:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Please remember our offices are always closed for the week of Thanksgiving;
therefore, our next Conference Call will be on Monday, November 27, 2017.

Have a happy and blessed holiday.

We generally hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time)
Join us on our next Conference Call and invite your friends.

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.


Please be aware that: The Way of Kings™ Forum is back online; however, they were not able to salvage their old database for that forum. Wherefore, all of the registrations and content that was on that forum is gone; which means that you will need to re-register on that forum to communicate with them and to receive their forum based services.


We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

CT Operator's License Requirement

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Rosco1733
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Saturday February 3rd, 2007 3:46 am MST

CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Rosco1733 » Tuesday March 27th, 2007 2:30 pm MDT

I was reading through Connecticut's General Statutes and found Sec. 14-36: Motor vehicle operator's license. "Except as otherwise provided by this section and section 14-40a, no person shall operate a motor vehicle on any public highway of this state or private road on which a speed limit has been established in accordance with subsection (a) of section 14-218a until such person has obtained a motor vehicle operator's license."

The exceptions mentioned are, for example, if your license was suspended or revoked, you can drive with a licensed instructor.

It seems pretty clear to me. What am I missing? Does this law not apply because driving is a right and not a priveledge, or because the CT General Assembly was not given authority to make laws in this area?

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Gabo » Tuesday March 27th, 2007 11:29 pm MDT

rosco1733 wrote:"no person shall operate a motor vehicle on any public highway of this state or private road on which a speed limit has been established in accordance with subsection (a) of section 14-218a until such person has obtained a motor vehicle operator's license."
From what I can tell:
The "state" referred to in this statute is the STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and not Connecticut.
The geographical area you live in is most likely Connecticut, and since this statute refers to public highways in the STATE OF CONNECTICUT it has no bearing on your travel.
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
- Helen Keller

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Admin » Wednesday March 28th, 2007 1:22 am MDT

:h: Rosco1733:
We have two specific causes that result in a limitation from us providing a reasonable response to your inquiry:
  1. Your question, “What am I missing?” is impossible to reasonably respond to. It is impossible for us to know what you are missing. You gave us no reference point to respond from or even anything specific to reveal what you understand from the code you cited.
  2. The technical nature of your question (if we could understand it) would require Team Law beneficiary support, which cannot be provided on our Open Forum, rather such support can only be provided to our beneficiaries either live or on our Beneficiary Forum.
We can suggest there are likely more exceptions than you listed and some of those might be in the interstate driver's license compact adopted by the Corp. State or in the definitions of the code and or in the limitations against its applicability that may be listed elsewhere.

Regarding your other question, we have no reason to believe the statute you cited “does not apply”, and we have no idea what authorities the Connecticut General Assembly was given, we could however help a Team Law beneficiary learn how to study the code so that they can make sure they understand it and how to apply it or why it does not apply to a particular situation in law.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Last edited by Admin on Friday April 13th, 2007 11:34 am MDT, edited 1 time in total.
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Doctor
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Saturday January 6th, 2007 12:03 pm MST

Postby Doctor » Wednesday April 11th, 2007 3:21 pm MDT

I don't have an opinion on the subject, but the courts do:
In Shapiro vs Thompson the court wrote:Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.

In Murdock vs. Penn the court wrote:no state may convert a secured liberty into a priviledge…

In Shuttlesworth vs. Birmingham Alabama the court wrote:If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity

Hope this blesses you,

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

Postby Geibes » Thursday April 12th, 2007 11:56 am MDT

Thanks for the case citings, Doctor. I will have to check them out.

Rosco1733, you may want to check out the Standard for Review in the post Contracts, Trusts, and the Corporation Sole. Also, keep in mind that a license is either (1) permission to do something illegal or (2) permission to do something that an entity is incompetent to do. Since driving is apparently legal, then condition (2) must apply. A Trust, for example, is incompetent since it has no physical capacity. Something to think about.....
Geibes
Education is bliss!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Admin » Friday April 13th, 2007 12:04 pm MDT

:h: Geibes, Rosco1733 and the Doctor:

We do not agree that a trust
Geibes wrote:is incompetent since it has no physical capacity
Trusts have the same physical capacity that any other person does to the extent that they borrow consciousness and physical capacity from the person that provides the same to the trust, which consciousness and physical capacity the Trust uses in its Trustee capacity. There is no doubt that the trust, as a creature of contract, is presupposed to be incompetent to drive a car until it can prove to the Corp. State’s Department of Motor Vehicles that it can pass the driver's license tests and it drives a car; only then does the state authorize the incompetent to “drive” and issue a license to drive in commerce within the Corp. State’s controlled venue of such licensed drivers.

That process has nothing to do with any constitutional limitation and it does not convert a right into a privilege. That process simply acknowledges the Social Security Administration’s creation has the licensed privilege of driving motor vehicles under the Corp. State’s control of commerce. It says nothing regarding the natural right of liberty, which is defined as a man’s right to take his property and come and go freely without interruption from government.

Again, as we already stated, the only way we can take this discussion any further is in the Beneficiary Forum or privately with Team Law beneficiaries. Still, we hope this response sheds a bit more light on the subject and points out why the court quotes the Doctor provided do not actually touch on what is happening in the issue of Corp. State issued driver's licenses. As Geibes noted, the answer to these questions (as is the case in all situations where the desire is to understand a relationship) is found in the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article. Interestingly enough, Geibes, the correction we made above is plainly noted there as well. We were actually surprised that you missed that one.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

ParksonYee
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 7
Joined: Monday April 28th, 2008 12:43 pm MDT

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby ParksonYee » Monday May 5th, 2008 5:13 pm MDT

Sorry, but I just joined the Forum recently. I see many a remarks to "Corp" something or another, whether it be United States or State. I would just like someone to clarify for me what its regarding when the statement is made with "Corp." ? Are we saying that gov't operate as a Corporation ?

Samuel Howell, Jr.
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Saturday November 10th, 2007 8:26 pm MST

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Samuel Howell, Jr. » Monday May 5th, 2008 6:35 pm MDT

Parkson Yee,
Go to the Team Law’s website and click on the main menu link "History of this Nation" the main menu is to the left side of the page; it will explain what is meant by Corp. State or Corp. U.S.
“In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.”

User avatar
Dan Mcdonough
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 18
Joined: Wednesday January 28th, 2009 10:27 am MST

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Dan Mcdonough » Thursday August 6th, 2009 11:11 am MDT

Some food for thought on this subject... In the State of Washington's RCW's , specifically the public highway chapter there seems to be two distinctly different types of highways. There are public highways, and then there are things defined as "limited use facilities".

RCW 47.52.010
"Limited access facility" defined.
For the purposes of this chapter, a "limited access facility" is defined as a highway or street especially designed or designated for through traffic, and over, from, or to which owners or occupants of abutting land, or other persons, have no right or easement, or only a limited right or easement of access, light, air, or view by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited access facility, or for any other reason to accomplish the purpose of a limited access facility. Such highways or streets may be parkways, from which vehicles forming part of an urban public transportation system, trucks, buses, or other commercial vehicles may be excluded; or they may be freeways open to use by all customary forms of street and highway traffic, including vehicles forming a part of an urban public transportation system.

I'm just studying this myself and thought others might like to know about it.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: CT Operator's License Requirement

Postby Admin » Friday August 7th, 2009 9:49 pm MDT

:h: Dan Mcdonough:
Most such “limited access facilities” are so limited because they are on private property where access to them is only granted in accord with the owner’s privilege or permission, which permission may even be controlled with a fee (toll).

However, even such “limited access facilities” do not provide reasonableness for any State, corporate or otherwise, to require a license either for your property or for you. The simple fact remains, no man or woman has the authority to limit any other person from their God given and inherent right to Liberty.
    Liberty is defined as your right to take your property and come and go as you please without interference from government.
Therefore, because no man has such authority, no body of men and or women can lawfully gather together to form a government and grant to that government authority that none of the people individually possessed. Therefore, no State (or authority formed from them) can lawfully make a law compelling an authority greater than that which they could have derived from the people. Accordingly, as a matter of law, no State possesses lawful authority to compel any man or woman to have a driver’s license.

The first thing most people derive from that fact is the conclusion that the states today are therefore acting outside of their lawful authority. But, that opinion does not examine all of the facts available. In fact, if you examine the relationship following our Standard for Review, when you get to the point where you look at what they do, they only issue driver’s licenses to parties that can prove their “legal presence” with a Social Security number. A review of our presentation of Myth 22 will clearly show such persons are not people; rather, they are Corp. U.S’. agency trusts; and, the relationship of the driver’s license is simply a contractual permission for such trusts to drive under their otherwise limited condition.

As we stated at the beginning of this topical thread, our delving into that matter further requires Team Law beneficiary support, which we can provide in our Beneficiary Forum.

Accordingly, we welcome you to further pursue such matters in our Beneficiary Forum.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest