Since the last four days have generated a lot of discussion regarding laws, perhaps a thread where we can discuss and ask for legal advice strictly related to our automobiles, or your motor vehicles is called for.
I want this one to be more open however as the previous threads had been strictly concerning the american judicial systems though, I'm sure itll be the main subject anyway.
>what is this thread for? Legal advice concerning personal home asset automobiles and commercial(that is a registered automobiles, acording to american law. Deffinitions vary by country) motor vehicles. Or general questions regarding your laws so you can understand your rights to drive and travel on vehicles >why was it made? Perhaps you dont feel like starting a thread about your speeding ticket incident but are free to post here to vent or get legal advice anonymously so be warned and always hire a lawyer for trial.
A thread in which we "talk" about our right, as American Sovereign Citizens, to Travel by your self-propelled horseless-carriages. Your right to travel extends to automobiles. You do not need a license to Travel. You DO need a License to Drive/Operate Motor Vehicles.
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, ...it is NOT a REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code “Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation o profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles” “a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.” and; Not the type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tag is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. And;
“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.
“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. And;
Asher Lee
“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
FAQS, FACTS and COMMON MISTAKES ECT AKA """TL;DR""" of older threads
>Its an old precedent! Does not matter. The older the better and more valid in court of law in America. Look it up before shitposting.
>Its a STATE precedent These are fine and may be applied in any state. All founded precedents can be referenced from any state at any time period as a means of binding on or persuading the court to agree to your case
>The case was about X Depending on context, it may or may not matter depending on what the paragraphs the sentence being quoted is from. Knowledge of its original case and reading it is 100% suggested to anyone wanting to use it in arguement. It also has to be deemed on lawful precedent.
Juan Turner
>What is a Motor Vehicle A motor vehicle is defined and backed by these precedents; Title 18 USC 31, 26 CFR 301.6323(h)-1. Any judge setting another definition for "Motor Vehicles" basing a court ruling without his attention being drawn to them had made an UN-reasonable ruling that is immediately dismissed in court. Aka Your judge made a mistake in his ruling because he was ignorant of them. "REGISTERED self-propelled vehicle" "(6)Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo." (6) Motor vehicle.—The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. >motor vehicle is interchangeable with automobile! SC Ruled this! That judge ruled that particular instance upon unfounded precedence. The definition of "motor vehicle" was well defined in our federal LAWS. In LAW Motor Vehicle has a STRICT definition.
Juan Ramirez
Title 18 USC 31 is a LAWFUL DEFINITION NOT MERELY SC QUOTES. Title 18 USC 31>flimsy SC quotes "A precedent does not bind a court if it finds there was a lack of care in the original "Per Incuriam"" "Title 18 of the United States Code is the main criminal code of the federal government of the United States.[1] It deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure." >the main criminal code Motor Vehicles, as defined in Title 18 is "(6) Motor vehicle.—The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."
That is an irrefutable federally lawful definition that can not be over ruled by local and state judges.
Jacob Garcia
>The police have the right to detain you for questioning. Only on probably cause, if it is unfounded the case is dismissed as it is in violation to your rights. [1] It is of course true, as respondent maintains, that the provocation required to permit a police officer to temporarily detain a person for questioning is not the same as that required for a valid arrest or a lawful search (People v. Mickelson, 59 Cal. 2d 448, 450 [30 Cal. Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658]). Nevertheless, the right of a police officer to stop a motorist or detain a pedestrian for questioning is not without constitutional restriction. The applicable rules were succinctly summarized by Mr. Justice Tamura in Williams v. Superior Court, 274 Cal. App. 2d 709, 711-712 [79 Cal. Rptr. 489], as follows: "Thus, although circumstances short of probable cause to arrest may justify an officer's act in stopping and temporarily detaining a motorist or pedestrian for questioning, there must be some suspicious or unusual circumstance to justify even this limited invasion of a citizen's privacy. (People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe, 62 Cal. 2d 92, 96 [41 Cal. Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706]; People v. Henze, 253 Cal. App. 2d 986, 988 [61 Cal. Rptr. 545]; People v. Perez, 243 Cal. App. 2d 528, 531 [52 Cal. Rptr. 514].)
An Individual carrying a Driver's License, or, Driver,(an Individual under any class of license to operate motor vehicles) is commercial. You may not drive or operate any Motor Vehicle as a Commercial Driver
Brayden Nguyen
Set your definitions, your precedents, ect in the beginning if taken to court over the unconstitutional enforcing of a permit on your right to Travel. Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
You can not and will not find a case that will prove me wrong. I have the right to operate my private automobile on public highwaystreets as an unlicensed/unregistered Traveler. I do not need a permit to travel. I am found on no grounds to be guilty of endangering the public by on the grounds of operating a private selfpropelled automobile as a means of my private travel.
Try to keep the shitposting down this time. Damn thread is always a mess, and remember your words, "sweeties".
Kayden Anderson
I demand we bring back cucking stools on the grounds of disorderly and argumentative commercial cucks generated from the last threads.
