Privilege And Driving Rights

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Dillion 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.

I suppose this particular type of "Operating" is the privilege, yet I see the running a business, trade, shop, being some kind of service provider, etc.. is an attribute of the Right to Life (and the right to work).

Prehaps Operating a U.S. corporation/business is a privledge... I see that the "domicile" or declared governing law an orginization is constituted under will need to be consulted to determin the governing law.

Is the DMV/ADOT an aspect of the public trust[s]? Are it's employees the trustees of property entrusted in the trust?

[Greedtofeed]

Originally Posted by ReadsBooks

Do any of you see what Ready2fiyt is even saying? You are all arguing over a right to travel or not and “assuming” that it always is infringed upon via an interaction in commerce. Codee has shown that the codes differentiate between the term “operator” and “driver” in the California Code. The codes made applicable to “drivers” is made generally applicable to state employees.



Hopefully this helps.
ReadsBooks

Hu, wouldn't let me quote the entire post. I like what this Codee points to, "why not do we ask ourselves under what form of law are these statutes being enacted?"

That is some deep thinking in that little quote. I don't see anyone winning on some assumption of a right to drive. I do see how knowing how the code/statute/law was inacted, such as criminal/civil/administrative law! Brilliant!!

When you look at it that way, and go befor a judge who probably doesn't have a clue, this could be very helpful.

Thank you for posting that readsbooks, and please thank this codee person for sending that and allowing you to post that on a board for the rest of us. That is very, very helpful. (I love how this guy thinks! Why go to a fight to lose, when you could learn the playing field, and win?)

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by aksis

Shoonra,
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?

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I haven't said anything about citizenship in relation to DLs or the Right to travel.

[Shoonra]

As a follow-up, courts in several states have treated "operating" and "driving" a motor vehicle as the same thing, using the terms interchangeably in the same cases, and a few courts actually said that the terms were synonymous. Those courts which have drawn a distinction between the two words have said that "operating" can include (in addition to "driving") starting or racing the motor while the vehicle is motionless, whereas "driving" apparently requires some motion -- but they have said this only in cases where the statutes used the word "operate" and the vehicle involved was motionless (I haven't found an instance where the court dismissed the charge on the grounds that racing the motor, etc., was not covered by a statute that used the word "driving"). An example of an attempt at word games that didn't succeed in dismissing the traffic ticket is State v. Davis (Mo.App. 1988) 745 SW2d 249.

No case has said that either operating or driving a motor vehicle was distinct from the other as not requiring a DL.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I haven't said anything about citizenship in relation to DLs or the Right to travel.

Shoonra, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. When did I say you said anything about citizenship in relation to DLs or the Right to travel?

I said you presumed...

_________

Shoonra, who is subject to the jurisdiction of those administrative hearings?

Are you?

What of the implied waiver of Constitutinal due process inherent in the act of using the DMV/MVD services, ie registration and licencing?

Shoonra, do you have a lawful obligation to waive Constitutinal due process and subject your self to non-judicial, non-Constitutinal administrative "due process", via use of service[s] provided by a municipal corporation?

Statutes that would require people to waive unalienable rights are void...

There can be no lawful obligation (via leguslation or otherwise), to make use of any service[s] provided by any municipal corporation or it's departments that would require a waiver of an unalienable right.

Shoonra, what of the man/woman acting as attorney, claiming that they are there representing a fictinal person, and that their imaginiary friend is claiming/complaining, in essence, that someone has infringed on some right it has?

Shoonra, what of your right to face the accusor?

Shoonra, where is the sworn statement of the injured party?

Shoonra, who is compeling the public servents to move aginst these people in the opinions and transcripts of the administrative hearing you are reading?

I fail to recognize a complaint/claim for which relief can be granted.

Furhter, No one forced the STATE (sic) to built it's roads on top of our property.. and while the STATE may own the roads, they have no right to prevent the use of the land, belonging to the People and custidianed by the constitutinal Officers of the State (sic), under the roads the STATE (sic) built, and the STATE (sic) waived such rights when they were granted permission to build roads on top of our land and gave them to the People.

Shoonra, the democratic process has no lawful authority to infring upon unalienable rights... of even one of the People.

No one need permission to use property that belongs to all the people.

Much love,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

P.S.

Greedtofeed,

The forum software won't "quote" a "quote" or a ""quote" within a quote".

You can manualy "quote", and stack mutiple quotes as well, like this:

{quote=name1} <-- opens the quote

some text in a quote box

{quote=name2} more text {/quote} <--- a quote opened and closed in a quote box

{quote=name3} more text {/quote} <--- a quote opened and closed in a quote box

{/quote} <---this closes the original quote

note: replace the "{" and "}" with "[" and "]" and exclude the blue text comments.

The above example will look like this:

Originally Posted by name1

some text in a quote box

[Shoonra]

Most of your questions don't make sense or assume things that aren't so. It isn't my job to wash out the Augean stables so I'll limit myself to this:

The US Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, that states have the authority - and the duty - to limit the use of the roads to drivers who are licensed (also including, for states that require it, insured). The US Supreme Court says this is a matter of public safety, not revenue and not even commerce.

When someone applies for a DL they commit themselves to abiding by the traffic laws, which include the provisions for the traffic court and its procedures. Nobody forces them to get a DL; in NYC, where I used to live, only a minority of residents had DLs.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The US Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, that states have the authority - and the duty - to limit the use of the roads to drivers who are licensed (also including, for states that require it, insured).

Well, since you claim they have said it repeatedly, it shouldn't be so difficult for you to provide a few of those cases where it is explicitly said in the opinion of the court that states have a duty to "limit the use of the roads to drivers who are licensed" as you claim.

[Shoonra]

Read message #18 on this thread.

[IAMI]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

...The US Supreme Court says this is a matter of public safety, not revenue and not even commerce....

If this is so... then why would one no longer be "allowed" to drive a car if a license was suspended? Unless there has been some change to the records that my abilities to operate the vehicle has been impaired (loss of sight, mental problems, physical ailments)... How is my license being suspended for say... um... a debt that I am unable to pay (say child support) for instance in any way shape or form a matter of public safety?
I can understand being tested for your ability to operate the vehicle safely and of your knowledge of the rules of the road. This is why you receive your license only afterwards correct? Is a license not simply a certificate that you have demonstrated these abilities?

Or... is a license a permission slip only?

Also... if it is NOT a matter of commerce or revenue generation, why do I have to pay 75 dollars every year for a little sticker that goes on my license plate?
Why must I get my license renewed but not have my driving abilities re-tested?

The entire license issue is simply a matter of control and revenue generation... the actions of government show it to be so! It's right there in your face, regardless of what any courts say to the contrary.

IAMI

[Answerman]

While the drivers license is regulatory, it is also part of the "State" and operates from Title 49, department of Transportation. Mixed in with that is Title 42 section 666 which makes a whole lot of obligatory demands upon the licensee.

This is statutory law. This is what most people are living under, not the common law, please do not get them confused.

Patriots today make a lot ado about BS concerning meaning of the statutes. Statutes are liberally construed to effect the meaning of the statute, rather than strictly construed under common law. Under Common law, it was construed that only commercial drivers were obligated to have licenses, whereas under civil law, the judges can construe it as effective in commerce and since it touches commerce, needs to be licensed. We haven't been under common law for well over 100 years, though it is still out there and it can be accessed.