The State Shouldn't Be Able to Require Driver's Licenses

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152930

I'm referring to this thread as it irritates me how people go off telling people that they are retarded blah blah blah. NO ONE in the USA is required to conform to any licencing, registering, laws, statutes, etc. People posting that crap obviously havent picked up a law dictionary in their life. The supreme court has stated:

"The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader that the word 'automobile'." City of Dayton v. Debrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 60 Ohio App. 232.
“Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises .
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/murdock.html 319 U.S. 262.
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5090.html 373 U.S. 262.
“If you've relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346.


What the SUPREME COURT SAYS is the law. No other court can change that unless through due process. Which hasnt been done. Yes, Ohio says motor vehicle is whatever they want to say it is but guess what, the Supreme court said what it is and they have no authority to override the Supreme courts ruling. BUT it is your job to ensure these public servants dont take what they feel or think is law and do as they please.

Furthermore, NO ONE has to apply for a right, it is unalienable, god given and yours from day one. So go away trolls of misinformed people. "But DRIVING isnt a right", no, driving is not, traveling is. There are tons of other cases that people have fought and won on this very subject. For instance Charlie Sprinkle vs Ronald Ragen is another. The LEGAL definition of DRIVER is conducting commerce, transportation of persons or goods, or while employed. Which isnt what the common person does. They travel in their Automobile which we earn with our own sweat and blood at our job and we transport guests in this automobile. Learn the words, learn the truth or shut up and be silent. Here is some more to read trolls:

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

And dont trust a Lawyer of any BAR association, do you really think they have your best interest in mind. Look up what the BAR really is.....

Yes, traveling is a right. You can walk wherever you wish to walk. If you want to use a car in any of the 50 states, you will have to obtain a driver's license in one of the 50 states.

If you care to publish your name and current address, I will be more than happy to make sure you have the opportunity to dazzle courts with your arguments while defending yourself against the tickets you will receive for "traveling" on public roadways in a motor vehicle without a license.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

---

The emboldened part... I'm with you, it should be a right, it's required to maintain one's livelihood, and the way the laws are going, it's becoming all too easy to take away that right. But, as you quoted, the right can be taken away by due process of law. My gripe is how they seem to go after the drivers license for more and more "offenses" as time moves on. I know of a teen who just racked up a one year's worth of drivers license suspension due to truancy. He says, "it doesn't matter". But one day he will realize that it does matter. Kid not going to school, hey, let's suspend his drivers license! This will surely help him to become a better citizen.

:(

my name is my username there bud, but no, i wont give you my address. I dont hide behind a fake username. and as the supreme court stated, "either by carriage or by automobile", disproves what you said. so please, troll along. The fact of the mater is if you present these things in court because the word "driver" is used so often, in commercials, by cops, etc, that it has become common place and we "think" it means anyone operating a car or motor vehicle when infact its an automobile, not for commerce purposes.... plain and simple. Many have done it, even with the court cases i present you proves it, so troll along. While you are at it, denounce your citizenship since you arent willing to uphold our/your rights as being.

The key, if you read the case law you cite, is under normal conditions. Proof of normal condition is held to be successful state licensing. That is why one states license is recognized in other states. Continue with your delusion if you wish.

So, how has this defense worked for you so far?

Twisting the SCOTUS' statements and taking them out of context does not prove your case. When you find somebody that wins a driving without a license ticket due to your claims, be sure to let us all know

You can travel by motor vehicle without any sort of permission as much as you would like.

However if you wish to operate the machine yourself you need a license, otherwise you may hire a driver

Dude, just look up those cases. Dayton vs Debrosse and Charlie Sprinkle vs Ronald Regan. done, case close. Both won in court. Charlie Sprinkle hasnt had a Licence since around his 30's and is old and grey now. Look it up, im not going to spoon feed you all the way to reality.

Im not twisting or taking anything out of context. look them up. Words are defined for a reason.

You're going to have to be accurate with your citations. I find no SCOTUS case of sprinkle v regan

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You're going to have to be accurate with your citations. I find no SCOTUS case of sprinkle v regan

---

It was apparently a Federal case filed against Reagan when he was governor of California. I cannot find any indication what the outcome was besides what Sprinkles it was. Heck, I can't find any mention of the case at all that isn't on a nutjob site.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

Dude, just look up those cases. Dayton vs Debrosse and Charlie Sprinkle vs Ronald Regan. done, case close. Both won in court. Charlie Sprinkle hasnt had a Licence since around his 30's and is old and grey now. Look it up, im not going to spoon feed you all the way to reality.

---

How do you imagine that Charlie Sprinkle's loss in court and his failure to get a driver's license in any state constitutes a "win". Do you really need it explained that when you go to court raising idiotic claims against wholly inappropriate parties about your right to drive, lose on every count, and never again have a driver's license, it's a loss?

You cite an Ohio case from the early years of the automobile, City of Dayton v. Debrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 60 Ohio App. 232 (1939), for the proposition that "The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader that the word 'automobile'." For that you get the "No [feces] Sherlock" award of the day. Unfortunately for you, that statement provides no support for your cockamamie theories about driver's licenses. Unless you're driving a trolley car these days, somewhere in Ohio, what do think Debrosse does to help your argument?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

How do you imagine that Charlie Sprinkle's loss in court and his failure to get a driver's license in any state constitutes a "win". Do you really need it explained that when you go to court raising idiotic claims against wholly inappropriate parties about your right to drive, lose on every count, and never again have a driver's license, it's a loss?

You cite an Ohio case from the early years of the automobile, City of Dayton v. Debrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 60 Ohio App. 232 (1939), for the proposition that "The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader that the word 'automobile'." For that you get the "No [feces] Sherlock" award of the day. Unfortunately for you, that statement provides no support for your cockamamie theories about driver's licenses. Unless you're driving a trolley car these days, somewhere in Ohio, what do think Debrosse does to help your argument?

---

See what you are saying? DRIVING. WHAT I AM DOING IS NOT DRIVING. I dont know how plainer to tell it to you.

I havent seen any court case material for Sprinkle vs Regan but there are youtube videos and interviews with Mr. Sprinkle. Sprinkle won, he didnt lose as you state, else why is he still to this day traveling by an automobile without a "drivers licence"? 2 days ago was the first time i have heard of the Sprinkle case so as soon as i get the time i'm going to do some research on it.

You provide a link of a brief of the Sprinkle case and yet you sit in disbelief that a drivers licence isnt mandatory even though the other quotes from other cases spoken by judges state that its a right, not a mere privilege as it is a violation of my pursuit of happiness protected by the constitution.

A licence is needed to get permission to do something. Why is it i need a licence to do something that i have all the right in the world to buy with promissory notes that i earned at a place of work. You only need a licence for things you do not own. I dont ask for permission to eat the food i bought, do you?

I just found out yesterday that my friends grandpa (which im going to get more info on) hasnt ever had a drivers licence either and has been taken to court 3 times for it and won every time.

I dont mind having a "drivers licence" but to tell someone they "HAVE TO HAVE ONE" is rubbish. A certificate of completion of a drivers course is good enough to prove someone is competent enough, though with the traffic records of the USA would prove otherwise, licence or not.

But here is an affidavit i just found by googling. http://james-marlin-ebert.com/right-to-travel.pdf
I think people should stop and look around instead of just trying to justify their thinking. Explore other options, stop being so closed minded.

Here is a brief youtube video of the affadavit that the guy filled out which has it helped him? dont know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7wPJIrDP0k

I am still researching this as well because i feel it is a crock to need it. Just a way for someone else to take more money from us people.

Quote:

---

darinschmidt;725442]See what you are saying? DRIVING. WHAT I AM DOING IS NOT DRIVING. I dont know how plainer to tell it to you.

---

then you are a passenger and as a passenger, you do not need a license to travel but the driver does need a license to be able to legally operate a vehicle on a public roadway.

Quote:

---

I havent seen any court case material for Sprinkle vs Regan but there are youtube videos and interviews with Mr. Sprinkle. Sprinkle won, he didnt lose as you state, else why is he still to this day traveling by an automobile without a "drivers licence"? 2 days ago was the first time i have heard of the Sprinkle case so as soon as i get the time i'm going to do some research on it.

---

so post a link to a courts decision where he won. Sure seems like such a link would be available at every Freeman and other similar peoples websites so, go ahead and post a link.

Quote:

---

You provide a link of a brief of the Sprinkle case and yet you sit in disbelief that a drivers licence isnt mandatory even though the other quotes from other cases spoken by judges state that its a right, not a mere privilege as it is a violation of my pursuit of happiness protected by the constitution.

---

anybody can put together a huge quantity of words. He did it in such a fashion that if one was totally ignorant of the law and refused to research anything he put in his diatribe, they would likely be buffaloed into thinking Charlie was on to something.

Quote:

---

I just found out yesterday that my friends grandpa (which im going to get more info on) hasnt ever had a drivers licence either and has been taken to court 3 times for it and won every time.

---

sure

Quote:

---

I dont mind having a "drivers licence" but to tell someone they "HAVE TO HAVE ONE" is rubbish. A certificate of completion of a drivers course is good enough to prove someone is competent enough, though with the traffic records of the USA would prove otherwise, licence or not.

---

You don't have to have one. If you want to avoid getting a ticket and penalized for driving without one it would be a good idea to have one though.

Quote:

---

But here is an affidavit i just found by googling. http://james-marlin-ebert.com/right-to-travel.pdf
I think people should stop and look around instead of just trying to justify their thinking. Explore other options, stop being so closed minded.

---

all an affidavit is is a sworn statement. Not a thing more.

Please feel free to privately purchase land, pave it, and drive around to your heart's content. If you plan to drive on PUBLIC roadways, you'll be required to be licensed. It really IS that simple.

Hey, darinschmidt, did you know that the US income tax is completely voluntary and you can earn as much money as you want and not pay any income tax at all?

Now Jack, no poking the snerts with sticks.

gimme that stick

gimme

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

I havent seen any court case material for Sprinkle vs Regan but there are youtube videos and interviews with Mr. Sprinkle. Sprinkle won, he didnt lose as you state, else why is he still to this day traveling by an automobile without a "drivers licence"? 2 days ago was the first time i have heard of the Sprinkle case so as soon as i get the time i'm going to do some research on it.

---

Sprinkle doesn't do much traveling these days. Sorry to say, his last trip was in a hearse, and he wasn't driving.

The fact that he posted his crackhead complaint, and insinuates that he 'won' (the right to never again have a driver's license) is quite interesting, but (a) he was never able to document that he won anything, and (b) nobody else has convinced a court that Sprinkle's crackhead legal theories had any merit.

You don't have to have a driver's license. You only need one if you want to drive on public roads and, generally speaking, private areas open to public vehicle traffic. You are free to, for example, buy a farm and drive in circles on your fields.

Your tale about your friend's grandfather has zero credibility, and even if we were to believe it the story has no relevance to the crackhead theory that the state can't require drivers to be licensed.

I don't need to read every post by every idiot and crackhead on the Internet to know I don't need to waste my time with their garbage. If you choose to believe obvious drivel because you don't like hearing the truth, you are free to waste your time with the drivel.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Hey, darinschmidt, did you know that the US income tax is completely voluntary and you can earn as much money as you want and not pay any income tax at all?

---

Yes i do, and i have also read a document by a guy who investigated the 16th amendment giving them the "right" to tax income which was never technically ratified because not every state followed the ratification process properly. have you looked into that?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

Please feel free to privately purchase land, pave it, and drive around to your heart's content. If you plan to drive on PUBLIC roadways, you'll be required to be licensed. It really IS that simple.

---

Gas tax, which i pay for when i fill up, goes to paving the road, so the road is as much mine as it is yours to drive on.

- - - Updated - - -

implying that i am a passenger implies that i paid someone, which i didnt, i cant be a passenger if im the one operating the automobile.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

Gas tax, which i pay for when i fill up, goes to paving the road, so the road is as much mine as it is yours to drive on.

---

Please argue this in court.

Please.

I'm surprised you guys/gals are ok with having to have permission to operate something you have to pay for and earn. its astounding.

Whether anyone here might be "ok" with it or not is beside the point. Controlling case law supports the contention that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right, and that the state is well within its right to regulate drivers and vehicles.

You are certainly free to save your pennies, violate the traffic laws in your state and then engage in a fight to the USSC if you wish. Good luck with that.

In one of the quotes i proveded, the judge stated that its not a mere privilege but a right. Its in my first post.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

In one of the quotes i proveded, the judge stated that its not a mere privilege but a right. Its in my first post.

---

Which quote are you referring to, and what case was it from? More importantly, is the case CONTROLLING case law? (Doubtful ... since subsequent cases have held otherwise.)

If your contention were controlling, how in the world has the defense bar managed to miss this one for the past several decades since it would effectively make all traffic regulations moot?

I am constantly amused that yay-hoos on the internet seem to discover these golden goose legal theories that legal scholars have somehow overlooked for almost a century. Amazing how that happens.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

In one of the quotes i proveded, the judge stated that its not a mere privilege but a right. Its in my first post.

---

You stated,

Quote:

---

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

---

By that, you presumably mean Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 66 A.L.R. 834 (1929), in which the court had held that municipalities do not possess the authority to prohibit a public utility's use of public streets pending execution of a franchise agreement, and more specifically in relation to your argument that while cities do not have the power under any grant of the legislature to prohibit the operation of automotive vehicles on city streets, they do have the power to regulate the use of the streets by such vehicles. The state can regulate, and even ban, certain uses of the street for private gain - that's why you need a special license and permit to operate, for example, a taxi cab.

We can start with this: cutting and pasting cherry-picked quotes is not the same thing as backing up your arguments with case law. It's a common frustration of judges to receive briefs full of quotes that "sound good" to the author of the brief but are not related to the actual holding. With computers it's really easy to find quotes that "sound good", but that's not a substitute for actually reading the case to find out what the court was actually saying. You've established through some of your laughable references, also, that you have a poor sense for when something you think "sounds good" has a basis in law, or even in common sense. Here, you're grabbing the mention of the constitutional right to travel from a case that discusses the authority of municipalities to act in the absence of state legislative authority and their authority to regulate commercial vehicle traffic, and are confusing that statement with the notion that the state cannot require driver's licenses or regulate vehicles and traffic.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You stated,

By that, you presumably mean Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 66 A.L.R. 834 (1929), in which the court had held that municipalities do not possess the authority to prohibit a public utility's use of public streets pending execution of a franchise agreement, and more specifically in relation to your argument that while cities do not have the power under any grant of the legislature to prohibit the operation of automotive vehicles on city streets, they do have the power to regulate the use of the streets by such vehicles. The state can regulate, and even ban, certain uses of the street for private gain - that's why you need a special license and permit to operate, for example, a taxi cab.

We can start with this: cutting and pasting cherry-picked quotes is not the same thing as backing up your arguments with case law. It's a common frustration of judges to receive briefs full of quotes that "sound good" to the author of the brief but are not related to the actual holding. With computers it's really easy to find quotes that "sound good", but that's not a substitute for actually reading the case to find out what the court was actually saying. You've established through some of your laughable references, also, that you have a poor sense for when something you think "sounds good" has a basis in law, or even in common sense. Here, you're grabbing the mention of the constitutional right to travel from a case that discusses the authority of municipalities to act in the absence of state legislative authority and their authority to regulate commercial vehicle traffic, and are confusing that statement with the notion that the state cannot require driver's licenses or regulate vehicles and traffic.

---

You must be a lawyer or something because you are good at twisting things around. I'm actually going to arrange a meeting with a judge to get to the bottom of this and hear from an official of someone who knows wtf they are talking about. Because we common people can debate this all that we want but it gets no where as usually the people who refute the evidence provided are one sided/bias. Cherry picking quotes for whatever purpose doesnt matter as that sentence is complete in its meaning, "common fundamental right of which the PUBLIC and INDIVIDUALS cannot rightfully be deprived.". A public utility is not the public nor is it an individual, its a corporation which does not have the same rights as WE THE PEOPLE.

If you feel you need permission to use something you paid for, then by all means, go pay big brother to give you permission.

I see the positives for having a licence, but i do not agree with it. The USA government is a corporation as well since the great depression which is why they have been able to place "laws" they havent been able to in the past and if you agree to be a part of that then you have to follow their rules, just like when you go to work, they have policies you have to follow. But you have to give them consent or you have the right to go elsewhere. But thats another topic which i will not debate on a forum with people who clearly are ok with having to ask for permission to do everything. I bet people like you are perfectly OK with the "Patriot" ACT, FISA, PIPA, SOPA, etc.

What we might agree with or be "OK" with has nothing to do with the law. The law is what it is. What you want it to be is entirely irrelevant unless we are discussing your legal advocacy in an effort to change the law.

Currently, the status of the law is that the state has the right to regulate the movement of motor vehicles on the public roadways through registration, licensing, and a host of other regulatory requirements. If you wish to change this, then start a movement to support anarchy on your state's highways ... see how far that gets you. And Heaven help the state where such deregulation occurs!

Oh for the love of all things good and chocolately.

Let's put this another way.

You don't like the laws in the US? Either write your congressperson, or exercise your right to leave the country.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

You must be a lawyer or something because you are good at twisting things around.

---

The actual term you were looking for is "reading".

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

I'm actually going to arrange a meeting with a judge to get to the bottom of this and hear from an official of someone who knows wtf they are talking about.

---

You don't actually care what the facts are, and you consistently resort to crackhead arguments from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Let me remind you: You have presented zero cases - a big fat zero - that support your position. No case from any jurisdiction in the United States. No legal authority whatsoever, save for comically wrong interpretations of cherry-picked quotations from cases decided almost a century ago.

If you are admitting that nobody has believed any of your drivel since the 1930's, we're only disagreeing about the date upon which courts started to reject your position.

Quote:

---

darinschmidt;725585]You must be a lawyer or something because you are good at twisting things around. I'm actually going to arrange a meeting with a judge to get to the bottom of this and hear from an official of someone who knows wtf they are talking about.

---

you do realize that a huge percentage of judges also happen to be..

LAWYERS

Quote:

---

Because we common people can debate this all that we want but it gets no where as usually the people who refute the evidence provided are one sided/bias.

---

and a judge is not common person? Gee, I guess they are a special species or something.

Quote:

---

Cherry picking quotes for whatever purpose doesnt matter as that sentence is complete in its meaning, "common fundamental right of which the PUBLIC and INDIVIDUALS cannot rightfully be deprived.". A public utility is not the public nor is it an individual, its a corporation which does not have the same rights as WE THE PEOPLE.

---

yes, it does matter. Context is a huge part of a quote and whether it has any value to your use of it.

Quote:

---

If you feel you need permission to use something you paid for, then by all means, go pay big brother to give you permission.

---

about all I can say to that is; I hope you enjoy also getting to utilize the housing system of our penal system. Get caught driving enough times without a license and you will likely get to enjoy our retirement homes for the stupid.

Quote:

---

I see the positives for having a licence, but i do not agree with it.

---

then don't get one and keep on driving and try your arguments on that judge you place in such a lofty place. I'm betting you won't think so highly of him/her when it costs you a bunch of money and maybe time in the pokey.

.

Quote:

---

I bet people like you are perfectly OK with the "Patriot" ACT, FISA, PIPA, SOPA, etc.

---

don't like the Patriot Act,. haven't read much about FISA but I see where it can be abused easily so on a very light review, I don't like it; unless memory fails me, neither PIPA nor SOPA became law.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

yes, it does matter. Context is a huge part of a quote and whether it has any value to your use of it.

---

Here's an article on "teaching the holding/dictum distinction", such that law students can better understand the parts of a case that are binding as precedent from the rest. To believe that you can pluck a single sentence from a court opinion that you have never read, or even worse grab onto a third party's paraphrase of a single sentence from the opinion, and announce that the quotation provides a definitive answer to a legal question takes that incompetence to a whole new level. When you further purport that the quotation provides a definitive answer to a settled legal question, and proves that every court in the nation is mistaken in its interpretation of the law... one hardly knows what to say.

Here's a case from the Ninth Circuit that rejects the drivel. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.1999). Here's a more recent federal trial court opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The actual term you were looking for is "reading".

---

SNAP! Oh no he did-unt!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Oh for the love of all things good and chocolately.

Let's put this another way.

You don't like the laws in the US? Either write your congressperson, or exercise your right to leave the country.

---

the only ones who should exercise their right to leave the country are the ones who do not question the laws and are ok with your rights being taken away from you.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

the only ones who should exercise their right to leave the country are the ones who do not question the laws and are ok with your rights being taken away from you.

---

nobody said anything about not questioning the laws of the state. You are wanting to argue a law is not legal but so far, have presented nothing that would support your argument. At some point, you need to realize you are just wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

the only ones who should exercise their right to leave the country are the ones who do not question the laws and are ok with your rights being taken away from you.

---

No one said you do not have a right to argue your position, or to pursue any legal action in support of your position. What they are saying is that the status of current law is that there is no legal RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle.

jk, and Mr Knowitall <= guess the name right there should have told me not to even read what you are talking about. When i referred to common person, i guess you clearly didnt understand, as i was referring to those whom havent been to law school. and i take it neither of you have either and by what you are stating, and having no more knowledge of than i, obviously, you are the trolls are i was referring to in my posts. just as much drivel being spouted about on your part. and instead of wanting to have a civil conversation, which im going to say is because you dont fully understand, you resort to snide remarks like foolish, laughable, etc. I'm done discussing this with people who dont have an understanding, dont question, dont discuss civilly and are narrow minded. I'll consort with those whom are lawyers, servants to the people (me and you), for educated answers than relying on some 10yr old theories of how they think the world works just because thats how we have been fooled into thinking.


Just a question for you all as well. You do realize how judges get put into office right? By corporate funds with special interests. no? havent heard of that. Watched a documentary called "Hot Coffee". But lik most people, they are sheep and rely on what society tells them and they just follow.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

No one said you do not have a right to argue your position, or to pursue any legal action in support of your position. What they are saying is that the status of current law is that there is no legal RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle.

---

No, what i am saying is i dont see there being a LEGAL RIGHT for anyone to restrict me from operating my automobile that i worked and paid for.

What a child you are.

You are free to consult judges until you find one who shares your incorrect, crackhead theories. Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

the only ones who should exercise their right to leave the country are the ones who do not question the laws and are ok with your rights being taken away from you.

---

Ironically, you're speaking to an immigrant who CHOOSES to be here.

You know where the exit doors are.

:cool:

Quote:

---

Quoting darinschmidt

---

No, what i am saying is i dont see there being a LEGAL RIGHT for anyone to restrict me from operating my automobile that i worked and paid for.

---

Whether you see it or not, the law exists. You do not have to agree with it or like it, but it exists. If you want to change it, speak to the legislators in your state. Or, as suggested, break the law and make a legal fight of it all the way up to the USSC if they will hear it. It'll be expensive, and you probably won't get an attorney willing to take it, but you can try.

And you are free to operate a motor vehicle on YOUR property or the private property of others where you have permission to do so. Many farmers around here do just that - they purchase farm vehicles with no intention to ever take them off their lands. It's also how minors and unlicensed drivers can operate farm equipment - the registration, licensing, and other regulations do not generally apply on private property.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

nobody said anything about not questioning the laws of the state. You are wanting to argue a law is not legal but so far, have presented nothing that would support your argument. At some point, you need to realize you are just wrong.

---

I dont see how you can think i havent brought something before you. No matter what the case was, if the judge states something that applies to everyone, its for everyone, not just a selected few. Such as, "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. , how does this not apply to us today? I dont see how anyone cannot take that as it applies to everyone and if you looked up Charlie Sprinkle, how is it that he has never had a "drivers licence" yet you sit there telling me i am wrong. The supreme court made a distinction between automobile and motor vehicle also, yet you all say im just flat out wrong.

Quote:

---

darinschmidt;725632]
and instead of wanting to have a civil conversation, which im going to say is because you dont fully understand,

---

you do not want a civil conversation. You want somebody to tell you you are right. You aren't right so since that is all you seek, I would suggest you head on over to one of the "fringe" websites that support your theory.