Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope and nope. The government can absolutely be the plaintiff in a civil dispute against an individual. Ever heard of a DMV hearing?
If you are "driving" a "motor Vehicle" the MV part in DMV, it would indicate you are doing so "For Hire or For Profit" as defined by US law. The Supreme Law of the Land.
Definitions:
Article 6, Clauses 2 & 3: US Constitution and Federal Law, is the supreme Law of the Land.
USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "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 and property, or property or cargo."
USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes":
"The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."
May the state change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition to fit their own needs? NO:
CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
Motor Vehicle stops can be turn into criminal offenses, if you are driving while intoxicated in the State of Texas, you are committing a crime. If you are pulled over, and have an active warrant or have anything illegal in the vehicle, it's a crime. Educate yourself.
Well, of coarse, through Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion(RAS). Through statistical analysis, it can be proven that in control while traveling by locomotion, and being intoxicated is a threat to Life and Property.... A crime.
I'm done here..don't call me when you need bail money..
I dont understand your position...if these are our RIGHTS, under our nations founding document...why on earth would you or anyone try to justify violating those rights?!!
If you say its because you will be arrested...How is it patriotic in anyway to justify the violation of Constitutional rights, being arrested should not be the priority concern! (that would mean we have allowed a tyrannical authority to do what they wish without consequences)....do you consider that the 'American way'?
It seems to me, like you and anyone agreeing with you, seems to believe its totally fine for our govt to violate these rights, (since they came up with a good reason), or that those rights must be violated in order to protect public health and safety! (Under the nations founding document, American citizens are NEVER to tolerate this!)
The examples shown, are not of people driving.....
Definitions:
Article 6, Clauses 2 & 3: US Constitution and Federal Law, is the supreme Law of the Land.
USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "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 and property, or property or cargo."
USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes":
"The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."
May the state change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition to fit their own needs? NO:
CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
RIGHTS:
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
"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." Hale v. HINKEL, 201 US 43, 74-75
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 US 436, 491
and ...
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." MILLER v. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
and ...
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." SNERER v. CULLEN, 481 F. 946
"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 v. CHICAGO, 169 NE 22?1; LIGARE v. CHICAGO, 28 NE 934; BOON v. CLARK, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
and ...
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." THOMPSON v. SMITH, 154 SE 579
TRAVEL
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:
"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717
"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309
"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
DRIVER
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
OPERATOR
Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.
"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both "operator" and "driver." Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.
This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
SURRENDER OF RIGHTS
A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.
"... 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, supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?
Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15
and ...
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.
You're cherry picking phrases without context, citing outdated sources, and conjecturing with no understanding of law whatsoever. The really sad part is that many dumb people buy into this nonsense and end up getting arrested and having their car towed/impounded for no reason. Please stop propagating this crap. You've been proven wrong hundreds of times, yet still cling to your whacko anarchist tripe. Give it a rest.
Or actually be patriotic and stand up for our RIGHTS AS CITIZENS!!!!
The 2nd Amendment gives us a way to deal with these 'terrorists'...the catch is, we actually have to stand up and EXERCISE THEM.
The problem is that you don't understand the law, either willfully or by being just plain stupid. Obey and comply - if you're right and your rights have been violated, you will be vindicated in court. There is nothing to be gained by playing internet lawyer with the police on the side of the road - especially since you've demonstrated conclusively that you don't know anything about the law or your rights. Standing up for fabricated rights makes you look like a moron. For example: SovCit idiots don't understand that you do have the right to travel - but not necessarily by motor vehicle. You may travel via your feet all you wish. Do you see the difference?
Well, of coarse, through Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion(RAS). Through statistical analysis, it can be proven that in control while traveling by locomotion, and being intoxicated is a threat to Life and Property.... A crime.
That cannot be established by mere travel.
Pay attention - free education ahead. A police officer has zero obligation to articulate his RAS to you. Furthermore, he may have facts available to him that you do not. Said facts may contribute to his RAS/PC, so you're automatically wrong if you resist the police based on your incomplete knowledge of his RAS/PC. There, see how easy that was? You're welcome.
Correct. De-criminalize, means an offense is non - jailable. In Ohio, as far as state law is codified, many are Minor Misdemeanor's, a fine only. However, a Municipality can criminalize what the state does not.
M-4 to M-1 are criminal in nature, possible jail time. MM's do not permit a Jury trial, just trial by the court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
