Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Video: Armed Citizens confront Nazi Checkpoint

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Video: Armed Citizens confront Nazi Checkpoint

    Last edited by onedavetoomany; 07-03-2011 at 06:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    There are no undocumented immigrants; There are illegal aliens though. Your comparison to nazi germany is false, and this is a perversion of our agenda.
    Were you arrested for anything despite all your interfering? Seems like citizens were not having their rights infringed.
    Also, were those of you just walking down the street asked to show any papers? Or was it just the drivers?
    Last edited by Save Our State; 07-03-2011 at 10:31 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    Hitler declared his laws "legal". The German people needed little convincing to pass those insane laws. "It's good for the state" seemed to sum up the majority of those arguments. I am seeing quite of bit of that in this country.

    Those police officers were violating provisions of the state and Federal constitutions. They knew it and were breaking their oaths of office. There was NO justification for illegal search and seizure, yet they continued to do it. The excuse does not matter; the fact is they did it.
    Last edited by 230therapy; 07-03-2011 at 10:41 AM.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    Hitler declared his laws "legal". The German people needed little convincing to pass those insane laws. "It's good for the state" seemed to sum up the majority of those arguments. I am seeing quite of bit of that in this country.

    Those police officers were violating provisions of the state and Federal constitutions. They knew it and were breaking their oaths of office. There was NO justification for illegal search and seizure, yet they continued to do it. The excuse does not matter; the fact is they did it.
    What provisions were being violated?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    There are no undocumented immigrants; There are illegal aliens though. Your comparison to nazi germany is false, and this is a perversion of our agenda.
    Were you arrested for anything despite all your interfering? Seems like citizens were not having their rights infringed.
    Also, were those of you just walking down the street asked to show any papers? Or was it just the drivers?
    Being stopped while in peaceful transit is a violation of the rights of the drivers. The film crew guys were protesting that. 'Their' rights weren't violated. Stop and ID checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment and not allowed in most states, unlike DWI checkpoints. Of course, the PDR of Kalifornia is not a state, so all bets are off. Even the Gulag of IL doesn't allow them. That says something right there. I use the term "nazi" when I think it's appropriate. This doesn't quite rise to that standard. But the subjects in the PDR are used to this kind of bs anyway. "Unloaded" open carry...
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    While the stops may have been illegal I don't think this group went about it the right way. They could have talked to drivers and held signs but the personal attacks against the officers and volunteers were unnecessary. I don't think all of those officers were responsible for ordering that checkpoint. Why not find out who authorized the checkpoint and go after that person?
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Being stopped while in peaceful transit is a violation of the rights of the drivers. The film crew guys were protesting that. 'Their' rights weren't violated. Stop and ID checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment and not allowed in most states, unlike DWI checkpoints. Of course, the PDR of Kalifornia is not a state, so all bets are off. Even the Gulag of IL doesn't allow them. That says something right there. I use the term "nazi" when I think it's appropriate. This doesn't quite rise to that standard. But the subjects in the PDR are used to this kind of bs anyway. "Unloaded" open carry...
    Sorry I disagree as well, first of all, as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage. As opposed to walking on roadways, which is not subject to licensing or a vehicle code.
    Secondly every DUI checkpoint I have gone thru gave me ample warning and notice to alter my course of travel and avoid going thru the checkpoint If I wanted to, without repercussions. so If one chooses to go thru the checkpoint one is doing it consentually. And in many places the DUI checkpoints are advertised in local papers before being placed, giving people the opportunity to avoid them if they choose.

    Remember when you signed your drivers license you entered into a contract with the State to abide by the rules and regulations of driving a motor vehicle on the roadway.

    Now if they were stopping you at a checkpoint as a pedestrian without cause just because, to check ID then I would have a problem with it, but this video shows lack of knowledge or perhaps a better description would be distorted view of penal codes, vehicle codes, and citizen rights and DUI checkpoints on the part of the protesters.
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Being stopped while in peaceful transit is a violation of the rights of the drivers. Stop and ID checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment and not allowed in most states, unlike DWI checkpoints. Of course, the PDR of Kalifornia is not a state, so all bets are off...
    This was a license and sobriety checkpoint. Not a stop and ID checkpoint. They checked for licenses and sobriety. If you produced a license, no further check of it happens. If you walk, take the bus, ride a bike, skateboard, rollerskates or wheelchair, you don't have to stop, nor will you be asked to.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark
    as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage.
    Check out Delaware v. Prouse, where the Court ruled that stopping a car to check for a valid license was illegal. That's why they now make up lies about a taillight being out.

    "Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

    And in some places, cops are waiting to nab people who see a DUI checkpoint sign & avoid going that way. I've heard of that being done here in Milwaukee, though DUI checkpoints are illegal in WI.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    I was hoping to see a video of a Nazi. Instead all I saw was some police and some people making up things while taping. I hope the people who took the video get some help. They don't even know what an illegal is and keep using the term undocumented instead. There is a difference and they don't know it. I think they should be protesting their lack of education instead.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    This was a license and sobriety checkpoint. Not a stop and ID checkpoint. They checked for licenses and sobriety. If you produced a license, no further check of it happens. If you walk, take the bus, ride a bike, skateboard, rollerskates or wheelchair, you don't have to stop, nor will you be asked to.
    Unfortunately, you are correct then. While I feel DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, the SC disagreed. This was lawful. And although I am not generally a fan of cops, they were just doing what they were told to do. None of them made the decision for the cluster ****.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    Sorry I disagree as well, first of all, as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage. As opposed to walking on roadways, which is not subject to licensing or a vehicle code.
    Secondly every DUI checkpoint I have gone thru gave me ample warning and notice to alter my course of travel and avoid going thru the checkpoint If I wanted to, without repercussions. so If one chooses to go thru the checkpoint one is doing it consentually. And in many places the DUI checkpoints are advertised in local papers before being placed, giving people the opportunity to avoid them if they choose.

    Remember when you signed your drivers license you entered into a contract with the State to abide by the rules and regulations of driving a motor vehicle on the roadway.

    Now if they were stopping you at a checkpoint as a pedestrian without cause just because, to check ID then I would have a problem with it, but this video shows lack of knowledge or perhaps a better description would be distorted view of penal codes, vehicle codes, and citizen rights and DUI checkpoints on the part of the protesters.
    Peaceful passage is a 'right' under black letter law, and stare decisis has upheld it repeatedly. It cannot be interfered with absent exigent circumstances. A license is a privilege, I agree, but it does not diminish your right to unimpeded, lawful transit. That being said, as pointed out, DUI checkpoints are lawful in every state under Federal law, although many are not under state law.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk001 View Post
    I was hoping to see a video of a Nazi. Instead all I saw was some police and some people making up things while taping. I hope the people who took the video get some help. They don't even know what an illegal is and keep using the term undocumented instead. There is a difference and they don't know it. I think they should be protesting their lack of education instead.
    Well, they had some good Kraut marching songs at least...and a nice picture of the Waffen SS helping out Jewish refugees with their papers...
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Thanks for being out there protesting this useless and unconstitutional checkpoint. How many drunks did they find while you were out there?

    It's odd how many people turned out to support a DUI checkpoint on this forum. As soon as anybody is stopped at that checkpoint that person is being detained without RAS. My rights don't go out the door as soon as I do something that is a privilege. If I'm forced to drive out of my way to avoid being unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion can I submit paperwork with the government to be reimbursed for the extra gas I had to burn to reach my destination?

    In the future, don't let an officer herd you into a specific location on a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks are "traditional public forums" where first amendment rights are protected to the extreme. If there are two of you there and you aren't blocking the sidewalk then you can claim that your right to assemble was violated along with your right to free speech. He "asked" you to move and you voluntarily complied. Next time tell him no thanks and see if he issues a "lawful order". If he does then ask him on what grounds he is issuing such an order (lawful orders which trump one's right to assemble or to speak can only be given if a law is being broken, but if you stop breaking that law then the lawful order ceases to have any power behind it).

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    SNIP Sorry I disagree as well, first of all, as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage.
    Now, let me get this straight. Since the government issues decrees saying one must have a license to operate a vehicle, the right disappears and becomes a privilege?

    Yeah, right. Like I'm dumb enuff to believe that just because government said so, it suddenly became true. And, I suddenly became dumb enuff to tell everybody else, forwarding the government's little intellectual dishonesty for them. Once upon a time, yes. But, no more.

    Hmmmm. How about licenses to carry guns? A right became a privilege? Or, even better, subject to "reasonable" regulation?

    I like Gunslinger's presentation better.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Contrary to popular belief, traveling for personal business is a Right, not a privilege as supported by the following court cases.


    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579

    "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 by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

    It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

    This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674.

    "Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

    Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62

    Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

    Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241).

    Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving.

    In effect, as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed (1867), speed limits and other traffic control devices, being non-fact-based, are simply an unlawful tax or impost on travel, and thus unconstitutional for the reason cited in Crandall. (Crandall involved a tax on travelers! which is what in essence speed limits, unscientific stop signs, etc., simply are, stripped of all the phony fraudulent politician folderol pretending them to relate somehow to safety, not to mention that are extortion violating the federal anti-racketeering act (RICO), 18 USC 1961 and the law against obstructing federal rights, 18 USC 241).
    Colorado Article 42-2-101 clearly states, licensing is for commercial drivers, not private citizens..
    "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

    "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.

    "Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941).

    "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. - licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.)

    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

    "The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."
    "Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment."
    Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.

    "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

    "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment."
    Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984)

    "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

    "The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

    "The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

    "A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

    "A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege...River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

    "A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

    "A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

    "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

    "The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

    "The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.
    "...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Walter and Co. would do better in promoting these ideas if their general dehavior and language was more conducive to swaying fence sitter and not that which seems to be alienating even their most natural alies.

    Is Walter right? IMO yes. Will this rude tactic succeed in any thing? Not unless it gives him standing to sue over an issue and he does and he wins.

  18. #18
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Walter and Co. would do better in promoting these ideas if their general dehavior and language was more conducive to swaying fence sitter and not that which seems to be alienating even their most natural alies.

    Is Walter right? IMO yes. Will this rude tactic succeed in any thing? Not unless it gives him standing to sue over an issue and he does and he wins.

    Why not drive through the checkpoint with yellow glasses on and refuse to show ID or take FSTs while recording the event?

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    SNIP Why not drive through the checkpoint with yellow glasses on and refuse to show ID or take FSTs while recording the event?
    What're "FSTs"?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Field Sobriety Test
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Contrary to popular belief, traveling for personal business is a Right, not a privilege as supported by the following court cases.


    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579

    "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 by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

    It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

    This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674.

    "Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

    Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62

    Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

    Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241).

    Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving.

    In effect, as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed (1867), speed limits and other traffic control devices, being non-fact-based, are simply an unlawful tax or impost on travel, and thus unconstitutional for the reason cited in Crandall. (Crandall involved a tax on travelers! which is what in essence speed limits, unscientific stop signs, etc., simply are, stripped of all the phony fraudulent politician folderol pretending them to relate somehow to safety, not to mention that are extortion violating the federal anti-racketeering act (RICO), 18 USC 1961 and the law against obstructing federal rights, 18 USC 241).
    Colorado Article 42-2-101 clearly states, licensing is for commercial drivers, not private citizens..
    "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

    "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.

    "Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941).

    "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. - licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.)

    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

    "The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."
    "Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment."
    Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.

    "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

    "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment."
    Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984)

    "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

    "The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

    "The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

    "A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

    "A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege...River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

    "A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

    "A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

    "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

    "The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

    "The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.
    "...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
    Thanks Motofixxer,

    We all need to Research more to help us keep ahead of the corruption, if that's possible.

    Robin47

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Let's bring some more into this.
    DMV requires you to have insurance and a valid DL to register your vehicle. I think it's called the Financial Responsibility Law. When a cop stops you for a traffic infraction, thay ask for DL, proof of insurance and your vehicle registration. From what you say, you don't need any of that.
    All that is required to own and operate a vehicle is working lights, (head, tail and brake) horn and wipers? This would be legal regulation.
    I see, on Cops (TV) many people that are arrested for no DL, and their car towed. It actually happened to a friend of mine. After her paying everyone in sight, she got her car back.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    If driving is a right, then why are test required to get a license? And the tactic of multiple people asking questions at the same time isn't showing any great things either. It's rather childish I believe. Now you just turn around and make claims that he didn't answer your question, but how is it known he even heard it since he was talking to someone else?

  24. #24
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    In the future, don't let an officer herd you into a specific location on a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks are "traditional public forums" where first amendment rights are protected to the extreme. If there are two of you there and you aren't blocking the sidewalk then you can claim that your right to assemble was violated along with your right to free speech. He "asked" you to move and you voluntarily complied. Next time tell him no thanks and see if he issues a "lawful order". it).
    Not if the portion of the sidewalk you are standing on is an entryway to a parking lot. In that case you are interfering with the flow of traffic, and putting yourself in the path of vehicles which could injure you. The officer was correct in moving them to a location that was not either dangerous nor interfering with traffic.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    That is exactly right, they complied. The officer only made a request and not a lawful order. Traffic would actually need to be blocked such as by someone refusing to move out of the way while a vehicle attempts to turn in to the driveway. When the officer stated that they needed to move or he would issue a ticket he is making an offer to contract, looking for agreement. Possible responses which could also be issued as part of a written NOTICE to an agency or it's agent;
    I conditionally accept your offer to issue a Notice to Appear based on proof of claim that I am subject to such notice, subject to move, etc.
    I reserve all rights and charge $10,000 per order or per Notice to Appear. I also charge $1000 per minute for being detained or arrested, do you wish to proceed?

    Equality under the law is paramount. Anyone who can charge another after giving notice may also be charged after having received notice. Especially in matters of one being seized, injured, property confiscated, etc.

    All law is contract and contract makes the law.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 07-04-2011 at 05:10 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •