Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 101
  1. #31

    Default 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].

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,149

    Default 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.

  3. #33

    Default 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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    15,519

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    You are extremely boring. I am bowing out of this thread permanently.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,149

    Default 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.

  6. #36

    Default 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...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,149

    Default 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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,727

    Default 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
    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.


    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.

  9. #39

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,727

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    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.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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