Privilege And Driving Rights

[gldskr]

Answerman

How would you suggest we access common law?

[Answerman]

Well, that is another story probably better off in the jurisdiction section. Suffice it to say here, that a license gives the agency who administers it the ability to claim what the law of the license will be. Since the law applicable to the license is the civil law under U.S. Territorial jurisdiction, (within this state), then it will be administered with all sorts of crazy laws to it.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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.

This the problem, this is why such leguslation is void, it attempts to cir***vents the Constitution, it attempts to recreate the judicial system, and is a deprevation of rights under color of law.

There can be no Constitutinalt due process in a non-Constitunal court.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Nobody forces them to get a DL.

Because government can't.

Enumeration - The act of enumerating; making separate mention, or recounting; a detailed account, in which each thing is specially noticed. [1913 Webster]

Construe - To apply the rules of syntax to (a sentence or clause) so as to exhibit the structure, arrangement, or connection of, or to discover the sense; to explain the construction of; to interpret; to translate; to put a construction upon; to explain the sense or intention of; to interpret; to understand. [1913 Webster]


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


Treaties on the Law of Highways, 1857:

§ 1. ..."An individual may claim a right of way by an express grant, or by long use, (prescription,) also by necessity"... (p. 2)


§ 2. "Highways are public roads, which every citizen has a right to use." ... "We precieve, then, the striking distinction between a private right of way and one that is public and common; the former belonging only to the particular parties by whom it has been aquired, while the latter is for the free use of every member of the community"

"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." --Thompson v. Smith, supra.

Any right a Citizen/citizen has, the People (as contemplated in the preamble), obviously have.

The simplest way I have found to describe what I do is that I travel in my car via my right of way.

I don't have to have a licence to do this, no one does.

People may find the 1857 Treaties on the Law of Highways provides valuable insight into the right of Way.

http://books.google.com - Treaties on the Law of Highways, 1857

[Answerman]

I'm with Shoonra on this one. One must follow the law in all cases. The statutes are not unconstitutional and the codes are not illegal unless you know that they are. For most people, they do not understand licenses are not required nor would the understand civil v common law reading of statutes, or general law. When you accept the offer of license, you accept the law that goes with it.

[mrg]

And if one does not "accept" the "offer" of "license?"

One just goes ahead and starves to death while researching how to live without license to live?

Why do you suppose "Most people" "do not understand licenses are not required nor would the[y] understand civil v common law reading of statutes, or general law?"

Through willful and wanton ignorance, even though fully informed, with full disclosure of terms, of the nature of any contracts?

People are stupid?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Answerman

I'm with Shoonra on this one. One must follow the law in all cases. The statutes are not unconstitutional and the codes are not illegal unless you know that they are. For most people, they do not understand licenses are not required nor would the understand civil v common law reading of statutes, or general law. When you accept the offer of license, you accept the law that goes with it.

However, keep in mind it is not uncommon for agents of state agencies to act in ways that are unconstitutional or unlawful in the enforcement of rules and regulations which these agencies create.

There are numerous posts by members of this forum on how to overcome their unjust acts (a good example is Subject Matter Jurisdiction).

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Answerman

I'm with Shoonra on this one. One must follow the law in all cases. The statutes are not unconstitutional and the codes are not illegal unless you know that they are. For most people, they do not understand licenses are not required nor would the understand civil v common law reading of statutes, or general law. When you accept the offer of license, you accept the law that goes with it.

You mean, when you fill out an application for a license to do business within the State. Right ? It's not a contract offer, it is permission from the State to Operate a business on the roads of the State which belong to the People of that State.

Operator Licenses are always Business Licenses !!!



These are some of the State Business Operator’s License Application Categories found in the States, need I say more.

Auction House Operator’s License Application

Tobacco Tax Operator's License Application

Alcohol Beverage Retailers Operator’s License Application

Outdoor Advertising Operator’s License Application

Private Patrol Operator's license Application

Alarm Company Operator's License Application

Warehouse Operator’s License Application

Driving School Operator's License Application

Ambulance Operators License Application

The list goes on…

[greatwolf75]

This is my take on the whole thing. The roads do not belong to the public even though they say public roads. The reason I say this is because of the DL. People are allowed to go to a public park without a license. People are allowed to use a public garbage can without a license. People are allowed to go on a public sidewalk without a license. Anything that is supposed to belong to the public you can use without a license. If it is something that is not for the general public then it needs a license, Dillon hunt pretty much hit the nail on the head with his post. The roads are privately owned and you are required to get a permission slip to use them.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

This is my take on the whole thing. The roads do not belong to the public even though they say public roads. The reason I say this is because of the DL. People are allowed to go to a public park without a license. People are allowed to use a public garbage can without a license. People are allowed to go on a public sidewalk without a license. Anything that is supposed to belong to the public you can use without a license. If it is something that is not for the general public then it needs a license, Dillon hunt pretty much hit the nail on the head with his post. The roads are privately owned and you are required to get a permission slip to use them.

That makes no logical sense. I can ride a bicycle on a road without a license. There are other exceptions if you take the time to think about it. Navigable waterways and lakes provide for other examples.

[Shoonra]

Riding a bicycle is not inherently dangerous, especially to other people. You can't say that about a car.

Moreover, there are some highways where bicycles are explicitly forbidden.