Jump to content
NOJURISDICTION

Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

Recommended Posts

goonbolt, I never said any of it, or that I was credible, but was asking about the validity of it.

Fair enough.  There is no validity to the notion that individuals need not possess a valid driver's license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  The law of every state requires such licensure.  Penalties for driving without a license vary by state, but include fines, community service, jail time, and vehicle impoundment.  Penalties generally increase with subsequent offenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is funny, When I copied it it said office of the clerk. Come on guys you are educated you should be able to spot a typo and be able to figure out what was meant.

 

Given that virtually everything you posted is complete nonsense, I wasn't about to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was a typo (as I would almost certainly do with any other post).

 

 

 

Some of the legal sites I used were http://www.law.cornell.edu, http://www.supremelaw.org (which I believe is a law firms website)this site, and also some searching on Google scholar.

 

The Cornell Law School's web site is legit, but I doubt any of the stuff you posted came from it (although who knows what might have been buried in those gigantic paragraphs?).  Supremelaw.org is most certainly not a law firm's web site.  It is a site belonging to an anti-IRS crackpot who claims, among other things, that "[t]he IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration" and that the 14th and 16th Amendments were not properly ratified.

 

 

 

I never said any of it, or that I was credible, but was asking about the validity of it.

 

That wasn't even remotely apparent from your post, and this question has been clearly answered numerous times in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a site belonging to an anti-IRS crackpot who claims, among other things, that "[t]he IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration" and that the 14th and 16th Amendments were not properly ratified.

Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico was appointed 'receiver of the Bankrupt United States in the reorganization plan number 26, in 1950.

Title 5 United States Code, Section 903, public-law 94-564: The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, Title 27 Code of Regulations, Section 251.11 the Title Secretary of the Treasury is a euphemistic abbreviation of the actual Title; Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

So you want us to believe you when the proof is there for everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."

If you are a person you cannot travel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want us to believe you when the proof is there for everyone?

Proof of what? 

 

If you are a person you cannot travel

This is perhaps one of the dumbest conclusions that you've made thus far.

 

19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations §886 (2003)[Legal encyclopedia] "A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only."

...and your point is what?

 

By the way, in case you missed it, the law of every state requires that the operator of a motor vehicle who drives on public roads must be appropriately licensed in order to do so legally.  No matter what garbled, unreliable, out-of-context statement that you have posted or continue to post, you always fall short of providing any logical arguments to the contrary.  

 

Anyone can find the s**t that you spew by conducting half-assed web searches.  Your problem is that you are ignorant to the notion of finding objectively reliable resources that support your position and are actually on-point.  Otherwise, you'd have proven all of us wrong by now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want us to believe you when the proof is there for everyone?

 

Proof of what, exactly? Your rant on the Secretary of the Treasury confirms for me again that you are simply regurgitating what you get off various anti-government web sites rather trying to do a real job of reading and analyzing the law. Because if you had read and analzyed the law, you'd realize what a crock of nonsense it was that you just posted. 

 

The Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and the Secretary of the Puerto Rico Treasury are two different positions. Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S., and has its own government (much like the states each have their own governments) that is seperate and distinct from the U.S. government. If you cannot even understand that much in reading the law, then I'm sorry to say our education system failed you. You evidently didn't learn the basics of government nor how to think logically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does it work for me in court?

 

Why does what work for you in court? None of the arguments you’ve made here are worth anything. If the judges in your county buy them, then you have lousy judges. Certainly no appellate courts have bought them; you’ll not find any appellate decisions that say states cannot require you to have a driver’s license. Can you point to a single appellate court decision you’ve won? If so, give us the citation for it, I’d love to read it. Otherwise, I don’t buy your claim that they work for you in court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a fact that you do have a right to drive without a license,

It's a fact that you are wrong about this. 

 

its also a fact that statutes will be used against you in an unfair way. 

To which statutes do you refer?  

 

you will be persecuted if you try to avoid them, but it does not change the fact that you are a sovereign individual.

Persecuted?  I don't know about that one.  Nevertheless, this sentence doesn't mean anything. 

 

If after all of the information provided to the contrary you still believe its lawful to drive without a license, then by all means, go ahead and do it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides in this discussion have missed the mark. The subject matter in any vehicle code is TRANSPORTATION. "the removal of persons or property from one place to another, by a CARRIER". This close paraphrase is from Black's Law Dictionary online.

What is a CARRIER? a form of commercial activity. Same law dictionary will define

"common carriers"

"business carriers"

"private carriers"

all "transportation activity" falls within one of the three.

A "motor vehicle" is "any self propelled device by which persons/property is or may be transported"- there is the reference to the activity, "transport"; the carrying (removal) from place to place.

To remove is different than to move. We have the right to move; while removal of others by a service, ie a business or other usage is necessarily a privilege.

A private automobile by itself will not fall within the subject of transportation.

Meanwhile "International Road Traffic" is a statutory privilege. No one has to sign up or register with some local transportation authority to operate a private motor vehicle. People come from anywhere in the world and lawfully drive without any verifiable or compact license. Most countries don't really exist to the point of issuing an effective license but that's no bar to "international road traffic", read the 1949 Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides in this discussion have missed the mark. The subject matter in any vehicle code is TRANSPORTATION. "the removal of persons or property from one place to another, by a CARRIER". This close paraphrase is from Black's Law Dictionary online.

 

What on Earth are you talking about?  No one ever raised the issue of the "subject matter in any vehicle code" and, even if that were not the case, every vehicle code with which I'm familiar concerns far more than the commercial "removeal of persons or property from one place to another, by a carrier" (emphasis added), so you're starting this whole discussion with an erroneous premise.  Also, Black's is not authority for what the law is.  It's merely a reference tool.

 

 

 

A "motor vehicle" is "any self propelled device by which persons/property is or may be transported"- there is the reference to the activity, "transport"; the carrying (removal) from place to place.

 

Except that your narrow definition of transportation limits it to the "removal"  by a carrier, and no reasonable person would think that motor vehicles are only utilized by "carriers."

 

 

 

A private automobile by itself will not fall within the subject of transportation.

 

Only if you use the absurd definition of "transportation" that you quoted.  By the way, none of the cases cited at www.the law dictionary.org/transportion for this definition actually support the definition at all.  And, for what it's worth, neither the word "transport" nor any form of it appears in my hard copy of Black's, so I'm not sure where the web site got that definition.

 

 

 

No one has to sign up or register with some local transportation authority to operate a private motor vehicle.

 

To the extent you're suggesting that a driver's license isn't required to operate a motor vehicle legally on public roads, you're wrong for all the reasons explained ad nauseum in this thread.

 

 

 

read the 1949 Convention.

 

Ummm...ok...here it is:  https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20125/v125.pdf -- all 368 pages.  Care to point me to the specific provision you think is relevant here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the subject matter. Transportation, trade and commercial are subsets of General Commerce.

Different states use varying definitions of the term "motor vehicle" The older states like Pennsylvania adopted the 1960 Model Vehicle Code, where my motor vehicle comes from. Yours might come from California, Ohio, Colorado or any number of States that use the straight "m.v. = automobile"

All the state codes arrive at the same conclusion though, when subjects of registration and licensure are actually defined.

Illinois says it best: "Illinois motor vehicles are subject to registration".

"Colorado vehicles" "Nebraska vehicles" "Florida vehicles" are those automobiles subject that State. Either being used for a business on the public highway therein or owned by a resident, which is only shown by the departmental records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a fast proof-

"federal employees on federal business are exempt from licensing and registration"- every State code. Notice how post office trucks, no matter how big, are wholly exempt from state driver licensing and registration. See them on the roads, no plate. And no driver license required. So it's not about the size or velocity of the machine, it's the business of the operation.

that's federal business. everything else is State business. Federal must be exempted precisely because the matter is commerce. States can't control Federal commerce as a subject of restriction.

So why is my transit any business at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To remove is different than to move. We have the right to move; while removal of others by a service, ie a business or other usage is necessarily a privilege.

A private automobile by itself will not fall within the subject of transportation.

 

To the extent you are trying to assert, as others have in this thread, that only commercial activity on the roads requires a driver's license, that is clearly wrong. The law of every state and DC clearly require every person driving on the roads, including an individual driving a private automobile for his own use (i.e. not for business). If you drive/operate/use your private auto on the roads, you need to have it licensed, registered, insured, and you must have a driver's license. If you don’t, you may get issued a citation for it. And that citation won't get dismissed because of the argument that you weren't engaged in a commercial activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transportation, trade and commercial are subsets of General Commerce.

 

Not all transportation is commercial in nature.

 

 

 

All the state codes arrive at the same conclusion though, when subjects of registration and licensure are actually defined.

Illinois says it best: "Illinois motor vehicles are subject to registration".

"Colorado vehicles" "Nebraska vehicles" "Florida vehicles" are those automobiles subject that State. Either being used for a business on the public highway therein or owned by a resident, which is only shown by the departmental records.

 

The last paragraph of this is garbled, and the point of all this is utterly unclear.

 

 

 

here's a fast proof-

 

Proof of what?

 

 

 

"federal employees on federal business are exempt from licensing and registration"- every State code. Notice how post office trucks, no matter how big, are wholly exempt from state driver licensing and registration. See them on the roads, no plate. And no driver license required.

 

Well...I doubt it's in the state codes, but it is correct that states may not impose licensing and registration laws on federal employees and vehicles.

 

 

 

So it's not about the size or velocity of the machine, it's the business of the operation.

 

No.  Federal operations (and I'm including things like diplomatic vehicles within that scope) are the only exception.

 

 

 

that's federal business. everything else is State business.

 

Or not business at all.

 

 

 

So why is my transit any business at all?

 

I'm not able to answer this question because I don't know you or anything about you.  Nor is there a clear point to this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fact- I hand the police my "Paraguayan license" and the same for registration. They run the information and come back "no record". Returns to car hands back docs and says "good bye"; cops drive off. And that's legal. People can come from anywhere in the world regardless of nationality and drive legally, "no record found". Thats how you drive in France and that's how they drive here.

Anyone can participate in the same conditions by equal protection. Private motor vehicle traffic is equally international at all times.

"international" means "not subject to this state". There are only 2 vehicular citizenships, domestic and international. Not "which international", there are not 8,539 competing international possibilities. Of course nobody understands this, most people just sort of project their assumptions and don't think about the math.

Read the part of that convention about "drivers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vehicles in the general sense of wheels on the road simulates the movement of boats on water. we navigate rivers of asphalt and other road materials.

Like boat law, it all depends on the flag of registration and the activity of purpose or design.

any boat from without the state is foreign, by definition. my automobile comes back "no record found" when the police run the VIN. there is no further evidence of registration or title in any administrative record. and there is no evidence of any carrier services, operating a business, etc- these conditions are specifically included within the local jurisdiction by statute, no exemption.

Now what is different between my ride and a car from Uzbekistan? if "no record found" is sometimes good then then the same standards apply across the board.

Same for driver licensing. An IDP is sufficient by definition yet an IDP is nothing more than a linguistic translation booklet, issued by foreign, private, civil character.

The convention at "drivers" says that Contracting States may especially require this 3rd party translation in the case of "drivers from countries that do not issue or require a domestic permit".

See the California Vehicle Code, at "unlicensed drivers" for an example.

The biggest psychologic hurdle is to lose the infantile assumptions that "license" and "registration" can mean anything other than business and commerce, or have something direct to do with public safety. There are countless examples of lawful public driving and car service even without any correspondent registration or issued permission, even heavy trucks and trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest psychologic hurdle is to lose the infantile assumptions that "license" and "registration" can mean anything other than business and commerce, or have something direct to do with public safety. There are countless examples of lawful public driving and car service even without any correspondent registration or issued permission, even heavy trucks and trailer.

 

The biggest hurdle here is not a psychological one. It is reading comprehension and understanding the law, and it is evident you’ve not done a proper job of reading the law on this issue. The law of every state requires that you have a license to operate/drive your vehicle on their roads. If you are a resident of that state, you must have a valid license issued by that state. If you are a resident of another state, then a valid license from that other state generally will suffice. But you cannot simply drive your vehicle with no license at all. The court cases are very clear that arguments such as only commercial drivers can be required to have a license are wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a wrong statement of the law and flies in the face of the fact that people lawfully drive and circulate automobiles every year by the millions under international privilege, and they are not registered or licensed.

Most or all state codes do not say "residents must be licensed". How is a cop going to discover "residency" by the side of the road? What makes someone "international"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...