Privilege And Driving Rights

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No million different verdicts and no word games. Whether it's called a Drivers License or an Operators Permit, it's the same thing and steering a motor vehicle onto a public road without one is a serious infraction. Whether you want to quibble about whether an infraction is punished, the simple fact is that the various penalties imposed by traffic courts are not considered penal in the sense of the criminal justice system and the "correctional" system but administrative with a view toward public safety.

As I said before, not a single one of those cases previously cited about the "right to travel" held that someone could steer a car onto the public roads without a DL. No million different verdicts about it.

Well, I've noticed that you are very careful not to use the terms "traveling" or "personal conveyance". What if I don't steer my "motor vehicle" down the public highway? What if I steer my "personal automobile"?

Not that the aforementioned is the defense I'm currently using, although it is one that I have explored in the past, but the cites provided DO discuss TRAVELING on public highways. It kinda says it right in the cite itself:

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

Unfortunately when we are looking at statutes, we are looking at word games. That's what legalease (spelling?)is all about anyway. That, is an undisputed fact. Anyone who says otherwise has not done their research properly.

I just had to make that point. Now, does anyone else want to pick up on my request for Shoonra to debate or confirm my previous post on infractions, the Government Code, and the Battle and Sava cases - since Shoonra isn't responding?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Is an auto mobile ALWAYS a motor vehicle?

PA Vehicle Code (presumably the same more or less as other states)

Definitions
"Vehicle."
Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway...

No definition present in the code as to 'transport', but the U.S. code has it as " carring for hire or profit"

'Drawn' sounds pretty neutral, but then this is in relation to 'person or property'. Maybe drawn does mean 'transport', for a wagon-type vehicle. Anyway, 'person' is interesting (the below is from any different sources)-

'individual, corporation, trust, estate etc'. The fact that all these clearly corporate forms are included together should raise a few eyebrows.

My copy of a few pages from I think Blacks 6th edition Law dictionary has

'individual= indivisible entity'

and 'entity= a legal or business organization with an identity seperate from it's owner' Hmm...

So the 'person' refered to in the above PA Vehicle code definition is fairly presumed to be a legal or business organization, seperate from it's owner.

Maybe the whole commercial vs private things is a mistake. Its really about 'persons', since all these laws are written for 'persons'. All this stuff sounds like the history of Roman law, where one had to have a legally-recognizable personality to sue or be sued in court. Slaves and certain foreigners couldn't appear in Roman court without the benefit of a 'persona', a legal character.

Animals for example are not sued nor can they sue. Not without a legal persona. In fact it is a United Nations established Human Right to have a recognized legal personality, no matter what. (Sounds like a trap)

The corrollary to all this is that the current system apparently cant sue regular flesh and blood children of God, absent the legal personality. Maybe thats why denying, disavowing and rejecting any 'benefit, privilege and/or opportunity', not understanding their offers, etc seems to have such an interesting effect. Get rid of the legal personality to immunize from suit...

It happened to me, I filed the affidavit of negative averment for record and the bank's lawyer instead of answering would file' praecipe for new case' or some such. We played tag like this for nearly a year without incident.

On the other other hand, if everyone has a guaranteed legal personality, then they must also have a residence. The two go hand-in-hand. An nation-stateless expatriate
still has a home residence- and everyone has the right to expatriate ( go look it up Title 15 Fed and some court cases).

Is it really possible to have a legal personality without some kind of 'residence'? Basically, there is a human right to fly some flag somehow- isnt there?

So I have permission to drive from my home state of residence. Prove otherwise.

A quick note, from PA-

Driver's license.
A license or permit to drive a motor vehicle issued under this title.

Only in-house license or permits are issued under that title. Foreign permits are acknowldged to issue, 'under the laws of (that) state'

[Shoonra]

In the various highway codes, an automobile is always within the definition of a motor vehicle - a larger category that includes trucks, vans, buses, etc. The only exception might be when the definition of motor vehicle is explicitly limited to the chapter dealing with, say, heavy equipment or commercial carriers or the like.

I don't know where in the US Code you got your definition. I had already dealt with a definition with a restricted purpose in the criminal code.

No matter how many times someone wants to force the word "travel" into the discussion, the law sees a difference between being a passenger on the one hand, and being the operator who brings a motor vehicle onto the public road on the other.

And, yes, the govt regulates who can fly an airplane. I don't see how the arguments for driving without a DL wouldn't also apply to the suggestion of piloting an airplane without a pilot's license.

[greatwolf75]

okay Shoonra, answer this for me. I was travelling with a friend in the passenger seat, he was driving doing 80mph. We were pulled over and I, who was a passenger was threatened with a ticket if I didn't produce my DL. The cop wouldn't give me a reason other than do it or else, so why did I have to show him that.

P.S. This is not a sarcastic question, I seriously want to know the why's and authority to do this to a passenger.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

An automobile is always included in the definition of a motor vehicle.

A human being is always included in the definition of an person.

Is an automobile ALWAYS a device used to carry for hire or profit? (a motor vehicle)

Does a human being always own a legal or business organization with a seperate identity?
(an individual person)

We already know the definition, I am asking if it always applies. Not potentially, actually.

A dog is always included in the definition of a wild canine.

Are all dogs always wild canines?

A house is always included in the definition of a occupied structure.

Are all houses always occupied structures?

Etc.

I really believe that I saw that definition for transportation in the U.S. code but I am still looking for it, or any other useful definition for 'transportation', since none is given in the state Vehicle code. I'll post once I have something. Maybe you could help find something.

As to the`previous post regarding the demand for a DL from a 'passenger', the code should read something like, "...DL to be exhibited when officer has reason to believe a violation of laws..." So you could ask the coppertunist, 'Do you have a real reason to believe I am in violation of any applicable section of the Vehicle Code? and if the answer is yes, then "Cite me the alleged violation."

If you have the time its a good chance to be escorted without delay to the local magistrate and create a nice lawsuit for false arrest or whatever. Maybe you could use the money. Good Luck anyway.

I was accosted by some of these criminals IN MY OWN HOME making EXACTLY the same demand! I was informed by said copper that " the signature on your (state-issued) DL compels you to produce it upon request...'"as I stood in my underwear in my kitchen (it was a mistaken 911 call, wrong house). They are mostly liars who will buffaloe to get whatever they think they want.

Turns out, in the above mentioned incident- I wasn't driving, in my underwear, standing barefoot in my kitchen.

[IAMI]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

IAMI, in the real world, a case where you may win would be dismissed on a technicality or something similar. You dont think the court would make a decision that blows the lid off of the game do you?

As for shoonra, the more you post, the better we see why you are in the library. You aren't very good with your advocating skills, are you?

So... the answer is NO to the cite as I questioned above? I mean, with so many people fighting against the DL thing and for so long now, there must be SOME cite somewhere which says that you have the right to drive a motor vehicle without a license. It must have slipped through somewhere... the judges and lawyers aren't that clever/intelligent/good are they? To have covered it up in EVERY case? I mean... come on... if it IS a fundamental right (driving without license) then someone somewhere must have managed to win and have it put on the record. If not... then how the hell would someone like myself (who hasn't been studying this stuff for years) manage to pull it off?
Or is it simply what was mentioned earlier... that there is no right to drive/operate an automobile/motor vehicle without a license? And that the "right to travel" is being misinterpereted?

Cheers,
IAMI

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

okay Shoonra, answer this for me. I was travelling with a friend in the passenger seat, he was driving doing 80mph.

Your question is a bit confusing; was it you or your friend who was at the steering wheel?
I am a bit baffled as to why the cop would insist on seeing a DL from the passenger. Could the driver have been on learner's permit (in which case the passenger must be a licensed driver)? Is it that the cop wanted to see any sort of ID and the DL was the only one that was acceptable? Otherwise I am sort of baffled.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by IAMI

... with so many people fighting against the DL thing and for so long now, there must be SOME cite somewhere which says that you have the right to drive a motor vehicle without a license. ...if it IS a fundamental right (driving without license) then someone somewhere must have managed to win and have it put on the record. ...
Or is it simply what was mentioned earlier... that there is no right to drive/operate an automobile/motor vehicle without a license? And that the "right to travel" is being misinterpereted?

No court decisions (certainly none since World War One) recognizing or holding that anyone can operate/drive a motor vehicle/automobile/truck on the public roads without having a DL. Absolutely no such decision.

The "right to travel" argument has been tried several times - and the court decisions that mention it emphasize that there is a distinction between the Right to Travel, which is merely the right to get somehow to a destination, and the Privilege of Operating/Driving a motor vehicle. The Right to Travel recognizes only the right to arrive at a destination - but not a right to insist on a particular method of travel (nor even the most convenient, or fastest or cheapest method of travel) and certainly not a right to insist on operating the vehicle used.

Although people who don't want to use DLs talk about their car as "private property", the highways are not their private property - the state is responsible for the upkeep of the roads and trying to keep the roads safe and efficient. It follows that the state has a right to adopt some reasonable restrictions on the use of its highways -- what sort of vehicles can be used (e.g., the license tag shows that recently the vehicle was inspected and determined to be road-worthy) and who is allowed to operate those vehicles (e.g., a DL which is supposed to signify that the individual has demonstrated his fitness to drive on the roads).

[aksis]

Shoonra,

This is not some matter of a privledge or immunity we are discussing here.

First, Your presumption is that I am a Citizen (or a citizen). I am not.

Care to show me in the Constitution, or the Constitution[s] of the several States, any Law requiring anyone to be a Citizen (or citizen), except those who are going to become public servents and hold an Office?

There isn't one.

See, I am (and you are, as all people born on the part of Earth called America are), one of the People.

I [We] are the sovereign[s] and our willing subjects are the government Officers, employees, agents, etc.. (take another look at yick wo, and also contemplate what it can mean to be created by God, as God's image and likeness).

We made no law requiring any of the People to become Citizens (or citizens) except these:

Originally Posted by Article I, section 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Originally Posted by Article I, section 3

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Originally Posted by Article II, section 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Originally Posted by Amendment XIV

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (juris diction) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.

I was not born in the United States, nor do I reside in any State other then God's kingdom, the Universe, on Earth aka the state of Nature... this is where I was born. I was born on the part of Earth People call "Arizona".

Second, traveling is an attribute of the unalienable Right of Liberty, as the word is used in the preamble of the Constitution (laws binding on Government and Citizens, explicitly forbiding the alienation of unalienable rights of the People and serving "other purposes") and defined in the lexicon used to define the words used in the constitution, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856).

Note: the definitions that alienate the unalienable rights of females and non-White People are obviously flawed and stand corrected, and as far as I am concerned were in violation of these Peoples unalienable rights in light of the Law of Nature ("It is discovered by a just consideration of the agreeableness or disagreeableness of human actions to the nature of man[kind]; and it comprehends all the duties which we owe either to the Supreme Being, to ourselves, or to our neighbors... all people are equal." -- Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Law of Nature (in part))

LIBERTY. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.

2. Liberty is divided into civil, natural, personal, and political.

3. Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12

4. That system of laws is alone calculated to maintain civil liberty, which leaves the citizen entirely master of his own conduct, except in those points in which the public good requires some direction and restraint. When a man is restrained in his natural liberty by no municipal laws but those which are requisite to prevent his violating the natural law, and to promote the greatest moral and physical welfare of the community, he is legally possessed of the fullest enjoyment of his civil rights of individual liberty. But it must not be inferred that individuals are to judge for themselves how far the law may justifiably restrict their individual liberty; for it is necessary to the welfare of the commonwealth, that the law should be obeyed; and thence is derived the legal maxim, that no man may be wiser than the law.

5. Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men. Burlamaqui, c. 3, s. 15; 1 Bl. Com. 125.

6. Personal liberty is the independence of our actions of all other will than our own. Wolff, Ins. Nat. Sec. 77. It consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Com. 134.

7. Political liberty may be defined to be, the security by which, from the constitution, form and nature of the established government, the citizens enjoy civil liberty. No ideas or definitions are more distinguishable than those of civil and political liberty, yet they are generally confounded. 1 Bl. Com. 6, 125. The political liberty of a state is based upon those fundamental laws which establish the distribution of legislative and executive powers. The political liberty of a citizen is that tranquillity of mind, which is the effect of an opinion that he is in perfect security; and to insure this security, the government must be such that one citizen shall not fear another.

8. In the English law, by liberty is meant a privilege held by grant or ************, by which some men enjoy greater benefits than ordinary subjects. A liberty is also a territory, with some extraordinary privilege.

9. By liberty or liberties, is understood a part of a town or city, as the Northern Liberties of the city of Philadelphia. The same as Fanbourg. (q.v.)

We, the People, have not amended the Constitution to abrogate the unalienable right of Liberty. No Act of Congress, Executive Order from any President, Public Law, Statutes, codes, rules, regulations, judgements from any court, opinion of a law libriarian or an attorney, etc... have any authority to alienate an unalienable Right of the People. In fact, it is a crime to try to alienate an unalienable right.

Regards,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

P.S.

By the way, I can not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any man or group of men.. the Oath required would be a violation of my religion and non-binding.

Originally Posted by Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally Posted by Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Originally Posted by Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Shoonra, can you show me where the individual People relinquished their inherent sovereignty to the United States, or the several States?

Prehaps it was when they choose to become Citizens so that they can hold a Public Office or Trust and Profit under them or either of them, or was it when they pledge allegiance (this would make sense in light of the latin - juris diction - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - subject to the oath spoken/written)?

[Dillon Hunt]

Operating (operating a business) is the privilege, not driving. Driving happens to be the nature of the business. In other words we have a License to do business within the State as a Driver for hire.


http://www.answers.com/Service%20of%20process

Read: Who Must Be Served


Also Note: "We have said, and we reiterate, that a license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between the authority granting it and the grantee, nor is it a property right. See syllabus by the court, No. 4, Prettyman Inc. v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Branham, 92 Fla. 515, 109 So. 442." Mayo et al. v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc. (1949) 40 So.2d 555

"To Provide for the Examination of Applicants" which brought "applicants", that is, those who are entitled to letters of administration and who file a petition asking that letters be granted, under the motor vehicle laws. "Applicants", being those acting under authority of a court who go about tending to an estate, can be properly included with motor carriers in that they are agents operating under the authority of a court and use the highways for that business.

But the phrase "Examination of Applicants" is deceptive in that it is "so worded as to mislead an ordinary mind as to the real purpose and scope of the enactment. (Butler v. Perry, 66 So. 150, 240 US 328) The test of whether a title misleads is whether it would deceive the mind of an ordinary person used to the common meaning of language, not the mind of a precisionist used to technical refinements of terms.

Applicant - Black's 3rd

An applicant, as of letters of administration, is one who is entitled thereto, and who files a petition asking that letters be granted. Jerauld v. Chambers, 44 Cal. App. 771, 187 P. 33



Dillon