TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIST CHALLENGE

The following is end game master piece written by Richard Koenig to Transportation Analysist, Patrick Brennen. I challenge anyone who can rebut, contest or find fault with.

Date:
To: Transportation Analysist, Patrick Brennen
From: Richard L. Koenig, an Oregonian, non resident alien to the United States
In Re: A Public Record Law Request
Dear Patrick:
I have not been able to get over the news as it was given by you to me on Monday. It has prompted much thought, which now will be played out as this Request for a Public Record. I have given thought to whom this request might most effectively be sent. However, I can not imagine who the recipients might be who generally don’t think about the difference between “persons” and “the general public”, which is basically what you told me Monday. Therefore, I am asking for your assistance in selecting a recipient, or several, who need to become aware. All that I ask of you, is that you tell me the names of those you select to receive the public record law request. Background information:
I suppose that the Constitutions are the place to start: The US Constitution at Article VI, second clause is very plainly worded, The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are… the supreme law of the land… and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Article I, Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution says … all power is inherent in the people… and they instituted government for their peace, safety and happiness. This seems extremely concise, although the little word “all” is totally inclusive. Article I, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution says … all roads, ways and water ways… are declared for public use. Please notice that the public does not pay a “user” fee under this section. Please also note that former DMV Counsel Jack Sollis wrote to the Joint Interim Committee on the Revision of the Vehicle Code on March 7, 1984 to say that the new revision needed 21 definitions, including “driver”, “operator” and "traffic”. While a presumption exists that the mail goes through, there is no hard evidence that anyone other than Legislative Counsel ever got to look at this document. The sad fact is that “driver”, “operator” and “traffic” have subsequently never been defined in Oregon legalize. This fact can be regarded as a “legal presumption” under the Oregon Evidence Code at Rule 311(c), “Evidence willfully suppressed is adverse to the party suppressing”.
Page 1 of 5, Public Record Law Request
What’s the big deal about a few definitions? My instructor in legislative construction, Tom Clifford, would say that the subject class must be adequately defined in order to assure that members of the class will be able to identify themselves and comply. According to Article IV, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, bills and laws shall embrace but one subject. Imagine what a mess the lines at the DMV Branches would be in if every human being had to individually learn what a “driver” is, such as they are signing up to be. Oh, I guess that has been remedied by an adequate program of social engineering. So who do “municipalities” get to regulate under the powers granted by ORS 221.485? “For hire vehicles” and the owners and operators thereof, interesting… That goes together with those who are said to be “subject to” in the Vehicle Code at ORS 801.050. “Subject to compliance with the motor vehicle laws of this state, owners and operators are granted the privilege…”, and this is followed logically by ORS 807.010, A person who operates a motor vehicle on the highways or premises OPEN to the PUBLIC, better have an appropriate grant of driving privilege… is A sentiment also stated at ORS 806.010, A person who operates a motor vehicle on the highways or premises OPEN to the PUBLIC better have proof of financial responsibility. This is substantially distinct from “the general public” who are covered by the highway accident insurance fund. The Oregon Administrative Rule that “implements” the chapters on titling and registration and driver licensing at ORS 803 and 807 respectively, contains a definition of “Operating motor vehicles in Oregon”, [it] means physically operating vehicles for business purposes, OAR 735-016-0020(7). This seems pretty definitive, doesn’t it? Well what about the vehicles that “must comply with the titling requirement”, and “registration requirement” for that matter? ORS 803.030(14)(c) and 803.305(14)(c) describes them as “a vehicle operated over the highways of this state for compensation or profit…”. Within chapter 803 there is NO other vehicle which “must comply with the titling and registration requirements”, remember the single subject clause of Article IV, Section 20? Everyone remembers DMV Director David P. Moomaw… right? What about his “Optional titling; rule” at ORS 803.035? “Optional” means that someone gets to decide, rather than be compelled, to title and register (803.310) their vehicles “… that are NOT subject to the titling requirement…”. There are quite a few of these vehicles, “… categories of vehicles, types of vehicles or otherwise…” which an owner is free to request to title (and register). Hmm, who are those “owners”, how many categories of vehicles are there, how many types, well certainly Page 2 of 5 Public Record Law Request not enough to contain all the left overs referred to merely as “otherwise”?
And what is the “effect of titling”? Under 803.040 one finds the answer, the vehicle becomes “subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code…”, and they what, they’re not subject to the titling requirement? Is this a violation of Article IV, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution? Of course it is! But that’s not the only Constitutional violation, Mr. Moomaw’s law was introduced on April Fools Day, 1985 under Senate Bill 124, although “… all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House…”. In Article IV, Section 18 of Oregon’s Constitution Exhibit B in support of this bill frankly stated that “if this measure were not continued”, DMV would lose some revenue. He had just said that the authority to issue these documents “… does not exist in current law”. Senator Jane Cease was in her fourth term as chair of the Transportation Committee(s), two in the House and two in the Senate, when she got this unconstitutional bill enacted into “law”. The typical two year time frame for implementing a newly enacted law with a rule was stretched to nearly 20 years in this instance (with no notice from anyone). When the STATEMENT OF NEED AND FISCAL IMPACT for OAR 735-022-0120 was created on November, 15th, 2004, the “financially impacted parties” were described as “… members of the general public who choose to apply for title”. In the next sentence the hearings officer wrote that there was no way for him (DMV) to determine how many “people” would choose to tile, which meant that he wasn’t going to notify any of them, although required by the Administrative Procedures Act. The rule was finally certified “Adopted” on March 16, 2005. Dexter Johnson wrote in a review of this bill that it was just fine, and it did pass the five year mark when a mandatory review is to be made. But on May 18 of 2012 the “Optional titling; rule” was repealed and replaced with new rules “allowing” fire trucks (also not subject to the titling requirement) to be titled upon request of a who… an owner? Who owns the fire apparatus of a fire district? Were “the people” ever consulted about whether their fire trucks should be controlled by every traffic control device on the way to a fire, as 803.040 says they must? This rule opens up many interesting questions. So, now back to what I was told about legislators “generally not thinking about the difference between “the people” and statutorily regulated “persons”… ORS 174. 100 (6) defines those who, throughout the Oregon Revised Statutes, are known as “persons”. They are corporate entities capable of doing business, even though the first example is “individual”. Please allow me to elucidate. “Individual” means a single someone, or something, that can not be divided again and still retain all of the characteristics of the group from which the “individual” is drawn. Generally, at least in terms of legislative construction, it does not mean a Page 3 of 5 Public Record Law Request bird in a flock, nor a grain of sand on a beach, but does mean one of those regulated within the enactment in which the term occurs. Since 174.100 is subject to Article IV, Section 20, that narrows it down to one of the similarly situated entities in subsection 6.
As a matter of fact, this is borne out explicitly in the Administrative Procedures Act at ORS 183.310(8)&(10). The list of “persons” in 8 is very similar to the list in 174.100, but at 10 one finds that “individual” is listed as a “sole proprietor”. No, I’m not “interpreting” anything, and if anyone wants to make an argument that I am, I reserve the right, as one of the people in whom all power is inherent, to respond. I’m sorry, did I not yet make it clear that I am NOT a “US citizen”, who according to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”? The latest requirement of the Vehicle Code for a person who wants to engage in “Operating motor vehicles in Oregon”, is that the firm, corporation or other organization (ORS 153.039, “to the extent provided”) must have “… a legal presence in the United States…”. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution tells us where the “United States” is, and so does ORS 174.100 at (1)&(10). There it is said to be “any other state”, just like the 50 sister states, and is the “District of Columbia and the outlying territories and possessions”. Isn’t it funny how no one seems to know where the United States is, when ORS 336.057 and 336.067 are so clear in their language about what people graduating from high school are required to have been taught (five years of constitutional studies, with a “special emphasis on the Constitutions)? I almost forgot why I mentioned Article VI, second clause of the US Constitution at the outset. I wish to point out that 18 USC Section 31(6) defines “Motor Vehicle”. The long and short of it is, “Every carriage or other contrivance… used for commercial purposes…”, and subsection 10 defines “used for commercial purposes”. “Supreme law of the land” means here in Oregon, just like everywhere else. Perhaps now I can expect that the respondent to this request is adequately backgrounded. Therefore, I make this Request for a Public Record under ORS 192.420. Please provide for my inspection the public record, an Act of the legislative assembly, in which “the general public” who use the highway for vehicles “as a matter of right” pursuant to ORS 801.305, for the “… ordinarily intended purpose of vehicular travel…”, 801.450, must be made subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code, along side of “single subject”, “owners and operators” at 801.050, including that they be: “licensed” (ORS 807.010); Page 4 of 5 Public Record Law Request that they must “title and register” their vehicles (ORS 803.025 and 803.300);
that they must have “proof of insurance” (ORS 806.010);
that they must pay “parking fees” under 801.380;
that they must pay “motor vehicle fuel tax” under 319.
You will timely send the requested record(s) to my address as appears below. If you can not timely provide the records, you may request an extension of time in which to respond. In order to request an extension of time, merely state the cause of your request and a date certain by which I may expect to receive the records. You will respond, or the presumption under the Oregon Evidence Code will attach: “Evidence willfully suppressed is adverse to the party suppressing”. Because it is in the best interest of the general public to know what the single subject of the “Motor Vehicle Law” is (Article IV, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution), please consider this as my “petition” for waiver of costs associated with the reproduction of these records. This Request may be presented to one or more Senators who sit on the Transportation Policy Committee. Thank you for your assistance in bringing these snippets of “Motor Vehicle Law” (18 USC Section 31(6)) to the attention of those who need to know. Sincerely,

Richard L. Koenig, whose proper address is as follows
P.O. Box 1031
Sherwood, Oregon [97140] Correspondence addressed to “OR 97140” will be returned.

Page 5 of 5 Public Record Law Request