ExpertLaw.com Forums

Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next LastLast
  • 03-12-2019, 04:22 AM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    "No fundamental right to drive...there is no fundamental right to drive and licensing laws do not violate the right to travel (Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007)...The right to travel is not explicitly found in the Constitution...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...a catalog of these rights include customary, traditional, and time-honored rights [] that come within the sweep of 'the Blessings of Liberty' mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them [] come within the meaning of the term "liberty" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment...The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen (19 Cal.Jur. 54, § 407)...Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion...II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, § 329, p.1135 (American Juris Prudence)...The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions...A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use (Adams v City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48)".

    "People of a state are entitled to all rights" Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY)...In 1935, the [California] Legislature adopted a Vehicle Code (Stats. 1935, ch. 27, pp. 93-98) and at that time set forth the definition of a street or highway as follows (p. 98): 'Street' or 'Highway.' 'Street' or 'highway' is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel (Behling v. County of Los Angeles, Cal. App. 2d, 139)...Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491)...In 1937, the definition was amended to its present form [] striking from the 1935 definition the words 'as a matter of right' [Stats. 1937, ch. 282, p. 617] (Behling v. County of Los Angeles, Cal. App. 2d, 139)...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws".

    It appears as though Californian's rights to the Blessings of Liberty, within the meaning of the term "liberty" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, was abrogated in 1937 by virtue of rule making or legislation, without due process of law.
    "For the very idea that one may be compelled to hold his life or the means living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any free country where freedom prevails as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 U.S. 356.

    If two or more persons in any State conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person to the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.

    IMPLIED CONSENT - in violation of 42 USC §§ 1983; 1985(3) - Civil Liability of Owners and Operators of Vehicles; ARTICLE 4. Service of Process §§ 17459; 17460; 15210 "The acceptance (assent to the terms of an offer) or retention (a species of lien) of a certificate of ownership (all property has an owner, whether that owner is an individual, and the property private, CA-CIV § 669) or a certificate of registration (the act of making a list, catalog, or schedule, particularly of an official character) or a driver’s license or any renewal thereof shall constitute the consent [*as in "of the governed"] by the person that service of summons (to cite a defendant to appear in court) may be made upon him in any action brought in the courts upon a cause of action arising out of the ownership (whether that owner is an individual, and the property private) or operation of the vehicle...In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply...Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle (49 CFR § 390.5)...Unless otherwise specifically provided, the rules in this subchapter do not apply to the occasional transportation of personal property by individuals not for compensation and not in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise; Operator - See driver (49 CFR § 390.3 - General applicability)".

    *Govern (v.); late 13c., "to rule with authority," from Old French governer "steer, be at the helm of; govern, rule, command, direct" (11c., Modern French gouverner), from Latin gubernare "to direct, rule, guide, govern" (source also of Spanish gobernar, Italian governare), originally "to steer, to pilot," a nautical borrowing from Greek kybernan "to steer or pilot a ship, direct as a pilot," figuratively "to guide, govern" (the root of cybernetics). The -k- to -g- sound shift is perhaps via the medium of Etruscan. Intransitive sense from 1590s. Related: Governed; governing.

    *Ment (adj.); From From Middle English -ment, from Late Latin -amentum, from -mentum via Old French -ment; Old Occitan, from Latin mente, ablative singular of mēns (“mind”); mēns f (genitive mentis); third declension, "mind, intellect, reasoning, judgement"; Suffix Used to form nouns from verbs, the nouns having the sense of "the action or result of what is denoted by the verb", e.g. "rule, command, direct, control - mind, intellect, reasoning, judgement".

    "[G]overnments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure." Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581.

    Don't you BAR attornees start in with the "Sovereign Citizen" ad hominem. I'm not the one who abuses the Sovereign power of the state, as a Citizen who Terrorizes the state's inhabitants with a Kleptocratic avarice.
  • 03-12-2019, 06:29 AM
    flyingron
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    I'm nor a "bar attorney" though I spend plenty of time in bars. But you're insane. Your understanding of the law is as laughable as your understanding of English etymology. The "-MENT" suffix in the word government has naught to do with the mind. It is a combination of borrowing from the classical Latin (partially through the French) of the formation of a noun from a verb.
  • 03-12-2019, 09:34 AM
    pg1067
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    "No fundamental right to drive.

    Do you have a point -- or a question -- amongst all of this nonsensical blather?
  • 03-12-2019, 09:57 AM
    adjusterjack
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post

    I'm not the one who abuses the Sovereign power of the state, as a Citizen who Terrorizes the state's inhabitants with a Kleptocratic avarice.

    No, your the one who terrorizes forums with your drivel.

    This "right to travel" theory has been kicked beyond death by the lunatic fringe for many years.

    Here are several rather lengthy threads in which attorneys and others debunk the theory. One of the attorneys is our Taxing Matters aka Tax_Counsel .

    Note how the loony trolls keep insisting on "right to travel" despite facts to the contrary.

    I hope that satisfactorily answers your question (though I doubt it).

    https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/t...icence-on-hwy/

    https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/t...-on-licensing/

    https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=240756

    https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=240757
  • 03-12-2019, 12:44 PM
    Shadowbunny
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    You know as well as I do, adjusterjack, that questioning OP's reasoning just makes you (and every other sane person) the enemy and part of the Great Conspiracy.
  • 03-12-2019, 04:26 PM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    Don't you BAR attornees start in with the "Sovereign Citizen" ad hominem. I'm not the one who abuses the Sovereign power of the state, as a Citizen who Terrorizes the state's inhabitants with a Kleptocratic avarice.

    Well, it is the sovereign citizen crowd that typically makes the argument that the state is barred by the federal constitution from imposing the requirement of a driver's license. But it is and always has been a losing argument. The courts have made that quite clear, if you actually look at the cases in which that specific issue was raised rather than, as is typical for those making the sovereign citizen arguments, resorting to cases and laws that are not on point.

    And as you mention California in your post, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal appellate court that covers California) explained why a driver’s license does not violate the right to travel:

    We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel. See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose *1206 to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional.”); City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel. That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”). The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (1977), put it this way:

    The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.374 A.2d at 794 (citations and footnotes omitted).

    Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”

    Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 1999).

    Other circuits have reached the same conclusion. Indeed, it's funny that you cited one of them but completely mischaracterized it by not actually quoting the holding of the case which clearly states that state driver's license laws do not impermissably burden the right to travel:

    But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel.

    Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).

    As a result of these cases and a number of others just like them if you are charged with driving without a license and try to defend on the notion that the state law requiring the license violates the federal Constitution you will lose. It is very well established law that the state may impose a driver's license requirement. If the sovereign citizen arguments, which have been around for at least 30 years, actually worked the Supreme Court would have by now struck down driver's license laws and states would not longer have them. So don't buy into to what you see on web sites or wherever else that peddle the long discredited notiong that states cannot require a driver's license.

    If you strongly believe that licenses should not be required then lobby your state legislature to repeal the law requiring them. But good luck that unless you can propose some other useful method for ensuring that people who drive can do safely, track the violations of those who can't drive safely, and keep that latter group off the road.
  • 03-12-2019, 06:58 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that written instruments apply to people solely because of their physical presence in a geographic location, and create reciprocal obligations of allegiance for protection? How about even clearly and convincingly?

    Sir @Taxing Matters, with all due respect, I've read your input on several other threads regarding the topic, and you appear to be the most level headed, respectful, professional, and articulate one on the entire website...and I agree that because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel, that the state driver's license laws do not impermissibly burden the right to travel, or that there is a fundamental “right to drive”, but using terminology such as "drive" undermines the Blessings of Liberty, within the meaning of the term "liberty" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. ANY restraint on Liberty involving locomotion via vehicular travel, is an impermissible burden and violation of the right to said Liberty, in fact, which is a violation of the Law of the Land. Rights cannot be regulated, limited or taxed. To do otherwise is robbery, plain and simple.

    The title of the post is the essence of the rationale behind it. The body of the post raises several salient points to rebut the fraudulent misrepresentation in the concealment, being perpetrated by a state agency, against all who are similarly situated. If one combines "Legal Logic" with "College Logic", a.k.a. common sense, anyone with enough empathy towards the welfare of the public at large would easily see that restraint, of any nature, violates rudimentary and inherent Liberty and limits the welfare of the person or persons being restrained. This is particularly true, because I wasn't given due process of law, as I wasn't born when the state legislature abrogated that specific mode of Liberty circa 1937, and was denied substantial justice by virtue of traditional notions of fair play. If a single mode of transportation is the preferred choice of an individual, then placing restraints on said choice violates the same Liberty in a different context.
  • 03-12-2019, 07:57 PM
    RJR
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Tyrant, should you be allowed, restraint free, to ride/drive a horse/buggy on an expressway?
  • 03-12-2019, 08:02 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    "[T]errorizes forums with drivel", "lunatic fringe", "loony trolls"...funny how narcissistic sociopaths resort to ad hominem attack when faced with a relevant and alternative argument to the legal terms utilized in skirting Constitutional provisions, such as "motor vehicle", "drive", "driver", "transportation", etc., etc.

    @adjusterjack...did I accuse you of being one who abuses the Sovereign power of the state, as a Citizen who Terrorizes the state's inhabitants with a Kleptocratic avarice?

    Public corruption is the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority, as it poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It can affect everything including how verdicts are handed down in courts. Kleptocracy means "the rule by thieves", and is a form of political corruption in which the ruling government seeks personal gain and status at the expense of the governed...under the guise of "safety and welfare" interests...Or, are you a member of the public corporation who holds a monopoly on the practice of law?
  • 03-12-2019, 08:04 PM
    adjusterjack
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Shadowbunny
    View Post
    You know as well as I do, adjusterjack, that questioning OP's reasoning just makes you (and every other sane person) the enemy and part of the Great Conspiracy.

    Which is why I linked to prior discussions instead of wasting my time on it.
  • 03-12-2019, 08:04 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @RJR...As long as you're not for hire, or placing the safety of yourself or others at risk...sure. The single mode of transportation I choose just happens to operate on fossil fuel and/or battery, and is my own personal property, that I can record with the Secretary of State to establish legal ownership thereof. It's not the orthodox method, I know, but is operating within the law, against it?
  • 03-12-2019, 08:06 PM
    RJR
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    @RJR...As long as you're not fore hire, or placing the safety of others at risk...sure.

    If you are riding/driving a horse/buggy on an EXPRESSWAY, you ARE putting others in danger, including yourself, period.
  • 03-12-2019, 08:10 PM
    jk
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that written instruments apply to people solely because of their physical presence in a geographic location, and create reciprocal obligations of allegiance for protection? How about even clearly and convincingly?

    . The first part; yes




    Quote:

    Sir @Taxing Matters, with all due respect, I've read your input on several other threads regarding the topic, and you appear to be the most level headed, respectful, professional, and articulate one on the entire website...and I agree that because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel, that the state driver's license laws do not impermissibly burden the right to travel, or that there is a fundamental “right to drive”, but using terminology such as "drive" undermines the Blessings of Liberty, within the meaning of the term "liberty" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. ANY restraint on Liberty involving locomotion via vehicular travel, is an impermissible burden and violation of the right to said Liberty, in fact, which is a violation of the Law of the Land. Rights cannot be regulated, limited or taxed. To do otherwise is robbery, plain and simple.
    you can make up whatever claims you wish. Doesn’t make them correct. The right of travel has nothing to do with using a motor vehicle. Ya got feet. Travel to your hearts consent.



    Quote:

    The title of the post is the essence of the rationale behind it.
    A meaningless statement


    Quote:

    The body of the post raises several salient points to rebut the fraudulent misrepresentation in the concealment, being perpetrated by a state agency, against all who are similarly situated.
    you may think it does, but you would be wrong if you do


    Quote:

    If a single mode of transportation is the preferred choice of an individual, then placing restraints on said choice violates the same Liberty in a different context.
    So I can drive my WW II tank down the road if I choose without restriction?



    obviously you have no true understanding of the laws of the US as well as the laws of the states. If you’re really this dissatisfied, maybe you can find a country outside the borders of the US that will be more to your liking.
  • 03-12-2019, 08:32 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @Shadowbunny...well, unless there actually is a political agenda, i.e., a "Great Conspiracy", it's a factual impossibility that you're "the enemy", and there's absolutely nothing that would raise said suspicion, subsequently leaving you nothing to worry about in that particular regard.

    @jk...the floor is yours...prove "the first part" beyond a reasonable doubt. But, can you please refrain from circular argument and logical fallacy in your answer, such as, an appeal to authority, tradition, or proof by assertion, or that the laws apply because they say they do?

    How does the DMV's willful failure to disclose the material fact of your consent being implied via the operation of CA-VEH §§ 17459; 17460, not constitute actual fraud pursuant to CA-CIV § 1572(5), with their connivance, and with intent to deceive all who are similarly situated, e.g., "drivers" of "motor vehicles"? "The right of travel has nothing to do with using a motor vehicle". But, using my "C.A.R." (Constitutional Allodial Right), as my preferred choice of locomotion, e.g., a fundamental means of "Liberty" to travel from point "A" to point "B", is a choice, which is also a right under "Liberty", as found in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    And, yes...you can drive your WW II tank down the road if you choose, without restriction, so long as you're not for hire, or placing yourself or others' safety at risk, namely by keeping it armed with weapons of mass destruction, or an incapacity to keep pace with other travelers. There are common sense rules of the road, but "forbidding" and/or "commanding" by virtue of malum prohibitum legislation, is akin to what one does to their pets...not to other human beings, and monetary penalties with no verifiable evidence of benefit to the public at large, other than oversalaried politicians/public servants, is robbery, plain and simple.

    So, your position is that I "should find a country outside the borders of the US that will be more to [my] liking"? Well, what if the stealthfully encroaching usurpers of personal Liberties were exiled instead?

    @RJR...Can you please provide factual evidence to support your assertion? If there aren't physical provisions to accommodate that Liberty, then I can see your point. But if physical accommodations were provided, would it be dangerous? Yes or no. Has that Liberty been usurped by virtue of the foregoing? Thank you.
  • 03-12-2019, 09:17 PM
    jk
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Well, no, I can’t drive my tank down the road without restriction. It doesn’t have the mandatory lighting (as well,as other various shortcomings) required to meet state laws for motor vehicles. Additionally, the treads destroy the roadways. Both mean i can’t drive it on the rowdway.



    the laws were enacted by a legally elected legislature empowered by the majority of the residents of whatever state is involved. the controls imposed upon one’s dog would be more accurately compared to a dictatorship. Our laws are based in malum in se as the intent is To protect the residents of the state involved.

    Your rights are limited when they conflict with another’s rights.


    And youre right. Your right to travel has nothing to do with a motor vehicle so why do you keep insisting it does? You have no right to a choice of mode of transportation without restriction. That’s where you and all the other sovereign citizens arguments fail.

    Unless you are trying to make the argument about the various laws such people claim allow one to “travel” which your sort have distorted to mean using a motor vehicle without restriction.
  • 03-12-2019, 09:29 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @flyingron...ummm...the classical Latin term "mente" was derived from the Proto Indo European term "mentis"...which means "mind", and while there was a morphology of the term into its present form, you can't deny its origin.
  • 03-12-2019, 09:36 PM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    ANY restraint on Liberty involving locomotion via vehicular travel, is an impermissible burden and violation of the right to said Liberty, in fact, which is a violation of the Law of the Land. Rights cannot be regulated, limited or taxed. To do otherwise is robbery, plain and simple.

    That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Feel free to lobby the legislature to enact your vision of how it should be. But your opinion on this is not the law. The court cases have resoundingly reject the very notion you have stated. As the courts have not agreed with our position your fight is a political one, not a legal one.
  • 03-12-2019, 09:43 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @jk...ummm...Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself...you know...like fraud, corruption, murder, rape, etc., etc., e.g., "conflict[ing] with another’s rights" by virtue of moral turpitude or worse...How is not having a license to exercise a constitutionally protected Liberty, e.g. locomotion via any preferred means, by virtue of fraudulently acquired consent, "wrong or evil in itself"? How is "no right to a choice" not a deprivation of the Liberty to make a choice? "The right to travel has nothing to do with a motor vehicle, or using a motor vehicle"...which is why I travel on the public highways as a matter of right for the reasonably forseeable purpose of vehicular travel in my CAR...my personal property, that no state agency can deprive me of without due process of law, by virtue of coercing me into registering my personal property with a state agency...another Liberty protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    @Taxing Matters...The very notion court cases have resoundingly rejected, all appear to use the legal term "motor vehicle"...not restraint on protected Liberty. The fight is a political one...one that the First Amendment protects...redress...a legal one.

    @jk..."the laws were enacted by a legally elected legislature" (i.e. the "State"/"body politic") "empowered by the majority of the residents of whatever state is involved"...how does that prove that the written instruments are applicable to me based solely on my physical presence in a geographic location? Because, it seems the "majority" passed laws that conflict with my rights to Liberty and privacy (in California: CA-Const. Art.1 Sec.1), which limits the majority's ability to enforce them absent threat, duress, or coercion...

    And...according to CA-GOV Sec. 100(a) "The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof"...wouldn't that render them ALL, "Soveriegn Citizens"?

    Lastly...How can there be any reciprocal obligations if neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service? Because, allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the State. In law, a reciprocal obligation, also known as a reciprocal agreement is a duty owed by one individual to another and vice versa. It is a type of agreement that bears upon or binds two parties in an equal manner. Regarding the foregoing, is there really such a thing as a "State" without a duty owed by one individual to another and vice versa?

    In Gomez, the United States Supreme Court determined that only two elements must be pled to properly assert a cause of action under 42 USC §1983. First, the Plaintiff must specifically identify the constitutional right of which he was deprived [Liberty protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments]. Id. at 640. Second, the Plaintiff must assert that “the person who deprived him of that federal right acted under color of state [CA-VEH §§ 17459; 17460] or territorial law.” Id.
  • 03-12-2019, 10:31 PM
    RJR
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    In Gomez, the United States Supreme Court determined that only two elements must be pled to properly assert a cause of action under 42 USC §1983. First, the Plaintiff must specifically identify the constitutional right of which he was deprived. Id. at 640. Second, the Plaintiff must assert that “the person who deprived him of that federal right acted under color of state or territorial law.” Id.
    Is that the same for a Bivens action?
  • 03-12-2019, 10:39 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    My apologies to any and all who take offense to my position. I'm just trying to shed light on the inconsistencies and contradictions I've experienced first hand, in dealing with the system in its present state. There are hundreds of thousands more of like mind. I was hoping there would be more in these forums who were supportive of actively engaging in a serious conversation about whether our criminal justice system continues to live up to its vaunted reputation. As members of a free society, we all have an important stake in making sure that it does.

    @RJR...only if I choose to sue Federal employees.
  • 03-12-2019, 10:46 PM
    RJR
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Did you already know before the question the Civil Rights Act of 1871 did not apply to federal officers/employees?
  • 03-12-2019, 10:58 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @jk...you'd be in violation of Brady about now..."the laws were enacted by a legally elected legislature" (i.e. the "State"/"body politic") "empowered by the majority of the residents of whatever state is involved"...how does that prove that the written instruments are applicable to me based solely on my physical presence in a geographic location? It's a mitigating factor with probative substance as to the issue of punishment...It can be used to impeach a police officer/witness, by virtue of leading him on cross to answer the issue of that particular fact, which he relied on, in the field, on his own accord, pursuant to state law or local ordinance, in reaching the legal conclusion/determination.

    @RJR...somewhat...this case provides pertinent information. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/...Primary Holding: While there is no explicit right to file a civil lawsuit against federal government officials who have violated the Fourth Amendment, this right can be inferred. This is because a constitutional protection would not be meaningful if there were no way to seek a remedy for a violation of it. I'm presuming that all Constitutional provisions can be vindicated in the same or similar manner. The CA-GOV code is cluttered with repugnant immunity...I choose 1983 and Monell to go after municipalities. Constitutional rights are some of the most important that an individual can have, so it is particularly critical to give the power to enforce them.
  • 03-12-2019, 11:05 PM
    RJR
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Do you study law even casually, or just site snippets and apply them to anything?
  • 03-13-2019, 01:05 AM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @RJR...I try to read through case law to study the rationale behind the judicial officer's decision. To be honest, a lot of it appears biased in favor of government, or for political advantage. I can only go at my own pace, and with the resources offered on the internet. Not privy to as much of the unpublished opinions, although I run across them occasionally, thanks to Google's algorithms.

    I specially appeared on my own behalf and defended all the way into to the post conviction relief process, where I'm at currently...I'm also in the process of appealing the denial of my CA-PEN Sec.1018 motion, based on the City Attorney's coercing me into signing a plea agreement, under the threat of depriving me further due process, in addition to their violating Brady, and evidence tampering per CA-PEN Sec. 141(c). Also in the record, is a CA-PEN 1473.6 motion to vacate judgement, based on new evidence which completely undermines the City Attorney's purported "case".

    FACTS: Officers approached me at 1:39 a.m. in a "closed" public parking lot, while I was actually engaged in, and in the process of loading my CAR. The officers started asking me for identification despite the fact that I wasn't physically in control of it. My keys were out of the ignition, in the left front seat...the pilot's compartment. I asked them "why", and had they suspected me of having committed, was in the process of committing, or was about to commit a crime. There was no reply, i.e., reasonable articulation, and their silence can only be equated with fraud, because they had a legal duty to speak, under CA-PEN Sec. 841, and the Sixth Amendment to inform me of the nature and cause of their attempt at a mere encounter, and the inquiry they left unanswered is indicative of intentional deceit and ulterior purpose. At this point the officer's actions went beyond the scope of consent, as their actions indicated that I was not reasonably free to leave.

    Signs indicating "After 10pm", point to the park's exit, which implies that being in said lot is not a crime per se. Other signs indicate that the "Parking Lot [is] Closed 10pm - 6am", which would constitute an "overnight" stay. However, according to local ordinance, stopping or standing a vehicle cannot be deemed thus, while one is actually engaged in, and in the process of loading, as mirrored by CA-VEH Sec. 463. The signs are posted to limit or regulate the stopping or standing of vehicles. There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify anything other than to inform me that the parking lot was closed, terminate the mere encounter, and be on their way. The Common Law Right of Inquiry permits an officer or agent to engage any individual in a purely voluntary conversation. In these cases, an individual must be free to terminate the conversation at any time and go his way with no restrictions.

    Instead, the officers persisted in coercing information from me that I wasn't required to provide, under well established, 9th Circuit decisions. There's no California law requiring me to provide the coerced information. And, because they had me blocked in from 2 angles, had their spotlights aimed directly into my eyes, and failed to inform me of the right to terminate the encounter, they turned the illegal investigatory detention into a de facto false arrest, by virtue of unreasonable seizure of my person, under the 4th Amendment. As I was being coerced by one armed officer, the other began a cursory invasion of my reasonable, albeit "diminished", expectation of privacy interests, intruding upon my prescriptive easement per se, by "running my [valid and legal] plates", with no reasonable suspicion that my car was stolen, or that it had contained evidence relating to a non-existent "crime", when he began searching through my car, with a flashlight, in violation of the founding document he swore an oath to support, which was compounded by the fact that no law had been violated, thereby having absolutely no sufficient legal basis upon which to conduct any investigation, or to prolong the illegal detention. CA-VEH §§ 12801.5(f); 14607.6(b) provide: "a peace officer shall not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver" and, "a peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed".

    The basic requirement for a search incident to a lawful arrest is that there be a lawful arrest. Obviously, an illegal seizure cannot be the basis for a search incident to that arrest. The search incident to arrest rule only applies to a lawful custodial arrest, not a pretextual field-citation release, or a proper field-citation release. A "lesser", or "diminished" expectation of privacy, is nevertheless a de facto reasonable expectation "of privacy". The Terry Court recognized in dictum that "not all personal intercourse between policemen and individuals involve 'seizures' of persons", and suggested that "[o]nly when the officer, by means of [] show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a[n individual] may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred". 392 U.S. at 19, n.16. The outcome or status of any arrest charge is irrelevant to the issue of whether probable cause for the arrest existed. Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir. 1989).

    Whren does not apply...Gant does not apply...Brown does not apply...Terry does not apply...etc., etc., primarily due to the pretext not being a "traffic stop", among others.

    As recently as 2002, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, the Ninth Circuit held that the law of the Fourth Amendment is so clearly established on this point that any officer who arrests a detainee during an investigative detention for merely refusing to provide identifying information is personally liable for damages and cannot claim qualified immunity. The legitimacy of a search incident to arrest rests on the validity of the underlying arrest, because close "temporal proximity" between tainted "evidence" and illegal police conduct weighs in favor of suppression.

    In United States v. Patzer, 277 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002), absent probable cause to arrest the defendant, the ensuing search of his automobile could not be justified as a search incident to arrest. Similarly, the defendant’s consent was tainted by the unlawful arrest.

    Reasonable suspicion ordinarily exists if officers can articulate one or more specific circumstances that reasonably indicate, based on common sense or the officers' training and experience, that criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity.
  • 03-13-2019, 03:53 AM
    llworking
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Here is part of your problem: There is a process to understanding law that cannot be done unless you follow the right steps. You are starting at the back end (case law) therefore its never going to be possible for you to fully understand.

    First, its important to read and understand what the Constitution of the United States means. Then you also need to read and understand what the constitution of the particular state involved means. Once you understand that part, then you need to have a clue as to the laws themselves that are involved, and then and only then case you read relevant case law and understand what it means.

    Your "snippet" method of cherry picking from case law will never give you a real understanding of anything.
  • 03-13-2019, 07:12 AM
    PayrolGuy
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    What I don't understand about these "sovereign citizen" wack-a-doos is their fixation on driver's licenses when there are things the government does that actually infringe on the rights of the people.
  • 03-13-2019, 09:42 AM
    cbg
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    What I don't understand is how they equate driver's licenses with the right to travel. Last I heard, Amtrak was still in business. So was Greyhound. JetBlue, United, Southwest Airlines, Air Alaska. Even my little New England seacoast village has a bus that makes the rounds, picks people up by the side of the road anywhere on the bus route and drops them at the grocery store, the library, the post office, etc. The public transportation monster has many arms and appendages reaching far, far out into the suburbs and rural areas. And if all else fails there are bicycles, Uber, Lyft, taxis, feet. There are plenty of means of travel for which no drivers license is needed. Travel is not being impinged on.
  • 03-13-2019, 01:21 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @llworking...is it your position that statutory provisions such as CA-VEH §§ 12801.5(f); 14607.6(b), are case law?

    "[I]ts important to read and understand what the Constitution of the United States means"...

    To clarify...would my rescission of unilateral, quasi-contractual obligation to the DMV, be impaired by denying due process of California rescission law, in violation of Article 1 Section 10?

    We can ascertain the unilateral agreement's contractual nature, to do or not to do a certain thing, by virtue of my consent being fraudulently implied via operation of CA-VEH §§ 17459; 17460, enabling the enforcement of Bills of Pains and Penalties, and my subscription being required, without full disclosure of the foregoing.

    @cbg...You use the term "they"....who, are "they"? I would hope that false light defamation suggesting that arguments in opposition to the stealthful encroachment on civil liberties, somehow implies or infers that a person or persons similarly situated, expressing their First Amendment rights, are even remotely related to domestic terrorism, is not being employed here, because a Kleptocratic ruling class is most definitely, directly related to domestic terrorism.
  • 03-13-2019, 01:35 PM
    PayrolGuy
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    How is requiring a driver's license and all that goes with it stealthful? Driver's licensing requirements have been around since the first half of the 20th century. I've not been able to find a single case where they have been found to be unconstitional.

    As for 1st amendment rights, that is a protection from the government not private citizens or entities. The owners of this forum could boot you anytime they want.
  • 03-13-2019, 01:35 PM
    cbg
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    They -= the sovereign citizen whack-a-doodles
  • 03-13-2019, 01:44 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    @PayrolGuy...You do realize that the term "Sovereign" refers to having "subjects", and that the term "Citizen" refers to being "subject to" the "Sovereign"...don't you? Is there such a thing as a "Tall Midget"? LOL!!!!!!

    But seriously...do things the government does that actually infringe on the rights of the people include unreasonable seizure of the person, or, pretextual encounters pursuant to local ordinance that can be challenged as being void for vagueness?

    @PayrolGuy...The liberty implied by the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the due process deprivation of the "requirement" that's been around "since the first half of the 20th century" without full disclosure of pertinent material fact, relating to contractual obligation, has not been argued in case law...yet.

    The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions...A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use (Adams v City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48)". In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply (CA-VEH Sec. 15210)...Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle (49 CFR § 390.5)...Unless otherwise specifically provided, the rules in this subchapter do not apply to the occasional transportation of personal property by individuals not for compensation and not in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise; Operator - See driver (49 CFR § 390.3 - General applicability)". “[T]he predominate factor which determines whether a vehicle is 'commercial' is apparently the use” [one] “makes of the vehicle.” [Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975), 45 Cal. App. 3D 223].


    Are you a member of a public corporation with a monopoly on the practice of law, engaging in said practice as an officer of the court, under the legislative branch of government?

    @cbg...Are you implying or inferring that I, personally am some sort of "Sovereign Citizen", on a public forum, in a defamatory false light? How becoming and emPATHETIC.

    Quote:

    Quoting cbg
    View Post
    What I don't understand is how they equate driver's licenses with the right to travel. Last I heard, Amtrak was still in business. So was Greyhound. JetBlue, United, Southwest Airlines, Air Alaska. Even my little New England seacoast village has a bus that makes the rounds, picks people up by the side of the road anywhere on the bus route and drops them at the grocery store, the library, the post office, etc. The public transportation monster has many arms and appendages reaching far, far out into the suburbs and rural areas. And if all else fails there are bicycles, Uber, Lyft, taxis, feet. There are plenty of means of travel for which no drivers license is needed. Travel is not being impinged on.

    Can you say "corporate overreach"? How about "Fascism"? And, am I at Liberty, as implied via the 5th and 14th Amendments to make a choice as a member of a "free" society, to use my personal property as I see fit? “A State may distribute its powers as it sees fit, provided only that it acts consistently with the essential demands of due process and does not transgress those restrictions of the Federal Constitution which are applicable to State authority.” [Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S.,57 (1932)].

    The immunity conferred by the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes. Thus, government officials sued for constitutional torts continue to be protected only by qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2). [see: Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)]. However, the qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." [Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)].

    “The doctrine that a government, State or federal, may not grant a benefit or privilege on conditions requiring the recipient to relinquish...constitutional rights is now well established.” [E. g., Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 894 ; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 ; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 519 -520; Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 499 -500; Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 597 -598; Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 271 U.S. 583, 593 -594; see Van Alstyne, The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1439, 1445-1454 (1968); Comment, Another Look at Unconstitutional Conditions, 117 U. Pa. L. Rev. 144 (1968). As stated in Homer v. Richmond, 292 F.2d 719, 722].

    “The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered [262 U.S. 390, 400] with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose” [undue revenue collection/racketeering] “within the competency of the State to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts.” [Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 499].

    .“Undoubtedly, the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured”...[Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 179 U. S. 274].
  • 03-13-2019, 02:54 PM
    PayrolGuy
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    I didn't name your wacky cult but that is the common name associated with the crap you have posted in this thread.

    Unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional, but just because you think it is unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional.
  • 03-13-2019, 03:19 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    “In 1935, the” [CA] “Legislature adopted a Vehicle Code (Stats. 1935, ch. 27, pp. 93-98) and at that time set forth the definition of a street or highway as follows (p. 98): 'Street' or 'Highway.' 'Street' or 'highway' is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel.” [Behling v. County of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 2D 685].

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” [Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S.,436 (1966)].

    “In 1937, the definition was amended to its present form by adding the words 'publicly maintained and' and striking from the 1935 definition the words 'as a matter of right.' [Stats. 1937, ch. 282, p. 617] There have apparently been no amendments or changes in the section since 1937.” [Behling v. County of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 2D 685].

    The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (CA-GOV Sec.11120). The "bad faith" theory allows an award where a party has "acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons." [F.D. Rich Co. v. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116, 129 (1974); accord Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 258-59]. As used in this section, a “victim” is a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. (CA-CONST. Art. I Sec. XXVIII (e)).

    “We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution...rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured 'for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it'...” [Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 (1821)]~[Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S.,436 (1966)].

    The Legislature finds and declares all of the following [under the guise of protecting the public interest]: Driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways is a privilege, not a right. (CA-VEH § 14607.4(a))...Subdivision (f) goes on to state: The state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed drivers from illegally driving. Seizing the vehicles used by unlicensed drivers serves a significant governmental and public interest, namely the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Californians from the harm of unlicensed drivers, who are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, and the avoidance of the associated destruction and damage to lives and property...Two words..."PROVE IT", with verifiable and irrefutable evidence...We the People can't trust you anymore.

    Californians who comply with the law are frequently victims of traffic accidents caused by unlicensed drivers. Of all drivers involved in fatal accidents, more than 20 percent are not licensed to drive....Meaning, the remaining less than 80% are victims of "properly licensed" "drivers"....Oh...here's supporting evidence: "A driver with a suspended license is four times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a properly licensed driver"...Because the remaining less than 80% are victims of "properly licensed" "drivers".

    "At any given time, it is estimated by the Department of Motor Vehicles; The Department of Motor Vehicles estimates"...
    Because they have a financial interest in licensing a protected Liberty...How exactly does that render The Safe Streets Act of 1994, consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution and the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 40 L.Ed.2d 452???

    ^^^"Legal decisons with no context" regarding Liberty...Riiiiiight.

    Quote:

    Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    What I don't understand about these "sovereign citizen" wack-a-doos...

    , but,
    Quote:

    Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I didn't name your wacky cult...

    Sooooooo...What "wacky cult" are you referring to...the FBI??? https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/public-corruption

    Quote:

    Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    Unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional, but just because you think it is unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional.

    WOW...just WOW...Actually, the officer did that...backed by a multitude of Supreme Court Decisions. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights
  • 03-13-2019, 03:38 PM
    llworking
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    You are extremely boring. I am bowing out of this thread permanently.
  • 03-13-2019, 03:42 PM
    PayrolGuy
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    Legal decisons with no context deleted.
    , but,

    Sooooooo...What "wacky cult" are you referring to...the FBI??? https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/public-corruption

    The wacky cult that is known as Sovereign Citizens.
  • 03-13-2019, 03:43 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Oh...ok...I was under the impression that:
    Quote:

    Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I didn't name your wacky cult...

    Any act "fitted to deceive" is an act of bad faith.

    You must've meant the ones who abuse the Sovereign power of the state, as a Citizens who Terrorize the state's inhabitants with Kleptocratic avarice. There IS there such a thing as a "Tall Midget"? LOL!!!!!!

    “In 1935, the” [CA] “Legislature adopted a Vehicle Code (Stats. 1935, ch. 27, pp. 93-98) and at that time set forth the definition of a street or highway as follows (p. 98): 'Street' or 'Highway.' 'Street' or 'highway' is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel.” [Behling v. County of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 2D 685].

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” [Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S.,436 (1966)].

    “In 1937, the definition was amended to its present form by adding the words 'publicly maintained and' and striking from the 1935 definition the words 'as a matter of right.' [Stats. 1937, ch. 282, p. 617] There have apparently been no amendments or changes in the section since 1937.” [Behling v. County of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 2D 685].

    The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (CA-GOV Sec.11120). The "bad faith" theory allows an award where a party has "acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons." [F.D. Rich Co. v. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116, 129 (1974); accord Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 258-59]. As used in this section, a “victim” is a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. (CA-CONST. Art. I Sec. XXVIII (e)).

    “The established doctrine is that [] liberty may not be interfered [262 U.S. 390, 400] with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose” [undue revenue collection/racketeering] “within the competency of the State to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts.” [Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 499].

    “We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution...rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured 'for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it'...” [Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 (1821)]~[Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S.,436 (1966)].

    The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions...A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use (Adams v City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48)". In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply (CA-VEH Sec. 15210)...Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle (49 CFR § 390.5)...Unless otherwise specifically provided, the rules in this subchapter do not apply to the occasional transportation of personal property by individuals not for compensation and not in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise; Operator - See driver (49 CFR § 390.3 - General applicability)". “[T]he predominate factor which determines whether a vehicle is 'commercial' is apparently the use” [one] “makes of the vehicle.” [Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975), 45 Cal. App. 3D 223].

    The Legislature finds and declares all of the following [under the guise of protecting the public interest]: Driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways is a privilege, not a right. (CA-VEH § 14607.4(a))...Subdivision (f) goes on to state: The state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed drivers from illegally driving. Seizing the vehicles used by unlicensed drivers serves a significant governmental and public interest, namely the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Californians from the harm of unlicensed drivers, who are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, and the avoidance of the associated destruction and damage to lives and property...Two words..."PROVE IT", with verifiable and irrefutable evidence...We the People can't trust you anymore.

    Californians who comply with the law are frequently victims of traffic accidents caused by unlicensed drivers. Of all drivers involved in fatal accidents, more than 20 percent are not licensed to drive....Meaning, the remaining less than 80% are victims of "properly licensed" "drivers"....Oh...here's supporting evidence: "A driver with a suspended license is four times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a properly licensed driver"...Because the remaining less than 80% are victims of "properly licensed" "drivers".

    "At any given time, it is estimated by the Department of Motor Vehicles; The Department of Motor Vehicles estimates"...
    Because they have a financial interest, i.e. "Kleptocratic avarice", in licensing a protected Liberty...How exactly does that render The Safe Streets Act of 1994, consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution and the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 40 L.Ed.2d 452???

    Quote:

    Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    ^^^"Legal decisons with no context"

    regarding Liberty...Riiiiiight.

    Quote:

    Quoting llworking
    View Post
    You are extremely boring. I am bowing out of this thread permanently.

    ... as a member of a public corporation with a monopoly on the practice of law, engaging in said practice as an officer of the court, under the legislative branch of government...
  • 03-13-2019, 03:59 PM
    PayrolGuy
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    Oh...ok...I was under the impression that:
    You must've meant the ones who abuse the Sovereign power of the state, as a Citizens who Terrorize the state's inhabitants with Kleptocratic avarice. There IS there such a thing as a "Tall Midget"? LOL!!!!!!


    No I mean the wack a doos like yourself.

    I'm out of this silliness too.
  • 03-13-2019, 04:22 PM
    jk
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    jk...you'd be in violation of Brady about now..."the laws were enacted by a legally elected legislature" (i.e. the "State"/"body politic") "empowered by the majority of the residents of whatever state is involved"...how does that prove that the written instruments are applicable to me based solely on my physical presence in a geographic location? It's a mitigating factor with probative
    taking two separate responses and attempting to combine them into a single answer doesn’t work.

    And tom Brady doesn’t care. If you didn’t mean Tom Brady, you may want to be more accurate in your statements.


    Quote:

    Is there such a thing as a "Tall Midget"? LOL!!!!!!
    yes, there is. Suggesting there couldn’t be shows your lack of understanding what you wrote.
  • 03-13-2019, 04:27 PM
    Tyrant Slayer
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/Awa...emple_Bar.aspx

    http://www.sacred-destinations.com/e...-temple-church
  • 03-13-2019, 04:30 PM
    jk
    Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests
    Quote:

    Signs indicating "After 10pm", point to the park's exit, which implies that being in said lot is not a crime per se. Other signs indicate that the "Parking Lot [is] Closed 10pm - 6am", which would constitute an "overnight" stay. However, according to local ordinance, stopping or standing a vehicle can
    i laugh at how you make up facts and expect others to accept them as having value. A sign stating the lot is closed between 10 pm and 6 am does nothing to suggest an overnight stay. It is quite clear; the lot is not open for use between those hours, period. That means if you are there any time between 10 and 6, regardless of what you’re doing, you are not authorized to be there which typically means you are trespassing.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved