Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 101

Hybrid View

  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
    19,255

    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

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,255

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Quote Quoting Tyrant Slayer
    View Post
    @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.
    No. Again you continue to show your profound etymological ignorance. The suffix -ment and and the word mente are different even though they share many of the same letters. As I stated, the -ment suffix is NOT RELATED to mente/mentum. It comes to English through the French and they got it from the latin and it's just the process of applying a verb (in this case govern) to become a noun.

    If you don't believe me, go look in a definitive reference starting with GOVERNMENT or any similar word. I use the OED.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    I use the OED.
    "O-nline E-tymology D-ctionary"? That's where I got the primary information.
    Latin
    Noun

    mentis

    genitive singular of mēns

    Noun

    mentīs

    inflection of mentum:
    dative plural
    ablative plural

    Noun

    mentīs

    inflection of menta:
    dative plural
    ablative plural

    Latin
    Etymology

    From Proto-Indo-European *méntis (“thought”). Cognates include Sanskrit मति (matí), αὐτόματος (autómatos), μάντις (mántis), Russian мнить (mnitʹ, “to think”), and Old English ġemynd (English mind).
    Pronunciation

    (Classical) IPA(key): /mens/, [mẽːs]

    Noun

    mēns f (genitive mentis); third declension

    mind
    intellect
    reasoning, judgement

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

    That’s all well and good but where do,you see that relating to the suffix: ment?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,738

    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?

  8. #8

    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.

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

    Default Re: Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

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

  10. #10

    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?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 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, 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