Logos Radio Network

One Response to 12-30-11 Rule of Law

1. 

   Jeff says:

   January 11, 2012 at 1:13 am

   Harmon Taylor. Transportation Code. An atty caller Scott had argued that ‘right to travel’ and ‘transportation’ are not intermingled in the statutes, but are in fact one in the same. So HT is here to set things straight in discourse with atty Scott.

   Eddie challenges atty Scott’s assertion that SCOTUS uses Black’s. Eddie explains that this is true to a point, but that when may terms were first defined Black’s did not yet exist, and so turns to Bouvier’s, last published in 1856. Eddie states that caselaw given with the definition is the controlling caselaw for that word at the time of publication, and that SCOTUS clerks first look to the earliest definition to see if the court in a case before SCOTUS has erred. He wonders why atty Scott doesn’t know that, and who argued that courts give different definitions of different things.

   HT goes over definition of ‘transportation’ – nowhere so defined in state transportation codes. Firstly, no commerce ‘in this state’ if transaction conducted in anything other than gold or FRNs. In ‘commerce’ while doing anything, but in ‘regulatable commerce’ when transaction conducted under the rules ‘of this state’. Usually, that means legal tender identified as ‘dollars’ or in gold, both of which incorporate commercial regulations. But silver no mention ‘in this state’. If traveling and not transporting of course, then this doesn’t apply – as long as we can confidently assert it.

   He then identifies the six most important definitions for traffic matters; 1) ‘transportation’, most important and fundamental, 2) ‘vehicle’, 3) ‘driver’, 4) ‘motor vehicle’, 5)’operator‘, 6) ‘this state’. With these, we can fight traffic cases. It seems that everything is covered in definitions, but not: it is critical to remember that this is all about transportation, making profit for the use of the public roadways. ‘Transportation’ is underlying, but by being hidden people forget that all the terms only apply to transport. Motor vehicle > vehicle > transportation. Or, if there’s no transportation there’s no vehicle. If there’s no ‘vehicle’ there’s no ‘motor vehicle’. If there’s no ‘motor vehicle’ there’s no ‘operator’. It’s splitting hairs, but only because that’s what the transportation code does in order to create the illusion of an application broader that transport.

   The state’s case asserts transportation. Defense is ‘not transportation’. So, don’t argue ‘right to travel’ which misses the point.

   Last term, ‘this state’. People mistakenly believe this is a geographic reference for purposes of jurisdiction and venue but it is not. It is actually a choice of law reference.

   Caller Julius in Texas. Discussion on what to say roadside. Randy points out that officers are trained to get incriminating admissions. Eddie’s answer: shut up, shut up, shut up.
   Brian in Minnesota. Asks HT about how MSOs fit into transportation. HT says this brings up the distinction between ownership and use. Certificate of Title is proof of split ownership; people are mistaken to believe they own their car. MSO is full title of that conveyance when it arrives from Detroit to the dealer. Dealer sends that full title doc to appropriate state office. State typically photocopies the MSO and then destroys it because on the back of the doc is given the transfer of title information. If a consumer had possession, they’d see who actually owns the car.

   HT starts by saying that ‘transportation’ and ‘in this state’ are defined in no state law in any of the 50 states. But the statutes are the place to start to find any definition, then dictionaries and case law if need be.

   HT example, IRS mileage. Mileage for commercial use deductable, not for personal use. IRS knows the difference between commercial transportation and travel. Also points to the difference between transportation and general commerce. For instance, driving to work is not transportation because no one is paying anything to do it. Only at work, when engaging commerce for a price, does it become transport. Registration, however, goes to ownership and the state can require a registration plate under the combined trust issue. This goes to the MSO. Different world, ownership, than transportation use issues.

   Terry in Texas. Asks why, since we’re engaging transportation in commerce, why we aren’t looking for remedy in the Business & Commerce Code. There, producing documents could be charged for like any other service. Deborah notes that the DL belongs to the state, and handing it over is prima facie evidence of transportation. Eddie says why engage Business & Commerce if not transporting in commerce? Engaging in commerce but not in transportation; if not in transportation why deal with transportation?

   Michael-Anthony in New York. In process of buying a used pickup truck at auction. No title. Eddie questions that, because no ownership or appearance of ownership can change hands without title, salvage title, or MSO.

   Tim in Texas. Property boundary dispute with neighbor. Land used as-is for many years, now neighbor wants to reclaim. Randy says to file Claim to Property by Adverse Possession.
   Frederick Earle from California. Shuming v Kaiser Similar discussion with Terry, earlier. Moving private goods by conveyance usually commercial (using big rig to haul personal load of hay) is not regulatable. Fred describes a CA case where realtor who did a real estate deal gratis was not exposed to suit because the realtor wasn’t using his license.

   Next caller asks about silver and ‘dollar’.

   Roger in Washington. Questions ‘vehicle’ definition in Washington state. HT briefly goes over ‘in this state’ jurisdiction.
   HT comments on funny money that brings transactions and jurisdiction ‘in this state’. It stems from law of the sea, is oiled by licensure, and is hostile and foreign to the weights-and-measures standard for law of the land, common law protections protected by real money. It is an international effort to disarm the American people.

   Matt is back on the line. Discussion on licenses; why Deborah and Randy have one and Eddie and HT do not.

   Tony in Illinois. Asks if the alter-reality ‘in this state’ goes back to national bankruptcy in 1930s. HT says it wasn’t really bankruptcy because there was no superior to whom the US was required to answer. ‘Insolvency’ better, but still, in the 1930s gold was successfully stripped but weights and measures still existed since silver still existed as a trading medium.
   Caller Paula asks about the 1902 Dick Act. HT points out that anything from 1902 is from the law of the land era, not the law of the sea hover zone era.

   Julius in Texas talks about the mechanistic of Federal Reserve workings. HT notes that the term ‘dollar’ will never be changed until a system of weights and measures that can support transactions is put back in place. But, now, law of the land can indeed be re-established on a transaction-by-transaction basis. One way that choice of law is established is by avoiding mediums of exchange that tie us into the hover zone.

   Michael in Texas. Asks about third party criminal complaints.

   Brian calls back again. Asks about how to get by day-to-day with FRNs instead of silver. HT says we’re stuck b/c the big players are addicted to the non-weights and measures process. Until some enterprising company steps up, not much to do. Randy points out that several states are moving toward making gold and silver legal tender. Deborah brings up PC, a company that markets gold on a chip. She points out that using FRNs doesn’t necessarily inject one into commercialism because there is no real other choice – unlike driver’s license, where getting one and producing one upon request is a choice.