Cody's Right To Travel

[Codee]

Originally Posted by djones

Forgive me it this has been addressed in this or another thread but I was looking through the downloads and found “IDIOT LEGAL ARGUMENTS”. Before I use some of the different suggestions I have read in this forum about how to handle traffic tickets I would like some clarification.
1 can these different defenses blow up in my face regardless if I have the proper paper work and handle my self in court properly?
2 if I fail to prevail can the court impose a larger penalty on me?
3 if this has been addressed before can you tell me where to find it?

See attached file for a portion of “IDIOT LEGAL ARGUMENTS”.

I read on profile you are from Idaho. Do you see any discussion here about that state? I do not. Can these arguments... (I am guessing you mean the one that is no here and is California specific) blow up on you? Only if you are so misguided as to use a California heavy code motion in a foreign jurisdiction. I have a SMJ argument with about oh... %100 success rate.

One man did get a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Does that mean ou can. NOt nessecarily. Sorry to point it out but you have to carry your own. This man was a 21 year old colledge kid but every man is his own.

This is a discusion on the statutes and codes. This is not a thread on court cases and such. Please read the thread so that you know what is being talked about.

I am glad you read "Idiot Legal Arguments." They are NDUSA and Scooterdogs favorite site too. I believe it is a sham. I am not going to read the entire site and tell you what I think. You read it an d post you rebutles here or don't. What is it on that site that you are arguing is in contradiction with what is on this thread?

It has been adressed before and I will not tell you because this whole discussion is off topic of the statute and codes. If you want mytholygy and crap go to another thread. This thread is not a yellow pages for those that cannot use the search function. We do not need people asking where to find other information on this thread. Make friend and PM them.

Can a defense go bad. You bet. Is it your fault? Yes. You seem to want someone to say... Here is your sure bet! so when you screw it up you can blame someone else. You are the type I recomend hire an attorney for everything. You need to learn how to decide for yourself.

You need to show how this thread is "Idiotic" as your post implies.

You need to post some real arguments or dissent. Until then I will not adress you.

I suggest you go study with quatlosers.

Now that I re-read your statement you actually refer to there being multiple defenses offered on this thread. One word... "Incredible." Look it up.

[djones]

WOW
I asked some legitimate questions as I am trying to understand the statutes and codes of not only Ca. but also anywhere it may apply to me. I do not think your response was justified, as I was not insulting you (or anyone else) or trying to put you “on the spot”. I was simply looking for information.

I read on profile you are from Idaho. Do you see any discussion here about that state? I do not.

In the different post I see people from all over the States and Canada. This discussion is about “Cody's Right To Travel” I am sorry if I assumed this was about Travel and not a California specific topic.

You need to show how this thread is "Idiotic" as your post implies.

I neither said nor implied this post was "Idiotic". I simply put the name of the document that I downloaded from Suijuris Forums so anyone could check what I was referring to.

You need to post some real arguments or dissent. Until then I will not adress you.

I assume then nobody is to ask you any questions

Can a defense go bad. You bet. Is it your fault? Yes. You seem to want someone to say... Here is your sure bet! so when you screw it up you can blame someone else. You are the type I recomend hire an attorney for everything. You need to learn how to decide for yourself.

You Sir know nothing about me. You assume I want to blame someone else when I screw up. No I am trying to learn so that I may help myself.

Only if you are so misguided as to use a California heavy code motion in a foreign jurisdiction. I have a SMJ argument with about oh... %100 success rate.

I at no time questioned your knowledge. I in fact posted those questions on this thread because I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

I am glad you read "Idiot Legal Arguments." They are NDUSA and Scooterdogs favorite site too. I believe it is a sham. I am not going to read the entire site and tell you what I think. You read it an d post you rebutles here or don't. What is it on that site that you are arguing is in contradiction with what is on this thread?

I am not arguing or contradicting any thing on this thread I was simply asking (in what I thought was a polite and non-threatening way) if having or not having such things as a DL, insurance, or registration and if the way you were talking about handling traffic citations would have any other ramifications in a State or Federal setting as in the Doc I attached to my post.

The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways.

[Codee]

Why would you just post to some refrence of a document with an offensive title and not bother to adress one topic from the document. Your post said nothing other then "If I "Follow" this stuff can I get hurt?" You don't even mention what "This stuff" or "these defenses" are. Re****ulous!

The answer is yes. You can always get hurt. It takes a certain muster to be good at what you do and the enire atitude of wanting someone else to guaranty your actions is putrid.

Post your questions but do not just post a how does this relate to "Idiotic argumetns?"

If I grant you that your post was innocent then you should simply spend alot more time reading then posting.

I NEVER ONCE talked about not having those documents and defending them. I simply talked about the code. I made no argument that could be used.

You are trying to say that someone else is telling you it is OK for you to do such and such. Knock it off. Are you trying to pin your failure on someone. Your failures are yours and yours alone and nothing anyone teaches you absolves you of your responsibility. I think your attitude is not productive and people like you should hire attorneys. You continually suggest that someone on this thread suggested something to you and that is false.

As the starter of this thread I can tell you there has been virtually NO federal RAMIFICATIONS discussed as you seem to think there has been. There has not.

You have made the presumption that this is some fluffy thread where every body says "Hey there some magic thing you say to the state and you don't got to listen to them at all." Not here. I advocate that the statutes are applicable and you had better know them. Since you keep asking questions like "Can this get me in trouble?" Means that you are NO WHERE NEAR the level required to think for yourself and I suggest again that you seek professional advice from an attorney and get off the internet forums.

What do mean you "assumed I knew what I was talking about?" I do. You are asking about things not on this thread. You are asking about DEFENSES and that is not here. You talk like someone setting someone up or someone who has some ulterior motive to be devious in speach.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by djones

WOW
I asked some legitimate questions as I am trying to understand the statutes and codes of not only Ca. but also anywhere it may apply to me. I do not think your response was justified, as I was not insulting you (or anyone else) or trying to put you “on the spot”. I was simply looking for information.

I am sorry. I reviewed your post and I did not see ONE mention of a code or a statute. Either figure out what the words you are using mean or quit lying.

You were not looking for information. You were looking for reasurance. You need a lawyer for that. Go hire one.


I assume then nobody is to ask you any questions

You assume in error. YOur questions were that of someone looking for a handout and trying to not be resposible for themselves. I will protect myself and I will not tell you how to live your life. Your questions are the most offensive and the worst kind. Real questions about content and not speculative futures of your own specific needs are desired. Your questions are simply someone trying hard to blame another. I provided resource, not legal advice.
You Sir know nothing about me. You assume I want to blame someone else when I screw up. No I am trying to learn so that I may help myself.
Then read and decide for your self if you can be hurt. If you don't know look at more law. THe entire topic of this thread is to get off oppinions and then you ask for just that as your answer to your question. Just a big fat, "Well in your oppinion can I...?" Who cares. I gave you the codes. You read them and decide.

I at no time questioned your knowledge. I in fact posted those questions on this thread because I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

You asked no question at all about any point in my posts. You simply made refrence to an offensive article and suggested that the article in someway rebutted my posts but did not explain in any way at all how that article applied. Therefore I thought your post stupid.


I am not arguing or contradicting any thing on this thread I was simply asking (in what I thought was a polite and non-threatening way) if having or not having such things as a DL, insurance, or registration and if the way you were talking about handling traffic citations would have any other ramifications in a State or Federal setting as in the Doc I attached to my post.


First this thread is for arguing and contradicting the contents of the writing. You not doing that is precisely the problem I have. What you are asking for HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. Yu are begging and it is sad. You need to read and post constructive debate here. THis is not a self help thread. This is not your personal "Help, I am being sued." thread. This here is for growing and learning. Not a place for you to get guidance on any number of topics.
You did not post what state you were asking about so I assume you do not understand that there are different states with different laws. There are many states and the state you list being from was never discussed. So ou tell me how anything so far discussed could possibly mean that you could drive with no plates, license, registration and such. Again if this is the case you are way out of the water in this thread. This thread is about code annalysis and is not about telling people "Yeah, you can drive without alicense." If you want someone to tell you that and you need that to feel safe, you are someone trying to shed responsibility for their actions onto others. Please stop doing this.

Don't call me sir. You can title yourself but if you call me sir I'll take it as an invitation to tell you to shove it. Got it mister/sir/your honor/your exelency/pesent/person/poster/whatever your titleing does.

This is a thread on code analysis. Not on my right to travel. But this is "Cody's way of reading the codes." This is very apparent if you bothered to read the thread.

Where is your interpretation of a code that is helpfull. You have not posted a code yet and that is very wierd concidering the nature of this thread. This is not a "please I need someone to tell me it will be alright thread." get lost.

This thread is about code and statutory construction. Either start posting about a code or a statute or stop posting. This is not the thread to start taliking about SUPREME COURT cites to right to travel or anything in that ballpark. Your questions need to be in another thread and you should keep reading and not posting until find the appropriate thread. Your questions are not in line with the subjectmatter and therefore are nothing but distracting.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Codee

More Georgia



There is pattern here to the codes... who sees it?

1) the codes may or may not apply to natural persons.

2) If the code does apply to natural persons I look to see if there is a smaller subset that the code is restricted to.

3) If the code is applicable to all persons including people like me, then I look to the violation. I look at how the violation is categorized.

4) Then I look for the authority to prosecute that class of violation. I usually do not find it.

95% of statutes I have found making it in someway illeagal to do that which harms no one, are not applicable to me.

This all just my opinion however and all should think for themselves.

By proper comprehension and remembering,

No act of any legislature applies to the private citizen.

IBM is a corporation, they can ONLY make Policy concerning their own property and their slaves/employees.

Now re-read the previous sentence after replacing `IBM' with `Municipal Corporation X'

it IS the same thing and conclusion.

In this IBM-context, what are taxes?

a shipping, handling and processing fee for the transfer of property.

It doesnt matter what the IRS does with the property it collects.

"But Wait" you say, "the IRS isnt a govt agency; the DoJ wont represent them in court and they arent listed on the Executive Branch's organisational chart and there are two trusts created on Guam and Puerto Rico..."

Right, so that means there is fraud by way misnomer, extortion, theft, breaking and entering, coercion,...

and all that means is that any inducement by someone to send a gift to them *IS* because of fear.

The decision to send to the IRS might be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction.

and since the IRS is involved in global/international commerce, a court of admiralty jurisdiction would seem to be proper;

Does anyone recall the Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York City?

They used to be known as the Supreme Court before Congress changed their name.

[Codee]

This is the law

Originally Posted by Connecticut Revised Statues

Title 14 sec 1, Definitions

(21) "Drive" means to drive, operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle, including a motor vehicle being towed by another;



(22) "Driver" means any person who drives, operates or is in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle, or who is required to hold a commercial driver's license;


(23) "Driver's license" or "operator's license" means a valid Connecticut motor vehicle operator's license or a license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction authorizing the holder thereof to operate a motor vehicle on the highways;

Now it is easy for my mind to see that "driving" means to be in physical control of the vehicle. It also includes "opperating."

"Driver's license" does not athorize one to "drive" but a narrower catagory of privilidge which is "to opperate."

Further I see that the term "Driver" is only applicable to those requiring COMMERCIAL CLASS licenses OR driving Commercial class Vehicles.

[Codee]

Here are some more codes from Connecticut.

Originally Posted by 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.

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by Codee

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."

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

Doesnt seem to fly in georgia, may they 'wised up' and changed the code. Maybe time to move.:-)

(38) 'Operator' means any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.
.....
(43) 'Person' means every natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or trust.

and same goes for TN and AL

55-1-112. "Lienor," "owner" and "person" defined.
1) "Lienor"...
2) "Owner"...
3) "Person" means every natural person, firm, co-partnership, association, or corporation.
--------------------------------------------
(41) PEDESTRIAN. Any person afoot.
(42) PERSON. Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation.
(43) PNEUMATIC TIRE. Every tire in which compressed air is designed to support the load.

and finally NC:
(28) Person. – Every individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, governmental agency, or combination thereof of whatsoever form or character.
(29) Pneumatic Tire. – Every tire in which compressed air is designed to support the load.

Got the receipts back from the city today where the TS docs were filed, now we wait to see what they do. Part time prosecutor, so my guess is nothing, which means I should win hopefully without a bunch of BS from the robe or the city..

[Codee]

I am very curious Thom why you bring up the definitions of person and say that the state "wised up." If you go back to my posts and read from #99 I think you will see that the codes are constructed nonetheless to protect me. None of my arguments for my protections in Georgia rested on the definition of person EXCLUDING the natural person. If I did use the exlusion of the natural person as a key in my Georgia protections for me please show me so I can evaluate it. I cannot find it. I also did not need some other definition of operator. Keep in mind that I am writing from my view point of me travelling to Georgia. Thus I am not concerned with drivers licenses and such because I will have an out of state exemption.

In my home state "person" includes "natural person" too. That just means Georgia and California states are a little trickier. I keep reading the codes and see what all still applies.

Originally Posted by Codee on post #100

1) the codes may or may not apply to natural persons.

2) If the code does apply to natural persons I look to see if there is a smaller subset that the code is restricted to.

3) If the code is applicable to all persons including people like me, then I look to the violation. I look at how the violation is categorized.

4) Then I look for the authority to prosecute that class of violation. I usually do not find it.

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Doesnt seem to fly in georgia, may they 'wised up' and changed the code. Maybe time to move.:-)

(38) 'Operator' means any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.
.....
(43) 'Person' means every natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or trust.

and same goes for TN and AL

55-1-112. "Lienor," "owner" and "person" defined.
1) "Lienor"...
2) "Owner"...
3) "Person" means every natural person, firm, co-partnership, association, or corporation.
--------------------------------------------
(41) PEDESTRIAN. Any person afoot.
(42) PERSON. Every natural person, firm, copartnership, association or corporation.
(43) PNEUMATIC TIRE. Every tire in which compressed air is designed to support the load.

and finally NC:
(28) Person. – Every individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, governmental agency, or combination thereof of whatsoever form or character.
(29) Pneumatic Tire. – Every tire in which compressed air is designed to support the load.

Got the receipts back from the city today where the TS docs were filed, now we wait to see what they do. Part time prosecutor, so my guess is nothing, which means I should win hopefully without a bunch of BS from the robe or the city..

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Codee

snipd

In my home state "person" includes "natural person" too. That just means Georgia and California states are a little trickier. I keep reading the codes and see what all still applies.

Codee, you have to read that definition in context:
answer this: who is a `natural person' in relation to corporations, trusts, partnerships, etc?