TRAFFIC

[Juristic Person]

I'd like to start up this thread for all traffic related issues: ie traffic court, traffic statutes, encounters with cops on the road, etc.

Let's try to keep everything in one place for easy reference.

I'll repost some of my info later on.

[Defenestrator]

I'll start with a question I've been pondering. Can a neighboring state, let's call it State B, cite you for an expired registration from State A? If they do, are you obligated to pay it?

[Juristic Person]

I'll start with a question I've been pondering. Can a neighboring state, let's call it State B, cite you for an expired registration from State A? If they do, are you obligated to pay it?

Well, there are two answers: the legal answer and the lawful answer.

Legal answer: It varies state to state. Some states will stop out of state cars for registration and some will not. The reason for this is because it is often difficult to for states to enforce the judgements taht are made. State B can not suspend your state A license for failure to pay. They can only try to collect the fine and suspend your driving privleges in that state. Some states do work with others, however. It really just depends.

Lawful answer (condensed version): Traffic court is not a constitutional court. It is a mask for a private court of equity under Admiralty juristiction (commercial law). The state does not have constitutional authority to restrict travel. They may only control commerce. If you are not operating in commerce, you are not obliged to pay their fines or play by their rules. Registration is a tax for using the roads for profit or gain. Traveling from point A to point B is not a commercial activity. It is a right. I'm not sure how foreign this sounds to you but that's what this thread will be about....how not to play in their commercial jurisdiction while still getting from point A to point B.

[Billboard]

Well, there are two answers: the legal answer and the lawful answer.

Legal answer: It varies state to state. Some states will stop out of state cars for registration and some will not. The reason for this is because it is often difficult to for states to enforce the judgements taht are made. State B can not suspend your state A license for failure to pay. They can only try to collect the fine and suspend your driving privleges in that state. Some states do work with others, however. It really just depends.

Lawful answer (condensed version): Traffic court is not a constitutional court. It is a mask for a private court of equity under Admiralty juristiction (commercial law). The state does not have constitutional authority to restrict travel. They may only control commerce. If you are not operating in commerce, you are not obliged to pay their fines or play by their rules. Registration is a tax for using the roads for profit or gain. Traveling from point A to point B is not a commercial activity. It is a right. I'm not sure how foreign this sounds to you but that's what this thread will be about....how not to play in their commercial jurisdiction while still getting from point A to point B.

Hey Juristic Person:

May I call you JP?

I have a few questions re your termed Lawful answer above- Have you heard about Administrative Jurisdiction? If you have, how does the State acquire the lawful power to act under Administrative Jurisdiction?

[Billboard]

I'll start with a question I've been pondering. Can a neighboring state, let's call it State B, cite you for an expired registration from State A? If they do, are you obligated to pay it?

What follows is my personal opinion and is not legal advice.

There is something called the Uniform Motor Vehicles Act, but don't hold me to it, I have to look it up. The reality much depends on what you have agreed and applied for, and in what capacity you were acting when you received the citation.

Tell us what states so we can look up the administrative codes and statutes.

Also, was the "car" previously registered as a motor vehicle?

If you tell us the states, we can pretty much look up the forms and see what is going on.

-BB

[Juristic Person]

Hey Juristic Person:

May I call you JP?

I have a few questions re your termed Lawful answer above- Have you heard about Administrative Jurisdiction? If you have, how does the State acquire the lawful power to act under Administrative Jurisdiction?

I have heard of Administrative jurisdiction, or as others call it Statutory jurisdiction. It doesn't lawfully exist. The COnstitution only mentions two types of jurisdiction and those two types are common law and admiralty. Go to any law library and look for the Rules of Civil Procedure for Administrative jurisdicition...you won't find them. They don't exist. To answer your question, the state only acquires their powerful (though unlawful) to act under "administrative jurisdiciton" through your implied consent.

[the Great Ag]

Hey Juristic Person:

May I call you JP?

I have a few questions re your termed Lawful answer above- Have you heard about Administrative Jurisdiction? If you have, how does the State acquire the lawful power to act under Administrative Jurisdiction?


I have heard of Administrative jurisdiction, or as others call it Statutory jurisdiction. It doesn't lawfully exist. The COnstitution only mentions two types of jurisdiction and those two types are common law and admiralty. Go to any law library and look for the Rules of Civil Procedure for Administrative jurisdicition...you won't find them. They don't exist. To answer your question, the state only acquires their powerful (though unlawful) to act under "administrative jurisdiciton" through your implied consent.

Actually the US CON allows 4 types of jurisdiction: Common, Equity, Admiralty and alludes to administrative or statutory jurisdiction (fourth type of jurisdiction) in Article I, Section 8:enumerated powers.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
CONgress within its jurisdiction has "exclusive" control over ALL legislation irrespective of the US CON. This is administrative jurisdiction. Others call it private law.

From Black's Law Dictionary 3rd ed.

Administrative Law: That branch of public law which deals with the various organs of the sovereign power considered as in motion, and prescribes in detail the manner of their activity, being concerned with such topics as the collection of the revenue, the regulation of the military and naval forces, citizenship and naturalization, sanitary measures, poor laws, coinage, police, the public safety and morals, etc.

Private Law: As used in contradistinction to public law, the term means all that part of the law which is administered between citizen and citizen, or which is concerned with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights in cases where both the person in who the right inheres and the person upon whom the obligation is incident are private individuals

Private law affects ONLY those who subject themselves to the law. As the US has administrative jurisdiction so do the states, within their own Constitutional powers, have the ability to create administrative jurisdiction. Which is why you can find "administrative code" for every state. These are the procedures which "prescribe in manner the detail" (from Public law above) how the state(s) carry out their duties. "Traffic" enforcement can be regulated by the states. Using public roads to make a private gain is a privilege. As such it falls with the state's jurisdiction (administrative law). By accessing a "privilege" one accepts obligations. It is best NOT to accept the privilege, unless one is engage in commerce. If one has a DL, the Law WILL be presume you have waived your right to travel.

Billboard, I think you were referring to an administrative code. Here is the link for Delaware's admin code http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/

According to their rules, a human can request an administrative hearing, in writing, within 15 days of the citation's issuance. If there is NO response from the administrator within 30 days, the matter is dropped.

Scroogle "administrative code" for your state and read the appropriate section for "traffic." I bet you will be surprised at what you see.

The Great Ag

[the Great Ag]

Question for GIM2ers? Does application and acceptance of a DL WAIVE one's right to travel?

Some say yes, it does. There is even a case cite for it, although I cannot lay my hands on it now.

It seems to me, the right to travel is inalienable.

From Black's Law Dictionary 3rd ed.

Inalienable: Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e.g. liberty.

Alienable: Proper to be the subject of alienation or transfer.
Certain things CANNOT be transferred or given away. The Declaration of Independence gives 3 examples, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Follow along with me. The right to travel falls under the concept of Liberty. The ability to freely travel and chose one's direction in life is a God given right. I have to travel to work, to shop, to play, to go to school. . .etc. No gov't can restrict movement. The US Supreme Court agrees.


Shapiro v Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969), All citizens must be free to travel unemcumbered. . .If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional.
It seems to me the right to travel IS inalienable. You cannot give it away, even if you want to. Logically, by applying for an application and accepting a DL, one has NOT waived one's inalienable right to travel.

Keep in mind there is a distinction between "driving" and "traveling." It is important to know the difference.

The Great Ag

[Billboard]

Hello TGA:


Question for GIM2ers? Does application and acceptance of a DL WAIVE one's right to travel?

Some say yes, it does. There is even a case cite for it, although I cannot lay my hands on it now.

It seems to me, the right to travel is inalienable.

I have been studying the issue of waiver of rights, and I haven't yet formulated a conclusion; however, it seems to me that since those that operate in the United States (and its fiat currency ) under commercial law do not object to any encroachment or transgression of their rights, they pretty much waive, in effect, any protection they may have enjoyed had they reserved their rights.

I have a personal experience regarding this, where I reserved my rights in my pleadings in court and I prevailed in an Appeals proceeding due to reserving my rights.

[the Great Ag]

Hello TGA:
I have been studying the issue of waiver of rights, and I haven't yet formulated a conclusion; however, it seems to me that since those that operate in the United States (and its fiat currency ) under commercial law do not object to any encroachment or transgression of their rights, they pretty much waive, in effect, any protection they may have enjoyed had they reserved their rights.

I have a personal experience regarding this, where I reserved my rights in my pleadings in court and I prevailed in an Appeals proceeding due to reserving my rights.

Hey, Billboard:
First: Good for you on prevailing on appeal. Did you reserve rights prior to your pleadings?

Second: The use of FRNs does waive certain rights and the "holder in due course" has accepted the benefits. This is nothing new, as FRNs is applicable to contract law.

However, some rights are inalienable (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to name a few.) Since they cannot be conveyed or transferred, the use of FRNs does NOT convert an inalienable right to an alienable right.

Conversely, CONstitutional rights can be waived, as those rights are secured by gov't, so a right to trial can be waived.

This is my opinion, but I feel safe enought to argue these points in court.

THe Great Ag

[Defenestrator]

Question for GIM2ers? Does application and acceptance of a DL WAIVE one's right to travel?

Some say yes, it does. There is even a case cite for it, although I cannot lay my hands on it now.

It seems to me, the right to travel is inalienable.

From Black's Law Dictionary 3rd ed.

Certain things CANNOT be transferred or given away. The Declaration of Independence gives 3 examples, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Follow along with me. The right to travel falls under the concept of Liberty. The ability to freely travel and chose one's direction in life is a God given right. I have to travel to work, to shop, to play, to go to school. . .etc. No gov't can restrict movement. The US Supreme Court agrees.


It seems to me the right to travel IS inalienable. You cannot give it away, even if you want to. Logically, by applying for an application and accepting a DL, one has NOT waived one's inalienable right to travel.

Keep in mind there is a distinction between "driving" and "traveling." It is important to know the difference.

The Great Ag

I believe you may be right. The simple fact that you've applied for a commercial driver's license serves only to say that you anticipate that at some point you may need to drive commercially. As a comparison use a passport. You can apply for a passport and never leave the country, thus never needing the passport.

I would think you could apply for a Driver's License, and yet never actually drive. I do not believe it is the application for a Driver's License that converts traveling into a commercially regulated privilege, however it is the demonstration of a Driver's License that creates the presumption that you were in fact driving

My only hesitation in this is that I worry there may be something deeper involved now that every state but Maryland requires a Social Security number in order to issue a Driver's License. This may mean that demonstrating a Driver's License creates even deeper presumptions about your rights and obligations.