words)

I'm wondering if this is a way to keep us in our automobile (even though he is saying that it is for our own safety) could he be compelling us stay in there to do business(Commerce)within our means of travel?

If we were to say to him. After getting out.
No thank you I don't do any comerce in my privately owned not for hire automobile,
Stating to him---- that By law I must tell you that I am not a corporation or person. I am a living breathing flesh and blood soveren man and I reserve all of my rights (I haven't decided if I would leave out stating UCC1-207)Why are you dishonering me and keeping me against my will?
Could this keep us from them construing/ mis-construing that we are in commerce or under their jurisdiction?
Maybe I'm all wet here! (I did just get in from a long walk in the rain that's when I do my best thinking)
Comments?? Please

--

as i said in a post yesterday, we're dealing with people who have various levels of education and degrees. (the agent who stopped me confessed to having a law degree)

if we give the benefit of the doubt and asume that at least some of the agents who intercept us
are fully aware of our motive *after* looking over our vehicle for signs of commercial intent,
and upon not finding any, their only conclusion must be that they know fully well that
we are not operating in commerce. Therefore, our only conclusion here must be that at that point
they have decided to become ``highway men'' or ``robber barons'' of old and attempt to
get us to agree to contract. Even though the act thereafter is flawed because our state doesnt change,
if they order us to remain in our private property, we at that point lose our willfulness to do
what we want and are already in possession of a voidable contract; to wit, we've been stopped
against our will, force to speak with and respond to a stranger whose purpose is well known to us,
in an attempt to get us to join an agreement and next a contract we dont want to.

how does that sound?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rentiap

In traffic stops in years past when stoped by a police(y) man I have tried to get out of my automobile only to be told by the police(y) man to please stay in your vehicle(his words)

I'm wondering if this is a way to keep us in our automobile (even though he is saying that it is for our own safety) could he be compelling us stay in there to do business(Commerce)within our means of travel?

If we were to say to him. After getting out.
No thank you I don't do any comerce in my privately owned not for hire automobile,
Stating to him---- that By law I must tell you that I am not a corporation or person. I am a living breathing flesh and blood soveren man and I reserve all of my rights (I haven't decided if I would leave out stating UCC1-207)Why are you dishonering me and keeping me against my will?
Could this keep us from them construing/ mis-construing that we are in commerce or under their jurisdiction?
Maybe I'm all wet here! (I did just get in from a long walk in the rain that's when I do my best thinking)
Comments?? Please

There is a high-payoff insurance annuity upon every bonded (birth certification) individual. So do not be surprised if the policeman shoots you dead so that your testimony about being a man on the land outside the scope of commerce never gets said. It is profitable to shoot you down.

Otherwise, within the macroeconomic infrastructure there are many models that come to the same conclusions. They are all correct. To turn your vehicle into an office works too.

Once after sentencing the judge and all the officers left for an unexplained recess. They were allowing me to leave the office; that I could close up shop. Instead I sat there like an idiot for over ten minutes until they came back in and sent me to jail - concluding business for the day since I would not.

I think it paramount to understand relationships in law, history and the correct infrastructure. Then the mental models match up better with reality.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[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".

[KITCHIE]

SHOONRA: Please show me where traffic laws apply to private traveling in ones automobile.

Thanks
Kitchie

[fulltitle]

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".

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The word "traffic" itself denotes trade.

Traffic (etymology) French trafic, from Old French trafique, from Old Italian traffico, from trafficare, to trade....

[David Merrill]

Shoonra said:

The story about the secret insurance policy is total fantasy.

Agreed. There is no secrecy. These securities are registered. This is also called account deficit in Federal Reserve terms. Most of these securities are floated by South Korea, China and Japan. So the secret part is a bit fantastic.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Please show me where traffic laws apply to private traveling in ones automobile.

Kitchie: Start with Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 U.S. 610. "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public. .... [Each] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary to public safety and other in respect to the operation upon its highways of all moter vehicles -- those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."

Now I'll throw the grenade back to you: Show me a statute or court case that clearly says that traffic laws do NOT apply to "private traveling in one's automobile". I see odd quotations knitted together from passport cases and the like, but nothing that actually supports your position.

[KITCHIE]

SHOONRA: What you cited is NOT law. Show me the statute that says what the penalties are for private travelers not involved in commerce.

What you gave me was some court case where Hendrick was told "motor vehicles" must be regulated. I do not drive a motor vehicle. I drive an automobile as in I bought from an automobile dealer.

Now, my autos have no license plates, or registration. I have NEVER been cited for not having license plates and registration. Nor have I been cited for no seatbelt, no proof of insurance and not carring my dl. That is with the exception of one Reno PD cop, and that case was dismissed after the trial.

So you STILL have not proven your position.

Kitchie

[David Merrill]

If you already understand that traffic regulation is only commercial, then the difference between motor vehicle and vehicle in the Colorado Revised Statutes explains it quite clearly. It behooves one to break down the definition's other references and know the difference between common carrier and commercial carrier.

Start with Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 U.S. 610. "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public. .... [Each] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary to public safety and other in respect to the operation upon its highways of all moter vehicles -- those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."

However you cannot string the entire argument together well enough to convince a jury within the scope of the CRS definitions. And when you resort to other law dictionaries the judge will uphold the prosecutor's objection. So the point is rather moot unless you are very eloquent in front of a box of sheeple.


Regards,

David Merrill.