Cody's Right To Travel - Page 3

Codee · #21 10-16-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The precise meaning of "operating" a motor vehicle is more expansive than driving

I hardly concider "More expansive" a "precise" definition. Just my two cents.

Codee · #22 10-17-2006, 12:55 AM

Quote:

4000. (a) (1) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly,

This section is curious. I like it because at first it seems I cannot "move" my vehicle on the road way. I think this is on the assumption that first I am a person that can "drive" and that I am a state employee if the vehicle code is talking about my "driving." Next is move. But is this the same "person" as is talked about in the rest of the code? Maybe not. None the less "Moving" may actually mean "towing." or some other non-intended way for the vehicle to get avout. Most of these methods involve towing agencies. Towing is commercial. If your car is in safe working (not operable) condition then you should be "driving" it. When you are "driving" it you are safe from the code unless you are a state employee.
This is the way I read it though.

Shoonra · #23 10-17-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codee

Traffic Stops are definitly arrests.
*Fn-8
Freedom Riders (F.I.G.H.T.) v. Hannigan (commissioner of CHP) (exact cite unknown at this time) This 9th circuit federal appellate court ruling states that in California traffic stops are arrests for which probable cause is needed.

The proper name and cite is Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan (9th Cir. 1996) 92 F.3d 1486.

The Easyriders is/was a motorcycle club, suing over police ticketing over the helmet requirement law (more particularly, for the use of a helmet that did not comply with the legal specifications). The Circuit Court held that, yes, a traffic stop is an arrest (altho usually very brief) and therefore has to comply with the 4th Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable search and seizure".

But you didn't have to look for such an arcane case. It has LONG been recognized that a traffic stop is an arrest and must comply with the Fourth Amendment, and must be based on the policeman's reasonable suspicion that a violation of traffic or other laws is taking place. Lack of a proper license plate is, for example, such a ground for reasonable suspicion of a violation of law. See 6A CJS "Arrest" secs. 40-41 (2004).

Codee · #24 10-17-2006, 12:19 PM

First off thanks for cleraring that up. It is fixed in my latest doc. but it is good to have it clear on the net. I noticed how you had virtually nothing to say in opposition to real content of the statements above. That is good.

Why do you think a citation from 1996 is arcane? Keep in mind that it is published, refrenced throughout the internet and was in the west's law book as a controlling case. Here is your fdefinition of arcane. I hope you see that modern published public records are not "arcane." By the way what makes a case "mainstream" in your eyes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

ACRANE1
–adjective known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric: She knew a lot about Sanskrit grammar and other arcane matters.

You are givin' librarians a bad name. I would assume CAl Jur is more arcane then federal decisions... but oh well.

Big Al · #25 10-17-2006, 06:51 PM

Presumption

, this is the gambit they use to drag us into there ponzi scheme. This is necessary for them to act as if you are a government employee and subject to Administrative law.

The weird part is they, for the most part don't even know that they are using Administrative law. One of the corner stones of Administrative law is Deceit (sounds like government?).

ADNINISTRATIVE LAW Alfred C. Aman. Jr. William T. Mayton WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1993 Look at pages 80 and 81. the title Ch. 4 IDENTIFYING THE AGENCY ACTION SUBJECT TO RULEMAKING: what is a rule? (THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHY DECEPTION IS SO IMPORTANT TO THESE AGENCIES).

#26 10-18-2006, 06:16 AM

First, all the driving laws are written in future tense. "Shall" is future tense.

Second, I challenge ANYONE to find me a state law that says something to the effect of: "to drive, a person must have a driver license issued by the state."

There is no such law in the statutes of North Carolina.

[I am not talking about the "statute" that says anyone driving without a license." I mean a statute that requires you to have one before getting caught in the first place.]

Codee · #27 10-18-2006, 06:42 AM

Yes drive is future tense. That has nothing to do with this argument. All good laws are in the future tense. It is unlawful to pass an ex post facto law and it wuold realy be non-ingenious to make a law that only applied for the instant moment it was passed.

The big thing to realize is that shall is mandatory and all "No person shall..." means is that you are are not obligated to do such. Like... "no person shall drive a motor vehicle without a license." Means, if you don't have a license,,,, you don't HAVE to drive."

charlesa6 · #28 10-18-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codee

Yes drive is future tense. That has nothing to do with this argument. All good laws are in the future tense. It is unlawful to pass an ex post facto law and it wuold realy be non-ingenious to make a law that only applied for the instant moment it was passed.

The big thing to realize is that shall is mandatory and all "No person shall..." means is that you are are not obligated to do such. Like... "no person shall drive a motor vehicle without a license." Means, if you don't have a license,,,, you don't HAVE to drive."

You are right on the money. They are not forcing you, you want it you have to abide by the law govern the license that required you to drive "Shall".

Shoonra · #29 10-18-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codee

The big thing to realize is that shall is mandatory and all "No person shall..." means is that you are are not obligated to do such. Like... "no person shall drive a motor vehicle without a license." Means, if you don't have a license,,,, you don't HAVE to drive."

You wanna try that logic with the Third Amendment??

Codee · #30 10-18-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

No Soldier shall EVER, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

There does that work for you!!!! What were you seeing? It says that no soldier must/may be housed in my home. No soldier MUST (even if his superior officers say so) be house in my home. Da end.