Inhabitant v. Resident
Robert Miller
hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of
the Georgia Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the
full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and immunities due to such
citizenship."
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7
Constitution of the State of Georgia
Inhabitant:
"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or
property..."
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4
Constitution of the State of Georgia
Resident: "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or
abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the
intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is
a rebuttable presumption that any person who,...has been present in
the state for 30 or more days is a resident.
Georgia Code 1981,
Sec. 40-2-1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048,
Sec. 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 327, Sec. 1
According to the Georgia State Code I can rebut the fact that I am
a Resident. So I declare that I am not a "resident" but am truely an
"Inhabitant"
Only residents may obtain a drivers license. It sounds like an
inhabitant does not need a drivers license to travel on the public
roads and that the police are prohibited from molesting me or my
property for exercising my liberty to travel.
Just so we all know what the difference between a resident and an
inhabitant is I have included the definitions anybody have any problem
with these definitions?
Reside: "...to have one's residence...a foreign corporation, for venue
purposes, "resides" in the county where its registered office and
registered agent is located.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 782
Resident: "...whn used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or
occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more,
or less duration...Resident has many meanings in law, largely
determined by statutory context in which it is used."
Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Ed. p. 1309
Resident: "An agent, minister, or officer residing in a distant place
with the dignity of an ambassador; the chief representative of the
government at cerain princely states. Residents are a class of public
ministers inferior to ambassadors and envoys; but, like them they are
under the protection of the law of nations."
Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 2 Vol. 1562 (2nd edition 1977)
Residence: "Place where one actually lives...Residence implies
something more than physical presence and something less than domicile.
The terms "resident" and "residence" have no precise legal meaning...
[One can have many residences but only one domicile]
Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Ed. p. 1308, 1309
Inhabitant: "One who resides actually and permanently in a given place,
and has his domicile there
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
In another and much older dictionary I found these references:
A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law
by John Bouvier
INHABITANT. One who has his domicil in a place is an inhabitant of that
place; one who has an actual fixed residence in a place.
2. A mere intention to remove to a place will not make a man an
inhabitant of such place, although as a sign of such intention he may
have
sent his wife and children to reside there. 1 Ashm. R. 126. Nor will his
intention to quit his residence, unless consummated, deprive him of his
right as an inhabitant. 1 Dall. 480. Vide 10 Ves. 339; 14 Vin. Ab. 420;
1
Phil. Ev. Index, h.t.; Const. of Mass., part 2, c. 1, s. 2, a. 1; Kyd on
Corp. 321; Anal. des Pand. de Poth. mot Habitans; Poth. Pand. lib. 50,
t. 1,
s. 2; 6 Adolph. & Ell. 153; 33 Eng. Common Law Rep. 31.
3. The inhabitants of the United States may be classed into, 1.
Those
born within the country; and, 2. Those born out of it.
DOMICIL. The place where a person has fixed his ordinary dwelling,
without a
present intention of removal. 10 Mass. 488; 8 Cranch, 278; Ersk. Pr. of
Law
of Scotl. B. 1, tit. 2, s. 9; Denisart, tit. Domicile, 1, 7, 18, 19;
Voet,
Pandect, lib. 5, tit. 1, 92, 97; 5 Madd. Ch. R. 379; Merl. Rep. tit.
Domicile; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 4 Humph. 346. The law of domicil is of great
importance in those countries where the maxim "actor sequitur forum rei"
is
applied to the full extent. Code Civil, art. 102, &c.; 1 Toullier, 318.
2. A man cannot be without a domicil, for he is not supposed to
have
abandoned his last domicil until he has acquired a new one. 5 Ves. 587;
3
Robins. 191; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 10 Pick. 77.
RESIDENT, international law. A minister, according to diplomatic
language,
of a third order, less in dignity than an ambassador, or an envoy. This
term
formerly related only to the continuance of the minister's stay, but now
it
is confined to ministers of this class.
2. The resident does not represent the prince's person in his
dignity,
but only his affairs. His representation is in reality of the same
nature as
that of the envoy; hence he is often termed, as well as the envoy, a
minister of the second order, thus distinguishing only two classes of
public
ministers, the former consisting of ambassadors who are invested with
the
representative character in preeminence, the latter comprising all other
ministers, who do not possess that exalted character. This is the most
necessary distinction, and indeed the only essential one. Vattel liv. 4,
c.
6, 73.
RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to
establish
his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually
remains
there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or
beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer,
or
shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20
John.
211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
Wesley Serra
>"All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are
>hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of
>the Georgia Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the
>full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and immunities due to such
>citizenship."
> Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7
> Constitution of the State of Georgia
>Inhabitant:
>"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or
>property..."
> Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4
> Constitution of the State of Georgia
>Resident: "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or
>abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the
>intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is
>a rebuttable presumption that any person who,...has been present in
>the state for 30 or more days is a resident.
> Georgia Code 1981,
> Sec. 40-2-1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048,
> Sec. 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 327, Sec. 1
Mr. Miller, from having seen others respond to your posts here
(misc.legal), and from having responded to them from time to time myself,
I realize that you are not truly seeking opinions or advice. You seem to
be merely seeking agreement, even from lawyers with 20+ years of
experience who would more likely metamorphose into werewolves this
Halloween evening that agree with any of this stuff. Just in case I am
wrong:
>According to the Georgia State Code I can rebut the fact that I am
>a Resident. So I declare that I am not a "resident" but am truely an
>"Inhabitant"
That is not remotely what the G.C. means. The key phrase is that the
law makes 30 days' presence in the state a "rebuttable presumption" of
residency. This means that, unless you can *prove* that you reside
elsewhere, 30 days' presence makes you a resident. Such proof would
generally consist of evidence that, while you spend considerable time in
Georgia, you actually spend *more* time in a domicile elsewhere. You
cannot rebut a presumption merely by declaring that it does not apply to
you.
>Only residents may obtain a drivers license. It sounds like an
>inhabitant does not need a drivers license to travel on the public
>roads
Perhaps only Georgia residents can obtain *Georgia* licenses. If this is
so, then a non-resident does not need a *Georgia* license to drive there.
This is not the same as saying that a non-resident may drive in Georgia
with no license at all.
In any event, however, reading between the above lines surely implies that
you are a Georgia resident. Therefore, to lawfully drive there, you need
a Georgia license.
>and that the police are prohibited from molesting me or my
>property for exercising my liberty to travel.
Where do people get this stuff - not to mention to then post it to legal
NGs? Please find a single case in the history of the Republic which says
that the requirement of a license to drive violates your "right to travel"
- which right is obviously not what you believe it to be in the first
place. Just one citation - you have two hundred years of cases to choose
from.
>Just so we all know what the difference between a resident and an
>inhabitant is I have included the definitions anybody have any problem
>with these definitions?
I have no problem with the definitions, but you don't know how to apply
them. By the way, statutes and cases define legal terms *much* more
authoritatively than Black's, and cases from this century tend to mean
more. If you actually wish to fashion a legal argument which does not
resemble bedsheets knotted together, throw out the Black's and do some
contemporary research.
--
Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
http://www.panix.com/~wserra/
Robert Miller
> >hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of
> >the Georgia Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the
> >full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and immunities due to such
> >citizenship."
> > Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7
> > Constitution of the State of Georgia
> >Inhabitant:
> >"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or
> >property..."
> > Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4
> > Constitution of the State of Georgia
> >Resident: "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or
> >abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the
> >intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is
> >a rebuttable presumption that any person who,...has been present in
> >the state for 30 or more days is a resident.
> > Georgia Code 1981,
> > Sec. 40-2-1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048,
> > Sec. 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 327, Sec. 1
>
> (misc.legal), and from having responded to them from time to time myself,
> I realize that you are not truly seeking opinions or advice. You seem to
> be merely seeking agreement, even from lawyers with 20+ years of
> experience who would more likely metamorphose into werewolves this
> Halloween evening that agree with any of this stuff. Just in case I am
> wrong:
>
dissagree
with me than otherwise.
> >According to the Georgia State Code I can rebut the fact that I am
> >a Resident. So I declare that I am not a "resident" but am truely an
> >"Inhabitant"
Since I have lived in Georgia for about 12 years and have my Domicil
here.
>
> That is not remotely what the G.C. means. The key phrase is that the
> law makes 30 days' presence in the state a "rebuttable presumption" of
> residency. This means that, unless you can *prove* that you reside
> elsewhere, 30 days' presence makes you a resident. Such proof would
> generally consist of evidence that, while you spend considerable time in
> Georgia, you actually spend *more* time in a domicile elsewhere. You
> cannot rebut a presumption merely by declaring that it does not apply to
> you.
>
Rebut: To oppose by evidnce on the other side or by argument; try to
disprove:
The World Book Dictionary
It would be easy to prove that I have lived in Georgia more than 30 days
and that
I only have one residence (my domicil) and that I have no intention of
leaving in
the forseeable future.
Reside: "...to have one's residence...a foreign corporation, for venue
purposes,
"resides" in the county where its registered office and registered agent
is located.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 782
Venue: 1. Law. a. the place or neighborhood of a crime or cause of
action.
b. the place where the jury is summoned and the case tried. c. the
statement on an
indictment or complaint designating the place for trial. d. the
statement indicating
where and befor whom an affidavit was sworn. 2. the scene of a real or
supposed action
or event, especially in novel or literary work.
The World Book Dictionary
By this definition of Reside it sounds like they are not using it to
denote my residence
but for venue purposes.
RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q.v.) There is a difference
between
a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in
Philadelphia,
and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can
have
but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is
generally
transient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo
manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.
2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but
this
may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and
transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.
3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer
shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his
functions.
Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would
violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place
of
residence.
> >Only residents may obtain a drivers license. It sounds like an
> >inhabitant does not need a drivers license to travel on the public
> >roads
>
> Perhaps only Georgia residents can obtain *Georgia* licenses. If this is
> so, then a non-resident does not need a *Georgia* license to drive there.
> This is not the same as saying that a non-resident may drive in Georgia
> with no license at all.
By either definition of Resident you care to choose, I am not a foriegn
minister,
and I am not a transient. A transiant is the same as a vagabond and in
the Articles
of Confederation Article IV Vagabonds, Transients, and Fugitives are not
protected as
though they are Freeborn Americans.
>
> In any event, however, reading between the above lines surely implies that
> you are a Georgia resident. Therefore, to lawfully drive there, you need
> a Georgia license.
>
> >and that the police are prohibited from molesting me or my
> >property for exercising my liberty to travel.
>
> Where do people get this stuff - not to mention to then post it to legal
> NGs? Please find a single case in the history of the Republic which says
> that the requirement of a license to drive violates your "right to travel"
> - which right is obviously not what you believe it to be in the first
> place. Just one citation - you have two hundred years of cases to choose
> from.
>
Driving and Traveling are two different things. Just as apples and
oranges are
also two differnet things.
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other
vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want
of
skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are
responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill
and
be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted
with
the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with
reins
so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give
notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong
side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with
another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise
a
sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid
dangers
and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is
injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark.
R.
37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1
East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157.
Vide
Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
TRAVEL: 1. to go from one place to another; journey:
The World Book Dictionary
> >Just so we all know what the difference between a resident and an
> >inhabitant is I have included the definitions anybody have any problem
> >with these definitions?
>
> I have no problem with the definitions, but you don't know how to apply
> them. By the way, statutes and cases define legal terms *much* more
> authoritatively than Black's, and cases from this century tend to mean
> more. If you actually wish to fashion a legal argument which does not
> resemble bedsheets knotted together, throw out the Black's and do some
> contemporary research.
If the King says my shirt is Purple then my shirt is purple, even if it
was white befor he said so? I know Black's Law Dictionary is not the
end all be all dictionary, Lawyers use it untill they don't like the
denfinitions.
I prefer the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language the closer to the
time the Law was written the better. In this case of Inhabitant the
closer
to the time the Constitution of the State of Georgia was written the
better.
>
> --
> Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
> wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
> http://www.panix.com/~wserra/
Robert Miller
Have a Wonderful day and God Bless
be...@bigfoot.com
I believe your apparent confusion is probably the result of being
semi-educated in the "government fool system."
"All citizens of the United States ...." This Georgia provision is merely a
restatement of the 14th Amendment, a state acknowledgment that 14th
amendment federal citizens become Georgin citizens simply by living in the
state for a fixed period of time. Many of the states felt it necessary to
adopt federal provisions in their state constitutions, why I don't know.
But this is only one of many.
"No inhabitant of this state ..." You are attempting to compare apples and
oranges. This provision has no bearing or legal relationship to the
former. It is not in any manner associated with the concept of
citizenship. It is merely a statement that anyone--man, woman, or
child--who is physically present in the state of Georgia enjoys certain
legal protections. It is a provision present in most state constitutions.
You are looking for a nexus that doesn't exist.
While it is good to know what words used to mean, especially when looking at
older laws, it is NOT appropriate to take a 200-year old meaning of a word
and try to apply that meaning to a 5-year old statute. Doesn't work that
way. Languages change, and English is no different from any other living
language.
Very few people, including yourself, can successfully rebut the presumption
of residency--as that term is defined in today's language and laws--because
they have too many attachments to the particular jurisdiction in which they
live. Ever use any public facility free of charge for which non-residents
would have to pay a fee, like the public library? Pay rent to a landlord
other than a transient housing facility (motel)? Exercise any form of
employment? Do you have a PERMANENT domicile anywhere else? If not, I
guarantee you that you are a resident of the place where you are currently
hanging your hat. Unless of course, you are homeless and sleep on the
street. In which case sooner or later someone is going to come along and
demand you move your sorry ass out of public view and quit polluting the
public right-of-ways.
Jeff Ganaposki
be...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> Robert
>
> I believe your apparent confusion is probably the result of being
> semi-educated in the "government fool system."
>
> "All citizens of the United States ...." This Georgia provision is merely a
> restatement of the 14th Amendment, a state acknowledgment that 14th
> amendment federal citizens become Georgin citizens simply by living in the
> state for a fixed period of time. Many of the states felt it necessary to
> adopt federal provisions in their state constitutions, why I don't know.
> But this is only one of many.
>
> "No inhabitant of this state ..." You are attempting to compare apples and
> oranges.
A resident has a residence. An inhabitant has a domicile.U.S. citizens (of that
foreign corporation located in D.C.) are
foreign vagabonds with respect to a state.
> This provision has no bearing or legal relationship to the
> former. It is not in any manner associated with the concept of
> citizenship.
Citizenship is the exercise of political liberties.Nationality is the status
derived from birth and parentage.
Americans can "volunteer" into citizenship, if the government allows.
> It is merely a statement that anyone--man, woman, or
> child--who is physically present in the state of Georgia enjoys certain
> legal protections. It is a provision present in most state constitutions.
NO - an inhabitant is not "anyone" - unless they have a permanent domicilewithin
the boundaries of the state.
> You are looking for a nexus that doesn't exist.
>
> While it is good to know what words used to mean, especially when looking at
> older laws, it is NOT appropriate to take a 200-year old meaning of a word
> and try to apply that meaning to a 5-year old statute. Doesn't work that
> way. Languages change, and English is no different from any other living
> language.
The art of Law is words - - - a sword that cuts both ways. When you arepersuaded
to use the wrong sense of a word in their courts, you will lose.
> Very few people, including yourself, can successfully rebut the presumption
> of residency--as that term is defined in today's language and laws--because
> they have too many attachments to the particular jurisdiction in which they
> live.
If an inhabitant (not-a-resident) can't get a hunting license, then he doesn't
NEED one.Which is actually the case for those who are native to a state.
> Ever use any public facility free of charge for which non-residents
> would have to pay a fee, like the public library? Pay rent to a landlord
> other than a transient housing facility (motel)? Exercise any form of
> employment? Do you have a PERMANENT domicile anywhere else? If not, I
> guarantee you that you are a resident of the place where you are currently
> hanging your hat. Unless of course, you are homeless and sleep on the
> street. In which case sooner or later someone is going to come along and
> demand you move your sorry ass out of public view and quit polluting the
> public right-of-ways.
Curiously, you mangle terms with aplomb.A "Public library" isn't really public
when it is controlled and funded by a government whose real business is to
secure property rights. It's really a "government library."
--
============================================================
|Jeff Ganaposki mailto:jgm...@bellsouth.net
|404-361-9972 http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
============================================================
Robert Miller
If this fellow were a lawyer he would know this already. Notice how
silent the
other lawyers are around here? They would jump on this with a fury if
they could.
> > Very few people, including yourself, can successfully rebut the presumption
> > of residency--as that term is defined in today's language and laws--because
> > they have too many attachments to the particular jurisdiction in which they
> > live.
Just read the definitions below they are considerably less than 200
years old.
One is as old as 22 years old. I don't know when Black's Law 6th Ed.
was published.
It's the latest one I seen so far.
The truth shall set you FREE!
Robert Miller
>
> Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
> >
> > be...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > I believe your apparent confusion is probably the result of being
> > > semi-educated in the "government fool system."
Don't you mean the "government school system"? to which I must
answer yes, I went to public school. For which I have spent much
time tring to overcome.
Robert Miller
Wesley Serra
>Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
[snip non-legal gibberish]
>If this fellow were a lawyer he would know this already. Notice how
>silent the
>other lawyers are around here? They would jump on this with a fury if
>they could.
Ganaposki and Miller are walking down a country road when they happen
upon a large pile of horseshit. One says to the other, "Look! It's one
of Aunt Bessie's famous chocolate cream pies! What luck!"
A stranger strolls by. Ganaposki and Miller say to the stranger,
"Wouldn't you like to share with us some of Aunt Bessie's delicious
chocolate cream pie?"
The stranger says, "Uh, guys, that's horseshit."
Ganaposki and Miller say, "Oh, no! Why, look at Goodie Crocker's Cookbook
(Edition VI, 1528). She says, to get a chocolate cream pie to taste just
right, when it is baked leave it on a country road by some wolfsbane to
season it. This is a country road, there is some wolfsbane, so that must
be one of Aunt Bessie's famous chocolate cream pies."
The stranger says, "Uh, guys, that's horseshit."
Ganaposki and Miller say, "No, no, you're wrong. And we're going to sit
down right now and have some of Aunt Bessie's delicious chocolate cream
pie."
The stranger shrugs and walks away, shaking her head.
Where are the lawyers in the NG? With the stranger.
Robert Miller
>
> In article <363EC6...@stc.net>, Robert Miller <star...@stc.net> wrote:
> >Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
>
> [snip non-legal gibberish]
>
> >silent the
> >other lawyers are around here? They would jump on this with a fury if
> >they could.
>
> upon a large pile of horseshit. One says to the other, "Look! It's one
> of Aunt Bessie's famous chocolate cream pies! What luck!"
>
> A stranger strolls by. Ganaposki and Miller say to the stranger,
> "Wouldn't you like to share with us some of Aunt Bessie's delicious
> chocolate cream pie?"
>
> The stranger says, "Uh, guys, that's horseshit."
>
> Ganaposki and Miller say, "Oh, no! Why, look at Goodie Crocker's Cookbook
> (Edition VI, 1528). She says, to get a chocolate cream pie to taste just
> right, when it is baked leave it on a country road by some wolfsbane to
> season it. This is a country road, there is some wolfsbane, so that must
> be one of Aunt Bessie's famous chocolate cream pies."
>
> The stranger says, "Uh, guys, that's horseshit."
>
> Ganaposki and Miller say, "No, no, you're wrong. And we're going to sit
> down right now and have some of Aunt Bessie's delicious chocolate cream
> pie."
>
> The stranger shrugs and walks away, shaking her head.
>
> Where are the lawyers in the NG? With the stranger.
>
Typical Liberal! If you can not debate someone on substance, attack
thier
character, intellegence, or whatever. Or if you can't dazzel 'em with
your
brilance, baffle 'em with "horse shit" Right?
This is the same kind of arguement any 7 year old on any school ground
can
perform. So what kind of arguement can a highly educated power lawyer
such
as yourself craft?
I hope that wasn't it because I'm wiping the tears away I've been
laughing so
hard:-)
Here's an easy question for you Wesley, it's right up your alley.
Would it be ethical for Ken Star to have John Wong "the Chinesse Agent
accused
of making payoff's in Clinton's Whitewater scandel" as his client?
Adrien Monteleone
Wesley Serra wrote:
> Ganaposki and Miller are walking down a country road when they happen
> upon a large pile of horseshit.
I find it strange that those who disagree with the arguments presented resort to
calling them horseshit instead of explaining why they are false.
Afterall, we are dealing with arguments that seem to make some sense; enough so
to at least merit arguing them. They are not as self evident as looking at a
pile of horseshit.
Even that has clues which would indicate it wasn't a chocolate pie. (the smell
for instance, or its proximity to a field where horses are known to roam)
However, these arguments do not posses any problems of logic or construction
which I can discern. (which I'm usually pretty good at) On the other hand, they
seem to point out the logical inconstancies in current statutes and the
arguments supporting them.
Experience has also shown me that when someone does not know a rebuttal answer,
and they realize they are wrong ut cannot admit it they resort to ad hominen
attacks like calling the other guys' argument 'horseshit.'
How about some REAL response to this. I have yet to see one which successfully
rebuts the arguments. Everytime someone gets close they break down into calling
names. Is it because the logic falls apart, or they just don't know the answer.
Also, if these arguments are horseshit, then why when they are presented to
people in the legal profession and to our government officials (in the proper
way) do these officials AGREE with them?
hmmm...
-Adrien
Wesley Serra
Adrien Monteleone <ljm...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>Wesley Serra wrote:
>
>> Ganaposki and Miller are walking down a country road when they happen
>> upon a large pile of horseshit.
I and others have explained why these "arguments" are false over and over
and over. Can you say "Dejanews"? Forget Dejanews, can you say "law
library"? For just one (of many, many, many) examples, earlier in this
very thread I challenged one of the above worthies to cite a single case
from the entire history of the Republic which holds that the original
proposition of the thread - that it is a violation of anyone's "right to
travel" to be required to have a license - is the law. "Answer": evasion.
>Also, if these arguments are horseshit, then why when they are presented to
>people in the legal profession and to our government officials (in the proper
>way) do these officials AGREE with them?
They don't. Post proof that they do.
>hmmm...
To anyone who knows the law, not a single "hmmm" about it.
Dan Evans
wrote:
>If this fellow were a lawyer he would know this already. Notice how
>silent the
>other lawyers are around here? They would jump on this with a fury if
>they could.
We can't be bothered to respond to all of your babbling, and you seem
to have found a subject that is relatively harmless.
So babble away!
*Dan Evans
*The above general information is provided
*"as is" and carries no warranty of fitness
*for any particular factual situation.
Jeff Ganaposki
> I and others have explained why these "arguments" are false over and over
> and over. Can you say "Dejanews"? Forget Dejanews, can you say "law
> library"? For just one (of many, many, many) examples, earlier in this
> very thread I challenged one of the above worthies to cite a single case
> from the entire history of the Republic which holds that the original
> proposition of the thread - that it is a violation of anyone's "right to
> travel" to be required to have a license - is the law. "Answer": evasion.
> --
> Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
> wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
> http://www.panix.com/~wserra/
I missed the original post - but to clarify -
To travel is a right, free of impairment, but
to use the public rights of way for commercial use
hauling cargo or passengers for hire is a privilege
subject to the delegated powers of government.
It doesn't "violate" one's right to travel to require a license to engage in
commerce.
But there's some skullduggery when State licensing laws limit the license to
"residents" with "addresses."
Why can't a "transient" who lives in a RV, and uses "General Delivery"
as his mailing liocation, get a "driver's license?"
Is there something government isn't telling about the status?
Since the earliest "traffic" laws deal with chauffeurs and jitney bus and omnibus
"drivers,"
the first presumption about driving is that it is commerce.
And the related terms of traffic "operator" and "driver" are
defined to be one who is engaged in transportation, which is defined as
one engaged as a common carrier hauling passengers or cargo for hire, the
long chain of deliberately garbled (by lawyers?) terms keep returning to
the privileged activity and not REFER TO TRAVEL.
You will never find a court case, after 1933, that acknowledges that
numbered slaves have the right to travel in the creditor's automobile
upon the public rights of way without the presumption of commerce.
BUT FOR THOSE WHO LIKE pre-emergency/bankruptcy LAW:
"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 may prohibit
or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
---Thompson v. Smith. 154 SE 579.
"The use of the highway for the purposes of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right
of which the public and individuals cannot be rightly deprived."
---Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 169 NE 22,
Ligare V. Chicago 28 NE 9341,
Boone v. Clake 214 SW 607;
AmJur.(1st) Highways sec. 163.
"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."
---Barney v. Board of Railroad Commissioners 17 P. 2d 82, Willis v. Buck 263 P
982.
"The right of the citizens to travel upon the highways
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 an 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 v. Davis) 85 SE 781.
"The right of the citizens to travel upon the 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 unusual 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
purposes of life and business."
---Teche Lines v. Danforth 12 So 2d 784, Thompson v. Smith supra.
"The right to travel is part of liberty of which
a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the
Fifth Amendment. This right was emerging as early as the Magna Charta."
--- Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125.
Adrien Monteleone
Dan Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 04:02:47 -0500, Robert Miller <star...@stc.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If this fellow were a lawyer he would know this already. Notice how
> >silent the
> >other lawyers are around here? They would jump on this with a fury if
> >they could.
>
> We can't be bothered to respond to all of your babbling, and you seem
> to have found a subject that is relatively harmless.
>
> So babble away!
Look, if you're going to bother to respond at least make an effort of it.
Don't waste the bandwidth.
Yet another example of ad hominen attacks. A judge would have you cited
for contempt if you did this in a court room.
-Adrien
Adrien Monteleone
before I could read them. If you did answer than I apologize. But that
still doesn't justify calling the arguement names. That only makes you
look bad.
-Adrien
Dan Evans
<ljm...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dan Evans wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 04:02:47 -0500, Robert Miller <star...@stc.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If this fellow were a lawyer he would know this already. Notice how
>> >silent the
>> >other lawyers are around here? They would jump on this with a fury if
>> >they could.
>>
>> We can't be bothered to respond to all of your babbling, and you seem
>> to have found a subject that is relatively harmless.
>>
>> So babble away!
>
>Look, if you're going to bother to respond at least make an effort of it.
>Don't waste the bandwidth.
I provided as much response as was required.
>Yet another example of ad hominen attacks.
My comments were entirely directed to what was said, which is not an
"ad hominem" attack.
> A judge would have you cited
>for contempt if you did this in a court room.
You don't know what you are talking about. Both judges and lawyers
regularly describe arguments like Robert Miller's as "frivolous,"
"gibberish," "silly," "absurd," "poppycock," and "a hodgepodge." No
judge would every hold me in contempt for stating the truth about what
was said.
KatNip
Sec. 213. Residents.
Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to
take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by
reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they
remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they
do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges
which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have
been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a
less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying
all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of
perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.
VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW,
Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns
In article <3640a3b3...@news.netaxs.com>, d...@evans-legal.com (Dan
Wayne Foote
KatNip wrote:
> Sec. 213. Residents.
> Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to
> take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by
> reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they
> remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they
> do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges
> which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have
> been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a
> less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying
> all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of
> perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.
> VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW,
> Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns
--
Wayne Foote
This isn't a legal opinion upon which to rely. For that, hire an attorney.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." M.L. King, Jr.
KatNip
"ection 213 of what" duh-->>>VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES
OF NATURAL LAW
Wayne Foote
KatNip wrote:
> "ection 213 of what" duh-->>>VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES
> OF NATURAL LAW
>
> In article <36563992...@mint.net>, NO SPAM <wfo...@mint.net> wrote:
>
> >Section 213 of what; the Twilight Zone guide to legal terminology?
Thank you. Your answer explains why your definitions make no from a legal
perspective. It is the Twilight Zone handbook.
Robert Miller
officer or sheriff's deputy and not a single one can give an
answer to the difference between an Inhabitant and a resident.
Most admitt to not knowing what the difference is.
You would think they would at least touch on this subject at the
police acadamy.
Resident:
"All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are
hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of
the Georgia Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the
full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and immunities due to such
citizenship."
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7
Constitution of the State of Georgia
Especially this part! Law enforcement officers are charged with
defending the Georgia State Constitution as well as the Federal
Constitution. A violation of oath of office is a serious charge.
I know some people who have personally sued officers for this offence
and they only get molested once. After that they travel unmolested.
Inhabitant:
"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or
property..."
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4
Constitution of the State of Georgia
Robert Miller
A Lawyer, a Judge, and an 11 year old boy are walking down the
street. All three see a silver dollar on the ground. Which one
gets the silver dollar?
The 11 year old of coarse the other two are fiction.
KatNip
Wasn't my defintion. Foote wrote: "Your answer explains why your
definitions make no from a legal perspective." What kind of grammer is
that?
The "handbook", Vattel's, Law of Nations, is what the so-called founding
fathers used....it was the "handbook of the that era...now, see the US
Const. Your referencing it to a "Twilight Zone guide to legal terminology"
gives the readers in this group an idea where your mind is.
Scott Goehring
>I've called the Attorney General of Georgia and every police
>officer or sheriff's deputy and not a single one can give an
>answer to the difference between an Inhabitant and a resident.
>Most admitt to not knowing what the difference is.
Black's Law Dictionary does state, under "inhabitant," that
"inhabitant" and "resident" often mean the same thing. It would
depend on how the courts of that state have construed the terms; I
can't comment on the particular judicial traditions of Georgia.
--
"[E]xperience suggests that seeking to bring the First Amendment to the assist-
ance of abortion protesters is more likely to harm the former than help the
latter." -- Lawson v. Murray, No. 97-1790, slip. op. (U.S., Oct. 19, 1998)
(J. Scalia, concurring in denial of writ of certiorari).
Patrick D. Henry
INHABITANT. One who has his domicil in a place is an inhabitant of
that
place; one who has an actual fixed residence in a place.
2. A mere intention to remove to a place will not make a man an
inhabitant of such place, although as a sign of such intention he may
have sent his wife and children to reside there. 1 Ashm. R. 126. Nor
will
his intention to quit his residence, unless consummated, deprive him of
his right as an inhabitant. 1 Dall. 480. Vide 10 Ves. 339; 14 Vin. Ab.
420; 1 Phil. Ev. Index, h. t.; Const. of Mass., part 2, c. 1, s. 2, a.
1;
Kyd on Corp. 321; Anal. des Pand. de Poth. mot Habitans; Poth. Pand.
lib.
50, t. 1, s. 2; 6 Adolph. & Ell. 153; 33 Eng. Common Law Rep. 31.
3. The inhabitants of the United States may be classed into, 1. Those
born within the country; and, 2. Those born out of it.
4. - 1. The natives consist, 1st. Of white persons, and these are all
citizens of the United States, unless they have lost that right. 2d. Of
the aborigines, and these are not in general, citizens of the United
States nor do they possess any political power. 3d. Of negroes, or
descendants of the African race, and these generally possess no
political
authority whatever, not being able to vote, nor to hold any office. 4th.
Of the children of foreign ambassadors, who are citizens or subjects as
their fathers are or were at the time of their birth.
5. - 2. Persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States,
are,
1st. children of citizens of the United States, or of persons who have
been such; they are citizens of the United States, provided the father
of
such children shall have resided within the same. Act of Congress of
April 14, 1802, 4. 2d. Persons who were in the country at the time of
the adoption of the constitution; these have all the rights of citizens.
3d. Persons who have become naturalized under the laws of any state
before the passage of any law on the subject of naturalization by
Congress, or who have become naturalized under the acts of congress, are
citizens of the United States, and entitled to vote for all officers who
are elected by citizens, and to hold any office except those of
president
and vice-president of the United States. 4th. Children of naturalized
citizens, who were under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of
their parent's being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of
citizen-ship, are, if then dwell
ing in the United States, considered as citizens of the United States,
and entitled to the same rights as their respective fathers. 5th.
Persons
who resided in a territory which was annexed to the United States by
treaty, and the territory became a state; as, for example, a person who,
born in France, moved to Louisiana in 1806, and settled there, and
remained in the territory until it was admitted as a state, it was held,
that although not naturalized under the acts of congress, he was a
citizen of the United States. Deshois' Case, 2 Mart. Lo. R. 185. 6th.
Aliens or foreigners, who have never been naturalized, and these are not
citizens of the United States, nor entitled to any political rights
whatever. See Alien; Body politic; Citizen; Domicil; Naturalization.
RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to
establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence
actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed
by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned
in
a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl.
R.
373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
So, in the 1800's a resident was one who arrived at a place with the
intent of becoming an inhabitant--by virtue of having a fixed domicile
there. I seriously doubt if that meaning has changed too awfully much
since then. If not, then for all practical purposes the law does not
distinguish between resident and inhabitant, but uses them as synonomous
terms.
So, from the foregoing, if you are living in a place in other than
transient housing (motels, street corner, city park, etc), unless you
can
show that you have a fixed, permanent residence in another jurisdiction,
the presumption will be that you intend to be a resident/inhabitant of
the current jurisdiction, and lots of luck in rebutting such a
presumption. The historical weight of the law will be against you.
Robert Miller wrote:
> I've called the Attorney General of Georgia and every police
> officer or sheriff's deputy and not a single one can give an
> answer to the difference between an Inhabitant and a resident.
> Most admitt to not knowing what the difference is.
>
> You would think they would at least touch on this subject at the
> police acadamy.
>
> Resident:
> "All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are
> hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of
> the Georgia Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the
> full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and immunities due to such
> citizenship."
> Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7
> Constitution of the State of Georgia
>
> Especially this part! Law enforcement officers are charged with
> defending the Georgia State Constitution as well as the Federal
> Constitution. A violation of oath of office is a serious charge.
> I know some people who have personally sued officers for this offence
> and they only get molested once. After that they travel unmolested.
>
> Inhabitant:
> "No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or
> property..."
> Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 4
> Constitution of the State of Georgia
Jeff Ganaposki
re-definitions of terms.
Simply put:
Inhabitant = one with a domicile (permanent)
Resident = one with a residence (transient)
The Articles of Confederation clearly stated
that "free inhabitants" (not citizens/subjects)
were accorded all privileges and immunities
of the free citizens -excepting- paupers,
vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.
Therefore non-subject free inhabitants
are not "citizens" while holding American
nationality.
In many statutes, you'll find
that "resident" is synonymous with
vagabond, not inhabitant.
In other words, one who does
not have a domicile and is a transient.
Patrick D. Henry
> The controversy of legal terminology is often founded in the
>
> re-definitions of terms.
> Simply put:
> Inhabitant = one with a domicile (permanent)
> Resident = one with a residence (transient)
>
> The Articles of Confederation clearly stated
> that "free inhabitants" (not citizens/subjects)
> were accorded all privileges and immunities
> of the free citizens -excepting- paupers,
> vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.
>
> Therefore non-subject free inhabitants
> are not "citizens" while holding American
> nationality.
>
> In many statutes, you'll find
> that "resident" is synonymous with
> vagabond, not inhabitant.
> In other words, one who does
> not have a domicile and is a transient.
>
That would certainly appear to be a "forced" construction. Can you cite
any of those statutes?
Jeff Ganaposki
> Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
>
> > The controversy of legal terminology is often founded in the
> >
> > re-definitions of terms.
> > Simply put:
> > Inhabitant = one with a domicile (permanent)
> > Resident = one with a residence (transient)
> >
> > The Articles of Confederation clearly stated
> > that "free inhabitants" (not citizens/subjects)
> > were accorded all privileges and immunities
> > of the free citizens -excepting- paupers,
> > vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.
> >
> > Therefore non-subject free inhabitants
> > are not "citizens" while holding American
> > nationality.
> >
> > In many statutes, you'll find
> > that "resident" is synonymous with
> > vagabond, not inhabitant.
> > In other words, one who does
> > not have a domicile and is a transient.
> >
>
> That would certainly appear to be a "forced" construction. Can you cite
> any of those statutes?
SURE:
RESIDENT - (2) 'Resident' means a person who has
a permanent home or abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent,
he has the intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter,
there is a rebuttable presumption that any person who, ... has been
present in the state for 30 or more days is a resident.
Georgia Code 1981, Sec. 40-2-1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, Sec. 2; Ga. L. 1991,
p. 327, Sec. 1
In typical twisted English, there are two conditions after the primary
condition of a permanent
home or abode, i.e., present in the state a) less than 30 days, or b) 30 or
more days.
If one has a permanent home but is in the state less than 30 days, that
person is a resident.
If one has a permanent home but is in the state 30 days or more, that person
can rebut
the presumption that he is a resident.
So what do you call a non-resident that is more permanent than a "transient"
resident in the state 29 days (or less)?
An inhabitant! Or at least not-a-resident.
Most readers won't catch the "rebuttable presumption" of the status of
resident. That's what government lawyers are hoping for.
If you are not-a-resident, it is legally impossible for you to apply for a
license, or register your car.