Activist David Manning will be showing up at Keene District Court tomorrow morning in regards to an unpaid U-turn ticket. We will be meeting David at Brewbakers on Main Street at 8 a.m. prior to his trip over to the courthouse to discuss strategy.
Aren't rules of the road a bit further down on the list than rent-seeking licensing systems and the like? What's the background of this situation?
I'm a little bit light on information... all I know is that David made a U-turn, was ticketed, did not pay, and will not pay. Tomorrow is his last day to either pay or appear in court.
A lot of my support depends on the situation.
Did he intentionally do a U-turn at a place where it was clearly posted that he couldn't, and he just thinks The Man is out to get him?
Did he do a U-turn but have no realistic way of knowing such a maneuver was against the law?
Did he do a U-turn, knowing it was illegal, but under extenuating circumstances (like, rushing to the hospital or a wedding or somesuch)?
Did he send the ticket in with the "not guilty" box checked?
It is only an unpaid ticket if he didn't send it, or he sent it with a different box checked.
Anyway, each day he spends in jail counts as $50 toward the fine....
IUT
$ 77.00
Two days in jail should cover it.
wish I could be there! I can protest outside the jail, if that is needed.
Quote from: d_goddard on August 14, 2007, 11:47 AM NHFT
A lot of my support depends on the situation.
Did he intentionally do a U-turn at a place where it was clearly posted that he couldn't, and he just thinks The Man is out to get him?
Did he do a U-turn but have no realistic way of knowing such a maneuver was against the law?
Did he do a U-turn, knowing it was illegal, but under extenuating circumstances (like, rushing to the hospital or a wedding or somesuch)?
Good questions D, in addition to that I'd be more interested in knowing where this turn was made. In some areas making a U turn can put not only yourself in danger but others because of limited site on the road. This isn't something I think we should be encouraging unless we know far more details.
It matters to most of us here whether it was a U-turn on a deserted street at 2 a.m., or whether it was during noon rush and caused others to slam on their brakes.
Unfortunately, it probably doesn't matter to the judge.
I added it to the calendar for you, Ian.
Let me just say this: For those of you whose head is still in the sand, we have a defacto national id card. That card is your driver's license. The "Real ID" is just another step in integrating the information, but even as is, the license is still a de facto national id card.
Now ... as the US government made pretty clear to the Central American regimes in the torture manuals, a national id card is pretty much worthless if you don't have a system of internal checkpoints.
No internal checkpoints in America, right?
Think again! Why the hell do you think we have so many policeman who are engaged in enforcing trivial traffic regulations?
Does Dave have a victim? No. Then why are so many of you pontificating about how you can't give your support in such and such a situation?
Quote from: Caleb on August 14, 2007, 05:34 PM NHFT
Does Dave have a victim?
We don't know that. That's why we're pontificating.
Quote from: money dollars on August 14, 2007, 12:04 PM NHFT
Anyway, each day he spends in jail counts as $50 toward the fine....
IUT
$ 77.00
Two days in jail should cover it.
You mean you can cause them expense instead of the other way around?
Schweet...
I wasn't getting on your case, kb. Your post seemed to add a little common sense.
In this case, there was no victim (well, unless you count Dave as the victim of the officer.)
Quote from: Caleb on August 14, 2007, 05:34 PM NHFT
Does Dave have a victim?
That depends on whether he was driving dangerously.
I don't buy that you have to actually kill somebody to create a victim. Shooting a single round into a crowd and failing to hit anybody simply results in a lot of people who were victimized a lot less than if there had been one well-defined corpse.
Even if all roads were privately owned & operated, there would surely be rules of the road. And some people would surely break them.
What I mostly want to know, is whether "doing an illegal U-Turn" was merely a pretext for an expropriation, as so often happens, or in fact the enforcement of reasonable rules.
Quote from: d_goddard on August 14, 2007, 06:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on August 14, 2007, 05:34 PM NHFT
Does Dave have a victim?
That depends on whether he was driving dangerously.
I don't buy that you have to actually kill somebody to create a victim. Shooting a single round into a crowd and failing to hit anybody simply results in a lot of people who were victimized a lot less than if there had been one well-defined corpse.
Even if all roads were privately owned & operated, there would surely be rules of the road. And some people would surely break them.
What I mostly want to know, is whether "doing an illegal U-Turn" was merely a pretext for an expropriation, as so often happens, or in fact the enforcement of reasonable rules.
No offense, denis, but you're speaking out of your ass.
"Was he driving dangerously?"
By what standard? (See, I've been reading Ayn Rand ;) ) That, as I'm sure you know, is a subjective standard. Are you advocating for subjective standards in general?
You seem to be implying that I can create a victim if someone merely feels fearful or astonished at something I do. By that standard, you can make almost anything illegal.
99% of no u-turn signs are totally arbitrary and bullshit. Market roads would respond to demand. Uturns may be mostly allowed and yields may replace most stop signs.
Quote from: dalebert on August 14, 2007, 05:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: money dollars on August 14, 2007, 12:04 PM NHFT
Anyway, each day he spends in jail counts as $50 toward the fine....
IUT
$ 77.00
Two days in jail should cover it.
You mean you can cause them expense instead of the other way around?
Schweet...
I have been advocating that around here for a while...
Quote from: mvpel on August 14, 2007, 10:41 AM NHFT
Aren't rules of the road a bit further down on the list than rent-seeking licensing systems and the like? What's the background of this situation?
maybe 4 u but this is what dave is dealing with
Please do explain exactly how making a U-turn in and of itself is "dangerous."
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 14, 2007, 06:46 PM NHFT
99% of no u-turn signs are totally arbitrary and bullshit. Market roads would respond to demand. Uturns may be mostly allowed and yields may replace most stop signs.
Absolutely. The percentage of "totally arbitrary and bullshit" stop signs is probably a little lower. Let's call it 90%. But those 90% should be yield signs, because any driver slowing to approach the intersection can see perfectly well whether any traffic is coming.
I go through three stop signs every day on my way to work. The first, at the end of my street, is right after a curve, so I'm only going about 15mph as I approach it. The stop sign is at a right angle "T" intersection, so I have to slow to about 5mph just to turn the corner. But between the curve and the point where I have to start slowing for the stop sign, I can see all the way to the end of that street (big yards in this neighborhood). In the 13 years I've lived here, the only times I've come to a complete stop there, were when the state trooper who used to live on that corner was standing in his yard.
The next stop sign is about 150 yards further, where I have to make a left turn onto a 4 lane commuter artery. The intersection is in a curve, and giant shrubbery to the left forces me to creep out just to see if traffic is coming around the curve from the left. I've never
not stopped at this sign!
The last stop sign is somewhere in between. The visibility approaching it is even better than the first sign, but the traffic is almost as heavy as the second one, so I usually have to stop.
So in my daily commute the "totally arbitrary and bullshit" stop signs are 33%. In my other daily travels, where I don't go through that one intersection, I'd say it's easily 90%+ in the "totally arbitrary" category, and should be yield signs.
From what I understand, he did it late at night when there was basically no one else on the road. Not what I'd call dangerous.
i have no interest in telling dave how to drive or back it up with government force.
and since i dont like or trust the gov ... i hopedav sticks it to the man :)
A good friend of mine was working as a taxi driver and late one night he had a belligerent drunk in his taxi. The drunk was causing problems (I don't have the details, but imagine someone trying to grab the steering wheel etc.) so when he saw a cop car, he made a quick U-turn to get the cop's help. The cop gave him a ticket for the u-turn which caused him to lose his taxi job, which caused him to have to drop out of college for a while.
Update: We were there with camaras. (Ian, Lauren C., Lauren R., Dave Krauss, and Me. They (the bailiff) "asked" me not to film since I don't have a tripod. ::) Ian got film though.
Dave was called first. The judge said, "You're here for an unpaid traffic fine." Dave said, "Yes, I am unable to pay because I am morally opposed to extortion." The judge said, "Ok, you're free to go. We'll handle this in the usual manner." Afterwards we hung outside the court for a while and a couple people came up and wanted to either thank Dave, or else ask him what he meant.
who is this dave guy?
great job backing him up altho i would like 2 kno more about what he did and didn't do.
Interesting Observation:
I have now shot video in this district courtroom twice. Once for Russell and now once for David Manning. Both times the cases were called first. Why are they doing this when they could be making us wait all day? Instead of marginalizing us and putting us at the very end of the docket when there's no one else in the courtroom, they are hearing our people first in front of the full crowd...
Also, Caleb was not allowed to film because he did not have a tripod or a press badge, which validates my belief that these government guys really respond to perceptions of authority. While neither Caleb or I were dressed professionally, I had the homemade press badge on a lanyard and the tripod so therefore I appeared "official".
Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room. Lance, the very friendly police officer asked us to sit down at a table and when the judge came in perhaps out of habit Lance said, "All rise." Normally if I were to simply be an observer in the courtroom, I would not rise. In this case I was a little torn as I did not want to jeopardize my ability to video the proceedings. Caleb and I sort of looked at each other and began to get up maybe a few inches off our chairs, but then sat back down again looking confused. The whole situation is a bit of a blur and I don't even recall if we said anything, but Lance started to indicate that we didn't really have to, so we didn't. Perhaps Caleb can remember little bit more detail than I can.
who's the judge
No clue... he's the same guy that did Russell's trial.
blake
QuoteI am unable to pay because I am morally opposed to extortion
I'm going to have to remember that one. Next month I have to go to the Westfield (MA) District Court for a speeding ticket I got back in January. I don't know why it took so long for them to schedule my hearing. If they find me "responsible", I don't think I will be able to afford to pay the ticket because I have been laid off for most of the summer. I'm not even sure if I'll be able to afford to renew my drivers license or vehicle registration this month.
Quote from: Caleb on August 15, 2007, 09:26 AM NHFT
The judge said, "Ok, you're free to go. We'll handle this in the usual manner."
What the hell does that mean?
keene justice
execution at dawn
I dont think they want u in the court so the hurry things along
The first thing I thought of when the judge said "We'll handle this in the normal fashion" was a swat team breaking down Dave's door. Then I thought, no, they'll ding his driving record in some way... then suspend his license... then put out a warrant out for him... then steal his car... THEN break down his door and grab him.
good 4 dave
he refuses to be a slave
dave did a little shrug and now he is more free
kanning .. lanning ... manning ...
Quote from: mvpel on August 14, 2007, 10:41 AM NHFT
Aren't rules of the road a bit further down on the list than rent-seeking licensing systems and the like? What's the background of this situation?
First, this is regrettably a long post, but it is a distillation of my admittadly partial knowledge of how the "traffic violation" system works.
Just a legal refresher, and this may or may not have some pertinence to Manning's case:
The term
"rules of the road" refers to a set of common law precedents
See Arkansas citation: http://www.co.pulaski.ar.us/5thdivcircuit/jury/jury_info/9.htm
which were apparently derived from maritime usage, "from the general practices of mariners and from the requirements of due care"
See Section 4, American Law of Collision, by Griffin: http://books.google.com/books?id=L-YRVi3HPfEC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=rules+of+the+road+common+law&source=web&ots=r2PvjVvhAW&sig=ybziuvgkP2HqnHL80ijr3c4P35o
The old common law "rules of the road" may or may not have been incorporated into
statute "law" in each of the several states of the united States. The state might then call a set of their statute laws, the "rules of the road" which then tends to obscure the common law derivation.
examples: Illinois - http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a11213.pdf
Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61
New Hampshire refers to Chapter 265 of the statutes as "RULES OF THE ROAD", but remember that the title of a chapter is not itself law, it is something a clerk added to describe that section of the laws.
See: New Hampshire Statutes, Title XXI, Chapter 265: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXI-265.htm
In addition, some things that the police (state and local) want people to obey are
"motor vehicle regulations" promulgated by the New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles.
Regulations are not "laws" as they are not passed by the legislature, but the legislature has authorized the DMV generally to promulgate regulations, and has not kicked back to "legislate over" or recall or prohibit any of the regulations (that I know of). They apparently call them administrative rules here.
See: N.N. Department of Safety Administrative Rules: http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/adminrules/lawsandrules.html
Travellers (ie, those who have not asked for a license to "drive" from the state) have not agreed to those regulations and continue to possess a
"right to travel" freely (derived from freedoms gained as early as Magna Carta), as long as they do no harm to others under common law understandings. Not sure of travellers status regarding the State statutes, but some in the right to travel movement say they are only bound by common law obligations, not statute law.
"Licensed Drivers" (comes from "driving a team" of horses, ie, those who are using the public ways to operate commercially and cause more wear and tear on the roads with their carriages, coaches or freight trucks, and those with the capability to do more harm to travellers because of their size and weight) have applied for (asked for) that privilege (to operate commercially on the public ways) from the State, and have signed a contract with the State to abide by the regulations for their commercial use of the public ways, with the Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (Virginia Beecher, in New Hampshire) as agent, authorized to accept, approve and sign the contract - see
both your signature and her signature on the New Hampshire Drivers License (evidence of the contract). So, when you are accused of a "violation", that means you have not committed a crime, but have "violated" the terms of the contract which you agreed to. I believe the contract is considered an "adhesion contract", in that you are stuck with and to any extensions of the regulations, ie, changes to or even new regulations.
In other words, most of us have asked for the "privilege" and have (usually indadvertently) agreed to the contract. We look silly arguing later that "it ain't right". As adults (people over 18), we are presumed to be competent to understand and contract freely. If one says they didn't understand what they were signing, they are essentially claiming that they are incompetent to enter into contracts (so, therefore a good candidate for guardianship by the state).
In addition, in a city or town, the "law" against making a U-turn is not actually a "law" (statute passed by the legislature), but rather an ordinance, ie, something
ordained (ordered) by the City of Keene, for example, which is a municipal corporation, not a constitutionally-recognized "law"-making body. They
do call a Board of Alderman or City Council a "legislative body" in the statutes authorizing municipal corporations, but they never call their ordinances "law." There was a recent fight for "Home Rule", which would grant to city and town municipal corporations the authority to make "laws." It failed, and we still have law (statutes) created only by the legislature.
So, when you are stopped and ticketed by a City or Town policeman, first of all he is not a constitutional officer (like a sheriff is), but I believe he is deputized by the County Sheriff to enforce state laws (murder, burglary, etc.). I'm not as clear as to their legal authority to enforce "regulations" and the area of enforcing "ordinances" is even less clear to me. But, for example, even a campus cop can be deputized by the sheriff to enforce laws (I know of a case that I followed up on and finally got that from the cops and the sheriffs).
When you go to court for a traffic "violation", it will be in a District Court, which is not a constitutionally-authorized Court, and only has some quasi-authority, which is why you have a right to (an appeal for) a trial "de novo" (new trial) in the Superior Court (a constitutional Court) in all cases.
I'm not a lawyer, but have been at this for 32 years. It finally sunk in why I could not get a trial by jury for a traffic case: You have
a right to a trial in civil and criminal cases, but a traffic matter is a "violation of contract" matter, so the District Court sits in its capacity as an equity court to hear the contract dispute - did you or did you not violate the contract, as accused (and you usually don't have a prayer, but should argue the matter as an equity matter and there are suggested ways of settling all the issues in contest before the hearing).
It
is an arcane web, and Manning may have inadvertantly done the right thing somehow, but it's still unclear what the judge meant by "the usual manner." What did the judge say "in camera" (in the meeting room, not in the public hearing)?
Oops, sorry, didn't mean to shut down the thread.... ;D
some people ask to have their licenses cancelled before they get into trouble, so they can never be suspended
driving w/o license minor offense
driving suspended: Major offense
Does someone knowthe answer to "Beavis'" question about what exactly they're going to do with Mr. U-turn? :(
Is driving a privilege or a right?
Does the gov't have the authority to restrict or prohibit the travel of peaceable persons?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on August 16, 2007, 02:21 AM NHFT
some people ask to have their licenses cancelled before they get into trouble, so they can never be suspended
I even have points on my non-existant NH license
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 15, 2007, 09:53 AM NHFT
Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room.
Did you meet with the judge? What Happened?
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 03:14 AM NHFT
Is driving a privilege or a right?
Travelling is a right - evolving from the release of the serfs from being bound to the land of their lord.
"Driving" (use of the public ways for commercial activity) is a privilege, granted by the guardians of the public lands and ways (now known as the government)
What most don't know is that they have applied for and contracted with the state to become a commercial user of the public ways, and therefore agree to be regulated.
This brief has this legal distinction described in detail: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm
In part:
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...
1.Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right;
and...
2.Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
and further, the definitions of the words are very important and have a legal meaning, not necessarily the same as their common usage, or per the same brief:
DEFINITIONS
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
and:
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., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
This brief lays out the distinction pretty well and is a good read. I recommend it for better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as automobile v. motor vehicle, traveller v. driver, operator, traffic, license and other important words to use properly.
So this is another example of being duped into "voluntarily" giving away our rights.
Interesting, thanks.
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 16, 2007, 06:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 03:14 AM NHFT
Is driving a privilege or a right?
Right
Based on?
A guy built a car and sold it to me. Roads exist that I have been forced to pay for, and, I drive them without conducting fraud or injury of any kind to any individuals or their property.
Bill, you're going to be wrong about this as you are about everything.
Yep. All the cases in the early days of the automobile (early 20th Century) recognized the right to travel using your own automobile. Licensing for commercial use began and included testing of skills to get the license. Then the testing was sold to the people as a way to prove how good they were at these skills, but it was voluntary. There's a good book on this by David Lindsay, from Alberta, called Rights Denied, who traces the whole history of travel rights back to Magna Carta, then the recent (starting roughly in the 1920's) drive to license everyone as "drivers." I have a copy here somewhere.
Lloyd, you should read some of the history of these laws. It's especially important to use the words properly - the law is very precise about which word means what.
Dave Lindsay's book was self-published and I can't find it from a quick web search. We had him speak here in Milford about 10 years ago on "Right to Travel", which he called "Right to free access to the public ways." I have an old email address for him - I can write to see if he still has some copies for sale. There are plenty of others you can find on the net - google "right to travel". When we find a new location for the Renaissance Reading Room, I'll unpack my book boxes and it'll be right there on the shelf.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 16, 2007, 08:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 16, 2007, 06:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 03:14 AM NHFT
Is driving a privilege or a right?
Right
Based on?
A guy built a car and sold it to me. Roads exist that I have been forced to pay for, and, I drive them without conducting fraud or injury of any kind to any individuals or their property.
The roads themselves are collective property and therefore you are only a joint owner with all the other owners. As such, you need to get permission from all of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority prior to use and the terms and conditions of use can be set by them.
Contained within the roads and sidewalks is a common right of way which is an individual equal right. As such, you are only restricted in your individual use of common right of ways by whether or not you are infringing on the equal rights of any other individual to the same.
The terms and use of the sidewalk are much less stringent than roads (skateboarders, rollerskating, bicycles, etc) because the extent of possible injury is so much less when you bump into anyone else while walking.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 16, 2007, 06:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 15, 2007, 09:53 AM NHFT
Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room.
Did you meet with the judge? What Happened?
Here is the full paragraph again, for your convenience: :P
Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room. Lance, the very friendly police officer asked us to sit down at a table and when the judge came in perhaps out of habit Lance said, "All rise." Normally if I were to simply be an observer in the courtroom, I would not rise. In this case I was a little torn as I did not want to jeopardize my ability to video the proceedings. Caleb and I sort of looked at each other and began to get up maybe a few inches off our chairs, but then sat back down again looking confused. The whole situation is a bit of a blur and I don't even recall if we said anything, but Lance started to indicate that we didn't really have to, so we didn't. Perhaps Caleb can remember little bit more detail than I can.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 15, 2007, 11:29 AM NHFT
No clue... he's the same guy that did Russell's trial.
You video taped this guy twice, and didn't get a name?
Don't they names on their desk?
What are you video taping?
Got it
OK, I looked beyond the first google page. Here's Dave's book on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/L133-RIGHTS-DENIED-1999-sc-David-Kevin-Lindsay_W0QQitemZ230155924388QQcmdZViewItem
and at a bookseller, The Preferred Network:
http://www.preferrednetwork.com/html/law__redemption_details_55.htm
and Dave's blog: http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html (where he doesn't seem to cover right to travel as a current issue)
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 08:40 AM NHFT
The roads themselves are collective property and therefore you are only a joint owner with all the other owners. As such, you need to get permission from all of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority prior to use and the terms and conditions of use can be set by them.
You may be right in libertarian theory, but I don't believe this is how the common law right has evolved in England, Canada and the United States. The courts have maintained a full right to travel without restriction, but have regulated "drivers", ie commercial users of the public ways.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:14 AM NHFT
Yep. All the cases in the early days of the automobile (early 20th Century) recognized the right to travel using your own automobile. Licensing for commercial use began and included testing of skills to get the license. Then the testing was sold to the people as a way to prove how good they were at these skills, but it was voluntary. There's a good book on this by David Lindsay, from Alberta, called Rights Denied, who traces the whole history of travel rights back to Magna Carta, then the recent (starting roughly in the 1920's) drive to license everyone as "drivers." I have a copy here somewhere.
Lloyd, you should read some of the history of these laws. It's especially important to use the words properly - the law is very precise about which word means what.
Damn Jack! Puttin me to work!
sorry, dude, but IT'S THE LAW!
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 09:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 08:40 AM NHFT
The roads themselves are collective property and therefore you are only a joint owner with all the other owners. As such, you need to get permission from all of the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority prior to use and the terms and conditions of use can be set by them.
You may be right in libertarian theory, but I don't believe this is how the common law right has evolved in England, Canada and the United States. The courts have maintained a full right to travel without restriction, but have regulated "drivers", ie commercial users of the public ways.
Speaking of "terms". The author of the article: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm (http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm) uses the word "public" and "common" interchangeably.
Here is an example:
"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." [emphasis added] 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.
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." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Congrats to Dave M. for his willingness to go to jail for this. We were certain that is what would happen.
I have never been to traffic court before. They were initially seeing people in line the way mcdonalds serves burgers. I was surprised. Traffic court is a big business.
What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.
Quote from: David on August 17, 2007, 12:37 PM NHFT
Congrats to Dave M. for his willingness to go to jail for this. We were certain that is what would happen.
I have never been to traffic court before. They were initially seeing people in line the way mcdonalds serves burgers. I was surprised. Traffic court is a big business.
It definitely is - I've always wanted to bring an adding machine and tally up all they bring in in fines on a given day.
On the other hand, they have high overhead and there may be as many as 9 people involved, running up salary costs. I estimated once that it costs them $120 each 15 minutes for just the salaries, not the rent and heat. They were anxious for a case with a $120 fine not to be heard! That must be the reason why - Somewhere there is an administrative judge/beancounter that is telling the judge to speed it up and don't have protracted hearings because they can't even break even on those.
The National Motorists' Association says fight every ticket!
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 17, 2007, 01:18 PM NHFT
What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.
Not everyone supports privatization of roads. I've suggested before that either:—
- Roads are one of the few things that should be held "in common." The change from the status quo would be that roads would need to be 100% funded through some form of voluntary user fee, such as tolls or a gasoline tax, and not through involuntary taxation.
- Roads could be "privatized," not by selling them off to a for-profit corporation, but by founding a new non-profit company that would be contractually obligated (by their articles of incorporation/charter) to serve the public and keep the roads open to all.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on August 17, 2007, 01:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 17, 2007, 01:18 PM NHFT
What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.
Not everyone supports privatization of roads. I've suggested before that either:—
- Roads are one of the few things that should be held "in common." The change from the status quo would be that roads would need to be 100% funded through some form of voluntary user fee, such as tolls or a gasoline tax, and not through involuntary taxation.
- Roads could be "privatized," not by selling them off to a for-profit corporation, but by founding a new non-profit company that would be contractually obligated (by their articles of incorporation/charter) to serve the public and keep the roads open to all.
I believe the term you are looking for then is not "privatized" but "mutualized".
If a road is built contiguous with privately owned land, then why should a private landowner profit?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on August 15, 2007, 06:32 AM NHFT
From what I understand, he did it late at night when there was basically no one else on the road. Not what I'd call dangerous.
OH God! Just reading this gave me the creeps.
It reminds me of the time I was driving across Kansas, not a car in sight, and I made a sort of U-turn because I thought I was lost.
Actually it was on a divided highway, and I used the little road that goes in between, so it was not really a turn in the street itself.
When I got stopped, I had a gun shoved into my face, for absolutely no reason.
The terror still lingers when I think about it, even though it was in 1972...
:'(
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 17, 2007, 01:18 PM NHFT
What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.
Why is that ironic? Those are not contradictory positions.
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 17, 2007, 03:41 PM NHFT
I believe the term you are looking for then is not "privatized" but "mutualized".
You mean my second point? No, that's still privatization—it's releasing the land into private hands, isn't it? It's simply structuring the corporation in a different manner, so we can sort of achieve a "best of both worlds" situation: The land is no longer government controlled, no longer paid for by tax dollars and coercion, thus satisfying most libertarian concerns,
and the land is still held in a manner that maintains the commons and the public good, thus satisfying most progressive/leftist concerns.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 17, 2007, 01:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: David on August 17, 2007, 12:37 PM NHFT
Congrats to Dave M. for his willingness to go to jail for this. We were certain that is what would happen.
I have never been to traffic court before. They were initially seeing people in line the way mcdonalds serves burgers. I was surprised. Traffic court is a big business.
It definitely is - I've always wanted to bring an adding machine and tally up all they bring in in fines on a given day.
On the other hand, they have high overhead and there may be as many as 9 people involved, running up salary costs. I estimated once that it costs them $120 each 15 minutes for just the salaries, not the rent and heat. They were anxious for a case with a $120 fine not to be heard! That must be the reason why - Somewhere there is an administrative judge/beancounter that is telling the judge to speed it up and don't have protracted hearings because they can't even break even on those.
The National Motorists' Association says fight every ticket!
They don't have to break even. Can't justify more taxes applied to their budget next year if the start showing a profit.
Quote from: dalebert on August 17, 2007, 04:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 17, 2007, 01:18 PM NHFT
What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.
Why is that ironic? Those are not contradictory positions.
There will be no enforceable common right of way for all individuals on private roads.
There's not an enforceable right-of-way for all individuals on public roads right now! Try driving without a license plate, or inspection tags, or with a cracked window, or any other item on a long list of "because we say so" laws.
Quote from: penguins4me on August 18, 2007, 02:19 AM NHFT
There's not an enforceable right-of-way for all individuals on public roads right now! Try driving without a license plate, or inspection tags, or with a cracked window, or any other item on a long list of "because we say so" laws.
That's because there are two different principles at work. One is a common right of way contained within the roadway which is an individual equal right but subordinated. The actual road itself is owned collectively which is a joint right. Because it is a joint right then theoretically each joint owner must get the permission from each of the other owners prior to use (consensus) or from their delegated authority who can set terms and conditions of use (regulations).
The same is true for sidewalks but you don't need a license to walk on the sidewalk. The common right of way principle is not subordinated. You just can't infringe on the equal rights of others (common rights) in it's use. That is why the police officer in Dada's open carry video said people can not congregate on a sidewalk (three across) and they have to keep on moving.
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 17, 2007, 08:07 PM NHFT
There will be no enforceable common right of way for all individuals on private roads.
Right, because they would be private. The rules would be set by the owner, and because she would hope people want to use the road, she would likely keep them reasonable.
What we have now is an elite class claiming authority over roads and driving. There is still a profit motive, but it's not legitimate because their authority is not legitimate, and we have a monopoly on roads by this illegitimate entity which makes them dangerous. The notion of public property or collective property is a farce, and so is not recognized by those who don't see government as legitimate.
QuoteThe rules would be set by the owner, and because she would hope people want to use the road, she would likely keep them reasonable.
I don' want to give up a common right for the hope someone will be "reasonable".
QuoteThe notion of public property or collective property is a farce, and so is not recognized by those who don't see government as legitimate.
Do you understand the difference between "common" rights/property and "collective" rights/property? People use the word "public" to mean both.
Ethan, it seems to me that a good description of a common area would be: Definition 1) an area that is open to the use of everyone, so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others to use the area.
You seem to be slipping in another definition of a common area: Definition 2) An area that is under the control of an authoritarian regime that may make and enforce whatever rules it wants.
If an individual commits no force or fraud, and is not obstructing others or creating any victims in the common area, he's sound as a pound in my book.
But you have repeatedly said things like "you have to keep moving in a common area so as not to obstruct the other passersby (even if there are no other passersby) because the courts have so ruled" and things of this ilk. Do you not see that you are slipping in definition 2?
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 18, 2007, 08:16 AM NHFT
Do you understand the difference between "common" rights/property and "collective" rights/property? People use the word "public" to mean both.
The discussion of those concepts has been beaten to death on this forum before. Are you Frank?
How are we to determine whether or not individual rights are being infringed upon on the sidewalk? Who is going to enforce that individual rights are not violated?
As a pacifist, I say "there is no `if'". There are only moral commands. There is no right to enforce them.
yes, dale, ethan is frank/bill
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
"Driving" (use of the public ways for commercial activity) is a privilege, granted by the guardians of the public lands and ways (now known as the government)
You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity. Operating any self-propelled is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
What most don't know is that they have applied for and contracted with the state to become a commercial user of the public ways, and therefore agree to be regulated.
I don't believe this. It's definitely not true in New Hampshire. All persons are subject to the rules of the road, licensed or not.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
This brief has this legal distinction described in detail: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm
...
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., p. 940.
Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. "
NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-24.htm) to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm), OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm), or snowmobile.
and
"Driver'' shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-25.htm) a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm) or an OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm)or snowmobile.
Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak. Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
This brief lays out the distinction pretty well and is a good read. I recommend it for better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as automobile v. motor vehicle, traveller v. driver, operator, traffic, license and other important words to use properly.
This brief is a good read, but it doesn't say anything about the law in New Hampshire. All the cases cited are from other states. In New Hampshire there is no "right" to operate a self-propellel vehicle on any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/263/263-1.htm).
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 16, 2007, 03:14 AM NHFT
Is driving a privilege or a right?
On your own property: a right.
On a public way (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-125.htm) in New Hampshire: a privilege (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/263/263-1.htm).
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
"Driving" (use of the public ways for commercial activity) is a privilege, granted by the guardians of the public lands and ways (now known as the government)
You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity. Operating any self-propelled is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.
We differ. See explanations below:
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
What most don't know is that they have applied for and contracted with the state to become a commercial user of the public ways, and therefore agree to be regulated.
I don't believe this. It's definitely not true in New Hampshire. All persons are subject to the rules of the road, licensed or not.
We differ again. See below:
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
This brief has this legal distinction described in detail: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm
...
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., p. 940.
Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. " [emphasis added]
NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-24.htm) to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm), OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm), or snowmobile. [emphasis added]
and
"Driver'' shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-25.htm) a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm) or an OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm)or snowmobile. [emphasis added]
Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity. [no, because it presumes the definition of driving to be commercial - jaqeboy]
We differ again. This all appears to hinge on the definitions of a
"vehicle" and
"motor vehicle", as opposed to a pleasure conveyance or automobile (again, these seem to be archaic terms, but their etymology and legal definitions are important to understand to get to the bottom of this). I'll see if I can find the important definitions here, but as I understand it,
"vehicle" is used in the sense that the truck, coach, omnibus (commercial users) is a vehicle for commerce, a tool for making the commerce happen. A
motor vehicle, then, is just one of those with a motor on it to make it self-propelled, rather than being horse-drawn. An automobile might not be used as a "
vehicle" (for commerce)
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak. Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.
It's not "my theory", I'm just quoting the works cited. I don't have a case here, just giving you pointers to things out there on this subject.
New-Hampshire statutes are not over-riding Bovier's - they are
using Bovier's definitions.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
This brief lays out the distinction pretty well and is a good read. I recommend it for better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as automobile v. motor vehicle [emphasis added], traveller v. driver, operator, traffic, license and other important words to use properly.
This brief is a good read, but it doesn't say anything about the law in New Hampshire. All the cases cited are from other states. In New Hampshire there is no "right" to operate a self-propellel vehicle on any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/263/263-1.htm).
OK, this appears to be the meat of our difference: "...better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as
automobile v. motor vehicle..." [emphasis added]
Sorry, but I can't figure out how to point to a place in the text of that brief (http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm), so I'll just quote the pertinent part in full here - THIS ONE IS THE KICKER! - the words don't mean what most people thought they meant!:
Quote
DEFINITIONS
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"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.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.
The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"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.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
I know, I know - it can't be that reality isn't what we thought it was, can it? It's like the Matrix!
Looking for Bovier's and Black's Law definitions, but they may not be available online.
Found this, though: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml, Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel - this one has a whole derivation of these (legal) terms through various cases - a sort of common law history.
Barefoot's World has what looks like the same petition, but with some additional references: http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/right_to_travel.html
Quote from: EthanAllen on August 18, 2007, 09:33 AM NHFT
How are we to determine whether or not individual rights are being infringed upon on the sidewalk? Who is going to enforce that individual rights are not violated?
Wow, this is getting pretty basic, Bill. How can you be asking this if you've been on this forum for over a year?
Ultimately, we are responsible for defending our own rights and we have to decide for ourselves when force is justified based on the NAP. I realize there are people who are less able to defend their own rights. Unfortunately, I would have to violate someone's rights in order to force them to defend someone else's rights. We can and should encourage and persuade charitable behavior but we can't force it, not if we are making an honest attempt at being morally consistent. Just as I mustn't steal food from you to feed someone in need, I also mustn't force you to step in front of a loaded gun to defend someone else.
It can be messy but it's actually less arbitrary than what happens when we create a stupid law and an elitist authority figure like a police officer. Our common sense tells us that no one's ability to travel on that sidewalk was being impaired when FSPers gathered around Dave. There was plenty of room to walk by and if anyone really was blocking the way, they would have stepped aside for someone wanting to get by. The police don't hassle a cluster of people waiting to board a bus or stopping and having a brief chat. What the hard and fast law does is let some prick who wants a badge because he was picked on in high school arbitrarily enforce it when behavior he doesn't personally like is happening, like a demonstration that makes him look foolish because he doesn't know NH law.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity. Operating any self-propelled vehicle is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.
We differ. See explanations below:
Yes, we differ. The difference is that what you're saying is incorrect.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
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., p. 940.
Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. " [emphasis added]
NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-24.htm) to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm), OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm), or snowmobile. [emphasis added]
and
"Driver'' shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-25.htm) a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm) or an OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm)or snowmobile. [emphasis added]
Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity. [no, because it presumes the definition of driving to be commercial - jaqeboy]
We differ again. This all appears to hinge on the definitions of a "vehicle" and "motor vehicle", as opposed to a pleasure conveyance or automobile (again, these seem to be archaic terms, but their etymology and legal definitions are important to understand to get to the bottom of this). I'll see if I can find the important definitions here, but as I understand it, "vehicle" is used in the sense that the truck, coach, omnibus (commercial users) is a vehicle for commerce, a tool for making the commerce happen. A motor vehicle, then, is just one of those with a motor on it to make it self-propelled, rather than being horse-drawn. An automobile might not be used as a "vehicle" (for commerce)
If your goal is to do anything but lose in court, may I suggest that rather than relying on archaic meanings, you use the terms as defined by legal authorities.
Black's 8th ed.:
vehicle n.
- 1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance.
- 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air.
RSA 259:122 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-122.htm)
"Vehicle'' shall mean:
I. ...every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks;
There's nothing in ether definition about pleasure vs. commercial use. Sorry. Your assertion is wrong.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak. Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.
It's not "my theory", I'm just quoting the works cited. I don't have a case here, just giving you pointers to things out there on this subject.
Exactly. You don't have a case here. Your pointer is to some anonymous web page. Not an authoritative legal source.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
New-Hampshire statutes are not over-riding Bovier's - they are using Bovier's definitions.
You're obviously very confused, because the word "employed" does not appear in either Black's or the statutory definition. Neither uses Bovier's definition. Your assertion is just wrong.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"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.
You are totally taking this quote out of context. That case dealt with an insurance policy. The insured was covered while using an "automobile." The insured ran over someone's foot while driving a tractor at a privately-owned amusement park in Manchester. There was no issue as to whether its use was commercial or not. The only question was whether this tractor was an "automobile" within the meaning of the insurance policy.
The complete language from the case is:
"The word automobile in its popular sense connotes a 'pleasure vehicle' designed for the transportation of persons on highways. 'Motor vehicle,' more often used as a generic term, has a somewhat broader meaning, and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway. The word automobile is also used as closely synonymous."
You conveniently left out that last sentence:
The word automobile is used as closely synonymous with motor vehicle. That's not me, that's Justice Duncan of the NH Supreme Court, directly contradicting your claim that there is "a clear distinction" between automobiles and motor vehicles.
The court in that case decided that the tractor
was an automobile, writing "...the word 'automobile' must be construed to have a meaning at least as broad as the term 'motor vehicle''..." Obviously, your assertion that automobiles are not for commercial use is flat-out wrong.
The next two cases you cite are not from New Hampshire, so forgive me for not taking the time to explain why they don't support your claims.
Next you continue by selectively quoting the US code.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"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.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Again you have conveniently left out important language. One need only look at the section to which you refer (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000031----000-.html) to see that it begins
"
In this chapter, the following definitions apply:"
See? Those definitions only apply to "this chapter." "This chapter" is "Aircraft and Motor Vehicles" in the federal criminal code. It deals with destruction of motor vehicle facilites. It has nothing to do with New Hampshire state driver's license provisions. Your application of these definitions out-of-context is misleading to say the least!
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
I know, I know - it can't be that reality isn't what we thought it was, can it? It's like the Matrix!
I know it's fun to think you have discovered some secret legal truth that differs from common sense. That would be nice. Believe me, I don't want to have to get a driver's license either. But the law in New Hampshire requires it if you want to operate your pleasure conveyance on a public way. If you don't believe me, try using your arguments in a New Hampshire court.
I'll be happy to wager with you on the outcome.
Quote from: mackler link=topic=10212.msg176720#msg176720 All the cases cited are from other states. In New Hampshire there is no "right" tourl=http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/263/263-1.htm]operate a self-propellel vehicle on any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway[/url].
You said;
"All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1
"judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity. Operating any self-propelled vehicle is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.
We differ. See explanations below:
Yes, we differ. The difference is that what you're saying is incorrect.
Let me clarify one basic thing: I am not saying any of this, I am providing quotes from others who say it.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
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., p. 940.
Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. " [emphasis added]
NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-24.htm) to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm), OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm), or snowmobile. [emphasis added]
and
"Driver'' shall mean (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-25.htm) a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-60.htm) or an OHRV (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-70.htm)or snowmobile. [emphasis added]
Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity. [no, because it presumes the definition of driving to be commercial - jaqeboy]
We differ again. This all appears to hinge on the definitions of a "vehicle" and "motor vehicle", as opposed to a pleasure conveyance or automobile (again, these seem to be archaic terms, but their etymology and legal definitions are important to understand to get to the bottom of this). I'll see if I can find the important definitions here, but as I understand it, "vehicle" is used in the sense that the truck, coach, omnibus (commercial users) is a vehicle for commerce, a tool for making the commerce happen. A motor vehicle, then, is just one of those with a motor on it to make it self-propelled, rather than being horse-drawn. An automobile might not be used as a "vehicle" (for commerce)
If your goal is to do anything but lose in court, may I suggest that rather than relying on archaic meanings, you use the terms as defined by legal authorities.
Black's 8th ed.:
vehicle n.
- 1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance.
- 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air.
RSA 259:122 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-122.htm)
"Vehicle'' shall mean:
I. ...every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks;
There's nothing in ether definition about pleasure vs. commercial use. Sorry. Your assertion is wrong.
Again, to be clear, these are not my assertions. They are the assertions of the authors of the works cited. P.S. Do you have access to Black's online? Could you share the link, if so?
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 11:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 16, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak. Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.
It's not "my theory", I'm just quoting the works cited. I don't have a case here, just giving you pointers to things out there on this subject.
Exactly. You don't have a case here. Your pointer is to some anonymous web page. Not an authoritative legal source.
Again, to hopefully not be too repetitive, I do
not have a case here, either in law or with any parties to this discussion. The pointer is to a web page that is
not anonymous, but the author of the brief is unknown in the case of parties that are not known (it was apparently drafted so as to be generic, not case-specific), so I'm not able to verify if said parties won or lost their cases using the brief. The citations in the briefs, I assume, are to real cases - I have no reason to believe otherwise. The arguments all ring true to what I have heard in seminars and from parties in real cases. I don't advise people to try this for themselves, since it is difficult to consistently use the legal language in the correct way, since it is foreign to most of us.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
New-Hampshire statutes are not over-riding Bovier's - they are using Bovier's definitions.
You're obviously very confused, because the word "employed" does not appear in either Black's or the statutory definition. Neither uses Bovier's definition. Your assertion is just wrong.
I am not confused. Again, just to be clear, I don't make the assertion, it appears to be the assertion of others, and usages within the decisions and opinions cited.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"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.
You are totally taking this quote out of context. That case dealt with an insurance policy. The insured was covered while using an "automobile." The insured ran over someone's foot while driving a tractor at a privately-owned amusement park in Manchester. There was no issue as to whether its use was commercial or not. The only question was whether this tractor was an "automobile" within the meaning of the insurance policy.
The complete language from the case is:
"The word automobile in its popular sense[1] connotes a 'pleasure vehicle' designed for the transportation of persons on highways. 'Motor vehicle,' more often used as a generic term, has a somewhat broader meaning, and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway. The word automobile is also used as closely synonymous."[2]
You conveniently left out that last sentence: The word automobile is used as closely synonymous with motor vehicle. That's not me, that's Justice Duncan of the NH Supreme Court, directly contradicting your claim that there is "a clear distinction" between automobiles and motor vehicles.
The court in that case decided that the tractor was an automobile, writing "...the word 'automobile' must be construed to have a meaning at least as broad as the term 'motor vehicle''..." Obviously, your assertion that automobiles are not for commercial use[3] is flat-out wrong.
I am not taking any quotes out of context. I am providing links and cut and pastes of the writings of others. Again, to be clear, the assertions are not mine and I have not left anything out, other than that I did not copy and paste the entire brief into the text of my post (phew). I am not making the claim that there is "a clear distinction"... others are. Let me clarify, though, a couple of things you have said above, as noted:
1. The expression "in its popular sense" most likely means as opposed to "in its legal sense", that is, how people (populace, hence popular) use the term, instead of the term-of-art strict "legal sense." The paragraph should be read carefully then with that understanding to be clear whether the Justice is using the word in its legal sense, or if he is talking about how the word is used in its popular sense.
2. Where the opinion states "The word automobile is also used..." may also be referring to the popular usage. I'd have to read the whole context (or, someone who is a lawyer could likely interpret it better than I).
3. I have never asserted that "automobiles are not for commercial use". They clearly can be used commercially as taxicabs. This is where the definitions become confusing for some. The definitions seem to use the terms to indicate that when a (and this is where it seems cumbersome) mechanized conveyance is used in commerce, it is a "vehicle" (for that commerce).
Example: Joe buys an automobile and travels around to work, to the store and to visit friends. It's a pleasure (as he pleases) conveyance. He is then "travelling" in his "automobile."
Joe goes into the taxi business and decides to use this automobile as a vehicle for his taxi business. He is then the "operator" of a taxi business "driving" a "motor vehicle" in "traffic". Yes, "operator" and "traffic" have specific legal meanings, too.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
The next two cases you cite are not from New Hampshire, so forgive me for not taking the time to explain why they don't support your claims.
Again, I don't cite any cases, I have pointed to and pasted in briefs by others who cite cases. Secondly, the states don't stray too far from each other or from English or Canadian uses of legal terms, and they often do refer to each other in matters decided at equity - including Canadians referring to USA state cases, since, having only 10% of our population, they might have only 10% of the case volume, so look also to USA cases for precedents.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Next you continue by selectively quoting the US code.
Again, to be clear, I don't quote the US code, but I have pasted in a case brief that apparently does.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"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.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Again you have conveniently left out important language. One need only look at the section to which you refer (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000031----000-.html) to see that it begins
"In this chapter, the following definitions apply:"
See? Those definitions only apply to "this chapter." "This chapter" is "Aircraft and Motor Vehicles" in the federal criminal code. It deals with destruction of motor vehicle facilites. It has nothing to do with New Hampshire state driver's license provisions. Your application of these definitions out-of-context is misleading to say the least!
Again, for clarification, I have not left out any important language, other than that I did not paste in the entire brief. You may be referring to the author of the brief whom, we have agreed above, we do not know. No one has claimed that this brief applies to New Hampshire state driver's license provisions - the states where the author claims the brief has supported cases is stated at the top of the page as being Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia - the author does not even claim that it has led to successes there. The reason the US codes have nothing to do with New Hampshire state driver's license provisions is because the US has nothing to do with New Hampshire state drivers licenses - it is a state issue. The author of the brief most likely includes the federal definition to show that their usage is consistent with state usage, but I cannot accurately speak to his motive.
Quote from: mackler on August 18, 2007, 06:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 18, 2007, 01:32 PM NHFT
I know, I know - it can't be that reality isn't what we thought it was, can it? It's like the Matrix!
I know it's fun to think you have discovered some secret legal truth that differs from common sense. That would be nice. Believe me, I don't want to have to get a driver's license either. But the law in New Hampshire requires it if you want to operate your pleasure conveyance on a public way. If you don't believe me, try using your arguments in a New Hampshire court.
I'll be happy to wager with you on the outcome.
I don't think that I have discovered some secret legal truth, as I have not done the research to make any discoveries, but others apparently have and make the claim that the words are as defined in the various cases and dictionaries that they cite. There are those in New-Hampshire that differ with your opinion that "the law in New Hampshire requires it if you want to operate your pleasure conveyance on a public way" and they live their lives accordingly without suffering harrassment or punishment for not having a drivers license.
Since this is a topic that seems to interest you, I would be glad to have you meet with them, if they are willing, to continue the discussion, research and discovery process with them. I definitely, again, don't advise anyone to take this approach, since the men that I know of who claim to successfully take this approach have researched it for many years and have taken all the necessary steps and made all the necessary preparations. There are a couple of additional steps that must be taken, rather than just asserting something to the law enforcement officer late one night. Or, we could set up a conference call with Dave Lindsay in Canada. I don't have his present number, but could get it from a friend in Ottawa.
Further, I'm not not involved in or plan to be involved in a legal challenge on this issue in the New Hampshire courts, since I have chosen to focus my efforts elsewhere, and, finally, I don't wager.
It may be time for us to set up another "Right to Travel" workshop. Sounds like there is a lot of interest in the subject.
BTW, Attorney Josh Gordon in Concord has some knowledge of New Hampshire Supreme Court opinions on "right to travel" cases. We could probably ask him about these cases. He's very libertarian-friendly.
We could also possibly ask our legislators for assistance in understanding the state laws through their legal support staff in Legislative Services, though they might be limited somehow in "giving legal advice."
Quote from: armlaw on August 18, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
Dick! Nice to see you here! Would you believe that I thought of you while I was reading the legal fallacies being repeated in this thread? Do you and jaqeboy know each other? I think you two might get along well.
Just for the public record, I have a standing offer to Mr. armlaw: I have offered to wager anything--money, property, public humiliation--that the numerous legal theories that Mr. armlaw is pushing are false. I've offered to let our bet be judged by
any juris doctor of his choice. I have even offered to publicly announce the falsity of his claims so as to enable him to sue me for defamation and to let the question of the falsity of his legal claims be adjudged by a court of law, and to litigate the matter all the way to the US Supreme Court if he wants. I even promised I wouldn't say anything in court, and that he could do all the talking!
So far Mr. armlaw has declined to accept my challenge. :( Obviously he is not very confident in the correctness of his assertions. After several weeks of back-and-forth with him I have lost interest in such waste of time. When he's ready to put his money where his mouth is I will take the time necessary to debunk his claims.
Now, back to the issue at hand:
First, jaqeboy, unfortunately I do not believe that Black's law dictionary is available online for free. I have access through my school. However, the print version (http://www.amazon.com/Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Eighth-Standard/dp/0314151990/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0964503-7188853?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187514903&sr=8-1) is not very expensive, and if you're interested in the law, it might be a good investment. Of course you can find it in libraries (http://nhll.ipac.dynixasp.com/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=nhll&source=~!nhll&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!18192~!5&ri=1&aspect=subtab80&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=Black's+Law+Dictionary&index=.TW&uindex=&aspect=subtab80&menu=search&ri=1).
Regarding your generous offer to put me in touch with purveyors of these ideas, I appreciate the offer, but I don't really care. I have enough confidence in my ability to read the relevant cases and statutes and come to my own conclusions. If I haven't persuaded you, that's fine. I am just worried about other people reading this thread, who might come away with incorrect ideas about what the law is, and perhaps get themselves into legal troubles believing what I consider to be legal crackpottery.
Now, if you would like to invite Mr. Gordon to give this thread a read, and to consider what I've written, I would be very interested in whether he agrees with me or not, since you say he is legally educated and not the unknown author of that poorly written brief. I would be surprised if Mr. Gordon, as a lawyer, disagreed with me. If that were the case I would certainly be open to adjusting my analysis.
With all due respect, jaqe and mackler ... who gives two shits what the law is? Is our goal to live free or to follow the silly little laws of every hack who comes along and carries the pretentious title of "legislator"?
Bravo, Caleb :clap:
Quote from: Caleb on August 19, 2007, 08:21 AM NHFT
With all due respect, jaqe and mackler ... who gives two shits what the law is? Is our goal to live free or to follow the silly little laws of every hack who comes along and carries the pretentious title of "legislator"?
Who cares what the law is? (which FYI is not all legislator-created.) I suppose you'd have to take a survey to get an accurate answer, but in my estimation it includes the majority of the population, and occasionally even the guys with guns and badges.
A few weeks ago, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani had a little back-and-forth during a debate. Ron Paul was pointing out the reason he supposed the US was hated by terrorists. Rudy tried to make it sound like Ron Paul was making excuses for the terrorists. Ron Paul correctly pointed out that it's only intelligent to try to understand one's enemy, and doing so in no way legitimated that enemy.
Just because I seek to understand the system doesn't mean I support it.
I'm just curious Caleb...suppose a lone police officer was trying to arrest you for something illegitimate--some victimless "crime", say--and you had a gun. Would you live free and defend yourself, or would you give two shits about what the silly little law is?
Quote from: mackler on August 19, 2007, 10:15 AM NHFT
I'm just curious Caleb...suppose a lone police officer was trying to arrest you for something illegitimate--some victimless "crime", say--and you had a gun. Would you live free and defend yourself, or would you give two shits about what the silly little law is?
:happy1:
There's one societal problem to be solved: the tendency of most people to worship those goddamned pieces of paper on which the gangs of armed marauders write their so-called "laws."
QuoteOur common sense tells us that no one's ability to travel on that sidewalk was being impaired when FSPers gathered around Dave. There was plenty of room to walk by and if anyone really was blocking the way, they would have stepped aside for someone wanting to get by. The police don't hassle a cluster of people waiting to board a bus or stopping and having a brief chat. What the hard and fast law does is let some prick who wants a badge because he was picked on in high school arbitrarily enforce it when behavior he doesn't personally like is happening, like a demonstration that makes him look foolish because he doesn't know NH law.
Hey, I like your use of the word "common", as in "common sense" and remember that jaqeboy started this out by talking about "common law".
The Manchester police officer who took the state police officer to the side to talk to him in private to assess the situation apparently knew that the stopping of Dave for open carry was was out of line. What he made a wrong assumption about though was that he thought that this was somehow a staged event and that the crowd had gathered
with Dave prior to the police encounter and they had even put signs up (those were the girl scout's) to "advertise". The rules that we have set-up to insure that no one's individual right of ways are infringed upon is that during a demonstration (which he made the wrong assumption about) people can't stand three abreast and they have to keep moving otherwise the
assumption is that other individuals trying to use the sidewalk will have their right of ways infringed upon (the Manchester officer was pretty clear about this but made a wrong assumption).
I think the best way to look upon this is: how did collectively owned paved roads and sidewalks that both contained common right of ways, which as part of natural rights theory pre-exists governance, evolve from common law theory? The first paths through the woods were probably traveled by foot where no specific individual was responsible for creating it and then by horses and we all must have had some sort of commonly accepted convention about who is to yield to whom when a rider on a horse encountered a human walking. Now sidewalks probably have evolved as a common sense way for getting foot traffic off of "roads" where the modes of transportations become sophisticated and the possibility for more harm could be done to pedestrians.
I speculate that as transportation evolved to motorized vehicles on paved roads the possibility of property and bodily harm escalated to a point where people via their elected representatives subordinated the common right of ways issue to the regulation of the collectively owned roads that require the issuing of license to try and establish a minimum level of competency out on the roads where so much damage can be inflicted upon property and life.
Because the same sort of risks are not associated with using the sidewalks (as all types of vehicles and human powered devices are banned) to exercise your common right of way they have not been subordinated.
Quote from: mackler on August 19, 2007, 04:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 18, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
You avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.
Quote from: Beavis on August 19, 2007, 12:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on August 19, 2007, 10:15 AM NHFT
I'm just curious Caleb...suppose a lone police officer was trying to arrest you for something illegitimate--some victimless "crime", say--and you had a gun. Would you live free and defend yourself, or would you give two shits about what the silly little law is?
:happy1:
many of us might take a third way ... choose nonviolence and also ignore the silly laws .... maybe that is also what dave manning is doing
BTW, does anyone yet know what the judge meant by "handle this the usual way" or what the judge said to the 2 who were videotaping the hearing?
Sorry for the long posts - thinking of starting a separate thread for the general discussion of the Right to Travel issue - a thread that hopefully can be a non ad-hominem attack zone.
Quote from: armlaw on August 19, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 18, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
You avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.
Dick,
Would you please refresh my memory: during which sessions were you a New Hampshire State legislator?
I'd like to do some research and find out excatly which of our silly little laws you are personally responsible for.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on August 16, 2007, 09:01 AM NHFT
Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room. Lance, the very friendly police officer asked us to sit down at a table and when the judge came in perhaps out of habit Lance said, "All rise." Normally if I were to simply be an observer in the courtroom, I would not rise. In this case I was a little torn as I did not want to jeopardize my ability to video the proceedings. Caleb and I sort of looked at each other and began to get up maybe a few inches off our chairs, but then sat back down again looking confused. The whole situation is a bit of a blur and I don't even recall if we said anything, but Lance started to indicate that we didn't really have to, so we didn't. Perhaps Caleb can remember little bit more detail than I can.
So what happened then? What did the judge say?
Mystery Sentence Pronounced by Keene Judge
15, August, 2007
Yesterday David Manning thought he would be in jail soon, but has a big smile today, and a mysterious future. He was cited for an illegal late night U-turn and couldn't afford the fine, in more ways than one. Manning points out, "It's extortion, like what the mafia does, they say 'give us some money for protection, or something bad will happen to you'", Appearing before Justice Burke, Manning said he would not pay the fine, "I think it's immoral to pay extortion", Burke replied, "Then we will handle this in the normal fashion. You are free to go".
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2926)
Buoyed by his lack of shackles, Manning left the courtroom quickly but one wonders what exactly the normal fashion is. Courtrooms are designed to be confusing and intimidating for normal people, but this verdict is willful obscuring of the punishment or lack of it. Will he make a warrant for Manning's arrest or is the matter closed?
Manning doesn't know. He does know he didn't help pay for the immoral system that fines people for obeying their own judgement.
I wonder if the judge considered that to be exercising his Rights of Conscience? The key there would be the statement that "I think it's immoral to..." See: New Hampshire Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article 4: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html .
I have always thought that this was an extremely powerful civil right. the Rights of Conscience Project begins the exploration of this at: http://conscienceproject.org, but they could use some volunteer researcher help. Maybe mackler would be interested in this.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 20, 2007, 10:53 AM NHFT
Maybe mackler would be interested in this.
*examines teetering pile of projects on plate*
While I think about that one, here's a moderately interesting article on the right to travel (http://sheltersfromthestorm.org/main/shelter/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=526&Itemid=77).
Warning: contains a graphic image of one scary M.F.
good article - glad to see they did go all the way back to Magna Carta.
Quote from: mackler on August 20, 2007, 03:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 19, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 18, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
You avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.
Dick,
Would you please refresh my memory: during which sessions were you a New Hampshire State legislator?
I'd like to do some research and find out exactly which of our silly little laws you are personally responsible for.
You continue to avoid an answer to my question. Look up the Latin Maxin you like to use, since I am not a Latin scholar, it means;
"One does Not answer a question with a question". When you answer my question, as the the validity of Article 4, Section one "judicial proceedings", then we can continue.
:treadmill:
jaqe, the 2 who were in a meeting with a judge were me and Ian. The meeting was quite unanticipated on my part, but the judge simply wanted to explain the rules governing the use of camaras in the courtroom. They are 1) prior notice is expected so the court can accomodate us 2) none of the defendents may be taped without their consent 3) press credentials must be shown 4) a tripod must be used. Since I had not followed 1, 2, or 4, I was told that I would not be allowed to film. I intended on taping anyway, but my camara was confiscated until after we had left the courtroom.
As Ian explained, there was an uncomfortable moment when the judge entered the private chamber, as the bailiff yelled "All Rise" as the judge entered. This was unexpected, and I didn't really know what to do. We sat for a few moments until the judge walked to his chair and started to sit down. I did my best to look confused, and said as I inched about half an inch off my chair, "Oh ... are we supposed to stand for this?" The judge said, "It's no big deal" and the event was over. We got up before the bailiff could say all rise on exit, because we were anxious to get back.
anybody want to post some action items for ways we can help, numbers we should call, etc?
david has been a very important activist for free minds tv!
Quote from: Caleb on August 20, 2007, 08:43 PM NHFT
jaqe, the 2 who were in a meeting with a judge were me and Ian. The meeting was quite unanticipated on my part, but the judge simply wanted to explain the rules governing the use of camaras in the courtroom.
OK, thanks Caleb. That sounds basic and non-legalistic, just procedural. Common sense rules that one would know about if one were a journalist. I wonder if a monopod (http://www.outdooreyes.com/photo5.php3)would be allowed? :)
So, now, the remaining question is what did the judge mean when he said: "handle this in the usual manner"
It hit me earlier that Manning may have inadvertently, or at least in a manner ignorant of the civil right, stated an objection based on his Right of Conscience. If that was what it was about, this IS a happy day! Think of it. We have fought a very few test cases on the Right of Conscience and the judges have not wanted to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Our guys have gotten their way, ie, have gotten to follow their conscience - do you know how big this is??? :o
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 20, 2007, 10:35 PM NHFT
objection based on his Right of Conscience.
Thanks for reminding me... the HRA has a session this week to discuss what legislation to push for in '08... I'll try and remember to bring up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act).
Quote from: armlaw on August 20, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFT
You continue to avoid an answer to my question. Look up the Latin Maxin you like to use, since I am not a Latin scholar, it means; "One does Not answer a question with a question". When you answer my question, as the the validity of Article 4, Section one "judicial proceedings", then we can continue.
Sorry, Dick. No more free research for you from me. Your account is in arrears. If you're sincerely interested in correcting your misunderstanding of the 'full faith and credit" clause (a dubious supposition), there's an article on the subject by Professor Ralph Whitten in the February, 2005 Creighton University Law Review (vol. 38, p. 465 (http://law.creighton.edu/img/publications/lr/v38n2.jpg)).
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 20, 2007, 10:35 PM NHFT
So, now, the remaining question is what did the judge mean when he said: "handle this in the usual manner"
Why don't you ask him? I'm sure he has email.
I used your article Lauren .... thanks.
I bet the judge is not treating this as a special case ... he wants it handled in the normal way ... he just didn't want to say much in front of daves friends and cameras. It will be interesting.
Well, since he didn't say "case dismissed", the case may still be open and he may have taken it under advisement to issue a written order later that Dave might receive in the mail or might get served on him. He should look at his case file in the court Clerk's office to see what's up.
Julia and I have not even taken the time to ingest the footage... Lauren, do you want it?
Quote from: mackler on August 20, 2007, 10:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 20, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFT
You continue to avoid an answer to my question. Look up the Latin Maxin you like to use, since I am not a Latin scholar, it means; "One does Not answer a question with a question". When you answer my question, as the the validity of Article 4, Section one "judicial proceedings", then we can continue.
Sorry, Dick. No more free research for you from me. Your account is in arrears. If you're sincerely interested in correcting your misunderstanding of the 'full faith and credit" clause (a dubious supposition), there's an article on the subject by Professor Ralph Whitten in the February, 2005 Creighton University Law Review (vol. 38, p. 465 (http://law.creighton.edu/img/publications/lr/v38n2.jpg)).
You are continuing to avoid answering the simple question asked concerning the authority of the "judicial proceedings" enumerated in Article 4, Sections One and Two, constitution for the united States of America? This does not require any research. Either the constitution is the supreme law of the land, as clearly enumerated in article six of the same, or it is not. What say you ?
Further, I have not now, nor have I ever, had any so-called "account" with you. Your assertion that I am in "arrears" is a presentment that is not based on any verbal agreement or written instrument and accordingly is untrue.
What follows is shared as information copied from/off the internet and I do not offer any advice or opinion. Caveat emptor. All readers are so warned. .
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
[Author UnKnown]
The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.
The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:
ARGUMENT
If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
"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 words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.
RIGHTS
The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:
"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
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
"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."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
and further ...
"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
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
"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 vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.
"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
and ...
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. 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 vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
"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
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 vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
"... 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
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
"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
and ...
"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
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
and ...
"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities."
State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
"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 and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
and ...
"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, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
"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 nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987
As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?
"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit."
Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between ...
Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and ...
Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business."
Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
"[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith."
Ibid.
"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."
Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."
Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."
DEFINITIONS
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
"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
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'"
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"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.
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
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.
TRAFFIC
Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":
"... Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state ... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear ..."
Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."
In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
"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
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
"...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
"The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities."
Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort."
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent."
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power."
Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."
"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation."
State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
POLICE POWER
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power," infra.)
Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:
"1. Is there threatened danger?
"2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
"3. Is this regulation reasonable?
People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power"
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.
First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?
The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.
It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous."
Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876;
Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)
Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.
The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"
The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."
Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540;
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution."
Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60
"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language."
Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
"No person shall be ... deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law."
As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.
In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.
DUE PROCESS
"The essential elements of due process of law are ... Notice and The Opportunity to defend."
Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427
Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.
"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty ..."
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31;
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356
and ...
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.
But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant:
"a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial."
See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020;
Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that:
"no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,"
by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, Pg. 269)
Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common."
The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:
"The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized ..."
and ...
"Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways ..."
Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, Pg. 11
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.
This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall.
"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
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."
The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.
REGULATION
"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty."
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260
and ...
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission."
Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?
The answer is No!
The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."
However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.
Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.
2. Is the statute reasonable?
The answer is No!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)
But isn't this what we have now?
The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.
These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.
We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
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?
"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
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.
TAXING POWER
"Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.
The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied."
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
"... 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."
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
and ...
"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."
Ibid., Pg. 47
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.
CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME
As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.
Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from Pg. 5, and:
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
and ...
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda, supra.
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.
So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty.
As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen's Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.
CONCLUSION
It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form.
"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
and ...
"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
The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)
Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)
The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.
This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege.
To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.
"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."
Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660
and ...
"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."
Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018;
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81
and ...
"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526
Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People."
Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70
So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
Therefore, it must be concluded that:
"We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power."
Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra.
and ...
"The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain."
Ibid.
Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.
June 10, 1986.
This ends the legal brief.
In addition:
Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.
The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.
Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.
Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.
No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke, (1784)
Quote from: mackler on August 20, 2007, 03:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 19, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: armlaw on August 18, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
You avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.
Dick,
Would you please refresh my memory: during which sessions were you a New Hampshire State legislator?
I'd like to do some research and find out excatly which of our silly little laws you are personally responsible for.
I'll save you some research time as it has already been done for you, by two organizations who keep a good watch on those who support and promote corporate government and ignore the constitutional constraints. Just go to www.lfod.org/2006/ and read the 2 pages. Then click on "view the rankings". You can read all reps records on all votes of the freedom bills introduced.
Video of the event. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UceP262cjw)
[youtube=425,350]v/_UceP262cjw[/youtube]
QuoteI am morally opposed to extortion.
I'm mentally filing that quote for future use in "court".
Wow, thanks, Lauren!
Even though I've seen courts in action, I'm amazed at how quick and perfunctory that was. And at the same time, it was very imprecise, leaving much to the imagination.
Kudos to everyone involved.
Cool video :) goood work, guys. I'll like the "guess I'll go pick berries and prepare for the winter" part - lol. ;D
Quote from: KBCraig on August 27, 2007, 02:12 AM NHFT
Even though I've seen courts in action, I'm amazed at how quick and perfunctory that was. And at the same time, it was very imprecise, leaving much to the imagination.
When you change your behavior ... you change everyone elses a little bit. We have seen many unusual things in court. :)
Quote from: Nicholas Gilman on August 27, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFT
I'm mentally filing that quote for future use in "court".
That's what I said when I was talking to David the other day after the Live Free or Die festival, though I wonder if I'll have the courage if/when the time comes. Last night I had some troubling dreams mixed in with some really amazing cool dreams, but I remember at one point discovering that I had been marked as a felon by the state. Can't remember exactly what law, but my heart sank and then I calmed myself thinking, "OK, what do I do now? How do I live my life with this?" I really am a felon technically. Like almost every adult GA citizen, I violated felony sodomy laws in Georgia before the courts removed them. Practically anything non-traditional was a felony (max 20 years) including oral sex in private between two spouses. Beastiality, necrophilia, and public indecency were misdemeaners- max 1 year sentence for each. The joke is you could have sex with a dead donkey on the steps of city hall and get a max of three years, but oral sex in private with a consenting adult, even your spouse, could get you 20 years and a felony record.
I like when David is trying to explain his position to a "layman". The part about the state taking his hands and eyes so he can't drive made sense to me as an analogy but I wonder if she got it.
Shit, I'm in trouble. :o
Has anyone checked the disposition of this case with the clerk of the court to see if it has been dismissed or a bench warrant issued?
Quote from: coffeeseven on August 27, 2007, 09:26 AM NHFT
Has anyone checked the disposition of this case with the clerk of the court to see if it has been dismissed or a bench warrant issued?
But that would pull back the curtain on public theatre!
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on August 27, 2007, 12:11 AM NHFT
Video of the event. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UceP262cjw)
You should all know the reason this video took so long to come out is because I sat on the source footage for a couple of weeks until Sunday when I handed it over to Lauren. She cranked out the final product in less than 24 hours! :o
I will make a mental note to get the footage into her hands immediately upon completion of shooting, if possible, from now on.
Sending this to kpd, sorry for the delay
---
http://www.ci.keene.nh.us:7777/pls/htmldb/f?p=101:1:17693304070228977397
Dear Folks at KPD:
I wanted to express my concern regarding the "illegal U-turn" citation against Keene resident David Manning some weeks ago. Although this was initially a routine event, his refusal to pay the fine has triggered some needed debate.
My questions for your department:
1) Did Manning's turn harm or endanger anyone? He claims it didn't, because it was very late and the area was near deserted.
2) Whatever the law may say, is it ever appropriate to punish an adult who hasn't harmed or endangered others?
There are thousands of laws and millions of street signs....no one can obey them all, but all of us *can* exercise judgement and scrupulously avoid harming or endangering others. If David is to be believed, he was doing just that the night your officer pulled him over. But was your department? Did your department harm David by attempting to fine him on penalty of jail? Did it act to protect anyone or simply in blind obedience to "the law."
Yours,
Dave Ridley
Manchester (Former Keene resident)
I corrected the aspect ratio of the video. Unfortunately in the process a few audio errors crept in but not enough for me to bother re-dubbing. Both the video and a link to Lauren's article have been posted on Free Keene:
http://freekeene.com/2007/08/30/david-refuses-to-pay-a-fine/
Who is the blonde lady Dave is talking to around 2:43?
She was asking questions about what Dave did in the courtroom, as did a handful of other people who did not make the final cut of the video.