Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 101
  1. #11

    Default 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?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    238

    Default 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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default 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




    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.



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


    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


    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.

  4. #14

    Default 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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default 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.

  6. #16

    Default 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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,429

    Default 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.

  8. #18

    Default 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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    238

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    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?

  10. #20

    Default 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.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. McCain At New Hampshire Liberty Forum
    By blueeagle in forum Banter
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 07:51 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, 08:03 AM
  3. Liberty Dollar redux
    By jk in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 09:40 PM
  4. Couple Arrested for Using Liberty Dollars
    By Madmanmike1972 in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-20-2007, 07:16 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources