Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That pertains to the vehicle mostly, not the Traveler so much. It does not say you don't have to follow the common rules of the roadways, it just says you, nor I need a permit in the form of permission from a license.... or to register our form of transportation.
The police power permits states to mandate that drivers be licensed, it's clear.
So how about this:
“The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.” Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S. Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L. Ed. 21 (1941)."
You're not a lawyer. Wouldn't trust your self-serving interpretation, or that of some underemployed high school dropout conspiracy theorist on Youtube.
The knowledgeable guy that got all charges dismissed in the OP video, was not an attorney either.
Ryan Bundy was not an attorney, and he used the very Constitution to clear his name. He does not claim to be a Sovereign Citizen. He ran for office in 2018.
That Judge's dismissal does not constitute precedent in any legal way, period. He just didn't want to fool with it, is my bet.
No one said it did. The prosecuting DA had no debate, or argument against the case law the defendant brought to court, to substantiate his claim and win a judgement.
You should listen to the audio of that video, before making a comment.
Sorry, but liability insurance for motor vehicles has been an absolute requirement in most, if not all states, since the early 1970s. You must carry proof of it or you will receive a ticket, if you're stopped for some other legitimate reason.
Yes!!! and like this gentleman, he argued his case to a Judge, using case law already decided by the Supreme Court, while citing Article 6, Sec. 1- Clause's 2&3 of the US Constitution to make his case.
I like how he gets the judge on record, to indicate he swore an OATH to uphold the US Constitution, before he ever started.
Sovereign citizens are just a bad joke... Nothing they say makes any sense and if you don't agree with them then your simple a "sheeple." They're basically like all the losers on the Far Left and on the Far Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
Funny thing: I knew immediately this was going to be about one of those Sovereign idiots.
How is this person, or anyone using the law to clear their name, a "Sovereign Citizen"?
Does that mean Citizens, are by your definition, ignorant of the law?
The police power permits states to mandate that drivers be licensed, it's clear.
So how about this:
“The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.” Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S. Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L. Ed. 21 (1941)."
"Drivers" Drivers by definition is anyone making a profit for their "driving" or "Driver for hire" Cabs, Uber, Truck drivers, or anyone involved in commerce.
Traveling has a much different meaning in law, even when traveling by personal vehicle of choice.
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.”
Notice it never says "Privilege" or to the effect, must gain "Permission or Permit"
Then comes Miller v. US., 230 F.486,489 - "The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime."
and
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 - "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them"
"Drivers" Drivers by definition is anyone making a profit for their "driving" or "Driver for hire" Cabs, Uber, Truck drivers, or anyone involved in commerce.
Traveling has a much different meaning in law, even when traveling by personal vehicle of choice.
Since you quoted the Supremacy Clause about the man who beat the ticket, quote or link one case, just one, where it says the operator of a motor vehicle is not a "driver or driving."
You are quoting snippets from case law out of legal context, period. Citing Miranda to back up your claim?? Miranda concerns self incrimination not driving.
Since you quoted the Supremacy Clause about the man who beat the ticket, quote or link one case, just one, where it says the operator of a motor vehicle is not a "driver or driving."
You are quoting snippets from case law out of legal context, period. Citing Miranda to back up your claim?? Miranda concerns self incrimination not driving.
1st off, my car is NOT a "Motor Vehicle"
USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "Motor Vehicle":
"The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property, or property or cargo."
USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes":"The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."
2nd off - History! Precedence.
Since the beginning of time, humans were free to travel how they saw fit. Americans have kept that same right since this nation began. Americans have always had the right to travel freely and unencumbered from laws, regulations, statues, and licensing. ALWAYS!
From the use of horse and buggy, to the early Model 'T', all the way to the zippy fast Corvette, Americans have never been required to get "permission" to travel on the public roads or highways when it was for personal reasons. Soon there were a lot of people on the roads for commercial purposes. This resulted in people huge loads on the roads with trucks and trailers, because of this the need to make laws and regulations to protect the innocent citizens from the dangers of this commercial traffic. Government began requiring commercial drivers to register and obtain "licenses", basically this meant they were getting permission from the government for use on the public roads and highways for commercial use. The USA and the States, counties and cities, are corporations, and they cannot let another business slide in on their turf without permission.
The government pushed this onthe general public to become 'drivers' and make money by "allowing" them to register their cars and get driver's license if they choose.
"Then, through police misapplication, ticket writing, and false slogans such as “Driving is not a right, it is a privilege”, they have been able to get the general public to believe they had to be licensed and registered. Cops (whose duty it is to know the law) don't know and don't care to learn these laws...They just like to keep writing those tickets.... but loaded with the Law of the land, it is beatable.
USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of "Motor Vehicle":
"The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property, or property or cargo."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definiti...r:2:section:31
USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of "Commercial Purposes":"The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of the persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking for profit."
The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs: "Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution.]" CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
