General Information

[QUOTE=B S R]

Your quote specifies highway. There is a definition for highways... there is an argument to be made here.

[/QUOTE]

The Legal definition of "Highway" is a little more encompassing that the way lay people use the term

The standard Legal definition is =

[i] " A free and public roadway or street , one which every person has the right to use

... Its prime essentials are the right of common enjoyment and the duty of public maintenance "[/i]

There's an entire paragraph noting and outlining the differences between the "popular usage" and the "broader sense"

Also , 'highway'

[i] " ... includes areas other than and beyond the paved surfaces of a roadway " [/i]

... so don't try driving down the Interstate shoulder and expect to claim you weren't actually on a 'highway'

Source = Black's Law Dictionary

PZ, that is precisely the type of documentation I have been asserting is needed to post to this particular forum what one should or shouldn't do when in the presence of LE or during a traffic stop. You have cited the specifc law of a specific state and anyone can now do the research on their own to verfiy that it is, in fact, the appropriate law. And, while it's fair to assume that the other 49 states require licenses, the law may differ in every state as to requirements of age and so on but you can bet they all require a valid license to drive on the highways and roads.

Common sense tells you that if you are involved in a traffic stop for whatever reason, LE not only has a right but an obligation to determine if you have a license to drive the car. It is incidental (and I concede that this "incidental" part of it may grate people) that in checking the license LE is able to identify you, determine your legal standing to drive an automobile on a public highway or road, and get a good look inside your car to determine if he should take any further action than just giving a warning, issuing a citation, or taking necessary action to conduct a search.

My common sense tells me that refusing to provide my license or challenging LE's right to ask for my driver's license in a traffic stop is the quickest way to raise suspicion and create more trouble than one is probably in by just giving the license and listening to the lecture. And, if it's for a speeding ticket, chalk it up as a lesson learned - in particular if you just left an AMP 3 blocks earlier.

As someone else posted some time ago, if there was no presumed probable cause for the stop (in the mind of the person being stopped) it would take some huge cojones to challenge the requirement for identification and carrying a valid driver's license.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]Wallie ,

Here's the relevant State Code of your home state , Indiana =


[b]Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency

01/19/2007 07:38:22 AM EST

IC 9-24

ARTICLE 24. DRIVERS LICENSES

IC 9-24-1 Chapter 1. Individuals Required to Obtain a License or Permit

IC 9-24-1-1 License required

Sec. 1. Except as provided in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, an individual [red]must[/red] have a valid Indiana:

(1) [red]operator's license[/red];
(2) chauffeur's license;
(3) public passenger chauffeur's license;
(4) commercial driver's license;
(5) driver's license listed in subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (4) with a motorcycle operator's license or endorsement; or
(6) learner's permit;
[red]issued to the individual by the bureau under this article to drive upon an Indiana highway the type of motor vehicle for which the license or permit was issued.[/red]

As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.12. Amended by P.L.156-2006, SEC.3.[/b]

The language in that Statute is as crystal clear as they could possibly make it so
what part of it don't you understand ??

Go right ahead and spout out yer weird legal theories that have been disproven and have gotten people imprisoned [ like the 'theory' that Income Taxes are 'voluntary' ]

.... but when you suggest that Mongers don't carry a DL because they don't need one
you're endangering them so I felt I had to speak up

Dog forbid any of us are ever stopped by Uncle LEO , but if you are the goal should be
to end the encounter as quickly as possible with·out getting arrested

Any driver stopped who refuses to provide a DL &/or otherwise identify them·selves is gonna end up in hand·cuffs and will stay in a lock·up until a Judge or Bail Commissioner remands them

Is *that* what you want for your fellow Mongers ??[/QUOTE]

First off = Thanks for being another Voice of Reason here in Post # 32 , I·M·2

This Post may seem off·topic but it isn't because listening to legal opinions from amateur
'Jail·house Lawyers' —— like [i]" Don't bother carrying a DL because you don't need one "[/i] ——
can land a guy in a LOT of Trouble in a hurry

Most 'Perry Masons' get their start by making the following observations =

· The Law often seems arbitrary and capricious . How can so many SCOTUS decisions be split 5 — 4 ??
After a hundred years of established Case Law , how can Anna Nicole Smith get a case heard
by the SCOTUS to clarify a minor point of an arcane legal doctrine like Supplemental Jurisdiction ??

· It doesn't help that lawyers & judges tend to use what seem to be un·necessary words
and redundancies , like [i]Last Will & Testament[/i]

· And it *really* doesn't help when some case gets tossed over what seems to be a minor verbal
technicality . We had a case here in Rhode Island where a public corruption case was dismissed
because the definition of one of the elements of the crime used the word "AND" instead
of the term "AND / OR"

The General Assembly corrected that error quickly , but the seeds were no doubt planted
in a new generation of amateur Lawyers =

Just parse away , re·define terms and split hairs and you can violate any Law or get it ruled
un·constitutional ... the classic example is Frivolous Tax Arguments that the IRS happily refutes ,
then imprisons any·one still dumb enough to try to resurrect one of these canards =

[URL]http://www.quatloos.com/friv_tax.pdf[/URL]

And now we've got Wallie claiming you don't need a DL

Sorry , Folks , but it just doesn't work that way in real life

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]...
· The Law often seems arbitrary and capricious . How can so many SCOTUS decisions be split 5 — 4 ??

After a hundred years of established Case Law , how can Anna Nicole Smith get a case heard by the SCOTUS to clarify a minor point of an arcane legal doctrine like Supplemental Jurisdiction ??[/QUOTE]

As we saw in Hiibel, the SCOTUS is often split since there are a myriad of cases upon which the Court may base a decision. In the Hiibel case, the majority concentrated (correctly actually) on the argument that was presented to them, that identifying yourself to LE is a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution. They found (again, correctly) that it was not. The minority in the Hiibel case thought about other previous findings, and found precedent, including Miranda, that supported their Opinion. It happens. There are lots of Court Cases, and the SCOTUS rarely makes a mistake, or even contradicts themselves, if you read the case, and the logic used in their Decisions. If Hiibel had gone to the SCOTUS saying the Nevada law violated Miranda, there is a decent chance he would have won.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]· It doesn't help that lawyers & judges tend to use what seem to be un·necessary words and redundancies , like [i]Last Will & Testament[/i]

· And it *really* doesn't help when some case gets tossed over what seems to be a minor verbal technicality . We had a case here in Rhode Island where a public corruption case was dismissed because the definition of one of the elements of the crime used the word "AND" instead of the term "AND / OR"

The General Assembly corrected that error quickly , but the seeds were no doubt planted in a new generation of amateur Lawyers =

Just parse away , re·define terms and split hairs and you can violate any Law or get it ruled un·constitutional ... the classic example is Frivolous Tax Arguments that the IRS happily refutes , then imprisons any·one still dumb enough to try to resurrect one of these canards =

[URL]http://www.quatloos.com/friv_tax.pdf[/URL]

And now we've got Wallie claiming you don't need a DL

Sorry , Folks , but it just doesn't work that way in real life...[/QUOTE]

Parse Away and redefine terms and split hairs huh? And I bet you try not to violate the "Spirit of the Law" too?

Here's the thing: the Law has no Spirit. The Law is made up of words, and words mean things. In the Law, there is always a section of definitions. There's a reason for that. You [i]have[/i] to know what a word means in order to use it in Law. We all laughed at Bill Clinton for asking what the meaning of the word "is" is, but his legal question was sound. For the umpteenth time, "drive" is a word which carries a commercial meaning, "travel" is the private use of the roads by a citizen. Read this post carefully, and try to understand.

Now, as for the Driver's License issue (and this is the [i]last[/i] time I will post anything about it) feel free to research these findings by the Courts. [b]{NOTE: Some of these cases are not available online. You will have to go to a Law Library to find the text of the decisions.}[/b] I have also included a few definitions as well.

Also, I have included relevant quotes from the cases for your convenience.

[i][B]~[/B]"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.

[b]~[/b]"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.98

[b]~[/b]"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 horse drawn 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

[b]~[/b]"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[/i]

As for Commercial Use, 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:

[i][b]~[/b]"...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[/i]

Therefore, Corporations 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.

[i][b]~[/b]"...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[/i]

Public 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.

[i][b]~[/b]"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?1;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163[/i]

and ...

[i][b]~[/b]"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

[b]~[/b]"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[/i]

and ...

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

So, what is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? 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:

[i][b]~[/b]"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."[/i]

and ...

[i][b]~[/b]"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities."

State vs. City of Spokane, supra.[/i]

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.

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

and ...

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

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.

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

So, obviously there [b]is [/b] a difference between ...

1. Traveling 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.

[i][b]~[/b]"[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.

[b]~[/b]"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.

[b]~[/b]"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.[/i]

There should be considerable authority on a subject as important as this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, there aren't any case(s) or authority(ies) acknowledging a state's power to convert the individual's Right to travel on the public roads into a "privilege."

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property on the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."

[B]DEFINITIONS[/B]

[i][b]~[/b]"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

[b]~[/b]"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[/i]

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

[i][b]~[/b]" "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.[/i]

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]

Definition of "Travel":

[i][b]~[/b]"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

[b]~[/b]"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

[b]~[/b]"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[/i]

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 [b]traveler[/b].

The term "driver" is defined as:

[i][b]~[/b]"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940[/i]

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "traveling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. Driver, therefore, is a commercial term.

Definition of "Operator"

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

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:

1. Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

"Driver" and "Operator" are commercial terms, while "travel(er)" is a term referring to a private citizen.

Definition of "License":

It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the Laws as they are properly applied:

[i][b]~[/b]"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

[b]~[/b]"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent."

Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118[/i]

[b]{I freely admit to mis-defining "License" in an earlier post.}[/b]

In order for these two definitions of "license" 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 Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law.

In this case, the proper definition of a "license" is:

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

Now, keep these in mind too:

[i][b]~[/b]"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[/i]

and ...

[i][b]~[/b]"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489[/i]

and ...

[i][b]~[/b]"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

[b]~[/b]"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)[/i]

This means then that the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel on 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."

Additionally , keep this in mind:

[i][b]~[/b]"... 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.[/i]

Ergo, a "license" is not, regardless of what they tell you, [b]required[/b] for you, me, or any citizen, to operate a motor vehicle on the road. We are Traveling, not Driving.

Use of the roads is Right. A Right cannot be regulated lest it be regulated out of existence.

Again, and for the last time, I am not advising anyone to anything. You can be arrested for not having a Drivers License. Unless you know exactly how to defend yourself, you will be found guilty. You will be in trouble. I, for the time being at least, have a Driver's License, and [b]do not[/b] advise anyone to not have one.

Wallie

This is something I tripped over while in a car chat room. It's from the ALCU, who I usually don't agree with, and it could really help you out in a tight spot.
It giver you your rights and how to deal with a police stop and their efforts to entrap you. I tried to attach the document but it was too big. Here's the web address to check it out.

[url]http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15865pub20040714.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Wallie]

Ergo, a "license" is not, regardless of what they tell you, [b]required[/b] for you, me, or any citizen, to operate a motor vehicle on the road. We are Traveling, not Driving.

Use of the roads is Right. A Right cannot be regulated lest it be regulated out of existence.

Again, and for the last time, I am not advising anyone to anything. You can be arrested for not having a Drivers License. Unless you know exactly how to defend yourself, you will be found guilty. You will be in trouble. I, for the time being at least, have a Driver's License, and [b]do not[/b] advise anyone to not have one.

[/QUOTE]


Lemme see if I got this straight =

You aren't *required* to have a Driver's License to drive , but if you get caught
driving with·out one , you'll get arrested for driving with·out a Driver's License

Thanks for clearing that up for us , Wallie

Wallie, I commend you on your research and the time you took to support your arguments with factual information. Having said that, however, I don't see anything that would convince me the states have no right to require a driver's license. I also do not see anything that I would depend upon to refuse to provide my driver's license in a routine traffic stop. The states have a right as well as a responsibility, as I read some of the case law you provided, to keep people who would infringe on your safe use of the streets and roads. How else can you control this other than requiring a driver's license? To get a habitually drunk driver off the road, or a frequent offender of traffic laws such as a speeder or overly aggressive driver how else can you control these situations other than to suspend or revoke their driver's license? Virtually everyone in this country has the right to use the streets and roads, on that point I agree, but having to have a driver's license does not take that right away. As for advising someone they do not have to have a license, the one comment you made in post #7 was,

"You don't have to give a LEO your license either. "

In post #15 you said,

"They have also said that the Public Roads are the Public's to use. 'Driving', in the Legal sense, infers that you are using the Public Roads for Profit. So, as an example, a Semi-Truck Driver would need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know exactly how to defend yourself, (which I am still learning) you can go into any Court and beat a 'Driving without a license' ticket. I know people who do. "

This may not be advising someone they do not have to have a license but the wording infers it. Had you said something like "It's my opinion" it would not have sounded like you were suggesting that it's OK to drive without a license. You also said you knew people who have beaten a charge of driving without a license, but did not offer their case reference nor did you offer factual documentation of those cases. I just don't believe that "you can go into ANY court and beat a driving without a license ticket. " Maybe you can if you just left your license at home or forgot your wallet but if you failed to renew or were suspended, I think one would be very hard pressed to have the ticket quashed. I know you spent a lot of time getting the citations and making your arguments and I appreciate the time you took but I just am not conviced by either the case law you cited nor am I convinced by your arguments about what the quoted parts of the cases you cited means.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]Lemme see if I got this straight =

You aren't *required* to have a Driver's License to drive , but if you get caught
driving with·out one , you'll get arrested for driving with·out a Driver's License

Thanks for clearing that up for us , Wallie[/QUOTE]

In the Corps, we called guys like this "sea lawyers." They freely gave advice based on thin unsubstantiated logic and untutored interpretation of the UCMJ, but weren't accountable for what happened to ya if you followed their advice.

The bottom line is pretty simple. Yeah, you can travel the king's highways for free if you're walking, riding a bicycle, or using some other form of transportation that doesn't need a license. Operating a motor vehicle on those same highways is a privilege, not a right, and is regulated by the states and Federal government. You need a valid driver's license. Simple as that. All those cites, quotes, and other stuff that Wallie throws up is unrelated and irrelevant, once you look at each states' laws/statutes that govern the operation of motor vehicles on public right-of-ways and property.

You might not like the comparison, Wallie, but the dolts who go to jail for claiming that income taxes are illegal use the same MO that you do here. They take unrelated and irrelevant laws, cases, and incidents, and stitch them together into a loosely structured and illogical argument that has more holes in it than a cheese grater.

[QUOTE=Out_There]In the Corps, we called guys like this "sea lawyers." They freely gave advice based on thin unsubstantiated logic and untutored interpretation of the UCMJ, but weren't accountable for what happened to ya if you followed their advice.

The bottom line is pretty simple. Yeah, you can travel the king's highways for free if you're walking, riding a bicycle, or using some other form of transportation that doesn't need a license. Operating a motor vehicle on those same highways is a privilege, not a right, and is regulated by the states and Federal government. You need a valid driver's license. Simple as that. All those cites, quotes, and other stuff that Wallie throws up is unrelated and irrelevant, once you look at each states' laws/statutes that govern the operation of motor vehicles on public right-of-ways and property.

You might not like the comparison, Wallie, but the dolts who go to jail for claiming that income taxes are illegal use the same MO that you do here. They take unrelated and irrelevant laws, cases, and incidents, and stitch them together into a loosely structured and illogical argument that has more holes in it than a cheese grater.[/QUOTE]Just a couple of recent cases on income tax. Check out the video from google videos.

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234[/url]
It's what happened when asked to show the law that says you have to pay taxes. And heres another one.

[url]http://www.unknownnews.org/030812VerniceKuglin.html[/url]

If you do a search for Vernice Kuglin or Whitey Harrell you will find these cases most interesting because the core of there defense was the same , just show me the law , not the code the actual law. Seems they were both found innocent.

[QUOTE=Nightflyerx1]Just a couple of recent cases on income tax. Check out the video from google videos.

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234[/url]
It's what happened when asked to show the law that says you have to pay taxes. And heres another one.

[url]http://www.unknownnews.org/030812VerniceKuglin.html[/url]

If you do a search for Vernice Kuglin or Whitey Harrell you will find these cases most interesting because the core of there defense was the same , just show me the law , not the code the actual law. Seems they were both found innocent.[/QUOTE]In reference to the first link, which is a video clip of the jury foreman explaining why they found the defendant not guilty, there was nothing in the information provided proving there is no law requiring one to pay income taxes. What the information did explain, in my opinion, is that the judge was irresponsible and arrogant in relating to the jury. To simply say you have everything you need - as he did - with no further explanation ignores the question and fails to recognize the jury was struggling with trying to issue a just verdict. When a jury does not know what a law is but is told to issue a decision based on that law, and requests to see the law, it seems to me they truly do have an obligation to find in favor of the defendant.

In the second link, it’s clear that it was a criminal trial for tax evasion. The defense attorneys wisely used the fact that the defendant had requested more than once a copy of the law but never received it. Consequently, the element of intent was not present and the defendant was found not criminally responsible. However, that does not relieve the defendant of the responsibility of paying the taxes she did not pay. According to her own attorney, she will probably be civilly tried or at the very least an attempt will be made to collect the money prior to a civil trial. As the article stated, “The five-day trial did not resolve whether she must make the tax payment."I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft.”

Both cases revolve around the fact that the government, which sometimes forgets that it is of the people, by the people, and for the people - and therefore serves the people - arrogantly and irresponsibly failed to act in a way that a rational and reasoned person would act. The government failed to respond to a request for help in both issues and consequently lost in both instances, as they should have.

In previous posts, it has been inferred that there is a difference between a code and a law. Sometimes that is so and sometimes it is not. Below is a legal definition taken from [url]http://dictionary.law.com/[/url]. Now, before all the sea lawyers get on my case and insist that Black’s Law dictionary is the standard in the field of law, I am fully aware of that. However, I have no desire to go out and buy it or run to the nearest college library to obtain Black’s definitions. For the purposes of this discussion, the definitions below are sufficient to show that sometimes the word code does mean a law and sometimes it doesn’t. (Note that within the definition that laws are often frequently changed by legislative bodies, some codes that are not laws have the force of law, and don’t forget that case law can often further refine, define, or overturn a law.)

code
n. a collection of written laws gathered together, usually covering specific subject matter. Thus, a state may have a civil code, corporations code, education code, evidence code, health and safety codes, insurance code, labor code, motor vehicle code, penal code, revenue and taxation code, and so forth. Federal statutes which deal with legal matters are grouped together in codes. There are also statutes which are not codified. Despite their apparent permanence, codes are constantly being amended by legislative bodies. Some codes are administrative and have the force of law even though they were created and adopted by regulatory agencies and are not actually statutes or laws.


law
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience. Custom or conduct governed by the force of the local king were replaced by laws almost as soon as man learned to write. The earliest lawbook was written about 2100 B.C. for Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, a Middle Eastern city-state. Within three centuries Hammurabi, king of Babylonia, had enumerated laws of private conduct, business and legal precedents, of which 282 articles have survived. The term "eye for an eye" (or the equivalent value) is found there, as is drowning as punishment for adultery by a wife (while a husband could have slave concubines), and unequal treatment of the rich and the poor was codified here first. It took another thousand years before written law codes developed among the Greek city-states (particularly Athens) and Israel. China developed similar rules of conduct, as did Egypt. The first law system which has a direct influence on the American legal system was the codification of all classic law ordered by the Roman Emperor Justinian in 528 and completed by 534, becoming the law of the Roman empire. This is known as the Justinian Code, upon which most of the legal systems of most European nations are based to this day. The principal source of American law is the common law, which had its roots about the same time as Justinian, among Angles, Britons and later Saxons in Britain. William the Conqueror arrived in 1066 and combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. The American colonies followed the English Common Law with minor variations, and the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone (completed in 1769) was the legal "bible" for all American frontier lawyers and influenced the development of state codes of law. To a great extent common law has been replaced by written statutes, and a gigantic body of such statutes have been enacted by federal and state legislatures supposedly in response to the greater complexity of modern life.2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). 3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws."

A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?

Just some food for thought.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa... ...There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?[/QUOTE]
In that case, who knows. However, UC LE can, and will, break the law when undercover. After all, that's often times the only way to get an officer deep UC during, say, a drug investigation. UC (and non-UC Officers, can legally lie when working.) After all, as we all know, the "are you a cop" question so often asked by SWs after being picked up offers absolutely no protection at all.

Or, they may have actually participated and left, both happy, and with "evidence" of the "crime".

Check this out: [url]http://www.unknownnews.org/060214stinkybadges.html[/url]. I have seen other stories like this one before, this was the just the first I found doing a quick Google search. This does contain a nice discussion about the "right" and "wrong" of pursuing a Prostitution Arrest by having sex with the accused though. Some good stuff in there.

Now, as to whether the charges will stick if the UC [i]did[/i] have sexual contact with the masseuse or not, that is a different question. A skilled attorney could probably get the masseuse off (no pun intended) with an entrapment, or coercion defense, unless, of course, the UC had a wire of some kind, (digi-tape recorder, wireless mic, etc.) planted in their clothes, say, in a pocket of their jeans, which captured any negotiating that may have gone on before the sex took place.

Wallie

I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?

Just some food for thought.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.

[QUOTE=Broome333]I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.[/QUOTE]

I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.[/QUOTE]