Cody's Right To Travel

[Codee]

Originally Posted by sfergnel

Am I reading this correctly? Is that you all's take on this?

I think it might even be saying that you are not a person capable of being known. You are a natural person right? Is that in the definition of person? If it is not then how can the officer know you as a person he can know personally?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by mrg

So how do you validate that?

If the term "natural person" is "legislatively created" by inclusion in a legislative act of creation, which seems to be the case, how can it be used with an undisclosed term to relate to anything else "legislatively created?"

And I am not intending disrespect to anyone or trying to discredit anyone, I just want to definitively know.

yea yea sure sure

BECAUSE I SAID SO!!! LOL roflmao

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Remember the 14th amendment and it's "all persons born in the UNITED STATES"?

Logic dictates that this was written for a class of people to give them rights they did not have before the writing of the 14th.

Look at what the courts did with the 14th after to include corporations. This continues to this day, this interpretation. In fact the majority of the opinions are written in this manor to reflect the the corporation as person.

What is missing is the understanding that when these codes say natural persons to whom among the natural persons do they refer? Is everybody a school buss driver? Is everybody a ambulance driver?

Where the intended confusion comes in is who has the authority to hear these administrative law cases? Is it your locale court? If so where did they get that authority to hear that type of case?

This is the stuff. These are the questions. This is good. Agian Al has provided light on the correct path to follow.

[Codee]

Look guys. This is not a bunch of crap I just dreamed up. This was my entire life for almost a year when I was 20. This is what was my base when I started researching my motions to dismiss.

Anyone can say what they like. I will not get offended if someone challenges the CONTENT. I will be agressive against those who post that this may some how be idiotic and offer no support.

All of this is what I used when researching my motions to dismiss and due to MRG asking very nicely to please get my stuff out there... well this is it. I am dedicating this thread and SHALL SHALL SHALL as a repository for the base knowledge I used in making up my motions. As I pur through my childhood notes I will keep posting here. I forgot how much went into learning this crud.

They are good motions but in the event that one is questioned about them this is the stuff one needs to know.

There are more motions and more effective ones then just the one pager California motion to dismiss for infractions. With this stuff down pat I could write a motion for dismissal for alot of maladies in my life.

I just want to explain where I comming from. This is not just off the cuff arguing. This is the foundation of ALL of my BEST arguments. I wish I could stress the importance of SMJ enough.

Again... If anyone really wants to learn how to think about codes in a critticle way... I strongly suggest you do a google on "tthor" and select the website "Legal information for the layman acting in propria persona." The man who developed that site will forever be held in the highest esteem of mine. He tought me everything about credibility, the worth of a citation in law, and the taught me that my opinion really meant crap. Thomas MurrellThornhill the 3rd... My hat is off to you. I love you man. Link to his page HERE

Cody

Bon Appetite

[Codee]

OK,,, I could go off on natural person. I do not want to take THIS thread there. So if you guys want to continue it plaese take it to Shall Shall Shall which I have turned over to general code breaking.

So back in to the swing here is the preliminary Texas work up. I am going to release all of this very slowly. I do not want this to be a handout. Statutes change and someday I will be dead. It is far better to understand the patterns and then you will be able to find the same no matter how often they change or update their crap.

TEXAS

§ 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.

§ 521.001. DEFINITIONS.
(3) "Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes: (A) a temporary license or instruction permit; and (B) an occupational license.


(6) "License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes: (A) a driver's license; (B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license; and (C) a nonresident's operating privilege.

Are you a temporary instructor or student? Do you need an occupational license?

§ 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

I see that if I need an occupational license to “operate” a vehicle then “operate” must mean I am engaged in an occupation of which is a licensable activity.

§ 541.001.
PERSONS. In this subtitle:
(1) "Operator" means, as used in reference to a vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.

(4) "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.

Operation is not defined. And operator is defined NOT as being one who operates. Hmm…

[quote]
§ 542.001. VEHICLES ON HIGHWAYS. A provision of this subtitle relating to the operation of a vehicle applies only to the operation of a vehicle on a highway unless the provision specifically applies to a different place. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
[/QUOET]

Could this following definition imply that “Control” or “Physical Control” still may mean who gave the command?

§ 542.302. OFFENSE BY PERSON OWNING OR CONTROLLING VEHICLE. A person who owns a vehicle or employs or otherwise directs the operator of a vehicle commits an offense if the person requires or knowingly permits the operator of the vehicle to operate the vehicle in a manner that violates law. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Originally Posted by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary

CONTROLLERS. Officers who are appointed, to examine the accounts of other officers. More usually written comptrollers. (q. v.)

[Big Al]

Thank you most kindly Codee for that link. It looks like the information was done by a fellow student of the truth!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

Got a judge once to admit that leagalese was essentially a foreign language.

I made a stink trying to get a translator for like 20 minutes.

OOOOhhhhhh that was fun.

Pretty much answers my questions.

Ultimately I am thinking this...

I have found no reason to spend any energy trying to prove I am not a natural person.

I cannot find advantage in law by doing so.

I can see that the administrative codes almost never apply to a private natural person.

Sorry, I forgot perspective.

Look guys. This is not a bunch of crap I just dreamed up.

This was my entire life for almost a year when I was 20.

This is what was my base when I started researching my motions to dismiss.

Anyone can say what they like.

I will not get offended if someone challenges the CONTENT.

I will be agressive against those who post that this may some how be idiotic and offer no support.

All of this is what I used when researching my motions to dismiss and due to MRG asking very nicely to please get my stuff out there... well this is it.

They are good motions but in the event that one is questioned about them this is the stuff one needs to know.

Good enough for me.

Points well taken, and well presented.

Thanks for your patience in dealing with my questions.

I see your perspective and have more knowledge concerning the question.

You are dealing from experience, with what actually works ("git r done") and the practical how and why of it, from the perspective of "hands on" involvment.

The question(s) were certainly in no way meant to imply "that this may some how be idiotic."

If they were ignorant questions, so be it.

I do hope they were at least presented respectfully and politely.

Please carry on.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

So how do you validate that?

If the term "natural person" is "legislatively created" by inclusion in a legislative act of creation, which seems to be the case, how can it be used with an undisclosed term to relate to anything else "legislatively created?"

And I am not intending disrespect to anyone or trying to discredit anyone, I just want to definitively know.

I also wanted to definitively know. So I used accessable dictionaries for when the code was silent AND I used the code for definition when it was offered. These are solid foundations.

Now when I look up Natural Person I am thinking this is a person that is Naturally Associated with me. This is not something that can go to jail without my body.

I would also like a better definition to be presented at this point I too am still waiting.

Thank you MRG for demanding accountability in definitions.

You did the same with that meritime, we are all ships thing. LOVED IT!!! By the way if you ever ask me to diagram the sentence... well... "NO." I hate doing that crap. But feel free to diagram mine to make them better or show error. Crap! how do you draw and represent in typing all those ptupid lines you have to use when doing that?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

Connecticut Revised Statutes

Title 14 section 1

(59) "Operator" means any person who operates a motor vehicle or who steers or directs the course of a motor vehicle being towed by another motor vehicle and includes a driver as defined in subdivision (22) of this section;


(66) "Person" includes any individual, corporation, limited liability company, association, copartnership, company, firm, business trust or other aggregation of individuals but does not include the state or any political subdivision thereof, unless the context clearly states or requires;

Here we see the same thing as in the other codes. Driving appears to include alot. So does opperator. Here is what I look at.

1) Operate is not definied. Only operator. So we will have to use a general definition for operate or a definition from another title if it can be made applicable. Sometimes the words can be definied in say the tax code where it talks about the fees being collected off of Motor Vehicle pperation.

2) Person is definied so as not to include the natural person.

3) An operator must be a code defined "person."

4) All licenses are operator licenses.

This was in the statutes as a refrence... It is case law but it works as good evidence.

"Operation" defined. 90 C. 414; 96 C. 391. Defendant, who had seized wheel while instructing another, was "operator". 119 C. 563. Cited. 141 C. 539. The use of any mechanical or electrical device not an integral part of a motor vehicle not considered "operation of a motor vehicle". 180 C. 469, 471, 472.

Originally Posted by Connecticut Revised Statues

Sec. 51-164r. Failure to pay or plead.

(a) Any person charged with an infraction who fails to pay the fine and any additional fee imposed or send in his plea of not guilty by the answer date or wilfully fails to appear for any scheduled court appearance date which may be required shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

(b) Any person charged with any violation specified in subsection (b) of section 51-164n who fails to pay the fine and any additional fee imposed or send in his plea of not guilty by the answer date or wilfully fails to appear for any scheduled court appearance date which may be required shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

So the following was off of the states website for courts... PAY CLOSE ATTENTION! There is the use of the word "FINE" there is no use of "PENALTY." There is comment made about infractions not being criminal.

Originally Posted by http://www.cslib.org/finespenalt.htm

Table of fines AND penalties
Violations
CGS §53a-43 of the Penal Code authorizes the Superior Court to fix fines for violations up to a maximum of $500 unless the amount of the fine is specified in the statute establishing the violation. CGS § 54-195 on criminal procedure requires the court to impose a fine of up to $100 on anyone convicted of violating any statute without a specified penalty.

A violation is not a crime; thus a violator does not have a criminal record. Most statutory violations are subject to Infractions Bureau procedures which allow the accused to pay the fine by mail without making a court appearance. As with an infraction, the bureau will enter a nolo contendere (no contest) plea on behalf on anyone who pays a fine in this way. The plea is inadmissible in any criminal or civil court proceeding against the accused.

Infractions
Infractions are punishable by fines, usually set by Superior Court judges, of between $35 and $90, plus a $20 or $35 surcharge and an additional fee based on the amount of the fine. There may be other added charges depending upon the type of infraction. For example, certain motor vehicle infractions trigger a Transportation Fund surcharge of 50% of the fine. With the various additional charges the total amount due can be over $300 but often is less than $100.

An infraction is not a crime; thus violators do not have criminal records and can pay the fine by mail without making a court appearance.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

2) Person is definied [ sic ] so as not to include the natural person.

Actually, the code's definition of Person includes "an individual". Some law dictionaries (e.g. Bouvier, Raden) don't even bother with Individual, suggesting that ordinary Dictionaries of English will suffice. Some law dictionaries (e.g. Black's, Words & Phrases) bother only with the uncommon or non-obvious meanings. Ballentine's makes it clear that Individual means, inter alia, "a natural person" - that is, a human being.