Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 101
  1. #1

    Exclamation 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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    18,924

    Default 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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,211

    Default 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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    16,791

    Default 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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    363

    Default 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,168

    Default 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.

  7. #7

    Default 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    181

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Tyrant, should you be allowed, restraint free, to ride/drive a horse/buggy on an expressway?

  9. #9

    Default 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?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    16,791

    Default 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.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. McCain At New Hampshire Liberty Forum
    By blueeagle in forum Banter
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 06:51 AM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket In Liberty New York
    By beach34957 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-21-2008, 07:03 AM
  3. Liberty Dollar redux
    By jk in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 08:40 PM
  4. Couple Arrested for Using Liberty Dollars
    By Madmanmike1972 in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-20-2007, 06:16 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources