Right to Travel Part 100

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am bailing out of this thread. Some people clearly fall into the category of "invincibly ignorant". All I ask is that you not do any motoring in MY neighborhood.

Whooo! hooo! The answer to all of our prayers!!! Now how about bailing out of these forums! and you can take the rest of your Stockholm syndrom aflicted cronies with you.

[Shoonra]

My answer is that, nowadays, trying to pretend that operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is (if not done commercially) "not driving" has never worked as regards DL cases. The courts have heard this lame excuse and rejected it numerous times.

To avoid this kind of silliness, the Texas courts - among others - are very careful about their wording and do not talk of "driving" but only of "operating a motor vehicle".

If this excuse worked, then someone could come up with a decision to that effect. Perhaps equally important, someone could come up with the legal term that a court would use (instead of driving) to describe operating a motor vehicle on the public road but not commercially.

Since everyone is suddenly so keen on the canons of statutory construction, I'm surprised that nobody remembers one of the most basic rules: Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning, not some arcane meaning (i.e. the meaning in ordinary dictionaries, not law dictionaries), unless there is a strong indication that something else is intended.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Since everyone is suddenly so keen on the canons of statutory construction, I'm surprised that nobody remembers one of the most basic rules: Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning, not some arcane meaning (i.e. the meaning in ordinary dictionaries, not law dictionaries), unless there is a strong indication that something else is intended.

First, why do you insinuate "everyone" is doing that which you presume?

That sort of rhetorical device seems to be a habit you have.

Second, was your allusion to these canons a paraphrase, an explanation, an interpretation, or a direct quote from an authoritative source?

Point out, in detail perhaps the application of the canons of statutory construction you allude to, in the Statutes at Large that have been codified with the enabling clause redacted into USC Title 26, for instance.

Please cite some cases, perhaps that involve USC Title 26 that prove that "Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning," and then, to be fair and accurate, perhaps you might look for contradictory "opinions" and decisions," since it is almost a truism that for any case citation that might be proffered as "proof" of the validity of a statement, a diligent litigator is likely to be able to unearth a case citation that just as validly shows the opposite.

Given your reasoning, why are there law dictionaries?

Do they exist for what you seem to imply are the few instances in which "there is a strong indication that something else is intended?"

[FreeFromContract]

If your reply was in response to my questions, then you managed to wander off topic and have still not answered. I asked two questions directly related to the Wofford case you quoted in one of your previous posts. Since you didn't provide the sections in the Wofford case, I am under the impression your response is your opinion.

If your post was in response to someone else's questions, my apologies.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

My answer is that, nowadays, trying to pretend that operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is (if not done commercially) "not driving" has never worked as regards DL cases. The courts have heard this lame excuse and rejected it numerous times.

To avoid this kind of silliness, the Texas courts - among others - are very careful about their wording and do not talk of "driving" but only of "operating a motor vehicle".

If this excuse worked, then someone could come up with a decision to that effect. Perhaps equally important, someone could come up with the legal term that a court would use (instead of driving) to describe operating a motor vehicle on the public road but not commercially.

Since everyone is suddenly so keen on the canons of statutory construction, I'm surprised that nobody remembers one of the most basic rules: Words in common usage are generally interpreted according to their common meaning, not some arcane meaning (i.e. the meaning in ordinary dictionaries, not law dictionaries), unless there is a strong indication that something else is intended.

[Shoonra]

Let me try to tie up some loose ends as best I can.

I know nothing of Woffard or his pleadings except what is in the court decision cited.

Although some people have managed to find fairly ancient law dictionaries with what are now very arcane definitions of "drive" or "driver" (some of them clearly quoted from 19th century cases), the current (7th edition, 1999) Black's Law Dictionary gives as the primary definition of driver:

The person who steers and propels a vehicle.

Nothing about being employed to do it, or doing it for commercial purposes or anything like that.

There are plenty of cases involving driving without a license in which it is very clear that the motorist was caught behind the wheel of his own car and not engaged in business at the time.

There are a number of court decisions (and not decisions of traffic judges but of appellate courts to which the motorist appealed after losing in traffic court) which expressly reject this attempt to immunize "non-commercial" driving from the DL laws. I already cited State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mon. 291, 767 P.2d 304, where this and some other arguments suggested on this forum were raised.

Some other cases include:
State v. Goodson (Tenn.Crim.App. July 29, 2002):

He [the arresting state trooper] said that he ran a check of the defendant's license through police dispatch and that dispatch confirmed that the defendant's driver's license had been suspended. He said the defendant told him that the defendant did not a driver's license because he was traveling, not driving. He said that in addition to driving on a suspended license, the defendant was not wearing a seat belt and the defendant's license tag had expired. Trooper Taylor testified that the defendant said he did not have to wear a seat belt or register his car. [The defendant's conviction for driving without a valid license was upheld.]

More clearly articulated in a previous Tennessee decision; State v. Wilson (Tenn.Crim.App. Jan. 31, 1997):

In the trial of this matter, the defendant admitted that he did not have a valid driver's license at the time he was pulled over while driving his car. He also admitted that he did not have the car registered. He further admitted that he was aware of the laws requiring that he register his car and have a valid driver's license. His defense was that he was not required to obey these laws because he was "traveling" and not "driving." He further made references in his closing argument to his constitutional right to "travel" on the public right-of-way.

Apparently, the defendant is convincedthat he has a constitutional right to drive his car upon public highways without any regulation by the government. The defendant is wrong and his elbow counsel cannot be faulted for refusing to argue this position. ... The defendant's contentions being without merit, the judgment below is affirmed.

In a federal case, the defendant tried another stunt mentioned in this forum. Ventura v. Krugeilki (W.D. Mich., April 14, 1994):

The matter is before the court on the plaintiff's "Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor of Order and Opinion per UCC 3-501".... This Court interprets the "Refusal for Cause" to be a motion for reconsideration of its Opinion and Order entered on April 1, 1994. .....

It should be noted that plaintiff's reliance on the Uniform Commercial Code as a basis for her "refusal for cause" is misplace. A court order is simply not commercial paper subject to the provision cited by plaintiff.

... The arrest arose from officers observing plaintiff traveling in a "conveyance" on Michigan roads without a license plate and without it having been properly registered. .... Plaintiff contends that this Court erred in finding that she was "driving a car" because her complaint states only that she was "traveling" on a public road in a "private conveyance" described as "a five-door metal machine ... with a 4-cylinder internal combution engine ..." and that it travels on "four inflated steel-belted rubber tires."

Plaintiff, however, provides no evidence to support finding that the conveyance she was traveling in was not a vehicle subject to the registration and licensing laws of the State of Michigan. She provides no evidence to support finding that she was not driving or operating the conveyance.

.... Plaintiff has failed to persuade this Court that its Opinion and Order ... was in error. Therefore the motion to reconsider is denied.

In another Michigan federal case, the motorist, who did not have a valid DL, was caught behind the wheel of his own car, which did not have license tags but had his homemade sign saying "Private conveyance of Jeff Vos, Not for Hire". Those arguments didn't help him either. Vos v. Boyle (W.D. Mich. April 11, 1995).

I am still waiting for someone to cite a court decision where these arguments actually worked.

As for the canons of statutory construction, one example, from an old case, is Citizens Railway Co. v. Ford (1899) 93 Texas 110, 53 S.W. 575:

The words "riding" and "driving" are of common use and must be taken and construed according to their ordinary signification. ... Webster defines the words "ride" and "drive" as follows .....

You'll notice the court used Webster's Dictionary and not a law dictionary. The principle is enunciated repeatedly by the US Supreme Court, going back to its earliest decades and reaffirmed down to this time, e.g. Helvering v. Helvering (1941) 312 U.S. 393; De Ganay v. Lederer (1919) 250 U.S. 376; US v. Temple (1881) 105 U.S. 97. The same is articulated by the courts of every state as shown in the current edition of Sutherland on Statutory Construction (6th ed. 2000) sec. 47:28.

Once again, please don't bring your car into my neighborhood.

[squirrel]

Twea. Ssn.

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr.htm

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Let me try to tie up some loose ends as best I can.

I know nothing of Woffard or his pleadings except what is in the court decision cited.

Although some people have managed to find fairly ancient law dictionaries with what are now very arcane definitions of "drive" or "driver" (some of them clearly quoted from 19th century cases), the current (7th edition, 1999) Black's Law Dictionary gives as the primary definition of driver:

The person who steers and propels a vehicle.

Nothing about being employed to do it, or doing it for commercial purposes or anything like that.

There are plenty of cases involving driving without a license in which it is very clear that the motorist was caught behind the wheel of his own car and not engaged in business at the time.

There are a number of court decisions (and not decisions of traffic judges but of appellate courts to which the motorist appealed after losing in traffic court) which expressly reject this attempt to immunize "non-commercial" driving from the DL laws. I already cited State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mon. 291, 767 P.2d 304, where this and some other arguments suggested on this forum were raised.

Some other cases include:
State v. Goodson (Tenn.Crim.App. July 29, 2002):


More clearly articulated in a previous Tennessee decision; State v. Wilson (Tenn.Crim.App. Jan. 31, 1997):



In a federal case, the defendant tried another stunt mentioned in this forum. Ventura v. Krugeilki (W.D. Mich., April 14, 1994):



In another Michigan federal case, the motorist, who did not have a valid DL, was caught behind the wheel of his own car, which did not have license tags but had his homemade sign saying "Private conveyance of Jeff Vos, Not for Hire". Those arguments didn't help him either. Vos v. Boyle (W.D. Mich. April 11, 1995).

I am still waiting for someone to cite a court decision where these arguments actually worked.

As for the canons of statutory construction, one example, from an old case, is Citizens Railway Co. v. Ford (1899) 93 Texas 110, 53 S.W. 575:



You'll notice the court used Webster's Dictionary and not a law dictionary. The principle is enunciated repeatedly by the US Supreme Court, going back to its earliest decades and reaffirmed down to this time, e.g. Helvering v. Helvering (1941) 312 U.S. 393; De Ganay v. Lederer (1919) 250 U.S. 376; US v. Temple (1881) 105 U.S. 97. The same is articulated by the courts of every state as shown in the current edition of Sutherland on Statutory Construction (6th ed. 2000) sec. 47:28.

Once again, please don't bring your car into my neighborhood.

Case this, case that, case, case, case.

Bibbity vs. Bobitty FYN 40.d Fed z(6) circ 4a(5)Z (1938) Clearly states that in refernce to Re: ex parte "The Fishwives," that in absence of license to pound clothing on the rocks of the river the Irish washerwoman failed to meet the Mivens requirement which would have been brought to bear, had not Eine Kleine v. Nachtmusik been overturned.........on and on droning droning endlessly droning the song remains the same no matter how often the lyrics are changed around........

Blah blah blah.

Do you have a license to pilot your hot air balloon?

Please do not navigate your hot air propelled conveyance in the airspace above my neighborhood, unless it is registered, you are licensed to pilot your conveyance through the public airspace, and you have insurance so that when you injure me and your insurance company refuses to pay I can sue them, and a lawyer can take 2/3 of the settlement.

If we all agree to be good obedient Germans will you go away?

I will obey.

The issuance of drivers licenses has been proven to save lives.

Ja mein Fuhrer.

They have nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!!

Registration of motorized mechanical conveyances being navigated upon public conveyance infrastructure has been conclusively shown to have saved countless lives.

Ja mein Fuhrer!!!

It has nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!! Nein!!!!

Compulsory motorized piloted conveyance insurance has been proven to have saved countless lives, and promptly, and adequately compensates those damaged by holders of compulsory motorized piloted conveyance insurance.

Ja mein Fuhrer!

It has nothing to do with the lobbying power of large insurance conglomerates, or corporate profit.

Bitte, bitte, bitte!

This whole business (excuse me, I meant benevolent government protection services) is all about a wise group of beneficient social overseers saving poor stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, reckless people from inflicting intentional harm upon each other.

Ja mein fuhrer.

It has nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!!

Or power.

Nein!! Nein!!!

Or control.

Aber bitte!! Nein!!! Nein!!! Nein!!!!!

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by mrg

Case this, case that, case, case, case.

Bibbity vs. Bobitty FYN 40.d Fed z(6) circ 4a(5)Z (1938) Clearly states that in refernce to Re: ex parte "The Fishwives," that in absence of license to pound clothing on the rocks of the river the Irish washerwoman failed to meet the Mivens requirement which would have been brought to bear, had not Eine Kleine v. Nachtmusik been overturned.........on and on droning droning endlessly droning the song remains the same no matter how often the lyrics are changed around........

Blah blah blah.

Do you have a license to pilot your hot air balloon?

Please do not navigate your hot air propelled conveyance in the airspace above my neighborhood, unless it is registered, you are licensed to pilot your conveyance through the public airspace, and you have insurance so that when you injure me and your insurance company refuses to pay I can sue them, and a lawyer can take 2/3 of the settlement.

If we all agree to be good obedient Germans will you go away?

I will obey.

The issuance of drivers licenses has been proven to save lives.

Ja mein Fuhrer.

They have nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!!

Registration of motorized mechanical conveyances being navigated upon public conveyance infrastructure has been conclusively shown to have saved countless lives.

Ja mein Fuhrer!!!

It has nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!! Nein!!!!

Compulsory motorized piloted conveyance insurance has been proven to have saved countless lives, and promptly, and adequately compensates those damaged by holders of compulsory motorized piloted conveyance insurance.

Ja mein Fuhrer!

It has nothing to do with the lobbying power of large insurance conglomerates, or corporate profit.

Bitte, bitte, bitte!

This whole business (excuse me, I meant benevolent government protection services) is all about a wise group of beneficient social overseers saving poor stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, reckless people from inflicting intentional harm upon each other.

Ja mein fuhrer.

It has nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!!

Or power.

Nein!! Nein!!!

Or control.

Aber bitte!! Nein!!! Nein!!! Nein!!!!!

If certain arguments advanced here will not fly in court, then Shoonra (whatever his motives) is doing us a favor by telling us that. I am no fan of Big Government, but I, for one, prefer to choose my battles. If there is no case law rebutting the cases Shoonra has cited, then what he has cited will be very helpful to me in deciding if this is the hill I want to die on. You, of course, are free to make different choices for yourself; but I daresay we all make better choices if we do so when fully informed.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Libertarian hits on an extremely important point. If you're gainfully employed or running your own enterprise, the incredible waste of your time and resources in some of these hopeless challenges has to be taken into consideration.

Hey, fight the good fight, by all means, go for martyrdom for the cause. But then when your spouse is asking why you can't get the electricity turned on or they're reposessing a car, you might want to suck it up and dump the ego and paranoia thing.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

If certain arguments advanced here will not fly in court, then Shoonra (whatever his motives) is doing us a favor by telling us that.

I am no fan of Big Government, but I, for one, prefer to choose my battles.

If there is no case law rebutting the cases Shoonra has cited, then what he has cited will be very helpful to me in deciding if this is the hill I want to die on.

You, of course, are free to make different choices for yourself; but I daresay we all make better choices if we do so when fully informed.

If I might comment, I am very happy if you have made "better choices," and, that you seem to believe, that if Shoonra makes you "fully informed," that such will be helpful in guiding your "fully informed" decisions.

Especially if that makes you feel as if you may be less inclined to err in your decision as to which "hill" you "want to die on," if such is your "fully informed" choice.

If you examine very very carefuly the rhetorical phraseology (for example, the aspect of "whatever his motives" that you bring up, if you will), surrounding the plethoric presentations of "case" "cites," (legislation issuing from the bench?) by Shoonra in the various forums, do you suppose Shoonra would, indeed, "fully inform" you "If there is no case law rebutting the cases Shoonra has cited?"

If you were to wager large FRN's to a major law firm of Gucci shod shysters, do you think they might be able to fully inform you "If there is no case law rebutting the cases Shoonra has cited," if perhaps they might rake in 1/3 or more of a hefty judgement on top of your wagered FRN's as a result of a finding out "If there is no case law rebutting the cases Shoonra has cited?"

If I seem a bit "iffy," please accept my humble apologies if you might, and if you would.