@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.
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].