General Information

Thread Starter.

This is a great thread. I wonder noone wrote in here. Most of us write locally but there is some general issues and they are almost the same in most States. For example prostitution is illegal in US with the exception of Nevada LasVegas. On the other hand it's legal in Canada with lots of restrictions.

I found an official site for Canada;

[url]http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/index.html[/url]

I would be interested in joining any assocoiation fighting for Civil Rights of legalizing prostitution. Does anyone know of large national organization? Alot of Civl Rights Groups have organized and gotten equal right in the past 30 years; how about us?

There is an organization. It is the Libertarian Party. Below is a portion of their official platform:

If you believe in these ideals, you should become a member. It is cheap and they don't bombard you with junk mail.


[url]http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml[/url]

III.1 Crime and Victimless Crime

The Issue: Violent crime and fraud threaten the lives, happiness and belongings of Americans. Government's ability to protect the rights and property of individuals from crimes of violence and fraud is compromised because resources are focused on vice rather than on real crimes. Laws that codify "victimless crimes" turn those who simply conduct voluntary transactions and exercise free choice into criminals. This results in the United States having one of the highest percentages of the population in prison of any country in the world; yet real crime remains prevalent in many parts of the country.

Principle: Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves in the exercise of free choice.

Solution: The appropriate way for the federal government to address crime is through consistent and impartial enforcement of laws that protect individual rights. The law enforcement resources of the federal government can be used most efficiently if limited to appropriate federal concerns. Limiting law enforcement to true crime will restore respect for the law and those who enforce it.

Transitional Action: Immediately reform the justice system's mandatory sentencing policies to ensure that violent offenders are not released from jail to make room for non-violent offenders. Repeal criminal laws which work against the protection of the rights and freedom of American citizens, residents or visitors, particularly laws which create a crime where no victim exists.

Yah. I already vote Libertarian. I am just suprised there isn't a civil Rights organization focusing solely on legalizing prostitution. It is a life style choice between consenting adults and we people choosing this lifestyle are oppressed. Mostly through religious lobbyist groups which I am sure would be illegal due to Seperation of Church and State, and the fact that there are urine tests strips to check for bacterial and viral diseases and that there can be medical cards to show for AIDS and Hepitiis Screenings, as well as condoms, it seems time to get a National Organization for the Legalization for Prostitution. Hell I guess I should start it. I'll get a website and start it.

My post was not completely accurate so I am posting some quotes I received Sorry
QUOTE=PsyberZombie]That quote is in·accurate with regards to Las Vegas , as KC·Q just wrote below

It's also wrong about Prostitution [i]ONLY[/i] being Legal in Nevada

Here in my home state of Rhode Island , In·door Prostitution is totally Legal

Soliciting is il·legal , though , which is why so many guys here get the girls' digits and arrange
perfectly legal private indoor 'dates' with them

When LE busts AMPs here , the only thing they can charge is operating a massage facility with
the masseuses not being properly licensed ; and immigration violations

The legality of in·door prostitution has also turned our strip clubs into barely disguised Brothels[/QUOTE][QUOTE=KC Questor]Actually it is NOT legal in Las Vegas. Lots of tourists head to "Sin City" thinking that it is, and the scads of escort services operating in the open might serve to convince. But in fact Clark County (which includes Las Vegas) is the only county in Nevada which could not have legal prostitution.

Under Nevada law, any county with a population of fewer than 400,000 is allowed to license brothels if it so chooses (NRS 244.345). As of January 2005, Clark County is the only county in Nevada with a population of over 400,000.

The town of Pahrump, 60 miles outside of Las Vegas, is the location of the closest legal house of prostitution for visitors to the neon nightlife.[/QUOTE]

This is a copy/paste of a conversation that has taken place in the Cincinnati Board.

I have, as per Jackson's suggestion, reposted the salient parts of the conversation here, in order to stimulate further conversation on the matter, and to clear the conversation from the Cincinnati board, as it is not directly related to Mongering.

Again, this is a repost, the original thread can be found here: [url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3977[/url] These posts end with post number 425 in that section.

[b]{SPECIAL NOTE to Jackson: I am not intentionally violating the Blue Law of the Forum in this repost, just trying to accurately reflect the conversation as it occurred on the Cincinnati board, including your Editor's Notes.}[/b]

[QUOTE=Weedman]I would never allow a cop to search my car, especially if sw held drugs and possibly dropped it on the floor. There is no reason to give a cop more ammo to put you in jail. But even if I had nothing in my car, I will never grant permission for someone to rifle through my belongings. We do have rights.

[size=-1][u]EDITOR'S SUGGESTION:[/u] [color=blue]This is interesting, but you might consider re-posting it under the Police Tactics and Legal Issues thread in the Special Interests section of the Forum where it will benefit the Forum Members who are specifically looking for this type of information. Thanks![/size][/color][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wallie]Hmmm...
I'm from Indianapolis, but kind of keep an eye on the activities in the surrounding region as well, after all, you never know, a post from a nearby area may make me decide to take a road trip.

Here's my .02 about your friend's encounter. I am not a lawyer, so take it for what it's worth.

{Fair Warning, and an Apology to all of you, and to Jackson. This is a LOOONNG post.}

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
...Yes, he COULD have argued with LE about the legitimacy of the stop (for which there was NOT even a flimsy excuse...) ...No traffic violation, seat belts fastened--the sole reason for the stop?[/QUOTE]

You have every right to ask why you are being stopped. Yes, LE will come up with some BS excuse, but it's a good idea to let LE know that you know you haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to be confrontational about it, just ask why you're being stopped. They have to have a reason. In fact, LE has to have what is called "Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion" that you are involved in a Criminal Activity, or have demonstrably broken the Law (ie. speeding) to pull you over. Asking why you are pulled over lets the LEO know you are, at least somewhat, aware of your Rights. They will be a bit more careful during the rest of the encounter if, in fact, this is just a harassment stop.

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
...Yes, he COULD have "stood up for his rights" and said, "No way, you can't search my vehicle," even being confident that there was nothing in there by which they could nail him (no drugs, no guns, no nuthin'...)...[/QUOTE]

Basically, the same applies to a search of the vehicle as does pulling you over in the first place. If a LEO sees something in plain sight which is illegal; drugs for instance, then they have Probable Cause. However, just searching in hopes of finding something is not allowed, and is a violation of your Rights. Unless they have PC, they are required to secure your permission to make a search, and you have every Right to refuse a search. When they do search your vehicle, the trunk of the vehicle is not automatically included in the search. They can only search the area that is in direct control of the driver at that time, that being the cabin of the vehicle. Permission to search the trunk is required, and it is separate and apart from the permission to search the cabin of the vehicle.

Also, regardless of what they would have you believe, if a guest in your vehicle is carrying something illegal, again, let's say drugs, then you cannot be also held responsible, even if you know they a carrying. Of course, if your guest throws them under your seat, then you are responsible, as it is your vehicle.

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
But, as BSG suggests--how much time do you want to spend in police custody to make a point?[/QUOTE]

OK, some terminology clarification is in order here. "Police Custody" suggests that you have been arrested, and there are laws regarding how long you can be held before a hearing, how long before charges are filed, etc. I believe though, that you are speaking more specifically about "how long do you want to be stuck at the side of the road doing Stupid Human Tricks?" This is quite separate from Police Custody, and also quite different from being "Detained".

Being Detained means you are being held, basically for suspicion of a crime that they don't quite have enough to tie you to yet. It's the first formal step before "Custody/{Arrest}"

However, unless you are being formally Detained, the longest LE is allowed to hold you, and make you do the Stupid Human Tricks, is 20 minutes. That's why you should always ask if you are free to go/are you being detained. Generally, they will have to say "No", and establishes that you are not Detained/Arrested. Again, it let's them know you are aware of your Rights. You should ask this often while LE is questioning you. If, after 20 minutes, they have no reason to detain you, then you, legally, have every Right to leave. Of course, wording this to the LE is tricky, you don't want to make them think you are trying to escape, etc. and, granted, it takes HUGE cahones to say "OK Officer, we've been here 20 minutes now, am I being Detained? No, OK, well, as per my Rights, I leaving now.", but, those are your Rights.

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
There are times when we take a stand, and are willing to be held in custody, or even go to jail for it--but (and doesn't LE know it) most of us duck and take cover.[/QUOTE]

Correction, LE DOES know it. That's why they do it. They know that most people just want to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible, hoping for the best, and get away with as little hassle, or as small of a ticket as possible. After all, everyone is taught to Respect the Law, and Police Officers. They take that very Respect for granted, and use it against you in order to try to get you to confess to doing something, or into giving up some of your Rights, so they can get a bigger case out of the encounter.

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
I would love to hear of one of us who EVER said to LE, "No, I will only give you my name, call my lawyer. No, you can't search my car. No, I will not answer ANY of your questions..." If you have, let us know.[/QUOTE]

Ironically, as for giving them your name, it is your Right not to give them that information either. You don't have to give a LEO your license either. It is up to them to positively identify you. After all, we are not a "Papers Please" type of country. (On a related note, if you are arrested it is your Right to refuse to be fingerprinted and/or have a mug shot taken as well. The Supreme Court has ruled that your fingerprints are your Personal Property, and you cannot be compelled to submit them. In some states (Indiana is one) LE will often times ask you to put a thumb print on a ticket you receive, you have the Right to refuse to provide that print as well.)

You have the absolute Right to Remain Silent. You are not required to answer any questions asked of you. None.

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
Short of that, we all agree that it is scandalous the way that, in the name of the Patriot Act, etc, that individual rights have been eroded, LE lies, schemes, deceives, and bullies the "underclass" in ways that violates civil rights.[/QUOTE]

It's too easy to blame to Patriot Act. Granted, there are definitely excesses in it, but the major problems in the System have existed well before the Patriot Act was passed, and, we have all been trained to be submissive, and, as you put it, "duck and take cover".

Quote:
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Giani
What happened to "Law and Order" in the "Land of the Free?" And is there a way we can fight this injustice without going straight to jail or paying a lawyer big bucks??? Maybe not. Giani[/QUOTE]

The Land of the Free is, for the most part, still there. We just have to be willing to stand up, and protect our Rights. "Duck and Take Cover" theories only help erode our Rights. Protecting them is the right thing to do.

Also, keep this in mind: the Supreme Court has also ruled that the protection of your Rights cannot be converted into a crime. If you get arrested because you were protecting your Rights, then you have a Major League Civil Rights Lawsuit you can file for having those Rights violated.

Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer will not go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their FIRST loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the LAST thing they are loyal to.

For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.

Here's the URL of the site that Harpo2u was referring to/quoting from: [url]http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2605[/url].

Visit this site for information related to some of our other Rights that are constantly being trampled upon: [url]http://www.landrights.com[/url]. Warning, this guy has some odd ideas about Hydrogen Peroxide, and some other stuff, but, for the most part, alot of his information is true. I am acquainted with a person who is involved in the law, and he says most of the info there is valid.

Really finally, to answer your question: I have not yet begun to protect all of my Rights when dealing with LE either. I generally give them my license, and answer their questions. I have refused a Search before, and the LEO didn't say anything, just walked around the car, hoping to see something that would give them PC to search. As I learn more from my friend who often deals with protecting our Rights, I learn more, and learn how to protect my Rights. Knowledge is the Answer to fighting the Injustice you speak of.

Wallie

PS, this whole conversation should probably, as Jackson suggested, be moved to the Legal Affairs Section of the Guide.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Giani]OK guys... Let's be straight up. Tell us when YOU said no to LE...
To my friends on the board who busted the chops of my friend (see previous posts).

I agree that my friend might have handled things differently. But reconsider several facts:

He had, in fact, NOT picked up the black girl in OTR--he was IN FACT driving through OTR (BIG mistake) to take her for a bite to eat... He made no flagrant traffic moves, did not call attention to himself except... see next. (Yes--he WAS hoping for a little intimacy after the meal--NOT a crime, inspite of LE's claim.)

Yes, he COULD have argued with LE about the legitimacy of the stop (for which there was NOT even a flimsy excuse...) I mean, EXCUSE him for driving in Hamilton County with an out of county license plate--and EXCUSE him for having a black girl in the vehicle, he being white... (LE: "You know--it looks bad a white guy having a black girl in his vehicle..." Sheesh.) No traffic violation, seat belts fastened--the sole reason for the stop? Racially mixed couple, out of county license...

Yes, he COULD have "stood up for his rights" and said, "No way, you can't search my vehicle," even being confident that there was nothing in there by which they could nail him (no drugs, no guns, no nuthin'...). But, as BSG suggests--how much time do you want to spend in police custody to make a point? There are times when we take a stand, and are willing to be held in custody, or even go to jail for it--but (and doesn't LE know it) most of us duck and take cover. Yes, my friend copped out instead of resisting... Maybe I would have done differently--maybe not. And you???

I would love to hear of one of us who EVER said to LE, "No, I will only give you my name, call my lawyer. No, you can't search my car. No, I will not answer ANY of your questions..." If you have, let us know.

Short of that, we all agree that it is scandalous the way that, in the name of the Patriot Act, etc, that individual rights have been eroded, LE lies, schemes, deceives, and bullies the "underclass" in ways that violates civil rights.

What happened to "Law and Order" in the "Land of the Free?" And is there a way we can fight this injustice without going straight to jail or paying a lawyer big bucks??? Maybe not.

Giani[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Broad St Guy]Indeed you got that right - but "spelling" you did not...

But beyond all this legal advice below - I say - do not put yourself into the position were the Police even have to ask you to search anything. Then there is nothing to worry about.

If you get pulled over doing this hobby, then you need to stop doing it for awhile and reflect. You have done something to draw attention to yourself and thus the Police came into the picture. I have seen some mongers do some really dumb stuff out there, insofar as driving and the way they approach the girls. If you don't blend into the surroundings then you will stick out and the cops will have an interest in you.

Also be aware that the "Patriot Act" while the intent was to give Law Enforcement powers to fight terrorists, the same laws can be applied to any Americans and the definition of "probable cause" has been severely watered down.

Best thing to do if the Police pull you over is to only answer yes or no to questions and to cooperate. Do not offer information that is not asked for and keep you your mouth shut. Be polite. Do not agitate them or question them. Do not tell them how to do their job. If you do not have something to hide, then do not act as if you do. For me it is not a question of right or wrong or rights - it is a question of how long do you have sit there with them and go through that. For me - the answer is I want it over as soon as possible - thus, the less you prolong them the less time you will be there.

That is my word.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WordUp]Harpo You Are Right On Target ....
.
..
....

This is a POST that can NEVER be repeated enough !!!!
It was just posted again last Summer (06). The poster gave a web site to go to, to know your RIGHTS. It should be a part of the Header next to the Home and Forum buttons.

I have been Stopped before and I have NEVER EVER, consented to ever have my car search. Even when threatened by Cops that if I am not hidding anything, what harm is it. Or that they can have a drug dog down in 30 minutes to walk around the car. I still say NO !!! I don't do drugs so, there is nothing to hide, but I will never give up freely my constitutional right(s) regardless.

Ask any Attorney and they will tell you exactly the same. Ask the proper questions, as if you can leave. If you are being detailed or arrested
" KEEP QUIET" even if they say the girl told them everything. A decent Attorney can CRUSH that statement easily.

The Police are hoping you are Too Afraid and will talk, or the you don't know your right, because they will lie to you, or that you are just being a good citizen .... Yea, Right !!!!

That same goes for your Home as Will as your Car. Go on line to
Lexus Nexus ( I think that is the spelling ) and you can buy copies of The Ohio Search Warrant Laws, and the ALMIGHT .... Ohio Revised Code. Get two copies, one for your home the other for your car. And let the Cop know you wish to knowthe code he thinks your have violated. Watch how careful he will become as "NOT" to make a Mistake then.
This especially works for those City Wide small time Police Dept. like Arlington Heights, Reading, Norwood, Springfield/Springdale .... and alike.

If you can go to Finley Market, shop a little, so you have a decent accuse for being in the area, well at least during the day. At night stop at Ollies Troley for a bit to eat. It will cover a little, and Ollies has GooD food.

EVEN WILLIE CUNNINGHAM SAYS THE SAME ON HIS SHOW TIME TO TIME.
He is an Radio Idiot, but he still one damn Good Attorney.

G Man tell your Friend to buy the Book if he can, or go to someone law library.

HARPO YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY .... AGAIN !!!!



WORD ....


...
..
.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Harpo2u]Police Encounters
This is response to Giani post #418.

One big mistake your friend made was giving consent to LE to search his car!
Again BIG BIG mistake and I'm sure some people will disagree with me on this point. Your friend was stopped because the LE were trying to find something to arrest your friend and or the girl he was with that day.

Another point to remember everyone, "NEVER BELIEVE COPS IF YOU GET PULLED OVER AND THEY JUST WANT TO TALK TO YOU".

Your friend was stopped and what is called being detained. Obvoiusly he wasn't pulled over for a driving violation.

LE can detain you only if they have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. Detention means that, though you aren't arrested, you can't leave. Detention is supposed to last a short time, and they aren't supposed to move you. During detention, the police can pat you down and go into your bag to make sure you don't have any weapons. They aren't supposed to go into your pockets unless they feel a weapon.

If LE are asking questions, ask if you are being detained. If not, leave and say nothing else to them. If you are being detained, you may want to ask why. Then you should say the Magic Words: "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER" and nothing else.

A detention can easily turn into arrest. If the police are detaining you and they get information that you are involved in a crime, they will arrest you, even if it has nothing to do with your detention. For example, if you gets pulled over for speeding (detained) and the cop sees drugs in the car, the cops may arrest you for possession of the drugs, even though it has nothing to do with you getting pulled over. Cops have two reasons to detain you: 1) they are writing you a citation (a traffic ticket, for example), or 2) they want to arrest you but they don't yet have enough information to do so.

Now it doesn't make sense what the LE said about it's against the law to hire a prostitute and there was no money involved!!!!!!! If you ever been in a sting or watched the tv show "COPS" it's all about money!!!!!! If a undercover female cop posed as a SW and you the monger drives up and say "$20 for whatever BJ, FS,etc" you are caught breaking the law.

Never say anything to a COP than your name and home address and info that identify you. Don't get caught with their lies and tricks to say something that could get yourself arrested.

SEARCHES

Never consent to a search. If the police try to search your house, car, backpack, pockets, etc. say the Magic Words 2: "I do not consent to this search." This may not stop them from forcing their way in and searching anyway, but if they search you illegally, they probably won't be able to use the evidence against you in court. You have nothing to lose from refusing to consent to a search and lots to gain. Do not physically resist cops when they are trying to search, because you could get hurt and charged with resisting arrest or assault. Just keep repeating the Magic Words so that the cops and all witnesses know that this is your policy.

Be careful about casual consent. That is, if you are stopped by the cops and you get out of the car but don't close the door, they can search the car and claim that they thought you were indicating consent by leaving the door ajar. Also, if you say, "I'd rather you didn't search," they can claim that you were reluctantly giving them permission to search. Always just say the Magic Words 2: "I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS SEARCH."

Giani, your friend made a few mistakes and giving consent to a search was a big one. They were trying to find something to arrest him. If the girl was carrying drugs they probably taken them both in but if there was no search warrant and your friend tells them he dosen't consent then they can't use that against him in court. If he was by himself and got pulled over and all then it would be a different situation. But he didn't know if she was carrying therefore putting himself at risk if LE searches and find her carrying. She had time to drop any drugs under his seat before LE walked up to his car. Get the picture. Under his situation I would said no to the search and go through the hassle and protect my rights even if they make me wait for a warrant or take me to the police station.

Remember, anything you say to the authorities can and will be used against you and your friends in court. There's no way to predict what information the police might try to use or how they will use it. Plus, the police often misquote or lie altogether about what was said. So say only the Magic Words "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER" and let all the cops and witnesses know that this is your policy.

One of the jobs of cops is to get information out of people, and they usually don't have any scruples about how they do it. Cops are legally allowed to lie when they're investigating, and they are trained to be manipulative. The only thing you should say to cops, other than identifying yourself, are the Magic Words: "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER" And remember the Golden Rule: Never trust a cop.

Here are some lies they may tell you:

* "You're not a suspect -- just help us understand what happened here and then you can go."

* "If you don't answer my questions, I'll have no choice but to arrest you. Do you want to go to jail?"

* "If you don't answer my questions, I'm going to charge you with resisting arrest."

* "All of your friends have cooperated, and we let them go home. You're the only one left."

Cops are sneaky buggers, and there are lots of ways they can trick you into talking. Here are some scams they may pull:

* Good Cop/ Bad Cop: Bad cop is aggressive and menacing, while good cop is nice, friendly, and familiar (usually good cop is the same race and gender as you). The idea is bad cop scares you so badly you are desperately looking for a friend. Good cop is that friend.

* Prisoners' Dilemma: The cops will tell you that your friends ratted on you so that you will snitch on them. Meanwhile, they tell your friends the same thing. If anyone breaks and talks, you all go down.

* The cops will tell you that they have all the evidence they need to convict you, but that if you "take responsibility" and confess, the judge will be impressed by your honesty and go easy on you. What they really mean is: "We don't have enough evidence yet, please confess."

The Miranda Warnings

The police do not have to read you your rights (also known as the Miranda warnings). Miranda applies when there is (a) an interrogation (b) by a police officer of other agent of law enforcement (c) while the suspect is in police custody (you do not have to be formally arrested to be "in custody"). Even when all these conditions are met, the police intentionally violate Miranda. And though your rights have been violated, what you say can be used against you. For this reason, it is better not to wait for the cops to inform you of your rights or ask if you want to remain silent. You know what your rights are, so you can invoke them by saying the Magic Words, "I AM GOING TO REMAIN SILENT. I WANT A LAWYER"

LE was looking to make a bust and your friend was lucky that day. Did your friend called this girl and arranged to pick her up at so and so corner? Or did he drive by and saw her standing there and picked her up? LE is all over the place watching and it's hard to check around to see if anyone is watching you.

If you are in OTR have a good operating plan for driving through the area. Somethings I stop at a business and pretent to write down the address or stop to use my cell phone because I don't want to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, get it. I make stops at the Shell station for gas if I feel LE is following me on McMicken or Liberty St. During the summer I would stop and park near the "Lucy Blue" Pizza place on 12th and Walnut and meet SW near by out of my car. I can't be arrested or stopped by LE while eating pizza and talking to people, get it. Change the way you operate when looking for SW's. Have a city map in your car and you're looking at the area for a condo you're thinking about buying, get it. Have a plan if you do get stopped and more importantly KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!
I speak from experience.
Don't believe cops if they want to stop and talk to you. They will do anything to make an arrest and let the city prosecutor decide your charges in court. If LE can scared you into confessing or saying something to get you arrested, they will do that any way they can.

Tell me what you guys think about all this because it's going to be like this for awhile in OTR.

BE CAREFUL AND STOP AND THINK ABOUT WAHT YOU WILL DO

Harop2U

[size=-1][u]EDITOR'S SUGGESTION:[/u] [color=blue]This is interesting, but you might consider re-posting it under the Police Tactics and Legal Issues thread in the Special Interests section of the Forum where it will benefit the Forum Members who are specifically looking for this type of information. Thanks!
[/size][/color][/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Giani]Heat in the OTR...
Things have been REALLY hot in OTR recently. With the following experience of a friend of mine from a week ago, it makes me leary to grace those streets these days... He asked that I post it for him, and not reveal his name.

This friend was in a vehicle from a county other than Hamilton (LE looks for out-of-county_cars). He, a white guy, was taking a black female out to a meal (not yet any contact--though it was most likely in the offing). Traveling down Elm, LE started trailing them. He is marking his laundry...

They turned towards Main, and LE flashes the lights. LE takes my friend into the squad car ("you are not under arrest...") while his partner questions the black girl in the vehicle. "What are you doing in this area? Why are you (a white guy) carrying a black girl in your vehicle? How do you know her? What is her full name? Don't you know that she is a known prostitute with a long record?" My friend says that he is taking her to get a meal, no $ exchanged, is that a crime? "You can still get arrested for hiring a prostitute, even with no money exchanged." [Is this correct???]

"Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" My friend, as most of us, seeing that saying "no" would wind up them both up at the precinct, says yes (hoping the girl is not carrying...). Luckily, no contraband was found. [Another lesson: do NOT be carrying when mongering...]

Bottom line, nothing was found, and LE told him (get this) "You don't want to get caught like this... Have them come to your place if you want to engage in this activity..." My friend was relieved. But I am pissed.

Sheesh. I personally have seen saturation coverage with LE, both city and county boys, as reported in several previous posts.

At the same time, I also have seen MANY SWs out there. But... be extremely careful, get the hell out of OTR, and preferably, cruise in areas less extremely hot than OTR for a while.

Sorry for the bummer post--but my friend had the sh*t scared out of him--and who knows what would have happened if she HAD been carrying???

Hoping for more pleasant posts and times,

Giani[/QUOTE]

I think there may be some misunderstandings here.

I think that LE can force you to ID yourself for their safety.

[QUOTE=NY Monger]I think there may be some misunderstandings here.

I think that LE can force you to ID yourself for their safety.[/QUOTE]
Right you are !

Doubters might check 'Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004.

I could very well be wrong, I will double-check with my source, and take a copy of the case cited with me, and get an opinion.

Wallie

Here is a web site with info on your rights , I understand youtube doesn't like the video and condems it. I watched the free ones and am considering ordering it when I get past the first of the year bills. Worth a look I think.

[url]http://www.flexyourrights.org/[/url]

Some interesting sites for legal discussion .

[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/[/url]

[url]http://www.unknownnews.net/cops.html[/url]

[url]http://www.flexyourrights.org/[/url]

[url]http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/index.html[/url]

It is apparently a place forming a coalition for lobbying to legalize prostitution in the USA. I urge you to send this link to local Escorts, AMP's, Libertarian Parties, Stripclubs and others in your area suffering persecution in this country; Other groups have won freedom in this country; it is time to take action and end this idiotic opression against men in this country.

Buffalo Bill,

Yours is the best example of what members should refer to if they have questions. Just because someone puts it on the board does not mean that it's fact. And just because someone refers to a website that supposedly displays legal advice or information OTHER than a state or federal website does not make it fact. One of the other quotes in the lengthy pasted posts below refer to Supreme Court cases. In the absence of the case citation, such as Buffalo Bill made concerning Hibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada 2004, it would be unwise to rely on such statements as factual. If you cannot read the state or federal statute for yourself or cannot find or read the text of a case citation, then I would be reluctant to rely on the information as gospel. You can find just about every state's statutes as well as the US Code online. You can also find and research just about every court's cases, including the Supreme Court, online. We might all be surprised to find that what holds true for one state may not hold true in another. A little research of statutes, or even a google search for, say, "Michigan Statutes" would be a wise expenditure of time.

[QUOTE=Buffalo Bill]Right you are !

Doubters might check 'Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Nightflyerx1]Here is a web site with info on your rights , I understand youtube doesn't like the video and condems it. I watched the free ones and am considering ordering it when I get past the first of the year bills. Worth a look I think.

[url]http://www.flexyourrights.org/[/url][/QUOTE]

Very good points.

However, you also have to keep in mind that the Code, from [b]ANY[/b] Jurisdiction is not necessarily the Law. Many Codes are passed which are not codified into Law. the Code is Public Policy, which is different than the Law. It's a big subject, and I don't pretend to be an expert by any means.

For example, states say that driving is a privilege and not a Right. In the Legal sense of the word "drive", they are correct. However, a Private Citizen going, from say, home to the grocery store or work, is [i]not[/i], in the Legal sense, Driving. They are traveling. Traveling is Constitutionally Protected, according to the US Supreme Court. 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 [i]would[/i] need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know [i][b]exactly[/i][/b] 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.

I did as I said I would do, and talked to my friend about the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004 case. He is familiar with that case, and said that the Opinion of the Court was the right Decision [i]based on the argument put forth by Hiibel[/i]. The problem is, his case was flawed. Hiibel didn't present the proper argument to the Court. My friend is getting the exact case reference, but the Court has ruled that you are [b]not[/b] required to give a LEO your name if you are stopped. It [i]is[/i] part of Miranda, and thus protected. Basically, the Dissenting Opinion in the Hiibel case is standing on that same argument (that your name is protected by Miranda). As soon as I get that Case Reference, I will post it here.

Regardless of all Opinions, I am glad that re-posting the Cincy Conversation has spurred a conversation. That was my main intent anyway.

Wallie

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Buffalo Bill,

Yours is the best example of what members should refer to if they have questions. Just because someone puts it on the board does not mean that it's fact. And just because someone refers to a website that supposedly displays legal advice or information OTHER than a state or federal website does not make it fact. One of the other quotes in the lengthy pasted posts below refer to Supreme Court cases. In the absence of the case citation, such as Buffalo Bill made concerning Hibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada 2004, it would be unwise to rely on such statements as factual. If you cannot read the state or federal statute for yourself or cannot find or read the text of a case citation, then I would be reluctant to rely on the information as gospel. You can find just about every state's statutes as well as the US Code online. You can also find and research just about every court's cases, including the Supreme Court, online. We might all be surprised to find that what holds true for one state may not hold true in another. A little research of statutes, or even a google search for, say, "Michigan Statutes" would be a wise expenditure of time.[/QUOTE]

The statutes of each state are, in fact, law. In federal law, the code of federal regulations (which I think you may be referring to) is the interpretation of the US Code, which is federal law. For instance, Title 38 of the US Code is veterans law, but you refer to 38 Code of Federal Regulations for the federal government's interpretation of that law. Here again, someone references a Supreme Court decision that grants a citizen the right do drive from one's home to the grocery store without a license. In the absence of a Supreme Court citation of the specific case that determined this, there is nothing to rely on as factual. If such a case exists and is helpful to others, especially in the sense we are talking about on this forum, then the case citation should be provided. In the absence of a case citation I would be extremely reluctant to rely on something such as, "I know people who do" go into court and beat a driving without a license ticket. Standing up for one's rights is often very important but it's more important to know what one's rights are and are not.

[QUOTE=Wallie]Very good points.

However, you also have to keep in mind that the Code, from [b]ANY[/b] Jurisdiction is not necessarily the Law. Many Codes are passed which are not codified into Law. the Code is Public Policy, which is different than the Law. It's a big subject, and I don't pretend to be an expert by any means.

For example, states say that driving is a privilege and not a Right. In the Legal sense of the word "drive", they are correct. However, a Private Citizen going, from say, home to the grocery store or work, is [i]not[/i], in the Legal sense, Driving. They are traveling. Traveling is Constitutionally Protected, according to the US Supreme Court. 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 [i]would[/i] need a license to Drive. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you know [i][b]exactly[/i][/b] 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.

I did as I said I would do, and talked to my friend about the Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada'. 2004 case. He is familiar with that case, and said that the Opinion of the Court was the right Decision [i]based on the argument put forth by Hiibel[/i]. The problem is, his case was flawed. Hiibel didn't present the proper argument to the Court. My friend is getting the exact case reference, but the Court has ruled that you are [b]not[/b] required to give a LEO your name if you are stopped. It [i]is[/i] part of Miranda, and thus protected. Basically, the Dissenting Opinion in the Hiibel case is standing on that same argument (that your name is protected by Miranda). As soon as I get that Case Reference, I will post it here.

Regardless of all Opinions, I am glad that re-posting the Cincy Conversation has spurred a conversation. That was my main intent anyway.

Wallie[/QUOTE]

Unless you're a constitutional lawyer, with lots of experience, I'd be very cautious, if not reluctant to play that role in front of a cop or judge who do this all day long, have seen every variation of the game and if they are unsure, have very deep resoures to explore it.

[QUOTE=NY Monger]Unless you're a constitutional lawyer, with lots of experience, I'd be very cautious, if not reluctant to play that role in front of a cop or judge who do this all day long, have seen every variation of the game and if they are unsure, have very deep resoures to explore it.[/QUOTE]And even more cautious, if not reluctant to advise someone else to do so. Good point NY Monger.

The Code and the Law are not the same thing. A Law is passed, and then the Code is written to "expand" that Law. You have to go to the Law to know what the Law is. Often, as the Staff Lawyers for the Government start writing the Code, they are interpreting the Law, and don't get it right. They often stretch the Law as is was written to fit the Code they want to see. Again, the Code is Public Policy, not the Law itself.

Additionally, a Code can be put into place that is based on something that was never codified into Law, and therefore is completely unenforceable. It does happen.

I'm not advising anyone to do anything. LOL I was just saying that those are the facts.

Again, as for case citings, I should be seeing my friend again in the next couple of days, and will hopefully have the info then.

Wallie

[QUOTE=Wallie]The Code and the Law are not the same thing. A Law is passed, and then the Code is written to "expand" that Law. You have to go to the Law to know what the Law is. Often, as the Staff Lawyers for the Government start writing the Code, they are interpreting the Law, and don't get it right. They often stretch the Law as is was written to fit the Code they want to see. Again, the Code is Public Policy, not the Law itself.

Additionally, a Code can be put into place that is based on something that was never codified into Law, and therefore is completely unenforceable. It does happen.

I'm not advising anyone to do anything. LOL I was just saying that those are the facts.

Again, as for case citings, I should be seeing my friend again in the next couple of days, and will hopefully have the info then.

Wallie[/QUOTE]

Wallie, with all due respect. And I concede and recognize you are trying to be helpful to anyone reading this stirng. You may not be trying to advise anyone to do anything. But then you say, "I was just saying that those are the facts, " without providing the factual foundation. Consequently, some people will tend to believe what you say. Without factual basis, such as a case citation, or a specific reference to a date, time, place and court, if not a person's name. Who actually won a case in court based on law that you do NOT have to have a driver's license to drive. It isn't sufficiently factual to say, "I know people who have" beat it in court. This is anecdotal and not factual. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, every state's statutes are different and what may hold true in one may not hold true in another. As for Hiibel, it was easy enough to do a google search by putting the citation provided here in the search box and get the decision as the first hit. It's at [url]http: //supct. Law. Cornell. Edu/supct/html/03-5554. ZO.html[/url]. You can read the entire decision there. The statutes being challenged in that case were Nevada statutes, which as quoted in the case were,

"1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. "

There is even reference in this decision to circumstances where one may not have to identify one's self but I'm not so confident of what I read there to refuse to identify myself or provide a driver's license when requested. I might be willing to say I don't wish to provide any information and want an attorney.

Essentially, my contribution to this discussion is to say we should not rely on anecdotal statements, or statements saying they are fact without factual foundation. Or, even someone's interpretation of case law. When the citation is provided as it is here. Whether it's your interpretation of the decision, my interpretation of the decision, or someone else's interpretation of the decision.

The bottom line is, and I'm confident you agree with me, be safe, be careful, and do your best not to be in a situation where you have to make a decision whether or not to challenge someone asking for your identity.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]...Without factual basis, such as a case citation, or a specific reference to a date, time, place and court, if not a person's name. Who actually won a case in court based on law that you do NOT have to have a driver's license to drive.[/QUOTE]

There is no Law that says you don't need a license. It is based on, as I understand it, several Supreme Court decisions.

The word "drive" is the word in question. In the Law, "drive" infers you are doing it for monetary gain, or profit. For that, you [i]do[/i] need a license. However, what the vast majority of us do is [i][b]"travel'[/i][/b]. For that, you [i]do not[/i] need a license. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you let a LEO get you to agree that you are driving, you are in trouble. Traveling is not illegal regardless of the means you use to do it. If you were riding a horse down the street, you would not need a license would you? Anyway, I will again say: [b]I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.[/b]

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]It isn't sufficiently factual to say, "I know people who have" beat it in court. This is anecdotal and not factual. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, every state's statutes are different and what may hold true in one may not hold true in another.[/QUOTE]

It's not based on state law, but Supreme Court findings, again citings to appear soon.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]As for Hiibel, it was easy enough to do a google search by putting the citation provided here in the search box and get the decision as the first hit. It's at [url]http: //supct. Law. Cornell. Edu/supct/html/03-5554. ZO.html[/url]. You can read the entire decision there. The statutes being challenged in that case were Nevada statutes, which as quoted in the case were,

"1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

"3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer. "[/QUOTE]

I did read the Hiibel finding, was as confused as ever, and asked my friend the next day when I saw him. He tried to help me understand the case as well. As I have said previously, I am not an expert, and don't claim to be.

Here's what I was told: Hiibel's claim was that the Nevada Law violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. As I was told during my conversation with my friend who is regularly involved in Civil Liberties cases, the Court's decision in the Hiibel case was the [i]correct[/i] ruling based on his argument. However, it is only based on [i]that[/i] argument. As he put it, "he got the right answer to the question he asked."

[b]I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.[/b]

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]The bottom line is, and I'm confident you agree with me, be safe, be careful, and do your best not to be in a situation where you have to make a decision whether or not to challenge someone asking for your identity.[/QUOTE]

Amen Brother.

Finally, [b]I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.[/b]

Wallie

Wallie,

I was just wondering if you were able to obtain further factual information that you do not need a driver's license to travel? I have been operating under the assumption that we are talking about an individual who actually is driving a car, as opposed to a person riding as a passenger. I admit that I am curious to find out if I do not need a license because I will not renew mine if I can find a sound, factual, legal and tested argument that I don't have to have one to drive my car. Thanks.
IrishMale2

[QUOTE=Wallie]There is no Law that says you don't need a license. It is based on, as I understand it, several Supreme Court decisions.

The word "drive" is the word in question. In the Law, "drive" infers you are doing it for monetary gain, or profit. For that, you [i]do[/i] need a license. However, what the vast majority of us do is [i][b]"travel'[/i][/b]. For that, you [i]do not[/i] need a license. You only need a license to do something which would otherwise be illegal. If you let a LEO get you to agree that you are driving, you are in trouble. Traveling is not illegal regardless of the means you use to do it. If you were riding a horse down the street, you would not need a license would you? Anyway, I will again say: [b]I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.[/b]

It's not based on state law, but Supreme Court findings, again citings to appear soon.

I did read the Hiibel finding, was as confused as ever, and asked my friend the next day when I saw him. He tried to help me understand the case as well. As I have said previously, I am not an expert, and don't claim to be.

Here's what I was told: Hiibel's claim was that the Nevada Law violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. As I was told during my conversation with my friend who is regularly involved in Civil Liberties cases, the Court's decision in the Hiibel case was the [i]correct[/i] ruling based on his argument. However, it is only based on [i]that[/i] argument. As he put it, "he got the right answer to the question he asked."

[b]I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.[/b]

Amen Brother.

Finally, [b]I should be seeing my friend in the next couple of days, and will try to have some Case Law to cite, that people can go read.[/b]

Wallie[/QUOTE]

You are correct, we [i]are[/i] talking about a citizen who is operating a motor vehicle. Legally, "drive" is a commercial term, and "travel" is the term that describes what the vast majority of us do in our everyday lives. If you are a cab driver, semi-truck driver, traveling salesman, etc., then you [i]drive[/i], because you are using the Public Roads for Commercial Gain. However, if go [i]to[/i] your place of employment, to the store, to a friend's house, etc., then you [i]travel[/i]. That's the difference. Since the courts have ruled that we have a right to travel, and that the roads are the Public's to use, etc., then you do not need a License to use those roads. The backing for the case is that [i]you do not need a license to do something which is not otherwise illegal.[/i]

I don't have the actual citings for the Driver's License issue as of yet, since, as I understand it, there a several involved.

Since I am not an Expert, [b]I wouldn't advise you to not renew your license. [i]Renew it.[/i][/b] There are a number of reasons, but here are the biggest:

1. You have to know [i]exactly[/i] how to defend yourself should something happen. There are very specific arguments you [i]have[/i] to present should you wish to protect this Right. Without knowing how to do it correctly, you [b]will[/b] end up in trouble, and it will cost you more than it costs to renew your license. Like the Hiibel case, he used the wrong argument, and lost. He go the correct answer to what he asked, but asked the wrong question. With the proper case, he could have won.

2. You have to be prepared to go jail. Again, unless you know the exact argument, you [i]will[/i] lose in court. Also, a LEO doesn't care. They are trained to do what they are told, based on the law as it has been taught to them. They aren't the Judges, just the Enforcer. Depending on the jurisdiction, the LEO may have the option of ticketing you and giving you a summonses, but they may also just go ahead and arrest you. When protecting many of our Rights, we may have to deal with the inconvenience of Arrest initially, just to win the case in Court later. You have to be prepared for that eventuality.

Ergo, [b]renew your license[/b] until you know [i]exactly[/i] how to defend yourself. As I have said, I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. I was just stating the facts as I understand them. I still have a valid license, and probably will for awhile to come. I can't defend myself yet either.

There are Civil Rights groups who deal with these, and other issues regularly. Here in Indy, one of the groups (the one my friend is involved with) will be giving a seminar fairly soon. It is a 2 week class that teaches all about our Rights, how to defend them, how to research laws, defend yourself, etc. They bring in experts to teach the class, and help support each other, and graduates from the class. The class is around $500 to take, which helps pay for the travel, books, materials, etc. I hope to take the class, but am not sure I can get the time off work yet.

Renew your license.

Wallie

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Wallie,

I was just wondering if you were able to obtain further factual information that you do not need a driver's license to travel? I have been operating under the assumption that we are talking about an individual who actually is driving a car, as opposed to a person riding as a passenger. I admit that I am curious to find out if I do not need a license because I will not renew mine if I can find a sound, factual, legal and tested argument that I don't have to have one to drive my car. Thanks.
IrishMale2[/QUOTE]

OK, now about not having to identify yourself to LE, and the Hiibel case's seeming contradiction.

Based on your Miranda rights, (Miranda v Arizona, 1966) ([url]http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/pdf/miranda_v_arizona.pdf[/url] for a synopsis and explanation of the case), you have the protection of Miranda anytime you are experiencing "Custodial Interrogation". Miranda gives you the absolute Right to Remain Silent.

What is Custodial Interrogation? Anytime the Police are investigating a crime, and you are being detained and questioned, this could qualify as Custodial Interrogation. If you are being Detained (which can, unless you are arrested, last no longer than 20 minutes) and Questioned, you have the unrestricted Right to Remain Silent. Silent. You [i]do not[/i] have to answer [i]any[/i] questions you are asked by LE.

As it was explained to me, if you are pulled over, you can ask the LEO, "are you investigating a crime?" They will probably answer yes. You then have every Right to say: "I choose to remain silent", and there is nothing they can do. They will threaten and cajole, and may even threaten to arrest you. You can remain silent, [b]although they may arrest you.[/b] You [i]have[/i] to be prepared for that to happen, and ready to go to jail to protect your Rights. Or, you could show them your ID, and say nothing else.

If, when you ask the LEO if they are investigating a crime, they say "No", then the next thing you should do is ask "Am I free to go?" If they say "No" to that, then guess what, you are being detained, and your Right to Remain Silent is always there.

re. Hiibel: His argument was that his arrest for not showing ID violated his 4th and 5th Amendment Rights. Here are the texts for the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution:

[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution]Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/QUOTE]

Hiibel was ruled against by the US Supreme Court. The 4th doesn't apply as he was not at his house, wasn't being searched, and there were no Warrants being served. His argument as to the 5th was closer, as he was defending his Right against self incrimination. However, the Court ruled that simply giving your name wasn't, per se, going to lead to self incrimination. The Dissenting Opinion of the Court made an effort to relate the case to Miranda, saying in part:
[QUOTE=Judge Stevens, US Supreme Court Justice]Under the Nevada law, a member of the targeted class “may not be compelled to answer” any inquiry except a command that he “identify himself.” Refusal to identify oneself upon request is punishable as a crime. Presumably the statute does not require the detainee to answer any other question because the Nevada Legislature realized that the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelling the target of a criminal investigation to make any other statement. In my judgment, the broad constitutional right to remain silent, which derives from the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, is not as circumscribed as the Court suggests, and does not admit even of the narrow exception defined by the Nevada statute.


“[T]here can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467 (1966). It is a “settled principle” that “the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes,” but “they have no right to compel them to answer.” Davis v. Mississipi, 394 U. S. 721, 727, n. 6 (1969). The protections of the Fifth Mmendment are directed squarely toward those who are the focus of the government’s investigative and prosecutorial powers. In a criminal trial, the indicted defendant has an unqualified right to refuse to testify and may not be punished for invoking that right. See Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288, 299–300 (1981). The unindicted target of a grand jury investigation enjoys the same constitutional protection even if he has been served with a subpoena. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760, 767–768 (2003). So does an arrested suspect during custodial interrogation in a police station. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467.

There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection. Indeed, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s protections apply with equal force in the context of Terry stops, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), here an officer’s inquiry “must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for [the stop’s] initiation.’” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984) (some internal quotation marks omitted). “Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” Ibid. See also Terry, 392 U. S., at 34 (White, J., concurring) (“Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation”). Given our statements to the effect that citizens are not required to respond to police officers’ questions during a Terry stop, it is no surprise that petitioner assumed, as have we, that he had a right not to disclose his identity.[/QUOTE]

Judge Stevens made a reasonable attempt to protect Hiibel, but, sadly was in the Minority of the Court.

The entire text of the Hiibel case finding can be found here: [url]http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf[/url].

Essentially, if Hiibel had gone to Court with the argument that the Nevada law violated his Rights as given in Miranda, he probably would have won the case. However, his 5th Amendment argument wasn't wasn't the right argument for the case.

As always, [b]I am not an Attorney, nor an Expert on our Rights. I am not recommending anyone do anything, just stating a few of our Rights, as I understand them.[/b]

Wallie

[QUOTE=Wallie]

The backing for the case is that [i]you do not need a license to do something which is not otherwise illegal.[/i] [/QUOTE]

You've made this assertion several times during this discussion . You and your lawyer friend's
understanding of the concept of a "license" is blatantly [b]*WRONG*[/b] and yer mis·leading people here

A LICENSE is [i]" The permission by competent authority to do an act which , without such permission ,
would be illegal , a trespass , or a tort "[/i]

IOW , your definition of the need for a license is completely back·wards from the legal reality

There are a few instances where you need licenses or permits to do a whole lot of things that
are perfectly legal to do without a license some of the time , but which require them in
specific circumstances . Examples =

· You can drive a motor vehicle on your property with·out a license , but need one to operate on public roads

· You can nail two boards together , no problem , but you need a building permit to build a house ,
and then an occupancy certificate before you can move in

· You can remove a delapidated dog house from your property , but need a demolition
permit to tear your house down

There are also a lot of activities that *always* or almost always require a license =

· Flying an airplane [ some experimental aircraft are exempt ]

· Hunting , fishing and trapping [ some Native Americans are exempt ]

· Selling alcohol

· Practicing Medicine , Dentistry and other medical professions

· Operating a motor vehicle [i]on public roadways[/i] falls into this category


Why don't you give this one up and go back to trying to explain why none of us
need to pay income taxes

Perhaps the single biggest reason to renew one's license is because each state requires by law that you have a license to drive a car.

[QUOTE=Wallie]Since I am not an Expert, [b]I wouldn't advise you to not renew your license. [i]Renew it.[/i][/b] There are a number of reasons, but here are the biggest:

1. You have to know [i]exactly[/i] how to defend yourself should something happen. There are very specific arguments you [i]have[/i] to present should you wish to protect this Right. Without knowing how to do it correctly, you [b]will[/b] end up in trouble, and it will cost you more than it costs to renew your license. Like the Hiibel case, he used the wrong argument, and lost. He go the correct answer to what he asked, but asked the wrong question. With the proper case, he could have won.

2. You have to be prepared to go jail. Again, unless you know the exact argument, you [i]will[/i] lose in court. Also, a LEO doesn't care. They are trained to do what they are told, based on the law as it has been taught to them. They aren't the Judges, just the Enforcer. Depending on the jurisdiction, the LEO may have the option of ticketing you and giving you a summonses, but they may also just go ahead and arrest you. When protecting many of our Rights, we may have to deal with the inconvenience of Arrest initially, just to win the case in Court later. You have to be prepared for that eventuality.

Wallie[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]You've made this assertion several times during this discussion . You and your lawyer friend's
understanding of the concept of a "license" is blatantly [b]*WRONG*[/b] and yer mis·leading people here

A LICENSE is [i]" The permission by competent authority to do an act which , without such permission ,
would be illegal , a trespass , or a tort "[/i]

IOW , your definition of the need for a license is completely back·wards from the legal reality

There are a few instances where you need licenses or permits to do a whole lot of things that
are perfectly legal to do without a license some of the time , but which require them in
specific circumstances . Examples =[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=QUOTE=PsyberZombie]· You can drive a motor vehicle on your property with·out a license , but need one to operate on public roads [/QUOTE]
Again, you do not need one to operate on the Public Roads, but I will not belabour this point until I do have the specific cases.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]· You can nail two boards together , no problem , but you need a building permit to build a house ,
and then an occupancy certificate before you can move in[/QUOTE]
That actually depends on the specific laws of the State. In Indiana for example, there are (obviously) building codes, and the state gives the counties the right to create building codes as well. However, generally speaking, individual cities don't have the right to create building codes. So, if a city says you need a building code, there is a good chance you actually do not, because they may not have been given the statutory power (by the county) to mandate the requirement. This is an example that is not 100% accurate 100% of the time, but is a case where some local principalities usurp power that is not theirs, and then try to punish those who "disobey", when they don't have the statutory power to do so.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]· You can remove a delapidated dog house from your property , but need a demolition
permit to tear your house down[/QUOTE]
Again, depends.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]There are also a lot of activities that *always* or almost always require a license =

· Flying an airplane [ some experimental aircraft are exempt ]

· Hunting , fishing and trapping [ some Native Americans are exempt ]

· Selling alcohol

· Practicing Medicine , Dentistry and other medical professions[/QUOTE]

Generally, true.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]· Operating a motor vehicle [i]on public roadways[/i] falls into this category[/QUOTE]
Nope. On that, you are wrong my friend. Again, until I have the specifics, I will not say anymore.

[QUOTE=PsyberZombie]Why don't you give this one up and go back to trying to explain why none of us
need to pay income taxes[/QUOTE]

I don't believe I have ever said any such thing. However...

Wallie

The link here will take you to a front page story in the Tampa Tribune in Florida. [url]http://media.tbo.com/ttt/images/pdfs/TribFront.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Wallie]

Again, you do not need [ a driver's license ] to operate on the Public Roads, but I will not belabour this point until I do have the specific cases. [/QUOTE]



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 ??

PZ,

Your quote specifies highway. There is a definition for highways... there is an argument to be made here. This doesn't mean that said argument is supposed to occur outside the bounds of mental masturbation - and nowhere near a courtroom isn't far enough away, but that being said, one could, if they wanted to, make an argument. I would rather get a hummer.


BSR

[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."