History of Highway and Vehicle Regulations

I Paul John Hansen wish to “soon” add the first introduction of the Federal Motor Vehicle laws.

A Short History of Highway and Vehicle Regulations

by Carl Watner
Number 92 – June 1998

The development of the automobile, in contrast to the history of the socialized roads upon which it runs, was largely a free market phenomenon. James Flink, a professional historian of the automobile, has noted that, “One must conclude that the development of adequate automobile roads lagged well behind the diffusion of the motor vehicle in the United States and that the automobile was widely adopted here despite the relative scarcity of suitable roads for its use. . . . American automobiles were improved much more rapidly than the streets and highways on which they were driven.” (Flink 211) after the first American gasoline-powered automobile was constructed by the Duryea brothers in 1893, car manufacturing operations began to spring up all over the country. Carriage makers, like the Studebaker Corporation (which claimed to be the world’s largest producer of horse-drawn vehicles at that time), as well as corner machine shops, had their fling at automobile production. Almost any one with mechanical ingenuity and machining facilities could get into operation by assembling the parts they had either purchased from others or made themselves, and tagging the end result with their own name. “Since the first Duryea, there have been a total of more than 2200 different makes of automobiles, of which only a handful have survived.” (Shank 52) Flink failed to observe that the reason that the average car improved much more rapidly than the average road was because of the presence of free market competition and the absence of State ownership of the firms that produced automobiles. It was the spirit of entrepreneurship and the absence of the State which propelled the development of the automobile, and the exact opposite which held back the development of American roads.

Nonetheless, the political governments of the time had to have their try at directly regulating and controlling the automobile. The legal system was used as a means of collecting royalties on the use of gasoline engines in automobiles by enforcing the Selden patent, but this effort was broken by Henry Ford in 1911. Actually, the turn of the century did not mark the beginning of political regulation of conveyances. Local and municipal governments were already regulating and licensing bicycle usage within their jurisdictions during the 1880s and 1890s. (Mason 42) For example, the city of Chicago had a “Wheel Tax” ordinance in effect in 1898, which required an annual license fee from all wagons, carriages, coaches, buggies, and bicycles. The year 1901 marked the first attempt at levying a registration fee specifically on autos (New York State – annual revenue for the year was U$954), and at the same time the first law regulating the speed of an automobile was passed in Connecticut (12 MPH in the country, 8 MPH in the cities). (Labatut 95, 99) By 1907, 31 States required registration of motor vehicles, the fees varying from 25 cents to U$25 per vehicle. (Dearing 250) The first traffic code in the world was adopted by New York City in 1903. (Labatut 454) Many “municipalities had their own ordinances regulating speeds, parking, the use of bells, horns and gongs, the making of unnecessary exhaust noise and the emission of noxious gas, smoke or steam, and they imposed fines for violations. These regulations varied widely from city to city and , especially in the smaller municipalities were often enforced in a discriminatory way.” (AMER. HWYS. 57, 60) “Speed traps” were often operated by local police officers in rural communities “with fines going into the local treasury or the pockets of the police, justice, or magistrate. The speed trap racket was so bad in New York prior to 1910, that the Legislature passed an act that year requiring all fines imposed for violations of the motor vehicle laws to be turned over to the State treasurer. This reduced the fines collected from motorists to a mere trickle.” (AMER. HWYS. 60) The effort to standardize traffic codes finally came to fruition in 1926, when a committee under Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover compiled the first national Uniform Vehicle Code. (Tyler 86)

Registration of motor vehicles with local governments often began on a voluntary basis; that is government offered a free service as an additional means of identifying one’s vehicle in the event of theft. “Registration of vehicles was often accomplished by a motorist selecting his own numbers and advising a local official that such numbers had been affixed to the vehicle – usually on a leather tag. The local official filed the record by name and by number. Duplications of numbers was avoided by a simple checking procedure . . . [However,] this method of registering vehicles was short-lived. . . . [L]ocal authorities secured the passage of ordinances . . . [and] some of these early enactments also granted regulatory powers. Thus, the basic pattern of motor vehicle administration was established and continued its growth to the present time.” (Labatut 442) The New York State law of 1901 did not require that vehicles be classed in any particular way. All vehicles paid the same fee. “The New York law was primarily a measure for legal control rather than for revenue, but in later years New York and other States collected sizable amounts of money in registration fees.” (AMER. HWYS. 57) Connecticut and Massachusetts passed similar legislation in 1903, requiring the registration of automobiles and motorcycles on a statewide plan. “Many of these early systems were conducted on a basis whereby a flat fee once paid effected registration for the life of the vehicle.” (Labatut 443) Registration fees were not the only motor vehicle imposts faced by early car owners. “Some cities and villages required the motorist to pay a ‘wheel tax‘ of $10 to $20 per year for the privilege of driving on their streets. A number of States collected a personal property tax on the vehicle in addition to the registration fee.” (AMER. HWYS. 57)

The importance of registration as a means of taxing owners of motor vehicles for the “privilege” of being an owner was noted as early as 1903 in Horesless Age Magazine : “The Denver [Colorado] automobile ordinance has been of much assistance to the assessors of taxes, who have been enabled by means of the license requirements to identify and tax the owners [of vehicles]. Previous to its adoption, it is estimated that one-third of the automobiles in the city went untaxed.” (Vol. 11, May 6, 1903, p.564)

“Horace Dodge and Henry Ford lost a 1904 suit that they brought on behalf of Detroit’s motorists to test the constitutionality of that city’s registration ordinance. They claimed that the $1 fee constituted double taxation of personal property and that the ordinance was unjust ‘class Legislation’ because owners of horse-drawn vehicles were neither forced to carry identification tags nor deprived of the right to allow children under sixteen year’s of age to drive their vehicles.” (Flink 170) In April 1905, the city court of Detroit ignored the questions of taxation and held that the ordinance requiring registration and display of a license tag on each and every motorized vehicle was “a justifiable exercise of police power, in the interest of the safety of the travelling public.”

As soon a number of States had enacted registration laws, the question of reciprocity arose to plague motorists. In 1907, at least eight States extended no reciprocity at all to other States. (Dearing 250) “New York, the leader in the registration movement, allowed any vehicle to use its roads, provided the vehicle was registered in its own State, and provided that State granted the same privilege to cars registered in New York.” (AMER. HWYS. 57) By 1910, fifteen other States had reciprocity with New York, but this did not include New Jersey. “As a result, thousands of New Yorkers who had summer homes on the Jersey coast had to register their machines for the full year in both States. A similar relation existed with Massachusetts and 17 other States which did not grant full reciprocity.” (AMER. HWYS. 57) As a result of such lack of cooperation between the States, groups such as the American Automobile Association (1902) and the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce (1913) were organized. Both supported changes in the law that would have required Federal, rather than State, registration of all motor vehicles, in order to solve the problem of reciprocity among the States. This problem was ultimately overcome when all of the States accepted plans for mutual reciprocity.


[Editor’s Concluding Note: The above material was discovered while doing research on the history of roads and highways. It is undoubtedly sketchy and very incomplete. Since private ownership of the roads has never existed, it is difficult to imagine what provision property owners and insurance companies would make regarding the regulation and use of roads. One historical fact is certain. The population of the United States learned to drive cars without any assistance from the State.]

Short Bibliography available upon request.

Posted in Motor Vehicle Defined | Leave a comment

Blank 4

Posted in Blank | Leave a comment

Larry Kooistra, theft of the year award, Omaha, Nebraska.

Larry Kooistra wins the theft of the year award from Paul Hansen of Omaha, Nebraska.

Call him and congratulate him 402 301 3682.

I guess him at about 60 years old in 2017.

Larry often worked with day labor companies on various jobs, and Jerry’s Basement Waterproofing in Omaha, Nebraska.

Larry, white, pure breed farm boy, tall 6 plus feet.

If he was not working he was driving somewhere.

Last seen heading back home to Minnesota in a nice red car.

Larry rented a room from me and paid rent of a whapping 200 dollars a month, and that is with me paying all utilities, he did not even mow the yard one time.

He is not good with heavy equipment.

Yep I really stuck it to him with that high rent.

After a time he started complaining about car bills and minor hospital bills getting behind on rent.

Larry always said he was a Christian man and will never stiff anyone, especially his friends, that would be “Me”.

Well 200$ late turned into 400 then 800 then 1500 then over 2000 dollars late, always with a heart felt story with a swearing on the bible to pay me.

Then after about a year of getting further and further behind on rent my friend whom I now call Lying Larry accidental left his bank deposit slip laying around where it showed he had more than 2000 dollars just building interest in the bank.

I asked him about the money, he went silent for a long time, and eventually his plan cam together, he started saying my rent was to high and on and on how he had to clean his own bathroom, and bedroom, almost having me in tears for the poor fella.

Well guess what he moves out and takes my best, like new, vacuum-cleaner and I never saw him again.

So oh Lying Larry if you read this just remember your promises to pay me as a good Christian man, and by the Kooistra family honor you spook of so often.

Last thing you told me you were going through your rental payment receipts to get the payment done right. I always gave receipts, Larry insisted because he wanted good business practice between us, which I also insisted upon with him and my other renters of my 50 rental units.

I should of known when you started swearing over and over that you were going to pay me, that was really a sign you were going to stiff me for everything you could. What are friends for, right.

So Larry I hope you like the new car you just got, I feel like I am part of that car for some reason.

Paul Hansen, Omaha, Nebraska, 1548 N 19 Street, 68110. 402.541.6023

p.s. – so much for my ‘Christian” tenant.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chronology of Jail stints, as Paul is about his Father’s Work.

 

THE REST OF THE STORY by Paul Severe (Hansen)

March 2, 2017, Sentencing hearing on the ‘no registration, no operators license, no insurance.

I beat them real bad in court and the judge still chose to find me guilty.
Ed Shell told me the judges are told to do this and that way the appeals courts can cover up the state fraud.
A friend of mine told me that his Public Defender told him that he knew of me and that he knew that the courts find me guilty most every time, but he added I win many of the cases on appeal.
I nailed them bad on territorial jurisdiction, no sworn complaint, and the statute is void for vagueness for it lacks the ‘commercial, for pay’ activity as the ‘supremacy clause’ requires the state to implement/promulgate in all activity related to a ‘motor vehicle’.
They should have given me 6 month minimum, they gave me ten days.
I’ll sue the prosecutor and the judge for conspiring to simulate a judicial process, no sworn complaint.
No sworn complaint = no crime to prosecute = conspiring.
A jury of 12 will agree, by ruling “an’t right”, pay the man.
>>>>
Posted in Hansen's, Jail Times Hansen's | Leave a comment

Protected: Blank 1, Arrow Tow Company Trial Needs / Notes

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Blank | Enter your password to view comments.

Due Process, what is it?

1. A notice of the hearing / claim against you. (Proof of notice / service.)

2. Meaningful hearing, opportunity to be heard and gather and present your evidence.

3. Clear statement of the claim, charges.

4. Ledger accounting of the damages.

5. Open to all, public hearing.

6. Record of the proceedings.

7. Record of final judgment, orders.

There is “no doubt” that the Due Process Clause requires at a minimum that adjudications affecting an individual’s life, liberty, or property, be preceded by (1) notice “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,” to inform the aggrieved party of the pendency and nature of the proceedings against him; and (2) a meaningful hearing “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965), quoting Mullane v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).

 

 

 

Posted in Due Process | Leave a comment

United States Court Record Denied to Appelant, Kent Hovind, Paul Hansen

Kent Hovind, Paul Hansen, United States Court, Norther Federal District, Case 3:14 cr 91  (Dropbox – Hovind, Hansen, 3:14)

8-21-2015 Sentenced for contempt of court. Served 85% of 18 months jail time.

Appealed same week.

12031-2016 sixteen month later the counsel given me by the state has failed to get the court journal record  to me, all exhibits, and all oral hearing transcripts, which are not available to me due to the fact that the case is sealed and only a licensed attorney has access to such court records.

Look like a way to prevent me from having an opportunity to create a good appeal, they will probably say that it has been long enough and give 10 days to get the appeal together which will be impossible because they refused to get the hearing/trial record to me these last sixteen (16) months so I can work on an appeal.

This is evil.

The counsel they provided has not even talked to me on the phone yet, though I have emailed her 20 or more times.

 

 

Posted in Appeal | Leave a comment

Who’s Who in the Freedom Movement

Who’s Who in the Freedom Movement.

http://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf

click > whoswho

Posted in Who's Who in the Freedom Movement | Leave a comment

Protected: Mercedes Tow, 34&L, Omaha, Nebraska, 600$ Bond – Suspended License -12/2016-Chronology.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Right To Travel, Automobil v. Motor-Vehicle | Enter your password to view comments.

Legal Notice Tools, Common Law, Email Magic

Legal Notice Tools, Common Law:

Email is one of the best ways to have evidence of notice.

So you want to provide a jury evidence of not only when, where, and to whom, you sent a legal “NOTICE”, but most importantly “WHAT” did you send.

Being that most all emails are archived since 911, especially the main line ones like gmail, and hotmail, you can now use them as a record of notice.

Corrupt people hate legal notice because they know that with a true fact ‘Evidencable‘ notice damages can escalate very fast after you told them that they may be lacking authority to do what they are doing. You see if you have been noticed personally you are now liable personably.

The government has recently been hiding their individual work email, years ago everyone had one posted on the internet, now the higher the office the less likely the email address will be noticed.

If it is not on the web this is how I get them:

Call their secretary / office.    Say that (make up a company name) wants us to email him this document and we lost his email address, can you get it for me.    If they ask your name give your alias.    They usually say what is it you need to email.    Say; “I do not know I just work in the office, I am just suppose to get the email address and send it to him.”    They usually then give it.

So now you have a tool that you can notice with.

They often block your email after that, so if you need to email another notice just select an alias email and send it, just keep a record of all emailings, with aliases, for an exhibit in court.

 

Posted in email proof, Notices | Leave a comment