Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd

[coffeeseven]

I spoke with the DMV here and asked them if a license could be surrendered at the DMV. Ya know...just walk in and hand it to them. They said yes. Sounds like a perfect way to "reset all of the buttons". Anyone know of any negative ramifications?

[mvpel]

Aside from sitting in jail for 36 days because a judge makes an unwarranted and illegal presumption of a waiver of a right by your exercise of your right to remain silent?

[karenijohnson]

Q: I spoke with the DMV here and asked them if a license could be surrendered at the DMV. Ya know...just walk in and hand it to them. They said yes. Sounds like a perfect way to "reset all of the buttons". Anyone know of any negative ramifications?

A: yes. do not "drive" any vehicle that has DMV papers in it's history.  People around the country have been "cancelling" licenses for a long time.  SUSPENDED licenses do not "cancel" easily.  Folks, it is a "commercial" activity when you "use" a "regulated (licensed)" vehicle... you are DRIVING.

(P.S. if you are a RESIDENT by way of VOTERS registration evidence and such, then you are an UNLICENSED driver (misdemeanor sometimes tried in traffic court)... when you "use/drive" the vehicle.)

[dalebert]

I've heard some talk taht driving without a license is not as bad from their legal mumbo jumbo as driving on a suspended license. Of course it doesn't mean they're going to leave you alone, but I heard that what they typically do is suspend your license after whatever fines and punishments they dish out. If you don't have one, sounds like you're better off. Anyone can confirm or deny?

[dalebert]

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=36

That's a great article, Kat!

[jaqeboy]

Posted my own comment educating them about the history of vehicle registration and the right to drive.

Respectfully for your consideration J'raxis: The terms "travel" and "drive" are, in the court's usage "terms of art" with very specific meanings that, in some cases, are different from their popular usages. Not wanting to start this discussion all over again, but there is extensive discussion over at Keene Activist May Be Jailed Tomorrow Morning 8/15 Over a U-Turn! Both armlaw and I posted extensive quotes, including definitions, so I don't want to start that all up here. Was thinking of starting a "Right to Travel" thread - might still be a good one.

Basically, though, "travelling" is a right and "driving" is a privilege - gotta read those posts, though, to get the full contexts and meanings. Just one short excerpt, though, taken from one of armlaw's posts:

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.

It gets involved, but once the definitions are understood it becomes clearer. Now, the state's role in confusing the 2 to get us all signed up as "drivers", that's another story.

[J’raxis 270145]

jaqeboy:—

I remember reading that thread now. The reason I used the term driver is because there have actually been some laws that have referred to a "right to drive," e.g., mvpel's quotation. I suppose this is what you mean by the government confusing and conflating terms.

[Tom Sawyer]

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=36

Anyone get a photo after her release that I could use?  Video still?

Sent a B/W video still, a Color Print and Web version also.

[coffeeseven]

So Karen I would have to build my own motorized conveyance in order to skirt the whole "vehicle" issue?

I know removing the VIN tags is a strictly verboten so trying to reclassify a vehicle is probably impossible.

I got a ticket in a kit car once. There was no name on the body and I would not give the cop the kit name so he asked me what the engine year and type was. I was young. I told him. He put that on the ticket. The bigger issue is jurisdiction. the second issue is getting a judge to recognize it.

Back to my bicycle again as a result to the problem.   Hey has anyone in NH gotten a ticket for no helmet?? It is after all "the law".

[Tom Sawyer]

Back to my bicycle again as a result to the problem.   Hey has anyone in NH gotten a ticket for no helmet?? It is after all "the law".

I think the "law" only applies to children.

[karenijohnson]

(Posted by: coffeeseven)
So Karen I would have to build my own motorized conveyance in order to skirt the whole "vehicle" issue?
I know removing the VIN tags is a strictly verboten so trying to reclassify a vehicle is probably impossible.
I got a ticket in a kit car once. There was no name on the body and I would not give the cop the kit name so he asked me what the engine year and type was. I was young. I told him. He put that on the ticket. The bigger issue is jurisdiction. the second issue is getting a judge to recognize it.
///////
1) If you built a car from raw materials, you could technically "conveyance" it down the road. NO passengers for hire. No freight carriage for hire.
2) You can also BUY a car from oversees, and keep the MANUFACTURER'S Statement of Origin(MSO), and show that as ownership proof.
3) you WILL probably LOSE a few cars to the tow truck and impound lot (no matter how right you are).
/////
Remember: YOU cannot USE a car that does/(has had) a PLATE from ANY STATE issued for it UNLESS you have a LICENSE recognized by the jurisdiction you are in.  TO get a plate you have to ASK the STATE to regulate it. IT "then" becomes a FELONY to deface the SERIAL NUMBER (now registered VIN) "since" the state has an INTEREST in it.

////
interesting reading at:
http://www.embassyofheaven.com/catalog/Vehicles.htm
(the hostmaster knows how the DMV works from personal experience)
///

[jaqeboy]

jaqeboy:—

I remember reading that thread now. The reason I used the term driver is because there have actually been some laws that have referred to a "right to drive," e.g., mvpel's quotation. I suppose this is what you mean by the government confusing and conflating terms.

Read it more carefully once again (copied and pasted from UL page):

11 Am.Jur. Constitutional Law 329: The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They didn't confuse or conflate terms - they usually use them carefully and very accurately. It's usually us hoi polloi that think they mean something else and end up in jail. We tend to read that once and interpret it to mean "right to drive", but that's not what it says.

[jaqeboy]

Now, the state's role in confusing the 2 to get us all signed up as "drivers", that's another story.

Yeah, J', I mis-spoke there. They didn't confuse the language (back in the 20's), but confused the people enough that they signed up to be licensed as "drivers" when they didn't have to, they had a right to continue to "travel" without a license.

[karenijohnson]

arraingment and BAIL in NH (good for Lauren or anyone without papers...)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/597/597-mrg.htm

//
EXCERPT
TITLE LIX
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
CHAPTER 597
BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCES
General Provisions
Section 597:1
    597:1 Release and Detention Authority Generally. – Except as provided in RSA 597:1-a, 597:1-c, or 597:1-d, all persons arrested for an offense shall be eligible to be released pending judicial proceedings upon compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

Source. GS 240:18. GL 258:18. PS 252:12. PL 366:13. RL 425:13. RSA 597:1. 1969, 78:1. 1974, 34:4. 1988, 110:1. 1989, 386:1. 1993, 258:1, eff. Aug. 14, 1993.
Section 597:1-a
    597:1-a Release or Detention of a Defendant Pending Sentence or Appeal. –
    I. After conviction for an offense punishable by death or, by a term of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or for aggravated felonious sexual assault or felonious sexual assault, a defendant shall not be allowed bail.
    II. Except as provided in paragraph I, the court shall order that a person who has been found guilty of a felony and who is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence be detained, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the person or to any other person or the community. If the court makes such a finding, it shall order the release of the person in accordance with the provisions of RSA 597:2.
    III. The court shall order that a person who has been found guilty of
...
/////

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=36

That's a great article, Kat!

Thanks, Dalebert