Right to Travel Part 100

[palani]

Seems to me Squirrel asked for any treasonous traitors present to raise their hand and someone responded (volunteered). Anyone else care to respond?

[Shoonra]

Public Utility Commissions normally regulate (or are supposed to regulate) the utility companies that offer some sort of utility to the general public (i.e. electricity, water, cable TV, bus service). It is not a requirement that these utility companies be either govt-owned or non-profit; in fact, apart from the water & sewer utility, they seldom are.

I am not sure how this relates to the question of requiring a DL to put an automobile on the road.

Squirrel seems to be a throwback to Lysenkoism; the politicized (but unproven) theory is Everything, and anyone who tries it out and shows it is unsuccessful must be a traitor.

[palani]

Nope. Even simpler theory that Lysenkoism (whatever that is). Just ask for all _____ (you fill in the blanks) to stand up and see who volunteers. Seems to work in court all the time.

[BOBT12]

HENDRICK v. STATE OF MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)

The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a justice of the peace for Prince George's county by the state against John T. Hendrick for violating 133 of the motor vehicle law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant [235 U.S. 610, 619] in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's county, and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by 133 of the motor vehicle law. He was brought before a justice of the peace and fined $15 after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued,-a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by 133. Upon the foregoing the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=235+&page=610

Shoonra found this case. It is very disturbing.

Shoonra, thanks for your research.

[Shoonra]

A day or two ago, BobT cited "American Jurisprudence 1st" - a legal encyclopedia which was replaced in 1964 by American Jurisprudence 2d (which is still kept up by annual pocket parts and occasional replacement volumes, there is no Am.Jur.3d) - and "the right to travel".

Since Am.Jur.1st is so long replaced, I have no way of checking it, but the corresponding article on Constitutional Law in the current Am.Jur.2d includes this comment; 16B Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law sec. 618 (p. 93, rev. 1998):

The constitutional right to travel does not encompass using state highways in an unrestrained manner, operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, or exceeding the speed limit.

This sentence is linked to footnote 32 on the same page, which cites only two decisions:

(1) State v. Skurdal, 235 Mon. 291, 767 P.2d 304 (1988).
{this case involved Rodney Skurdal, who later was one of the crazier of the Montana Freemen, who here was nailed for driving without a license and for exceeding the posted speed limit. Skurdal tried to argue that the licensing and speed laws violated his "right to travel" and, moreover he had not consented to be governed by the traffic laws. The Montana Supreme Court said: "The right to freedom of travel not only is not even implicated i this case, it has not been infringed. At no time where there any contraints by the State of Montana on this right of Skurdal. He has at all times remand free from state regulation and constraint, able to leave this state and travel as he pleases. He was free to get on a plane and fly to New York, free to take a bus back to Wyoming; he existed free of any state interference of this right to travel. This notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways in Montana. .... The rioght to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. ...... We reject Skurdal's argument that that he is a "free man" except from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments. Skurdal is a "person" as defined by [the state traffic laws] ... and bound by the statutes of Montana which he violated. Consent to the laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against individuals. ... No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them. We must all abide by the valid laws, even the ones with which we do not agree. .... We reject Skurdal's claim that because he owes nothing on his car (private property) and is not engaged in commercial travel, his liberty interests are infringed by stopping his vehicle. That claim is baseless in Montana, and we find no law in any other jurisdiction to support it either. "}

(2) Boutin v. Conway, 153 Vt. 558, 572 A.2d 905 (1990).
{This held that the state could suspend the plaintiff's DL, and thereafter penalize him for driving without a license, because he had persistently refused to pay his state taxes in full. The court held that suspending his DL for nonpayment of taxes did not violate any constitutional right. In particular, the tax obligations are entirely statutory and not susceptible of the commercial practices of accord and satisfaction, so that his sending a check for payment of only part of the amount of his tax debt with the words "in full settlement" written on it would not work to eliminate the remainder of his tax debt.}

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Public Utility Commissions normally regulate (or are supposed to
regulate) the utility companies that offer some sort of utility to the general
public (i.e. electricity, water, cable TV, bus service). It is not a
requirement that these utility companies be either govt-owned or non-profit; in
fact, apart from the water & sewer utility, they seldom are.

I am not sure how this relates to the question of requiring a DL to put an
automobile on the road.

[cut]

Shoonra, as you well know, it's a fundamental point of statutory construction;
that is, "what is not mentioned is excluded".

in pennsylvania, the PUC also has over-sight of service-providers which offer services
outside of their municipal boundaries, ie, in neighboring municipalities,
which as you mentioned are or were usually but not limited to water and/or
steam.

as far as DL are concerned, the PUC also have oversight of corporations that
*transport* (commercial term) people and/or their property for hire; ie, buses,
taxis, moving companies, rail carriers, transporters of liquids, foods,
construction materials, etc, ad nauseum.

And all such *motor vehicles* (commercial term) are required to be registered
with the PUC. I see PUC stickers on all such motor vehicles. (except on rail
cars, havent spotted those yet but i'm lookin)

in using the word "automobile" above, you have introduced an ambiguity into
your post;

as far as I know, all acts of Congress and legislatures refer to ``motor
vehicles''; this is The commercial term over which legislatures have over-sight
of; and rightfully so because no corporation has the Right to use The People's
property (the roads and highways) for profit.

Anyone traveling in their private automobile, with people or alone, with
chattle or not, are NOT in commerce, immediately nor prospectively.

Therefore, all personnel of the military contingent of governments
(vernacularly called "police") ignore the clearly visual evidence to the
contrary that an unmarked/unregistered autmobile is *clearly* not in commerce
when they demand a traveler on the road to stop and pull over to recieve a
citation.

Such military personnel ignore and are self-deceiving in order to believe that
a private citizen is IN commerce.

Without a PUC sticker indicating compliance and without clear evidence that the vehicle
*IS* associated with commerce, no police has the authority of law to stop a "naked"
vehicle.

Now, all this that I've written above also applies to the federal ICC agency which is empowered
with delegated constitutional over-sight of commercial transporters and to the FCC is delegated
over-sight concerning commerce using The People's air to communicate and sell their wares.

what say Shoonra and the other Members?

[squirrel]

These scumbag pukes make a living out of victimless crimes, so of course they are going to try and defend their bullsh!t rules,codes and regulations or they'll be without a job.

I wish the shift would hit the fan soon, so I and others who KNOW the truth can go hunting for these treasonous traitors. ie: lawyers, magistrates court clerks and all representatives of the Great Satan and all political/corporate subdivisions of.


These scumbags tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so guess what we're going to say when the shotgun is in their face, sorry scumbag, but ignorance is no excuse. BOOOM !!

[idknow]

Originally Posted by squirrel

These scumbag pukes make a living out of victimless crimes, so
of course they are going to try and defend their bullsh!t rules,codes and
regulations or they'll be without a job.

I wish the shift would hit the fan soon, so I and others who KNOW the truth can
go hunting for these treasonous traitors. ie: lawyers, magistrates court clerks
and all representatives of the Great Satan and all political/corporate
subdivisions of.


These scumbags tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so guess what
we're going to say when the shotgun is in their face, sorry scumbag, but
ignorance is no excuse. BOOOM !!

Squirrel, please, don't be angry with the rank-and-file members of the BAR;
they are just doing what they were and are trained to do.

It's the teachers that taught them to sin - to ignore truth, to hide the truth, etc.

[charlesa6]

Hehehehehhe!! Very funny!

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by squirrel

These scumbag pukes make a living out of victimless crimes, so of course they are going to try and defend their bullsh!t rules,codes and regulations or they'll be without a job.

I wish the shift would hit the fan soon, so I and others who KNOW the truth can go hunting for these treasonous traitors. ie: lawyers, magistrates court clerks and all representatives of the Great Satan and all political/corporate subdivisions of.


These scumbags tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so guess what we're going to say when the shotgun is in their face, sorry scumbag, but ignorance is no excuse. BOOOM !!

I prefer a short rope on a nice strong oak tree!
No use wasting the ammo!And shooting them is to painless they need to squirm for a while for what they have done.