Right to Travel Part 100

[mrg]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly.

If one cannot "freely" shuck out enough large large FRN's to "pay" for free and equal access to the best "due process" money can buy, "you might want to suck it up and dump" the whole notion of "Liberty and Justice" and especially that "for all" part.

It has nothing to do with revenue.

Nein!!!

Or power.

Nein!! Nein!!!

Or control.

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

[hooded50]

Is it just me, or is everyone overlooking the obvious?

In EVERY relevant statute in EVERY state's Motor Vehicle Codes it says exactly the same thing: No person shall operate upon the highways of this state a motor vehicle without first having been duly licensed. . . .

I'm going to depart, for a moment, from the myriad of case law stating that driving is a RIGHT, and not a PRIVILEGE which may be granted or denied at the whim of government. I want to instead focus on two points:

1. The definition of the term "person" as that term is defined in the law, and

2. The definition of a "motor vehicle"

First, you have to understand that since a "person" is the only thing named in your state's statutes as the one being denied the privilege of operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license, the state must establish that you are a "person" as that term is legally defined before the state can prosecute. In every state in the union, a "person" is defined as either being a "legal" or a "commercial" entity.

A commercial entity is a business. Obviously you are not a "business", so you cannot be a commercial entity. A "legal" entity is consistently defined as an entity other than a natural man. . . Hence, if you are a living, breathing, natural man, then you cannot be a "legal" entity, either. You are not a "person". You are a "sovereign" and the courts have consistently ruled that the definition of "sovereign" specifically excludes a "person". Since you are not a "person", you do not need a license to exercise your right to drive.

Next, look at the definition of a "motor vehicle" in the United States Code. It's found at 18 USC 31(a)(6). A motor vehicle is a vehicle that is motivated by its own power and used for commercial purposes. Now, scroll down to sub part (10) of that same statute to see a definition of the term "and used for commercial purposes". That phrase is defined as hauling persons, property, or freight for a fee, or in connection with any trade or business.

In order for your car to be classified as a motor vehicle, it must be propelled by its own power and used to haul persons, property, or freight for a fee (for profit). Do you own a business for which you use your car for profit? If not, then IT CANNOT BE A MOTOR VEHICLE..........unless.........

When a vehicle is "titled", it is put into a trust and ownership is given to the state. You become the trustee of that trust, and the state lets you use its vehicle for a nominal fee (otherwise known as a personal property tax). The MCO, which provides the make and model of the vehicle is put onto microfiche film by the state, and the original is destroyed. The state then sends you a "Certificate of Title". Does that Certificate of Title mean you own the vehicle, just because the Certificate has your name on it? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is what it says it is. It is NOT a "Title". It is a "Certificate" which only certifies that a "Title" exists. The state holds the "Title" because the state owns the vehicle. Your name is listed on the "Certificate of Title" merely as a Trustee.

When you give ownership of the vehicle to the state, the state can do anything it desires with its own property, INCLUDING DEEMING IT TO BE A "MOTOR VEHICLE". . .

[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.

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.

You were not presuming to answer any questions I asked, or attempting to respond to anything I asked for a response to, in any of the above two quotes I trust?

Posted by mrg: 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?"

[mrg]

Originally Posted by hooded50

Is it just me, or is everyone overlooking the obvious?



In order for your car to be classified as a motor vehicle, it must be propelled by its own power and used to haul persons, property, or freight for a fee (for profit). Do you own a business for which you use your car for profit? If not, then IT CANNOT BE A MOTOR VEHICLE..........unless.........

When a vehicle is "titled", it is put into a trust and ownership is given to the state. You become the trustee of that trust, and the state lets you use its vehicle for a nominal fee (otherwise known as a personal property tax). The MCO, which provides the make and model of the vehicle is put onto microfiche film by the state, and the original is destroyed. The state then sends you a "Certificate of Title". Does that Certificate of Title mean you own the vehicle, just because the Certificate has your name on it? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is what it says it is. It is NOT a "Title". It is a "Certificate" which only certifies that a "Title" exists. The state holds the "Title" because the state owns the vehicle. Your name is listed on the "Certificate of Title" merely as a Trustee.

When you give ownership of the vehicle to the state, the state can do anything it desires with its own property, INCLUDING DEEMING IT TO BE A "MOTOR VEHICLE". . .

Your posts are always very good.

(I could name those who would take exception to that statement, but will not.)

No, I do not overlook this.

It has been pointed out often enough, and really it can be figured out using logic, observation, etc...

I, myself, just sometimes enjoy trying to de-odorize the stench of dead red herring.

The MCO is destroyed?

So, is it possible to own automobiles, free and clear, and possess the MCO?

Ok, thanks for the post, I appreciate it.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by mrg

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 there is case law going the other way, perhaps someone else will post it. I have seen that happen on this board with respect to many issues-- one of the reasons I come here is because of the give and take, which is often quite educational.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by mrg

Your posts are always very good.

(I could name those who would take exception to that statement, but will not.)

No, I do not overlook this.

It has been pointed out often enough, and really it can be figured out using logic, observation, etc...

I, myself, just sometimes enjoy trying to de-odorize the stench of dead red herring.

The MCO is destroyed?

So, is it possible to own automobiles, free and clear, and possess the MCO?

Ok, thanks for the post, I appreciate it.

I concur with MRG.
Hooded50;It's nice to see you posting here once again. we have much to learn from ones like you.

The issue of the MCO or MSO has been eluded to many times but I have never gotten the definative answer on how to get it back from the state if that indeed is possible.
Been told to search it out for yourself. Somebody must have the answer.

This question is not directed towards the likes of Shoonra,JRB,Idoknow,Skeptic. Etc.types.

Regards,
Craig. The one who goes by the appelation of.

[rentiap]

Here is a link to an article I found elseware on the net concerning the MCO. LINK

Cheers,
Craig.

I am new here, but I have been to other posting on this subject matter and have done alot of research to date. I have a question. Here's my scenario: If you privately purchase an automobile from another private Citizen used strictly for travel and recreation with family and friends. You are never notified of the "law" to register, tag, title, license. When and why would you be held liable for not doing so as a Citizen of the USA. Stay with me on this. Citations such as speeding and failure to stop at a stop sign are given when the speed limited posted is not obeyed or when you don't stop at the obvious stop sign. However any citation would be thrown out or not given when there is no stop sign, not posted limit. Further if you have ever registered your vehicle. The government office officially notifies you of your obligation to renew the registration title tag fee every year. Failure to do so is a violation of the "law". So.... if as a Citizen I purchase my private automobile for my personal pleasure and am never notified of the "law" to register, title, tag, license , How am I then able to get a citation, etc for failure to do so?


Originally Posted by hooded50
In order for your car to be classified as a motor vehicle, it must be propelled by its own power and used to haul persons, property, or freight for a fee (for profit). Do you own a business for which you use your car for profit? If not, then IT CANNOT BE A MOTOR VEHICLE..........unless.........

[charlesa6]

mdf2775, welcome to the forum.

[Shoonra]

One of the very important reasons for the MCO is as an anti-fraud protection for the car purchaser. Too many used cars were being sold as new, sometimes after having been damaged or otherwise abused.

Since the ownership of a car involves giving up the previous owner's pink slip and getting a new pink slip to establish ownership, the MCO was intended to serve as the Absolutely First in the Chain pink slip. The MCO is the original wrapping, in a manner of speaking, whose existence proves that the car is brand new. Then the first purchaser sends in the MCO and gets his own pink slip in return; the MCO was his assurance he was getting a new car, but he cannot resell it and pretend it's new because he had to give up the MCO to get his own pink slip.