Law videos

Found a channel with some law videos I need to go over and thought I would share them with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDbyL-nIEQ

Cops are not there to "protect" you.

LEO’s Duty to Protect Persons from 3rd Party Harm
By Jack Ryan

 

What is the law enforcement duty to protect citizens from harm caused by third parties? This type of claim arises in a variety of circumstances. For example, police fail to protect a spouse from their violent partner; a hostage is killed by the hostage taker while the police are trying to negotiate a peaceful end to a hostage situation; an informant is killed while trying to make a drug buy; or a witness is killed in an effort to prevent their testimony. These are just some examples of how these cases arise. The only clear cut case of a duty to protect relates to prisoners who are in government custody. The reason for this duty is that the person who is involuntarily held cannot protect themselves.

The common thread in all duty to protect cases is the fact that the law enforcement officers are not the cause of the harm. Instead, some other person causes the harm and the allegation is that law enforcement should have acted to stop that person from causing the harm. In many of these cases the allegation is that if law enforcement had followed the generally- accepted practices of the profession then the harm would not have occurred. For example, if the negotiator had followed generally-accepted practices of negotiation then the hostage-taker would not have killed the hostage.
The question that is frequently asked is Under what circumstances does the state or municipal entities have a constitutional duty to protect citizens from violence at the hands of private actors? The general answer to this question is that there is no constitutional duty to protect free citizens. The only clear case of a duty to protect is when a citizen is in the custody of a state or municipality.

In DeShaney v.s. Winnebago County, the Supreme Court held that "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors." The DeShaney case involved a tragic case of child abuse. Joshua DeShaney first came to the attention of the Winnebago County Department of Social Services (DSS) in January of 1982. After receiving a report that 2-year-old Joshua may be the victim of abuse, the DSS interviewed his father who denied the allegation. The DSS received numerous other reports over the next two years including reports by emergency room personnel who believed that Joshua’s numerous, suspicious injuries were the result of child abuse. During this time Joshua’s father had entered an agreement with the DSS. However, he failed to comply with the conditions of this agreement. Though there were numerous reports of suspected abuse in the DSS files, no action was ever taken. In March of 1994, Joshua’s father beat him so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. It was later determined that Joshua had suffered numerous head injuries over a long period of time and as a result would have to be institutionalized for the remainder of his life. Joshua, through his mother, brought a 1983 action alleging that the county had deprived him of liberty without due process by failing to intervene and protect him from his father’s abuse.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution is not a source of any affirmative obligation on the state or its subdivisions to protect its citizens. Since "the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them." The Court did note that when "the State takes a person into custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes on it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being…The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." In Joshua DeShaney’s case the Court noted that the county had done nothing to create Joshua’s predicament or to make him more vulnerable to it. This note by the Court left an opening which some courts have used to find liability based on a violation of due process.

The Deshaney case, decided in 1989, remains the controlling law on the duty of government actors to protect citizens who fall prey to harm by third parties. While the law seems clear, there have been some cases where court’s have found that law enforcement agencies have breached a duty of care to person’s who have been injured or killed at the hands of third parties. These cases fall into two categories that are closely aligned, specifically the case involve those where law enforcement personnel have done something to enhance the danger to the third party or where law enforcement personnel have done something which has created the danger to the third party. Cases from several circuit courts provide a good example of how the courts are interpreting the law enforcement duty to protect.

Rivera v. City of Providence involved the murder of a witness. Jennifer Rivera, a fifteen year old, was a witness in the murder of Hector Feliciano, who was shot and killed on August 28, 1999. Jennifer had observed a notorious criminal, Charles Pona, flee the scene of the homicide. At the request of the police, Jennifer went to the police station and gave a witness statement. On August 31, 1999, Jennifer made a second trip to the police station at the request of the murder victim’s family and made a second witness statement in which she identified Charles Pona.

Jennifer’s testimony at a grand jury was helpful in indicting Charles Pona for the murder of Hector Feliciano. Jennifer also testified in preliminary hearings in which she was subjected to cross- examination by Pona’s counsel. According to her family, the testimony, which was given under the duress of police and prosecutors, led to numerous death threats. Jennifer’s family claimed that police and prosecutors were made aware of these threats and promised that Jennifer would be safe.
On May 21, 2000, Dennard Walker, Pona’s half-brother, stepped out of the shadows in front of Jennifer Rivera’s house and shot her in the head causing her death. Ironically, though Jennifer was not available to testify at trial, her testimony at the prior hearings that was subject to cross-examination was introduced and aided in the conviction of Charles Pona for the death of Hector Feliciano. Dennard Walker was convicted for the murder of Jennifer Rivera. Rivera’s family filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the prosecutors and police officers involved in the prosecution of Pona had failed to protect her from the harm caused by Pona.

The federal trial court dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that there was no duty on the part of law enforcement to protect Jennifer from harm even if the police were made aware of the threats and had promised some level of protection. That prompted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the 1st Circuit.

The Court of Appeal began by recognizing the conclusions of the Supreme Court in Deshaney. "The Supreme Court has stated that as a general matter, ‘a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause’….That is because the purpose of the Due Process Clause is to protect the people from the state, not to ensure that the state protects them from each other." It was further recognized that law enforcement may have an obligation to protect persons from third party violence when there is a special relationship; however, citing Deshaney, the court noted that a special relationship is founded in a state depriving someone of the liberty to take care of themselves as with a prisoner. The court concluded that even if the police did make promises of protection and fail to keep those promises, they did nothing to restrain Jennifer’s liberty and thus there could be no liability based upon a duty to protect under the United States Constitution.

An opposite result may be reached when a person is being held in a jail or prison and suffers harm at the hands of a third party. In Merriweather v. Marion County, a federal trial court examined a lawsuit that resulted from assaults on a seventeen year-old in the Marion County Jail. The juvenile, Ryan Merriweather was sexually assaulted by several other inmates while in his cell. The assault which occurred over a forty-five minute period was halted as a guard approached. Ryan notified officials when he was removed for a court appearance, having been afraid to report the assault while still in the jail.

In evaluating the case, the court noted that Ryan would have to establish some level of notice of the propensity for violence by these other inmates. The jail had 15 documented incidents of violence by the inmates involved in the assault and Merriweather also alleged two other incidents of violence against inmates by these individuals. While the sheriff cited policies of constant rounds and the ability of inmates to use phones as cutting against liability, Merriweather argued that guards routinely violated these policies.

The court concluded that the one time that government officials have an obligation to protect persons from third party violence is when the person’s liberty is restrained and they are unable to care for themselves. The court asserted that Merriweather had alleged enough evidence that the Sheriff was on notice regarding violence in that area of the jail by citing the 15 documented incidents of violence involving the very same assailants. Further the court noted that Merriweather was assaulted a second time, although not sexually, in the presence of guards during recreation. Finally the court refused to dismiss the case against the sheriff since a jury could conclude that the sheriff was on notice and had failed to properly respond in protecting Ryan Merriweather from third party harm in the jail setting.

Key Point

Government Actors have a greater duty to protect persons from third party violence when the person to be protected is in government custody and cannot protect themselves.
References



DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
Rivera v. City of Providence, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005).
Merriweather v. Marion County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (Indiana Southern Dis

---

Additional Cases
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
There are many similar cases with same results.

• Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); 
• Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
• Davidson v. City of Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
• Westbrooks v. State, (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
• Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
• Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
• Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332
• Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
• Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
• Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
• Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
• Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
• Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
• Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
• Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
• Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
• Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
• Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
• Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
• Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
• Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
• Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, (1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
• DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197 (1989).

For additional reading on this subject see:

www.firearmsandliberty.com/
www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

Driving is a commercial activity part deux

After my first post was sent out on the boards, I had some feedback on the dates of the definitions, and the validity of them today. I guess changing what words mean so to cover their deception never crossed some peoples minds. Never the less, I figured why not show them in the statutes of today, and so we shall.

Florida statutes

322.01

(16) “Drive” means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

Notice you are in control of a "motor vehicle" for purposes of "vehicular traffic".

(27) “Motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003.


Oh, a self propelled vehicle, well what is a vehicle?


(43) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway or operated upon rails or guideway, except a bicycle, motorized wheelchair, or motorized bicycle.



Key word here is TRANSPORTED





320.01 Definitions, general.—
As used in the Florida Statutes, except as otherwise provided, the term:

(1) “Motor vehicle” means:

(a) An automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state, used to transport persons or property, and propelled by power other than muscular power, but the term does not include traction engines, road rollers, special mobile equipment as defined in s. 316.003(48), vehicles that run only upon a track, bicycles, swamp buggies, or mopeds.

 

 

Used to TRANSPORT persons or property.

 

In the same chapter we find out that we are motor carriers...

 

(32) “Motor carrier” means any person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any motor vehicle used to transport persons or property over any public highway.

 

Notice in definition 1 that a motor vehicle was used to transport persons or property, and by doing so you then become a motor carrier.

 

Back in chapter 322.01 we find this definition

 

(32) “Passenger vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed to transport more than 15 persons, including the driver, or a school bus designed to transport more than 15 persons, including the driver.

 

316.003

 

(74) TRANSPORTATION.—The conveyance or movement of goods, materials, livestock, or persons from one location to another on any road, street, or highway open to travel by the public.

(75) VEHICLE.—Every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

 

 

Traffic - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)
1. Business or trade, commerce. 2. Transportation. 3. The movement of vehicles on street or highway, as, the traffic is very heavy today.Traffic - Bouvier's (1856)
Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.Traffic - Black's 1st

Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like.

Traffic - Black's 3^rd
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; People v. Horan, 293 Ill. 314, 127 N.E. 673, 674; People v. Dunford, 207 N.Y. 17, 100 N.E. 433, 434; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 289 F. 649, 655.
Traffic includes the ordinary uses of the streets and highways by travelers. Stewart v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co., 223 Mass. 525, 112 N.E. 218, 219; Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa, 377, 145 N.W. 923, 927.Traffic - Black's 4^th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. C.C.A.Mass., 289 F. 649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. v. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, canal, etc. United States v. Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Dist. Of California, D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.Traffic -Black's 6^th
Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods and money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vegetables, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.Traffic - Florida Words & Phrases
(See Fine v. Moran, 77 So. 533, 538)
The word "traffic" is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary as follows: "To pass goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money; to buy or sell goods; to barter; trade." The subjects of manufacturing; producing; storing; selling, and handling any commodity are matters properly connected with the subject or traffic or trade in that commodity.



Some really good research I ran across while research this post was this quote....



In the early days of motoring, every American learned to drive without any assistance from local, state, or federal government; most learned to drive safely; and most never had any government document to identify themselves or to prove that they had ever passed any government driving test. The states of Massachusetts and Missouri were the first to establish drivers licensing laws in 1903, but Missouri had no driver examination law until 1952. Massachusetts had an examination law for commercial chauffeurs in 1907, and passed its first requirement for an examination of general operators in 1920. The first state to require an examination of driver competency was Rhode Island in 1908 (it also required drivers to have state licenses as early as 1908). South Dakota was both the last state to impose drivers licenses (1954), and the last state to require driver license examinations (1959). ^[6] Our contemporary belief that drivers licenses were instituted to keep incompetent drivers off the road is a false one. The vast majority of Americans who drove already knew how to drive safely. Why the state governments demanded that they have a state-issued license and pass a government test appears to be more a matter of "control" than of public safety. Why early 20th Century Americans did not resist licensure and did not see where it might lead is another question.
Personal reminiscences of many elderly Americans verify this assertion. For example, one author in VINTAGE JOURNAL wrote that "I remember when the first drivers licenses came out. They cost 50 cents and you didn't have to take a test." ^[7] Here are a few other comments located on the internet:

In Jefferson County, Kansas "on July 8, 1947, someone from the county seat (Oskaloosa) came to Meriden to issue driver's licenses. Anyone who was 16 years or older and paid the fee was immediately issued a drivers license. No test. The date was easy to remember because I was 16 on that day and did get my drivers license." ^[8] [Licenses were first required in Kansas in 1931, and driving examinations in 1949.]
During the 1930s in Georgia ... "you didn't have to take a test for driving. You sent for the permit by mail." ^[9] [There were no drivers licenses in Georgia until 1937, and no driving examination until 1939.]
In Missouri the gas stations sold drivers licenses -- "no test. For 25 cents, they gave you a stub -- you had this until the `real' license came in the mail." ^[10] [As noted, Missouri was one of the first states to require licenses (1903), but examinations were not required until 1952.]
In Washington state drivers licensing was started in 1921. "Applicant must furnish signatures of two people certifying that the person is a competent driver and has no physical problems that would impair safe driving." ^[11] [Driving examinations were not initiated until 1937.]

James J. Flink presents a different point of view in his book, AMERICA ADOPTS THE AUTOMOBILE (1970). In his discussion of "Licensing of Operators" (pp. 174-178) he notes that "Automobile interests were well ahead of municipal and state governments by 1902 in recognizing that the compulsory examination of all automobile operators would be desirable. ... Officials of both the American Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of America publicly advocated ... that the states should certify the basic competence of all automobile operators by requiring them to pass an examination before being allowed on the road." ^[12] It is clear, however, that widespread public sentiment did not exist to support these proposals. It was years before all the state governments passed such laws. In summarizing, Flink concludes that

Despite the motorist's own desire to have their competence examined [an assumption which I would challenge] and certified, state governments still remained reluctant to take adequate action at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century. As of 1909, only twelve states and the District of Columbia required all automobile drivers to obtain licenses. Except for Missouri, these were all eastern states - Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. In seven other states, only professional chauffeurs had to obtain operator's licenses - ... . The application forms for operator's licenses in these nineteen states as a rule asked for little more information than the applicant's name, address, age, and the type of automobile he claimed to be competent to drive. This might have to be notarized, but in the vast majority of these states a license to drive an automobile could still be obtained by mail. In the twelve states that all operators had to be licensed, a combined total of 89,495 licenses were issued between January 1 and October 4, 1909, but only twelve applicants were rejected for incompetency or other reasons during this period - two in Rhode Island and ten in Vermont. <sup>[13]


I recommend  reading the whole link found here</sup>

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.html#.VmTnH_8QXVKThis gem was also found at the above link....Although Ford's refusal to support the private efforts of the Lincoln Highway Association stymied its attempts to build a transcontinental highway, Fisher, with the assistance of Henry B. Joy, president of Packard Motor Company, pressed on to provide marking for the entire route and to build at least one mile of experimental concrete highway in each of the states the route crossed. The test roadways were actually built in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. The efforts of the Association, though only partially successful, gave some credence to Rose Wilder Lane's statement in her 1943 book, Discovery of Freedom:

... American government should have never interfered with highways. Americans created a free, mutual association, the American Automobile Association, which was dealing with all the new questions arising from the invention of automobiles. Private enterprise originated and built the first trans-Continental highway [this statement is not true if it refers to the Lincoln Highway]; free manufacturers and car-owners would have covered this country with highways, as free Americans covered it with wagon-roads. Americans wanted cars and highways; no police force was needed to take their money from them and spend it for highways. And it is injustice to the Americans who do not own cars, to compel them to pay for highways. ^[37]

If American roadways had been private property, another question relating to the propriety of driver licensing would have been more easily resolved. Under common law, driving a team of horses, oxen, or mules was a matter of right. Such activities were clearly not a privilege granted to the individual by the state.
In one of the earliest decisions relating to registration and licensing, the Supreme Court of Illinois stated that the City of Chicago might regulate commercial activities, such as those engaged in by draymen, but "no reason exists why [licensing] should apply to the owners of private vehicles used for their own individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion."

Anything which cannot be enjoyed without legal authority would be a mere privilege, which is generally evidenced by a license. The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege but a right. ... A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge, and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. ^[38]

[38] The City of Chicago v. Lorin C. Collins, Jr. et. al., 175 Ill 445 (October 24, 1898) at pp., 456-457. The Court affirmed the illegality of the Chicago "Wheel Tax" ordinance.


we begin with the hornbook definition of a license:A permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit. Black's Law Dictionary 829 (5th ed. 1979) (citation omitted). A license fee is the consideration given for the receipt of the permit. It must be related to the government's cost for regulating the occupation or business. Northern Indiana Coin Operators Ass'n v. South Bend (1985), Ind. App., 478 N.E.2d 704, 706 (citing Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8 (1982)).http://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1990/41s04-9005-cv-351-4.html

I dedicate this to the people that swear they know everything, but are still clueless.

Driving is a commercial activity.

Even long before Ford invented the model t, driving was a licensed privilege. We find this while searching for licensed carriage drivers in 1850.


As the commercial center of the antebellum South, New Orleans depended on an adequate system of transportation to get its varied goods to market. The municipal government regulated this activity by licensing operators of carts, carriages, and other conveyances. This document is a security bond designed to insure that the licensee, a free black man by the name of Jacques Voltaire, abided by the rules governing such vehicles.

From here
http://www.neworleanspubliclibrary.org/~nopl/exhibits/black96.htm

Now in England they licensed carriage drivers as well, or hackney drivers as they called them.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ao4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA279&lpg=RA2-PA279&dq=carriage+drivers+licensed+in+the+1850's&source=bl&ots=Yy8XHpMl-p&sig=JRZWV78c4aG-qaz1yN5HwhH_whg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO3Mvm07HJAhXMNiYKHc37CsEQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=carriage%20drivers%20licensed%20in%20the%201850's&f=false


Now to define the word "driver"

DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

 

DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914)p. 940.

 

DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951

What is DRIVER?

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

Law Dictionary: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black's Law Dictionary)

driver

[drahy-ver] /ˈdraɪ vər/

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun

1.

a person or thing that drives.

2.

a person who drives a vehicle; coachman, chauffeur, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/driver


So we can see that "driving" has been a licensed occupation long before autos came around. Now lets take a look at some other commonly used words we think we understand.

Title18, UNITED STATES CODE  Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions

When used in this chapter 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 - Laws of Florida c. 14764 (1931)

The term "motor vehicle" shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public highways (but not over fixed rails) for the transportation of persons or property for compensation either as common carriers, private contract carriers or for hire carriers.

Traffic - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

1. Business or trade, commerce. 2. Transportation. 3. The movement of vehicles on street or highway, as, the traffic is very heavy today.

Traffic - Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)

Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like.

Traffic - Black's Law Dictionary 3^rd

Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; People v. Horan, 293 Ill. 314, 127 N.E. 673, 674; People v. Dunford, 207 N.Y. 17, 100 N.E. 433, 434; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 289 F. 649, 655.
Traffic includes the ordinary uses of the streets and highways by travelers. Stewart v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co., 223 Mass. 525, 112 N.E. 218, 219; Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa, 377, 145 N.W. 923, 927.

Traffic - Black's Law Dictionary 4^th

Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Morgan, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U. S. C.C.A.Mass., 289 F. 649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. v. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, canal, etc. United States v. Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Dist. Of California, D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.

Traffic -Black's Law Dictionary 6^th

Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods and money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vegetables, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.

Transportation - Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia, International Illustrated Edition (1960)

1. The act or business of moving passengers and goods. 2. The means of conveyance used. 3. Banishment, esp. of convicts to a penal colony.

Transportation - Black's Law Dictionary 3^rd

The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. See Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 Sup.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 5 Sup.Ct. 826, 29 L.Ed. 158.
Under Interstate Commerce Act, (49 USCA sec. 1 et seq.), "transportation" includes the entire body of services rendered by a carrier in connection with the receipt, handling, and delivery of property transported, and includes the furnishing of cars. Pletcher v. Chicago, R. L. & P. Ry. Co., 103 Kan. 834, 177 P. 1, 2.
In a general sense transportation means merely conveyance from one place to another. People v. Martin, 235 Mich. 206, 209 N.W. 87.

Transportation - Black's Law Dictionary 4^th

The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com'n v. Brimson, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 5 S.Ct. 826, 114 U.S. 196, 29 L.Ed. 158.

Transportation - Black's 6^th

The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier.

Transportation - 49 U.S.C. ¤ 5102(12)

"transports" or "transportation" means the movement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement.

Transportation - Words and Phrases

See State v. Western Trans Co. (1950, Iowa) 43 N.W.2d 739 [The judge, after giving his conclusion, goes on to give examples of "transportation" - all involving the movement of persons or goods for hire.]

Terms found in the CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE  and associated with the DMV and applied to those persons who do what the DMV regulates:

 

 

COMMERCIAL.  Relating to or connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general.  “Zante Currents”, C.C.Cal.,73 F. 189.  Occupied with commerce.  Bowles v. Co-Operative G. L. F. Farm Products, D.C.N.Y., 53 F. Supp. 413, 415.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 337

 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  Traffic, intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from between points in one state and points in another state; commerce between the states, or between places in different states.
It comprehends all the component parts of commercial intercourse between different states.
[Cites omitted]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 955

 

TRAFFIC. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like.  The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money.  Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 673, 11 N.E. 321; Fine v. Moran, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533, 538; Bruno v. U.S., C.C.A.Mass., 289 F. 649, 655; Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. V. Schwer, 36 Ohio App. 512, 173 N.E. 633.  The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as a long a street, canal etc.  United States v. Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Dist. of California , D.C.Cal., 37 F. Supp. 505, 512.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 4th Ed., p. 1667

 

TRANSPORTATION.  The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com’n v. Brimson, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 5 S.Ct. 826, 114 U.S. 196, 29 L.Ed. 158
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1670

 

 

So basically if you are a "driver", "operator" driving a "motor vehicle" in "traffic" then you are admitting that you are engaging in commerce.

 

 

...state activities integrally related to commerce, and acted within its sphere of power to afford "security * * * to the rights of the people" by preventing the States from releasing personal information that they require individuals to submit as a condition of engaging in activity-owning and operating a motor vehicle-that is integrally related to commerce generally...
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CHARLIE CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL.,
In the Supreme Court of the United States, (Jan. 12, 2000)
No. 98-1464
[Emphasis added]

 

 

 

But fear not friends, freedom IS possible.

 

 

 

Public school

A post about the mass brainwashing factories known as the public school system.

Lets start with Funding, we of course know that taxes fund school, but does it fund all of it? Ever hear of the GEB? General education board was set up in 1903 b none other then that lovable guy, John D Wreck a feller. By 1907 old John D had donated 43 million dollars to educate Americas less fortunate. What a swell guy, right?

Lets take a look..

http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/education/general_education_board

[quote]To persuade local populations that public schools were necessary, the GEB relied on a number of methods, including what came to be known as “circuit riders.” Circuit riders were professors hired as Chairs of Education by state universities but paid for by the GEB. They traveled across the region extolling the benefits of public education and lobbying local governments to raise taxes to pay for it. [/quote]


Some more about the foundations of our public school funding...


http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/01/28/untold-history-modern-u-s-education-founding-fathers/

[quote]
The Guggenheim Foundation agreed to award fellowships to historians recommended by the Carnegie Endowment. Gradually, through the 1920′s, they assembled a group of twenty promising young academics, and took them to London. There they briefed them on what was expected of them when they became professors of American history. That twenty were the nucleus of what was eventually to become the American Historical Association. The Guggenheim Foundation also endowed the American Historical Association with $400,000 at that time.

By 1950 the Rockefeller Foundation endowed Columbia Teachers College in New York City, formerly named the Russell’s Teacher College, produced one-third of all presidents of teacher-training institutions, one-fifth of all American public school teachers, and one-quarter of all superintendents.

J.D Rockefeller and family additionally funded and founded the University of Chicago, Rockefeller University (which focused on offering only postgraduate and postdoctoral education), the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health as well as the Rockefeller University Press.

They also controlled, and continue to maintain ownership control in, school textbook companies and scholastic literature copy rights used in the public school systems thus being able to direct the historical narrative used in schools through Guggenheims American Historical Society.

Additionally, through use of political favors and influence as well as the structuring of public educational taxes through property ownership, these few NGO Foundations were able to mold educational policy and control the flow of funds to school districts and community colleges at the Federal levels.
[/quote]

That is a lot of influence on our school system by just a few men, wonder why the interest in the schooling of the poor? Were they trying to help, or were they trying to create min wage workers for their empires?

Here is more from the same link above....

[quote]

“The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. Its various forms of patronage carry with them elements of thought control. It exerts immense influence on educator, educational processes, and educational institutions. It is capable of invisible coercion. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts, academic opinion, thought leadership, public opinion.
The power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in education and the social sciences, with a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. This Interlock has some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel. It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of education.”  -John Taylor Gatto, author of “The Underground History of Education” and Thrice NY Teacher of the Year

In 1954, a special Congressional Committee investigated the interlocking web of tax-exempt foundations to see what impact their grants were having on the American people. The Reece Committee, as it became known, stumbled onto the fact that some of these foundations had embarked upon a gigantic project to rewrite American history and incorporate it into new school text books.
Norman Dodd, the Reece committee’s research director, found, in the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the following remarkable statement of purpose:

“The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of the education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that they go in tandem so the portion of education which could be considered domestically oriented would be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the portion which was oriented to international matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.”

Dodd proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.
Dodd further stated:

“The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meager knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science.”

Mr. Dodd’s research staff had discovered that in 1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a revolution.”
The Reece Commission also indicated conclusively that:

• The responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
• That a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside the local community.
• That this “revolution” had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate.

Mr. Dodd stated that this revolution “could not have occurred peacefully or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it.”
According to Mr. Dodd, grants given to these Foundations had been used for:

 –  Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
 –  Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which it (formerly) had been dedicated.
 – Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition.
  – Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.
  – Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature.”

Mr. Dodd cited a book called “The Turning of the Tides”, which documented the literature from various tax-exempt foundations and organizations like UNESCO, showing that they wished to install a centralized World Government.
The Reece Commission quickly ran into a buzzsaw of opposition from influential centers of American corporate life. Major national newspapers hurled scathing criticisms, which, together with pressure from other potent political adversaries, forced the committee to disband prematurely without action.
****
Additionally, in 1951, Hon. John T. Wood (Idaho), House of Representatives, added these remarks in the Congressional record on the Report to the American People on UNESCO (United Nations for Education, Science and Culture Organization). From the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 82nd Congress, First Session on Thursday, October 18, 1951:

“UNESCO’s scheme to pervert public education appears in a series of nine volumes, titled ‘Toward Understanding’ which presume to instruct kindergarten and elementary grade teachers in the fine art of preparing our youngsters for the day when their first loyalty will be to a world government, of which the United States will form but an administrative part…
The program is quite specific. The teacher is to begin by eliminating any and all words, phrases, descriptions, pictures, maps, classroom material or teaching methods of a sort causing his pupils to feel or express a particular love for, or loyalty to, the United States of America. Children exhibiting such prejudice as a result of prior home influence – UNESCO calls it outgrowth of the narrow family spirit – are to be dealt an abundant measure of counter propaganda at the earliest possible age. Booklet V, on page 9, advises the teacher that:
‘The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child’s education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for membership, at about the age of seven, in a group of his own age and habits – the first of many such social identifications that he must achieve on his way to membership in the world society.’”  

*****

“Schools were designed by Horace Mann and others to be instruments of the scientific management of a mass population.”   John Taylor Gatto author of “Weapons of Mass Education”

[/quote]


Here is the unesco manual        unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0005/000569/056926eo.pdf


Crazy stuff folks.


This has only been a taste, take it upon your self to research this your self, it's your kids future, put a little time in it, before you send your kid to a little slave making factory that you went thru.

There is massive amounts of information detailing what is going on, all you have to do is drop your false beliefs and research the topics anew.

Look at this quote here...

[quote]

The BEHAVIORAL TEACHER EDUCATIONAL PROJECT outlines specific teaching reforms to be forced on the country, unwillingly of course, after 1967. It also sets out, in clear language, the outlook and intent of its invisible creators. Nothing less than quoting again "the impersonal manipulation through schooling of a future America in which few will be able to maintain control over their own opinions", an America in which (quoting again) "each individual receives at birth, a multipurpose identification number which enables employers and other controllers to keep track of their [underlings]", (underlings is my interpretation, everything else came out of the document), "and to expose them to the directors subliminal influence of the state education department and the federal department acting through those whenever necessary".

[/quote]


Here is a link to some more GEB information

https://archive.org/stream/generaleducation029311mbp/generaleducation029311mbp_djvu.txt

Found the link to the GEB letter number 1

https://books.google.com/books?id=QzhDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false





Some more school quotes to help you see more clearly.....

“Plans are underway to replace community, family, and church with propaganda, education and mass media. “
-Edward A. Ross, Social Control, 1901.

 

“Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed customs. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.”
-William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889-1906.

 

“The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent.”
-John Dewey

 

“Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they’re not tempted to think about any other role.”
-William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889-1906.

 

“Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society. Social systems which endure are built on the average person who can be trained to occupy any position adequately if not brilliantly.”
-Stuart Chase, The Proper Study of Mankind, 1948.

 

“In our dreams…people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers were doing in an imperfect way.”
-The Rockefeller General Education Board, Occasional Letter No.1, 1906.

 

“Nothing is more central to the maintenance of social order than the regulatory mechanisms employed to control and socialize our children.”
-Ronald Boostom, Coordinator for Juvenile “Justice” in California, 1980.

 

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”
-Justice H. Walter Croskey, 2008.

 

“Today’s corporate sponsors want to see their money used in ways to line up with business objectives…. This is a young generation of corporate sponsors and they have discovered the advantages of building long-term relationships with educational institutions.”
-Suzanne Cornforth of Paschall & Associates, public relations consultants. As quoted in The New York Times, July 15, 1998.

 

“That erroneous assumption is to the effort that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence….Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
-H.L Mencken, The American Mercury, April 1924.

 

“The new view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen, served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme.”-Dr. Arthur W. Calhoun, A Social History of The American Family: From Colonial Times to the Present, 1919.




 

Elements of civil government by Peterman (1891)

chapter 16 page 167.

POLTICAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES.

By the social compact, men also agree to abandon a part of their natural rights in order to participate in the government. They agree in part to be governed by others, in order that in part they may govern others.

The rights of participating in the government, such as voting and holding office, are called political rights, because they affect the public policy of society.

Political rights do not belong to men by nature, but are conferred by government. Within reasonable bounds, they may be enlarged or restricted without injustice.

Since they are conferred by the government, the power to vote and to hold office is a privilege to be enjoyed rather then a right to be asserted.


Chapter 16 page 164

Without government natural rights are unlimited; each person may lay claim to all land and to all it produces, provided he is strong enough to maintain his claim by force.

When men join the social compact, they agree to abandon some of their natural rights, in order to be protected by the government in those they retain.

Page 166

The comfort and convenience of the public are even more important then the comfort and convenience of any person. Therefore, individual rights must yield to public rights when the two conflict.

This right of society, existing above the right of any of it members, is called the right of eminent domain. By it individual rights must yield to the rights of society, of the government, or of a corporation


read the rest here....
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/civilgov.htm

One of the most important videos you will ever watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7370&v=dIEemKcy-4E

Mark Passio seminar on natural law. Its a looong video, but more then worth your time. Understand the info in this video or you will never understand this blog friends. This stuff is not rocket science either, TAKE THE TIME.