Post by Thorax232 on Mar 9, 2013 14:07:11 GMT -6
Let’s start out with the basic “tricks” they are using to steal your money and your freedom. All the government agencies you are involved with have a nasty habit of changing the meanings of words to fit into their “code” or “regulations”. Then they can charge you fees and issue licenses for that particular activity…An activity you had the right to participate in.
Let’s take a look at some LEGAL definitions of some of these terms…From the United States Code:
USC Title 18, § 31 – Definition of “Motor Vehicle”…
(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.
USC Title 18, § 31 defines “Commercial Purposes”:
(10) “Commercial Purposes”
Used for commercial purposes. - The term ''used for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.”
Is your car, pickup, or motorcycle a “commercial vehicle”? Do you get paid to drive on the roads? If you only use it to go to and from work, the store, school, or any other private reason, your car/pickup/motorcycle IS NOT A “MOTOR VEHICLE”.
Undisputable Fact Number 1: Your car is not a “Motor Vehicle”.
Now the term “Driver”:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
A person is “Driving” when employed to “Drive” a “Motor Vehicle” for “Commercial Purposes”.
And the term “Traveler”.
"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 by Right, and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.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., p. 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, p.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.
Undisputable Fact Number 2: You are a “Driver”, Driving a “Motor Vehicle” when you are being paid to carry passengers, goods, or cargo for a profit or for pay.
You are a “Traveler” when you are traveling in your car for personal purposes; You are “Traveling”.
The government has tried to change the meaning of car or automobile to “Motor Vehicle”, and they have changed the term travel or traveling, to “Driver” or “Driving”. Can they do this?
“No” says the United States Supreme Court:
The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs:
Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution. ] CRAIG v MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
U S Supreme Court in Shapiro v Thompson 394 US 618:
All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, and regulations, which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertions of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional.
The equal protection clause prohibits apportionment of state services according to par tax contributions of its citizens. Any classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right of interstate travel unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest is unconstitutional.
That a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be necessary concomitant of the stronger union the constitution created in any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.
And THOMPSON v SMITH, 155 Va 367:
"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 the city may prohibit or permit at will, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p 1135:
"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 horsedrawn 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. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
Also see: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
“The constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any in conflict is null and void of law. MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137
ARTICLE VI OF THE U S CONSTITUTION
"This constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the united States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
A. Can the State of California arbitrarily convert a secured liberty, in this case the right to travel freely and unencumbered, into a privilege, and issue a license and a fee for it? NO:
MURDOCK V. PENNSLYVANIA 319 US 105 says: “No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it”.
B. If a state does attempt to convert the right into a privilege and attempts to issue a license and fee for the exercise of that privilege; can it be enforced as law?
SCHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 us 262 tells us: ”If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity”.
C. Did the defendant willfully and with intent violate the law? NO:
US v BISHOP, 412 US 346 tells us: “Willfulness is one of the major elements, which is required to be proven in any criminal element. You have to prove (1) that you are the party (2) that you had a method or opportunity to do the thing, and (3) that you did so with willful intent. Willful is defined as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law.”
May the State of California change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition (CVC 12500) to fit their own needs? NO:
The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs:
Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution. ] CRAIG v MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
What the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, says here is that the state cannot change the meaning of “person traveling” to “driver”, and they cannot change the name or term of “private car,” “pickup” or “motorcycle” to “Motor Vehicle”.
Let’s take a look at some LEGAL definitions of some of these terms…From the United States Code:
USC Title 18, § 31 – Definition of “Motor Vehicle”…
(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.
USC Title 18, § 31 defines “Commercial Purposes”:
(10) “Commercial Purposes”
Used for commercial purposes. - The term ''used for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.”
Is your car, pickup, or motorcycle a “commercial vehicle”? Do you get paid to drive on the roads? If you only use it to go to and from work, the store, school, or any other private reason, your car/pickup/motorcycle IS NOT A “MOTOR VEHICLE”.
Undisputable Fact Number 1: Your car is not a “Motor Vehicle”.
Now the term “Driver”:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
A person is “Driving” when employed to “Drive” a “Motor Vehicle” for “Commercial Purposes”.
And the term “Traveler”.
"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 by Right, and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.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., p. 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, p.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.
Undisputable Fact Number 2: You are a “Driver”, Driving a “Motor Vehicle” when you are being paid to carry passengers, goods, or cargo for a profit or for pay.
You are a “Traveler” when you are traveling in your car for personal purposes; You are “Traveling”.
The government has tried to change the meaning of car or automobile to “Motor Vehicle”, and they have changed the term travel or traveling, to “Driver” or “Driving”. Can they do this?
“No” says the United States Supreme Court:
The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs:
Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution. ] CRAIG v MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
U S Supreme Court in Shapiro v Thompson 394 US 618:
All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, and regulations, which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertions of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional.
The equal protection clause prohibits apportionment of state services according to par tax contributions of its citizens. Any classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right of interstate travel unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest is unconstitutional.
That a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be necessary concomitant of the stronger union the constitution created in any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.
And THOMPSON v SMITH, 155 Va 367:
"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 the city may prohibit or permit at will, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p 1135:
"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 horsedrawn 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. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
Also see: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
“The constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any in conflict is null and void of law. MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137
ARTICLE VI OF THE U S CONSTITUTION
"This constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the united States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
A. Can the State of California arbitrarily convert a secured liberty, in this case the right to travel freely and unencumbered, into a privilege, and issue a license and a fee for it? NO:
MURDOCK V. PENNSLYVANIA 319 US 105 says: “No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it”.
B. If a state does attempt to convert the right into a privilege and attempts to issue a license and fee for the exercise of that privilege; can it be enforced as law?
SCHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 us 262 tells us: ”If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity”.
C. Did the defendant willfully and with intent violate the law? NO:
US v BISHOP, 412 US 346 tells us: “Willfulness is one of the major elements, which is required to be proven in any criminal element. You have to prove (1) that you are the party (2) that you had a method or opportunity to do the thing, and (3) that you did so with willful intent. Willful is defined as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law.”
May the State of California change the definition of a word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to another definition (CVC 12500) to fit their own needs? NO:
The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs:
Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution. ] CRAIG v MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
What the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, says here is that the state cannot change the meaning of “person traveling” to “driver”, and they cannot change the name or term of “private car,” “pickup” or “motorcycle” to “Motor Vehicle”.