Right to Travel Part 100

[UGA Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Akira

Why would you folks spend 118 posts arguing about something that, at least in this state, doesn't even apply to men & women?

That's like caring about how French law will affect you... when you're not a Frenchman, or in France.

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.

Only corporate / legal entities need concern themselves with this.

You totally overlooked the word "individual" there. Individual means a natural person. That means you, me, the guy behind that tree....everyone.


The Lawdog

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Akira

Why would you folks spend 118 posts arguing about something that, at least in this state, doesn't even apply to men & women?

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[] lol ][][][][|

[idknow]

Originally Posted by UGA Lawdog

You totally overlooked the word "individual" there. Individual means a natural person. That means you, me, the guy behind that tree....everyone.


The Lawdog

proper construction requires that the context of the other words used to define the word PERSON also apply to "individual"

that is, it is an individual associated with corporation, trust, etc.

it's not EVERY SINGLE man or woman but people who are directly associated with

IOW, an agent of ...

[Akira]

"Person" means an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, fiduciary, trust, estate....

The canon of construction "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 602 (7th ed. 1999).

Where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.


or any other legal or commercial entity.

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.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The definition of motor vehicle in 18 USC sec. 31 has already been tried in a Drivers License case.

In Wofford v. Harward (N.D. Calif., 11/10/2005) 2005 WestLaw 3027428, 2005 u.s. dist. Lexis 29367, Wofford tried to derail a multitude of traffic cases pending against him in the state courts by going to the federal court to argue that the California Vehicle Code didn't apply to him because his driving was "not commercial". Among the supports for his argument he cited the definition of "motor vehicle" in 18 U.S. Code sec. 31. The court dismissed Woffard's suit, saying:

There is absolutely no court decision anywhere in the US, at least since 1910, that says outright that people can - if not engaged in commerce - drive an automobile on the public roads without a drivers license.

In the Wofford suit, the judge talks about driving, so his opinion is 100% accurate since a DRIVER is someone engaged in driving.

A couple quick questions relating to the case:
1. Was this Wofford fellow in posession of a driver's license?
2. Did he deny or agree that he was "driving" in the original trial?

From Black's 4th edition: Driver.
One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, trycycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing the driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own ve-vehicle.

It's very clear the act (driving) refers to a commercial activity, regardless if it's being done for someone else or it's someone who's self-employed.

As I'm sure you're well aware, traffic and transportation are two more words that indicate a commercial activity. The first two words in Black's on the definition of traffic is "commerce" and "trade".

[Shoonra]

Person means an individual ....

Pretty clearly includes human beings within the category of person. I don't see what you're driving at.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Person means an individual ....

Pretty clearly includes human beings within the category of person. I don't see what you're driving at.

Depends on the context it is being used. "Person" or "individual" does not always equal human being or flesh and blood now does it Shoonra. I believe that is what Akira is "driving at." No pun intended. Correct me if I am wrong Akira.

[Shoonra]

first, I don't see how the motor vehicle laws could refer to an "individual" but not to a human being.

Second, once again, nobody's come up with a court decision that says that someone can operate a motor vehicle, even noncommercially, on the public roads without a DL.

[RickA]

first, I don't see how the motor vehicle laws could refer to an "individual" but not to a human being.

Second, once again, nobody's come up with a court decision that says that someone can operate a motor vehicle, even noncommercially, on the public roads without a DL.

All of the sniping aside, can no one see all the different names, supossedly, describing the same thing? Can no one see this? As for me, knowing that all I would want is to be left alone, I can see where all of these names come from, and it ain't me(we), the people.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by RickA

first, I don't see how the motor vehicle laws could refer to an "individual" but not to a human being.

Second, once again, nobody's come up with a court decision that says that someone can operate a motor vehicle, even noncommercially, on the public roads without a DL.

All of the sniping aside, can no one see all the different names, supossedly, describing the same thing? Can no one see this? As for me, knowing that all I would want is to be left alone, I can see where all of these names come from, and it ain't me(we), the people.

in context of the definition of PERSON,
an individual is one who is associated with corporation, trust, partnership, ..., etc.