Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupy Public Highways

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 2:41 a.m. EST by ScrewyL (809)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[Note: This article consists entirely of nothing but verbatim quotations of widely accepted, long standing legal precedent; I will let the law, and the courts, speak for themselves.]

To wit:




"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135



.

Definition of 'Motor Vehicle':

" 'Motor vehicle' means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."

Title 18 U.S.C. § 31-6

"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle"

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

"Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money"

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307

.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment"

Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Amendment V to the Constitution of the United States of America

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864;
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

"... It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax ... a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars. ... If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation."

Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147

.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."

Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."

Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

"... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford

"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty ..."

Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31;
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356

.

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect ... the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."

Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America

63 Comments

63 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

excellent post, please bring this to the wiki.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Legal_Committee

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Give me a good place to put it on your wiki, and I will. I don't see where legal briefs should reside.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 3 years ago

i linked you to the legal page. You'd just put in [[Take Back the Commons]] to create a new page from there, and then post ...its easy.. you can create as many new pages as you wish.

i guess i will do this one for you.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Take_Back_The_Commons

now all you need to do is format it.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

It would be nice if the dates of these rulings were included. It is almost impossible for anything decided before 1938, to be considered by any of the Article IV lower courts, if not all of them.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

--All of them I'd say.

That's a reasonable request, I'll go dredge them up where I can.

Although, you realize, I must out of principle reject the alienation of unalienable things. -- Unless a... higher... court can demonstrate otherwise. ^_^

Scroll down to witness the acquiescence of the distinguished Mr. Harry Pairatestes.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 3 years ago

there is no conflict here. i would wager to say that NO ONE has a problem with drivers licenses and safety inspections and things like that. if you wanna talk about a right that has been consistently eroded for decades, check out the second amendment

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Do you enjoy getting stopped (arrested) by police even when they do not have a warrant particularly describe the person to be seized?

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 3 years ago

i definitely don't have a problem with the police arresting drunks on the road and people who have made it obvious that they are a danger to society on the road. you don't need a warrant to arrest someone for a crime. if they see you with weed, they don't need a judges approval to arrest you, they just do. i don't think anyone has a problem with that. if you don't do anything wrong then you don't get stopped its simple as that.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I guess I'm being dense - what's the argument here?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will."

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

so . . . we should just burn our drivers licenses?

I'm not sure I follow

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

If you don't need it to legally use your car, then what else do you need it for?

--and what about registration, inspection, and insurance, which amounts to quite an expense?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

interesting.

I don't like the expense part of it - I think it becomes a trap for people on the bottom of the economic pyramid making it more difficult to share in the prosperity they see all around them.

That said, I think I prefer it if we have a mechanism to ensure that people who drive do have some understanding of the rules of the road.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

We do. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Fail to stop at a red light, you get a ticket. Try to kill someone with your car, you get manslaughter.

That's the law, and it's legitimate. It's public safety.

However, "Failing to Seek Government Permission", is not a legitimate law -- so the courts have ruled.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

yeah - the entire licensing procedure helps ensure that people know they need to stop at a red light - and while that may be common knowledge there are other factors involved with driving on the highway that aren't as quickly and easily understood -

like when to yield, how puddles can affect traction, the insanity of texting from behind the wheel, things like that.

And I'm not sure how this plays out with the power reserved to the states themselves.

Given the numbers of people killed on our highways each year, I'm not really in favor of introducing instability to a process that if removed will drive up highway fatality statistics.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

The power is not reserved to the states. it is prohibitted to them, and therefore not reserved.


"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."

Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

Please, people, read the article before you comment. I beg you. If you don't know the law, or don't agree with it, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to surrender our rights to the whims of your chosen tyrannical masters!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

hmm, I hear what you are saying - but that doesn't change the fact that what you propose will increase the numbers killed on the highway, if implemented.

Unless you can reasonably address that fact, what you are advocating will hurt the Occupy Movement in the eyes of the public, and with good reason.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Stickers save lives!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

. . . stickers . . .

  • ?
[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Yeah... that was out of line. A gross oversimplifcation of your valid point.

I apologize. Lemme try again:

First off, the "crime" of Driving Without State Permission has got to go, because it has been found in numerous courts that The State does not have the authority to invent such a charge and lay it on a free people.

That means that driving without registration, or inspection, or insurance, will no longer be charged by Police.

So, given that the courts have ruled you can't oppress free people, The Public will have to resort to some other legitimate means of protecting their safety.

It's not really up to me what society decides, but one of those methods I have proposed, is that many people will voluntarily (without state coercion) insure themselves and their vehicles to cover the cost of damage that might occur.

Many people, at their own discretion, may install GPS locator systems in their cars to find them if they are stolen.

Also, I'm betting, speed limits in certain areas prone to run-down beater cars (who wants to drive one of those anyway?) will probably be reduced.

Whatever the method applied, it is up to the People, and it must be legal. The courts resoundingly rule that the present system is not legal!

Much of the argument against these kinds of "free people" ideals rests upon the notion that the unwashed masses of people are crazy, stupid, self-endangering morons and they need a nanny-state taking care of them from cradle to grave.

If people are truly such luddites, then I certainly don't want to give them more power over me...!

But seriously: I don't buy that premise. I think that some people are alchoholics, and the emergency crews can't stop them from driving, but only pick up the peices. I'm smart enough to avoid those guys when I see them swerving. I think that most people value their safety and drive safely because of it.

Until the state starts sucking the testosterone out of our babies, you won't stop teenagers from racing.

I've had tires blow before -- it's nobody's fault, and I certainly wasn't driving a jalopey.

I even once got into a horrific accident making a left turn without a green arrow, and nearly killed my best friend; you better believe I won't ever make that mistake again! I was licensed, trained, insured, inspected, sober, and everything. Still happened. (He's okay now, BTW)

I don't envision a world in which The State keeps us safe from every boogey man. It's just not the way I live. I envision a world where intelligence is rewarded, rather than stupidity coddled.

And, I hope I'm lucky.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

One of those methods I have proposed, is that many people will voluntarily (without state coercion) insure themselves and their vehicles to cover the cost of damage that might occur.

I don't think that would happen - people tend to think oh, it won't happen to me

and what you have here is an argument that as it concludes becomes the argument against any form of universal healthcare.

I don't really like the direction that takes.

Are you trying to subvert the Movement to support repelican ideals?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Consider the conundrum, catch-22, the nanny-state agenda trips itself up with:

  • People Are Dangerous, Selfish, And Wicked

  • so, let's Give People Power Over Other People

You can't have it both ways. Either people are fit to govern themselves, or they aren't. Presently, our government is made of people.

I'm not trying to subvert anybody. I'm here sincerely, with my own views and failings and experiences and wisdom.

I don't think it's accurate to assume that 99% of the people feel the same way about all those issues, especially if they were shown the bill and the resulting tyranny. Keep in mind that 99% is a marketing term; not really a mathematical figure.

I, personally, am torn on the issue of healthcare.

On the one hand, I would love it if everybody could get their medical care covered. We'd all be healthier and happier.

On the other hand, I don't trust the government to cover the right procedures, or the right medicines, (because they never have so far), and it is becoming increasingly clear that they will reject the majority of procedures needed as we age since at that scale, the motivation is Gross Domestic Product and elderly people can't work.

It also produces a giant "attractive nuisance" for the big lobbying pharmaceutical and insurance companies to try to get their hands into, and (putting it nicely) government is historically ill-immune to such attacks.

The devil-in-the-details for any insurance policy is in the riders and exclusions (and I worked for a medical insurance company.)

It may sound crazy, but to me, the better system is the competition of insurance companies with eachother to provide the services which people want or need.

--And I wholeheartedly believe that the Courts should crack down on insurance companies that fail to make good. We never seem hear a peep about that, but it happens all the time.

Considering government-run programs:

“The Social Security Trust Fund is misnamed. It cannot be trusted, and it is not funded.”

  • Former US Comptroller General David Walker, July 2010.

Unless and until we get a clear answer on what precisely happened, and how it's going to be fixed, whenever I hear "Mandatory Universal Healthcare", I just imagine the government stealing more money to misuse it.

I'm not saying it's impossible for it to work -- I'm saying it's improbable.

The People need control over this government before we start giving them more money and power to play with. Government governs by the consent of the governed, and for the time being, they have lost my consent.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/hmm-where-did-the-money-go/

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

and for the time being, they have lost my consent.

well I hear that.

I'm confident that once we rid ourselves of the repelican yoke we will be in much better position.

[-] -1 points by necropaulis (491) 3 years ago

Okay. So what's the argument here?? In your own words. Not links, nor quotes. In your words, what's the problem??

[-] 0 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Try exercising your right and you'll find out.

Occupy seeks to gain leverage by virtue of sheer numbers. Our rights vis-a-vis travel have been systematically violated en-masse, and they can only be recuperated en-masse.

I call for anyone who can understand what I have written here to stop begging the state for permission, and begin exercising their rights.

Hence, my article.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 3 years ago

I do. I drive on the street. I also walk and ride my bike on it. What's your beef?? Like I asked. What is the problem?? Or do you not have one, and you're just making noise, because you're bored?? Maybe if some of you weren't trying to be so mysterious and elitist about everything, maybe more stuff would get done...

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

BTW, by saying you "drive on the street", you are inadvertently claiming that you use the street as your place of business, (that is the legal definition of a "driver" -- one who drives)

Such as a Taxi Cab driver, or Bus driver, or Truck driver.

You may actually be one of those things, but the majority of cars on the road are private "automobiles". Those people are going to the store, or to work, or to a friend's house, and they are using the public roads privately.

The Police are incorrectly applying commercial law to private citizens engaged in private activity, and they know it. They do so as a racket to extort vast sums of money out of the population and as a pretext to violate the 4th amendment rights of you and I and everyone.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

You're either being obtuse or you truly have never heard of any of these:

  • Driving Without A License
  • Driving With a Suspended License
  • Driving Without Proof of Registration
  • Driving Without Proof of Insurance
  • Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility

ALL of those, are instances of the the city or the state claiming that "driving is a privilege" (and they will quickly arrest you and fine you hundreds of dollars), despite that the courts have ruled over and over again (I have just shown you those rulings) that none of those charges is a crime.

What you are doing, when you travel upon the public highway to go to your friend's house, is not legally defined as driving.

So, tell me, are you being obtuse, or have you not heard of ANY of those (or similar) charges?

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 3 years ago

I have heard of those charges. You never stated what your problem was in any understandable way.

Driving on the street does in infer you are doing business. If you get into an accident with someone in the car, all parties will name one person the driver, the other the passenger. When you look at a car, the side with the wheel is known as the drivers side. The side without is the passenger. All automobiles are, for the most part, are privately owned, Even public transit.

The law states you need a license to drive. No ifs, ands, or buts. If it's suspended, then you did something you shouldn't have to make the state think you are not responsible to drive. This is done as a matter of public safety. The car must be registered to you- if not, we could just steal each others cars. You need insurance/ financial responsibility for when you have an accident. There are a lot of people who get in accidents and don't pay, which hurts the injured or families of the dead a lot more in the long run. Driving is a privilege as are guns. You can get the right to bear arms a lot easier than you think. All of these are crimes(that's why you use the term "charge").

Some of those quotes have nothing to do with what your(supposed) problem. You can also take the bus, cab, etc. That is also traveling. How many other cases can you cite where people were charged with above crimes and no had any repeal, or some other record clearing?? Highways back then and highways now are also from two different times. When the 5th amendment was written, highways were cobble streets and dirt paths. Not strips of concrete where people travel at 80 mph.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

When you sign your application for your drivers license, you DO, infact, under penalty of perjury, falsely claim that you are acting commerically upon the public highways from then on.

Those "parties" might call you "the driver", or they might call you "that bastard", or if their braindamage is severe enough, they might even call you "noodle man from mars" -- but that does not make them correct.

No. The law, and the courts have stated (I pasted my proof here, verbatim) that you do not need a license to travel in your automobile. "No ifs ands or buts." Scroll up and read this time if you don't believe me.

Theft of a car is criminal, and registration does not prevent it. Locks, car alarms, guard dogs, THOSE prevent it.

Accidents are a private matter, not one for the state to concern itself with until you or they bring suit in court. The families that wish to protect themselves against accidents need to have (and pay for their own) insurance.

You boldly proclaim "Driving is a privilege", however, II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law says in section 329, on page 1135, unambiguously:

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will.

And, doubting your qualifications to speak so boldly on the matter, I am going to respectfully go with II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law which has been used by lawyers and the courts for decades and is regarded as an authority on the matter.

Regarding your off-topic statement about guns, I seem to recall (I'm doing this from memory, so bear -- heh -- with me):

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which would seem to characterize your statement that guns are a privilege as false, as well.

Charges are not crimes. They are "violations you are charged with". It can be found in court that any given charge was not infact a crime through any number of processes, one of which is Jury Nullification.

The quotes which do not have to do with travel have to do with either:

  • Constitutional prohibition against conversion of rights to crimes, or
  • The duty of the courts to protect your rights

Both of which are included to demonstrate the case that the States and the Courts are derelict and negligent of their obligations, which I had just summarily outlined.

What, you think I just threw a bunch of stuff up there for no reason?!

"Repeals and record clearing" are not adequate remedies to the systematic violation of the public's rights. Those remedies would make sense the FIRST time the courts made these rulings, I.E. the States would say "our bad" and reverse their actions -- however, decades AFTER these rulings, the States continue to do so despite having been put on notice amply. -- Therefore, simply providing a costly and time-consuming and onerous process (involving jail time) and saying "See? we make it right again eventually every time (as long you pay us!)" is insufficient.

The argument that "highways back then are different from highways now" is just plain irrelevant. Both types of highways are covered by the laws I quoted, as indicated by the phrase "includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon" in Thompson vs. Smith and Teche Lines vs Danforth, Miss.

Are you sure you read my article before commenting?

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

"When you sign your application for your drivers license, you DO, infact, under penalty of perjury, falsely claim that you are acting commerically upon the public highways from then on."

Here is the California Driver's license application: http://www.andrewsite.com/images/DL44a.jpg

Where does it state that the person signing the application will be driving commercially on the highways?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

As usual, on the back:

http://www.andrewsite.com/images/DL44b.jpg

Note also the waiving of your Fourth Amendment rights.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and NO Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, AND particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

What about the back of the application? It has nothing supporting your claim that "When you sign your application for your drivers license, you DO, infact, under penalty of perjury, falsely claim that you are acting commerically upon the public highways from then on."

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

RE: What about the back of the application

http://www.andrewsite.com/images/DL44b.jpg

"CERTIFICATIONS: ... I am the person whose name appears on the front of this form. ... I agree to accept service of process
...
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS: ... the social security number ... will be used in the administration of driver license laws and motor vehicle registration laws and ... to aid in the collection of monies owed in .... failure to pay fines or failure to appear in [kangaroo] court
...
ADVISORY STATEMENT: ... Failure to provide the information is cause for ... withdrawl of the driving privilege"

(You do realize that the social security number is the number of a corporation, right?)

The back of the California driver's license application actually states, falsely, that driving is a privilege when it is not -- and all these judges I have quoted have already told them that repeatedly for decades.

Nothing could be more of a prima facie fraud.

Note also the waiving of your Fourth Amendment rights.

"Certifications: ... I AGREE to submit to a test of my blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alchohol or drug content of my blood when testing is requested by a peace officer"

Now, why you gotta agreeee to something if they supposedly already have the power to do it?

You think this is just a friendly notice from your friendly "Department of Motor Vehicles"? Then why don't they notify you of everything else they possibly could, like what brand of socks friendly Mr. Peace Officer is wearing underneath those jackboots he is going to crush you with "at his discretion"?


Now look: that was all right there in plain view, so your reading comprehension is evidently extremely poor.

As a result, I am going to make things very very simple for you.

In a nutshell, here it is:

A priv-i-lege... is not... a right.
A riiiiiiight... is not... a priv-i-lege.

That's why they are different words.

Lacking the ability to discern for yourself, you will unfortunately have to simply take my word for the parts omitted.

Now, observe: (that means pay attention)


"Personal Liberty largely consists of ... The Right of the Citizen to travel ... [which] is not a mere privilege"

"'Motor vehicle' means ... used for commercial purposes"

"'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle"

"Driver -- ... employed"

"Traffic -- Commerce"

"The right to travel is ... the Liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived"

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property"

"The right ... to travel ... includes the right ... TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!! WHAT DID THAT SAY ^^^^ LOOK UP THERE!!!!!!!

In Thompson vs. Smith, did it just say that the right to travel includes the right to operate an automobile?! Noooo way man, that would make you wrong...

ahem, shall we continue?

"Heretofore the court has held, ... a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways"

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway ... differs ... from that of one who makes the highway his place of business"

"The use of the highways ... is not a mere privilege, but a ... Right of which the public ... cannot be ... deprived."

"a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways"

"the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen ... must be sacred from state taxation"

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established ... "

"a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime"

"there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate [rights secured by the Constitution]"

"that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights ... would not be the law of the land"

"There can be NO sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

"The state CANNOT diminish Rights of the people."

"the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways ... that they surrender ANY of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights"

"There should be NO arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty"

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights"

"Personal liberty ... is not derived from ... the U.S. Constitution ... and is regarded as inalienable."

"The courts ... are under a solemn duty ... to look at ... whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority"

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ...AND!!!!!!!!!! particularly describing the place to be searched, AND!!!!!!! the persons or things to be seized."


I mean, I don't know how to make it any more obvious to you. Do you know sign language maybe? ..|.,


(And now for some parenthetical madness vis-a-vis the 4th Amendment...)

When an officer stops (arrests) you on the side of the street, where is his warrant?

Cardiac... arrest... Heart... stop...

Does your heart say "I am placing you under arrest" first, or does it just do it?

If you say to me "I am not arrested. That's nonsense!", then tell me... WHY are you stopped?!?!?!?

You tellin' me you're just free to keep driving? --or is Mr. Peace Officer gonna pit-maneuver you off the road into a ditch, taze you to a crisp and then lovingly beat you to a pulp?!

Which are you in that situation, free or bond?

Now I dunno about you, but I am definitely free, cuz I sure as hell am not A BOND!


more proof our courts are derelict and utterly negligent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

You still have not answered my question

Where on the application does the following happen as you originally posted: "When you sign your application for your drivers license, you DO, infact, under penalty of perjury, falsely claim that you are acting commerically upon the public highways from then on."

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

CERTIFICATIONS: ... I am the person whose name appears on the front of this form.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 3 years ago

I tried to read it, but it made no sense. You said it's a bunch of quotes, with no other reference in a broken format.

I also see you bring up inspections with ZenDog. Getting you car inspected is important. You would be surprised by some of the things you see people driving with. I seen some cars where you wouldn't want to drive them 20 ft, never mind however many miles they had come to get looked at.

Then why is there a State Driver's License, and a Commercial Driver's License??

Also, by your logic, it's also okay to drive("travel") piss drunk. Kids should be able to do it to, right??

Theft of a car can't be proven in some cases until registration is proven. I could steal your car, the cops find me in it. They wouldn't pull me over, unless they ran the tag. Therefore I could just drive around in your car and there would be nothing you could do about it, except for steal it back.

I have read about what you're writing about before. This is nothing new. I've read some cases where people got off, and some got their license (but you ignore that part) without having to take the test. These cases are few and far between, though

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

It's not in broken format! No, it's not the prettiest article you've ever seen, but it's the best I could do within the limits of markdown syntax without the use of inline html. The "run-on" nature of it is actually an advantage since none of the words are my own but are instead well-accepted legal sources.

The structure of the article is quite simple: the bolded large-font quotations serve as headings, since it is customary in typewritten articles to bold and enlarge heading text -- and the portions in regular sized italic font underneath are court case citations further supporting those legal assertions, since it is customary in legal briefs to support your legal assertions with supporting court case citations.

All you need to read are the paragraph bodies; you can safely ignore the fine-print citations unless you happen to be a judge or justice adjudicating such a case or wish to read more.

If you don't have the time or interest for even that, and wish simply to get the "gist" and take my word for the rest, then all you need to read is the first italicized paragraph and the three giant-font headings, and you'll be set.

No other reference is neccessary. This article stands complete, fully proving its case. Each quote has it's source printed clearly below it in monospaced font, indented.

My "surprise" at someone else's choice in vehicle does not merit sufficient probable cause for me (or the state) to violate their rights -- this is what the courts have ruled. Furthermore, I do not generally look at other people's cars and decide for myself how far I want them to drive. That is up to them; not me.

You ask: "then why is there a State Driver's License, and a Commercial Driver's License" -- Because of Fraud. Next question.

You say that, by my logic, driving piss drunk is "okay" -- I don't see how wether you are pissing or not affects the public safety. Swerving, definitely affects the public safety, and no, I am not okay with that. What gave you that Idea?

Kids are wards of their parents until the age of consent. It is therefore, under the law, up to the parents if the child drives -- and it is also the parent's responsibility if that child subsequently breaks any laws or inflicts damages. Until the age of consent.

By your reasoning, it's perfectly fine to chip your children. O.o

If you wish to hide numbered stickers on your car it incase of theft, that is your prerogative, and hey, it might even work. But it is not the business of the State until you enter the fact of the presence of the numbered sticker on your aledgedly stolen and re-located car (along with an affidavit from the 3rd party who printed the sticker) as evidence into court.

If you want to make your car harder to steal or easier to locate, the miracle of modern technology offers you many options. It wasn't always so easy!

It is not somehow mystically more difficult for the State to adjudicate those laws than it is for them to adjudicate the faulty "laws" they presently foist. That mindset (that "things would be so much haaaarder if we changed them") is why our world doesn't seem to get better very quickly, and it is not a mindset that OWS generally promotes.

Yes; the legal arguments I presented have been successfully used for dismissal in at least three states. I hope, by spreading the news, to make it all 50 states eventually, until they quit laying on the bogus charges!

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

"Yes; the legal arguments I presented have been successfully used for dismissal in at least three states."

Cite those cases.

I have seen your argument all over the web. you posted the arguments verbatim from at least 5 sites that all have the same thing. All of them claim the argument was successful in three states, but none of them actually provide the names of the cases or when they were won.

The U.S. Supreme Court already decided the arguments you are posting are incorrect. This was back in 1915. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Hendrick v. Maryland is all about motor vehicles and commerce, which I have demonstrated, have no right to use the public highways as their place of business.

Furthermore, we are discussing a Constitutional right here, not a State right in Maryland. Here is a quote from Hendrick v.:

"If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most, they are entitled to equality of treatment, and, in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the state, we will not assume that, upon a proper showing, this will be denied. The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker -- prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other states under the plain terms of § 140a, He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto."

As you can plainly see, the court did not consider his constitutional rights, so the case has no bearing in this discussion.

It also pulls a nasty little trick which I have no respect for:

"The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles."

This is to say that you must first go along with the States' requirements in order to bring suit against them for violation of your rights -- however we both know that, having a license, the state will not hassle you.

This is a blind default defense of the state against all arguments, and it is not valid. Keep in mind that the (unlawful) state "requirements" include that you trade your rights for privileges, which amounts to coercion.

The consideration of those statements in the ruling is, infact, insulting, to a man who humbly turns to the courts as his saviour instead of taking matters into his own hands as is his right.

Furthermore, this portion of the ruling:

"the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad."

Is arbitrary, not-sufficiently considered, and well, false. Discriminatory travel laws ARE, per the Supremacy clause, (regardless of what the so-called "Justice" in Hendrick feels), null-and-void:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

  • Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."

  • Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15

I have shown the judgement in your case to be all of: irrelevant, lacking, and in error.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Wrong again.

Hendrick is the rule of the country in that States have the right to require drivers of motor vehicles, commercial and private, to have licenses and registration for their vehicles. The rest of your argument is just that: argument. Just because you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling that has not been reversed for almost 100 years makes your entire post irrelevant.

As i asked you in another reply, please cite the three cases that have won with your argument.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

around and around we go...

Title 18, U. S.C. § 31-6 reads:

"'Motor vehicle' means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."

Reconcile that, or else you have only proven that the various levels and branches of the state have conspired, for many decades, to perpetrate fraud -- which was indeed my point.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

I already responded to your question. Your definition of motor vehicle is specific to a specific chapter of Title 18. You seemed to have conveniently left that out.

you are using the same logic that people use in trying to avoid paying federal income taxes by finding definitions in the U.S. Codes for specific chapters and arguing that they now mean more then what they really mean. It doesn't work for avoiding income taxes and has never worked to avoid getting a driver's license or vehicle registration.

you still have not posted one case that has used your arguments and won.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

"Hendrick v. Maryland is all about motor vehicles and commerce" You are absolutely wrong. Did you even read the case? I doubt it because you are posting the same paragraph over and over.

Here is the case and please point out where Hendrick was involved in a commercial activity:

Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915) Hendrick v. Maryland No. 77 Argued November 11, 12, 1914 Decided January 5, 1915 235 U.S. 610 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in respect thereto. Where a state statute provides, as a prerequisite to the use of the highways of a state without cost by residents of other states, compliance with the highway laws of their respective states, one who does not show such compliance cannot set up a claim for discrimination in this particular. Quaere, and not now decided, whether the Motor Vehicle Law of Maryland so discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia as to be an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws in that respect. This Court will assume, in the absence of a definite and authoritative ruling of the courts of a state to the contrary, that Page 235 U. S. 611 when a statute shall be construed by the highest court, discrimination against the residents of a particular state or territory will be denied. The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce. A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles, when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce, does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution. A state may require registration of motor vehicles, and a reasonable license fee is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horsepower of the engine. Such a classification is reasonable. The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to inquiry insofar as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. A state which, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce may exact compensation therefor, and if the charges are reasonable and uniform, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. The action of the state in such respect must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. A state motor vehicle law imposing reasonable license fees on motors, including those of nonresidents, does not interfere with rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the state. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, distinguished. The facts, which involve the construction and constitutionality of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicle Law of Maryland and their application to citizens of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion. Page 235 U. S. 618

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

This is the conclusion of the ruling:

The prescribed regulations, upon their face, do not appear to be either unnecessary or unreasonable. In view of the many decisions of this Court, there can be Page 235 U. S. 624 no serious doubt that, where a state, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the state itself, and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691, 107 U. S. 699; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543, 119 U. S. 548-549; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 148 U. S. 329-330; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352, 230 U. S. 405, and authorities cited. The action of the state must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case, there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the state, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed, and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable. There is no solid foundation for the claim that the statute directly interferes with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the state, and is consequently bad according to the doctrine announced in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. In that case, a direct tax was laid upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the state, while here, the statute, at most, attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways, and to charge for the use of valuable facilities. As the capacity of the machine owned by plaintiff in error does not appear, he cannot complain of discrimination because fees are imposed according to engine power. Distinctions amongst motor machines and between them and other vehicles may be proper -- essential, indeed -- and those now challenged are not obviously arbitrary or oppressive. The statute is not a mere revenue measure, Page 235 U. S. 625 and a discussion of the classifications permissible under such an act would not be pertinent. There is no error in the judgment complained of, and it is accordingly affirmed. * "140a. Any owner or operator, not a resident of this state, who shall have complied with the laws of the state in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles or licensing of operators thereof and the display of identification or registration numbers on such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such state, in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter of said state, to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in this subtitle provided, while used or operated upon the public highways of this state, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year without complying with the provisions of §§ 133 and 137 of this subtitle if he obtains from the commissioner of motor vehicles and displays on the rear of such vehicle a tag or marker which the said commissioner of motor vehicles shall issue in such form and contain such distinguishing marks as he may deem best, provided that, if any nonresident be convicted of violating any provisions of §§ 140b, 140c, 140d, 140e, and 1401 of this subtitle, he shall thereafter be subject to and required to comply with all the provisions of said §§ 133 and 137 relating to the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of operators thereof, and the governor of this state is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with proper officers and legislative bodies of other states of the Union, and enter into reciprocal agreements under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this state will be recognized by such other states, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other states the privilege of using the roads of this state as in this section provided in return for similar privileges granted residents of this state by such other states."

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

This is the middle of the ruling. Posting got screwed up.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff in error was tried before a justice of the peace, Prince George's county, Maryland, upon a charge of violating the motor vehicle law. A written motion to quash the warrant because of conflict between the statute and the Constitution of the United States was denied; he was found guilty and fined. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court -- the highest in the state having jurisdiction -- where the cause stood for trial de novo upon the original papers. It was there submitted for determination by the court upon an agreed statement of facts grievously verbose, but in substance as follows: The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a Justice of the Peace for Prince George's County by the state against John T. Hendrick for violating § 133 of the Motor Vehicle Law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant Page 235 U. S. 619 in the District of Columbia. On that day, he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's County, and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by § 133 of the Motor Vehicle Law. He was brought before a justice of the peace and fined $15 after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued, a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid, he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by § 133. Upon the foregoing, the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal. The Maryland Legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (c. 207, Laws 1910, p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles. The following summary sufficiently indicates its provisions: The governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles, with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated upon the highways, the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year (§ 133). Registration fees are fixed according to horsepower -- $6 when 20 or less, $12 when from 20 to 40, and $18 when in excess of 40 (§ 136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of $2 an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause Page 235 U. S. 620 (§ 137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, nonresident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the state in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc., may, under specified conditions, obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license (§ 140a), but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted (§ 132). Other sections relate to speed, rules of the road, accidents, signals, penalties, arrests, trials, fines, etc. All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself. Section 140a is copied in the margin. * Page 235 U. S. 621 Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because it discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia, attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the state, exacts a tax for revenue -- not mere compensation for the use of facilities -- according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws. If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most, they are entitled to equality of treatment, and, in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the state, we will not assume that, upon a proper showing, this will be denied. The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker -- prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other states under the plain terms of § 140a, He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 204 U. S. 161; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 222 U. S. 423; Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 223 U. S. 295-296; Missouri, Page 235 U. S. 622 Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 233 U. S. 648, and cases cited. The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive, and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the State of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction, the state put into effect the above-described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles -- those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And, to this end, it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horsepower of the engines -- a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens, and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to Page 235 U. S. 623 inquiry insofar as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 113 U. S. 30-31; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 480; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 152 U. S. 136; N.Y., N.H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 165 U. S. 631; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 169 U. S. 392; Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 173 U. S. 298; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 219 U. S. 568; Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 234 U. S. 291. In Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 480, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness and obtaining a license, for which a fee was charged. The language of the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said: "But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the state or in commerce among the states."

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 3 years ago

The KTC loves your post. Unfortunately, courts don't uphold the law anymore, but the KTC loves it.

Anyways, if you have time, check out this link:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/enterprise-rent-a-car-murders-children/

It has really helped the poor family out especially since Christmas is coming.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

thanks

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)

Sorry, but the above case holds as follows:

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the above described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious.

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce.

This U.S. Supreme Court case has never been overturned or disapproved.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public,

Bleach is seriously dangerous, but it's not illegal. Kid's shoes put scuff marks allll over the "state owned" school floors causing "abnormal destruction", but we don't register their shoes do we? Maybe... we... should

good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive

...all of which can be paid for by property taxes, where it rightfully belongs, and hey: Look! No violation of rights! imagine that....

There's no need to taze the money out of innocent people.

"A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation"

-- exactly. Couldn't agree more. The state wants to secure your wallet to overcompensate for their testosterone induced intellectual inadequacy. - Totally agree - Next point:

in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others.

There's that term again, motor vehicles. Now; please please PLEASE don't make me paste the definition of 'motor vehicle' from Title 18 U.S.C. § 31-6 again, which states that 'Motor vehicle' means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes; PLEASE don't make me do that... Cuz I'll do it. I will. But I'd rather not.

Oh, and which "others", hmm? Other.... motor vehicles... maybe? Hmm.

This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states

False! Police power is wielded only upon probable cause and bearing a warrant! Fees and forms and agreements and contracts never, ever involve guns because that's called extortion and coercion and it has the nasty tendancy to invalidate contracts.

Were those judges sniffing glue? I don't get it.

and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce.

No of course not, because.... ding ding ding ding ding

"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

Sheesh people, my PASTE key is getting worn out.

Please, just scroll up and read or I'm going to make you all register, insure, and inspect your keyboards to compensate me for the abnormal destruction you are causing mine -- that is, IF you can pass my simple keyboarding privilege test; something I'm frankly becoming doubtful of....

-.-

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Are you intentionally being misleading?

Here is the definition of motor vehicle that you are pasting all over your posts:

(a) Definitions. - In this chapter, the following definitions apply: (6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

Note the operative words, "In this chapter, the following definitions apply".

Title 18 deals with criminal charges involving commercial vehicles: 18 U.S.C. § 33 : US Code - Section 33: Destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities.

Your definition of motor vehicle is used narrowly in the U.S. Codes and only deals with commercial vehicles.

Second, "Police power is wielded only upon probable cause and bearing a warrant!" Says who? You? When you become a Supreme Court justice you can then change the laws. But for now, you are dead wrong. If you disagree, post a case that supports your position.

So until you find something that has overturned Hendrick v. Maryland all you are doing is performing mental masturbation.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

It was unnecessary for you to post the entirety of Hendrick vs. Maryland, because, as I have told you already, I read it in it's entirety the very first time you cited it.

Since it is difficult for me to ascertain by you pasting an entire ruling, specifically which part of my argument it is that you seek clarification of, I ask that you concisely state your objection(s).

You laughably request that I provide you "even just one case" in support of my argument, but I cannot imagine why you would need me to do that which you can easily do yourself.

Nonetheless, here you go:

Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116
Thompson vs. Smith
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
Dickey vs. Davis, 85 SE 781
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619
Stephenson vs. Binford
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356
Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616
Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661

You make a number of mistakes in your comment above:

18 U.S.C. § 33

I haven't mentioned anything about § 33. That is irrelevant to your point or mine. I quoted a portion of § 31.

Title 18 deals with criminal charges involving commercial vehicles

That is absolutely, utterly, and completely false. Here is the complete, uneditted, verbatim name of Title 18:

"TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE"

Therefore, Title 18 deals with crimes and criminal procedure.

Note the operative words, "In this chapter, the following definitions apply".

laff The old "in this chapter" argument again :)

The definition of motor vehicle I quoted is in:

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I—CRIMES
        CHAPTER 2—AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
            § 31. Definitions
                paragraph (a) Definitions
                    clause (6) Motor vehicle

The words "In this chapter" refer to, well, the chapter, and that chapter is CHAPTER 2—AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES in PART I—CRIMES of TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The definition I quoted isn't "defined narrowly", whatever that means, but literally states that it deals only with commercial vehicles -- that is my point -- so you seem to be in agreement with me?!

Furthermore, if you research the equivalent "motor vehicle" definitions for each of the several states, you will discover two curious things:

  • Once upon a time not too long ago, they all contained similar "commercial" language
  • Nowadays they have been suspiciously edited to remove that word.

I love how debunkers always latch onto and parrot the slightest doubt they can muster, and then purport to have struck down the entire "theory".

It is no theory. It is the unambiguous ruling of numerous courts, and I have pasted those rulings yet you refuse to respond. The one and only cogent question you have raised is regarding whether "travel" includes the right to operate an automobile.

RECONCILE THIS ONE SINGLE STATEMENT, or kindly stop wasting my time:

(in bold)

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

Don't debate any poorly adjudicated cases with me; don't espouse your theories about the usefulness of registration, inspection or insurance to the aims of public safety.

Tell me, simply, how it is, that the state can legitimately claim (and act upon such claim) -- that traveling in your automobile upon public highways is a privilege, when it has been ruled over, and over, and over again, in no uncertain terms that:

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

You endeavor to put me on the defense, but in truth, it is you who is on the defense, for my argument was already amply proven when I wrote this article. (and emphasized in bold no less!)

At this point we are rehashing minutiae, and I am repasting those same proofs, emphasizing different portions you seem to have missed, for the fourth or fifth time.

"Police power is wielded only upon probable cause and bearing a warrant!"

Says who? You? ... post a case that supports your position.

No case is necessary -- but there are thousands to choose -- for it is laid out in the highest law of the land thereby obviating the need for any judicial determination:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Note that it does not say who shall not violate the right of the people, but simply that it shall not be done; by ANYONE.

You may not understand that this is the true nature of our system, having been indoctrinated all of your life into the false hierarchy of a unitarian fascist corporate socialist democracy -- but in a Sovereign Constitutional Republic -- you, me, your mother, or a peace officer all act under the EXACT same authority to apprehend, arrest, carry weapons, self defend, witness and testify, except:

  • When the courts issue a warrant.

And: no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is the very essence of freedom and the only mechanism by which freedom can be maintained. Anything less would not constitute 'due process' and is defined as 'arbitrary'.

That the state and the police do not recognize this fact and limit their actions accordingly, is indeed my very complaint.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Well, at least you are good and copying and pasting from different websites.

None of your pasted arguments have ever worked to get a drivers license violation dismissed or failure to register a vehicle dismissed. If they did you would have posted the cases.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

False presumption.

Do you reject the rulings in the cases I cited? Do you reject my interpretation?

If so, upon what grounds?

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Because your interpretation has not been supported by any State Supreme Court case or the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you really think you discovered something that every court in the country has missed for over 100 years?

Again, you never answered my question: Name the three states where your argument has been a successful defense for not having a license or registration. You posted, "the legal arguments I presented have been successfully used for dismissal in at least three states."

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

I believe you are confusing travel and driving. The case headnotes you posted concern the federal government restricting or preventing the travel of citizens either to other states or to leave the U.S.

So you are right in that the government cannot prevent your travel.

however, driving itself is not a right and none of the cases you noted ever held that driving is a right. In fact, the courts have held that driving is a privilege and gave the States the right to set the standards for drivers on their highways.

So you can travel all you want within in your State or to another State. If you want to drive on a highway you will need a license, insurance, etc. If you feel you don't want to comply with those requirements you can always walk, ride a bike, swim, or take some other form of commercial travel (train, plane, bus).

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 3 years ago

Have you even read any of the cases that you are copying and pasting?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Yes. Do you know what "It includes the right ... to operate an automobile" means?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 3 years ago

So what are you saying? You want to camp in the road?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

No, I'm saying that you, and I, and everyone, have the right to use the roads for travel in our automobiles without seeking permission from The state.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 3 years ago

This is true,I guess I'm trying to understand why you bring this up?

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 3 years ago

Because many people in the Occupy movement don't believe in seeking permission from the State when it's unneccessary, and I hope that some of the propoents of this movement who feel so motivated will take a stand and help free us from those onerous burdens.

[Removed]