Keene Activist May Be Jailed Tomorrow Morning 8/15 Over a U-Turn!

[FTL_Ian]

What the hell does that mean?

Violence, I presume.

[Russell Kanning]

keene justice
execution at dawn

I dont think they want u in the  court so the hurry things along

[TackleTheWorld]

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.

[Russell Kanning]

good 4 dave

he refuses to be a slave

dave did a little shrug and now he is more free

kanning .. lanning ... manning ...

[jaqeboy]

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)?

[jaqeboy]

Oops, sorry, didn't mean to shut down the thread....

[Dave Ridley]

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

[penguins4me]

Does someone knowthe answer to "Beavis'" question about what exactly they're going to do with Mr. U-turn? :(

[EthanAllen]

Is driving a privilege or a right?

[penguins4me]

Does the gov't have the authority to restrict or prohibit the travel of peaceable persons?

[Russell Kanning]

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

[Lloyd Danforth]

Is driving a privilege or a right?

Right

[Lloyd Danforth]

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?

[EthanAllen]

Is driving a privilege or a right?

Right

Based on?

[jaqeboy]

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.