Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Land, personal possessions, and self. Not necessarily in that order.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by editor » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:19 am

It looks like you have a pretty good handle on this. Thanks for posting your research. Quite often the same laws, with very nearly identical wording, are present in States all over the country. Of course the statute numbers are different, but the key is in knowing what to look for. Postings like this help everyone.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
cobra2411
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by cobra2411 » Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:20 pm

Showing people my thoughts was my goal. Best case scenario I get a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and thus no record will be formed. Gotta get the information out there somehow. Most right to travel stuff fails to address the issues of proprty - the automobile you're traveling in.

Reading the opinion in Nicely it seems like he just assumed everyone would agree that vehicles were a nuisance. It's assumed that the legislature doesn't pass unconstitutional laws and it's assumed that municipalities have a wide discretion over public health and safety issues. You have to overcome that assumption if you're going to get anywhere.

I'm still playing around with how I'm going to present it, but there are a few things I want to focus on.

The property maintenance code is arbitrary, its ineffective and not uniform in protecting the health and safety of the community. The nuisance section however is not arbitrary, it is uniform and it more effectively protects the health and safety of the community.

The property maintenance code was legislation written by a third party whereas the nuisance section was written by the legislature. We wouldn't assume the legislature to be experts in construction nor can we assume the international code counsel to be experts in writing Pennsylvania legislation.

Due to the municipalities adopting the legislation via adoption of the property maintenance code it is municipal legislation. The inclusion of vehicles as nuisances in the municipal code makes it state legislature. Since there's a conflict state law preempts municipal law.

The DOT does not use quantity, operational status, license, overall condition, etc as a standard of ownership of vehicles. vehicles are not inherently special. No other property is held to that standard. It is therefore restrictive and unduly burdensome.

Due process violation. Since the ordinance requires the quick sale or junking of a vehicle that has not been shown to be a danger to the public health and safety it destroys the value of that property.

“But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value.” 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.

'Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. ... It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.' (Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622].
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by notmartha » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:12 pm

cobra2411 wrote:Best case scenario I get a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
You question the authority of the codes, but do you question the authority of those trying to enforce the codes?

Have you pulled oaths and bonds, and challenged jurisdiction over you, and over your property (both the car and land)?

Are you familiar with the de facto officer doctrine?

When you call the employees of the corporation "Representative", "Judge" or "Officer" you are cloaking them with power they did not previously have. When you allow them on your property, or ask them to interpret statutes for you, you are consenting to their jurisdiction.

Just something to think about if you are hoping for a "lack of jurisdiction" dismissal.

BTW, as a side note, the evil, evil IPMC is part of the U.N.'s Agenda 21, which will no longer be in effect in the "U.S." if this new bill passes: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... l/193/text
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by editor » Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:16 pm

Thanks for posting the link to that bill, Notmartha. The author appears to have done his homework as to the cancellation of the various entanglements necessary to withdraw from the U.N. I wonder if the current populist movement toward nationalism is sufficiently strong to impel the passage of such a bill? Time will tell, of course. We live in interesting times.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
cobra2411
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by cobra2411 » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:15 pm

notmartha wrote:
cobra2411 wrote:Best case scenario I get a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
You question the authority of the codes, but do you question the authority of those trying to enforce the codes?
This is not a fight that can be won by running headlong into with fists flying. You will quickly find a boot on your throat and the people around will be glad for the guards that keep them safe from lunatics like you. Never mind those guards are the prison guards keeping them captive.

This is a game of chess. The best way to win is not to fight. Ten years ago I was full of piss and vinegar itching for a confrontation, but I began to realize that the slightest misstep could result in disaster. To know the true identity of someone who wants to remain hidden is to hold power over them. People like this are not used to being on the defensive and solicitors are not known for being good attorneys. They are in unfamiliar territory If their title and status and perceived power don't work. My goal here is to exposed them as the tyrants they are. I am not opposed to using the system against them in the form of a title 42, sec. 1983 civil rights violation claim. I will name all who had a hand as colluding to deprive me of my rights.

We live in a corrupt world and it's only getting worse. Being right isn't always enough here. The goal is to only fight if there are no other options. The only way we over come this is to educate people about what rights truly are and how they're inherent to mankind and cannot ever be taken away, only disrespected. Once enough people see that they we can fight as there are simple more of us than them. With all that has come out recently in the election cycle I have hope. I have hope that more and more people are waking up and asking questions. It's only a matter of time then...

As a friend once told me - When you feel like it's time to take up arms against the tyrants, look out your window. If you don't see others with torches and pitchforks it's not time yet...
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by notmartha » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:00 pm

editor wrote: I wonder if the current populist movement toward nationalism is sufficiently strong to impel the passage of such a bill? Time will tell, of course. We live in interesting times.
Not sure... I always look for the backside. When they say "Patriot Act" or "Religious Freedom" I expect the exact opposite. So an "American Sovereignty" bill leaves me skeptical at best. Time will indeed tell, and we definitely live in interesting times.
cobra2411 wrote:This is not a fight that can be won by running headlong into with fists flying. You will quickly find a boot on your throat and the people around will be glad for the guards that keep them safe from lunatics like you. Never mind those guards are the prison guards keeping them captive.
I hear ya. I'm not talking about fists flying, necessarily, more about knowing your position (and theirs) and holding it. It is unfortunate, but a fact, that the People were declared the enemy 100 years ago. From that point on, the people have been forced into a defensive posture. Drawing your lines, standing your ground, and knowing when to say "no" are not offensive measures. They are self-preservation measures.

Hope you have success in keeping your cars without too much aggravation.
cobra2411
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by cobra2411 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:49 pm

No real update, still waiting for a response from the solicitor to my last email. However, one thing I'd like to point out...

The township solicitor cited Nicely in their defense and we have this in Nicely...

"Nicely first argues that, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Snyder, 688 A.2d 230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), Teal v. Township of Haverford, 578 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), Davis, and Talley v. Borough of Trainer, 394 A.2d 645 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978), the Borough had to prove that the vehicle on Nicely’s property was a nuisance in fact, and cannot simply declare all abandoned vehicles to be nuisances per se.(4) According to Nicely, the evidence presented by the Borough does not prove that the vehicle is a nuisance in fact. We disagree that the Borough had to prove that the vehicle was a nuisance in fact."

And in footnote (4) we have this... :)

(4) Nicely does not challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 302.8 of the Property Maintenance Code or Section 157-1 of the Ordinance.

And that's where he failed. You must assume they think everything they do is lawful and constitutional. The constitution is supposed to be interprited in the favor of the people, but it never is... You have to point that out to them and show them the error.

“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” Bary v US – 273 US 128

And since an unconstitutional law conveys no power, there's nothing for the courts to hear. The argument isn't if I have unlicensed cars it's can the municipality stop me...
cobra2411
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by cobra2411 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:41 pm

Just some more musings on the subject...

Counted my vehicles... 14 in total... 3 are definitely going away. One of those I think I made a deal to trade it for work on one I'm keeping. My mechanic is looking for a cheap plow truck. Guess it was fortunate the my fuel pump in my daily driver pickup went. Registration is moving forward on 4 of the cars. It's either been renewed or sent off to the state to become antique registrations. That's permanent with no inspection requirements. 1 of the 14 might be sold, 1 is sold, and in the end there's one I'm not going to register; I have to wait till 2018 for it to qualify as antique. There is still one that's undecided, but I'm probably going to fix and register. Not sure antique or not though. When it's all over I'll be in compliance with the ordinance and will have some of my toys on the road. Which was the goal of bringing them to the house anyway. So I'll be down to 9-10 cars.

Still no word from the solicitor. Last we spoke he was going back to the township. I had agreed to comply if the timeframe was reasonable. I also hinted at where I was going with a challenge.

I have a response to send back and I'm probably going to send it no matter what he says. I'm just waiting till then. Since I asked for about 2 months due to the registration I'm tempted to leave the plates off the cars and see if they cite me or not. It would be a quick fix, but I would get to argue for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. If denied I can then show there's no violation. Since it's a constitutional issue that comes before I would prove that I'm in compliance.

I've also tried to think of other ways they could argue their point. The "look" of the property is one. That's purely subjective as I've seen neighborhoods where people have old cars lying about and I think "Ohh, I'd like to live here..." Birds of a feather I guess...

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/ ... -22-16.pdf

A municipality’s exercise of the police power “involves the regulation of property to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people.” Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309, 314 (Pa. 1995).

In determining the validity of a municipal regulation enacted pursuant to a municipality’s police power, courts must apply the rational basis standard. Berwick Area Landlord Association v. Borough of Berwick, 48 A.3d 524, 537 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). The regulation must “‘bear a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained.’” Id. (citation omitted). “it is axiomatic that any exercise of the police power . . . may not be grounded solely on considerations of aesthetics.Redevelopment Authority of the City of Oil City v. Woodring, 430 A.2d 1243, 1246 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (en banc) (emphasis added), aff’d, 445 A.2d 724 (Pa. 1982).
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by notmartha » Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:08 pm

Has the solicitor responded? Have your issues been resolved?
Mike
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Unlicensed vehicle issue - PA

Post by Mike » Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:13 pm

Hope no one minds if I jump in here as I'm new to this site and just saw this.

From the looks of things, cobra is dealing with the beast in his own forum, i.e. the statutory court which is not a court of record that a man would use. In fact, there are no courts of record in America, and keeping a transcript does not constitute a court of record. courts of no record are inferior tribunals where the magistrate himself acts as the court instead of being independent from. If this matter isn't already resolved, my suggestion would be for everyone following this subject, and all other subjects involving a court, to go to www.1215.org and study up on how to bring a suit forward in a court of record which will be YOUR court. It's really amazing at what you will learn. Instead of playing their game, create your own rules. The Supreme Court will back up a decision from a court of record too. See: “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)].

In my opinion, we don't need jural societies and things of this sort, all we have to do is learn how to create a court of record and hold the magistrates feet to the fire.

One other thing to remember when considering using their courts...they are all corporations, and as such, are incapable of interfacing with a sentient man or woman. corporations interface with corporations, people interface with people. See: US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956) where the Supreme Court of the United States opined "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." Also cited in: Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879.

that's why the so called "judge" will say you can't talk about the constitution in "his court". It is a court for persons, i.e. corporations, who have no rights.
Post Reply