DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
'regulated', just like in the 2nd Amendment, applies to working properly. Therefore, regulation would mean speed limits, passing zones, lane separation, etc.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style
- Thread starter Motofixxer
- Start date
'regulated', just like in the 2nd Amendment, applies to working properly. Therefore, regulation would mean speed limits, passing zones, lane separation, etc.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
We could continue to go around and around on this, but the plain fact is the law IS the law, until it is changed or revoked. Let me ask this: what do you propose as an alternate system? And if not the SCOTUS--and due process, whom do you propose determines a law's constitutionality? And what shall be the process?
Motofixxer
Regular Member
How about starting with your local sheriff. Take some of this info but customized with all the notes and case info, and state constitutional info. I added the State Preamble and State Constitution where it defines us as free and individual. Send it to him give him some time to review it. Then ask him to discuss it with you and get his opinion. Discuss his elected constitutional duty. Ask if he will stand up and be a man and a leader and follow his sworn duty. Then work with other departments. Contact your local AG and talk to them. Don't just sit in your chair and complain about how things aren't right and our gov't isn't listening to us. I have already sent mine to the local sheriff and waiting for a response.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
This is a good Idea, and I already was preparing other stuff to share with the Sheriff and he is up for reelection and is for the first time in years going to have an opponent.
Sheriff Mack recommends doing this.
The only problem I see is that many local prosecutors and Sheriff have grown to have a symbiotic relationship were they feed off and support each other using the citizenry as fodder.
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Some still don't believe, so here are some more cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).
"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
"When officers detained defendant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a "seizure" of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." [Brown v. Texas, 443 US at 47]
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." [Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 16 (1968)]
"The usual rule is that a police officer may arrest without warrant one believed by the officer upon reasonable cause to have been guilty of a felony , and that he may only arrest without a warrant one guilty of a misdemeanor if committed in his presence. Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 US 487; Elk v. U.S., 117 US 529.
"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
[Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." [McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)]
"where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved the court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution."
[Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)]
"in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S. Ct. AT 1656; “ [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973)]
". . .there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves." [Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ]
[McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)]
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery." [State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)]
"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense." [State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954)]
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).
"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
"When officers detained defendant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a "seizure" of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." [Brown v. Texas, 443 US at 47]
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." [Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 16 (1968)]
"The usual rule is that a police officer may arrest without warrant one believed by the officer upon reasonable cause to have been guilty of a felony , and that he may only arrest without a warrant one guilty of a misdemeanor if committed in his presence. Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 US 487; Elk v. U.S., 117 US 529.
"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
[Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." [McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)]
"where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved the court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution."
[Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)]
"in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S. Ct. AT 1656; “ [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973)]
". . .there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves." [Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ]
[McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)]
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery." [State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)]
"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense." [State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954)]
Last edited:
I didn't have the patience to read all this... but one thing caught my eye..
"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of 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)."
In regards to giving up 4th amendment rights with CPLs.... and implied consent for D/L too... interesting.
"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of 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)."
In regards to giving up 4th amendment rights with CPLs.... and implied consent for D/L too... interesting.
eye95
Well-known member
Folks, again, be careful with Internet-wannabe-legal advice. Folks who follow it tend to end up on the wrong side of a judge.
Talk to real lawyers or research the law yourself. Don't rely on snippets taken out of context from much more complicated rulings.
Talk to real lawyers or research the law yourself. Don't rely on snippets taken out of context from much more complicated rulings.
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Who is giving legal advice? Only Bar Associates can give that.
Who is a wanna-be? Certainly not me
I think your a little confused
mohawk001
Regular Member
I would think it's you who are confused from what I'm reading. You can say what you want, but having said what supposedly is and isn't with all those partial quotes is actually acting as a wanna-be. Or are you going to say that you are a lawyer?
I do agree that you have the right to travel though. That is why you have two feet after all. There is no right to drive however.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
And you have two fists, who needs a gun or a knife? After all you can defend yourself with your hands.......
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Well your opinions are just that "your opinions". We are all entitled to have them. I'm just putting the information out there for those looking for it.
I never said I'm a lawyer, I stated clearly only bar associates can give legal advice.
It's kinda ironic you say you have the right to travel...but not travel in a car. How can you go anywhere without using the public roadways? Try walking or riding your bicycle down the highway or Interstate and see how the Police respond. Any reasonable common sense says if you have a Right...then you may use the average or typical items of the times. It used to be horses, donkeys, and foot travel. Then came wagons, and trains and now automobiles.
Using the same line of thinking...you can't use a glass to drink out of without permission from the government because you weren't born with it. You can't use a stick or a rock to defend yourself without permission because you weren't born with it. I disagree with that logic. I was born with 2 hands and 2 feet and grey matter controlling them to make, create and use tools to accomplish my goals. Until I cause injury to you or someone else, what right do you or any other person have to control me?
I never said there wouldn't be opposition to the Right to travel. Judges ignore precedent and common reason everyday, violate their oaths, refuse to allow evidence. Isn't that part of the problem?
Apparently the judges disagree with your opinion:
"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 make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).
I'm not going to sit here and argue with you if you don't agree. You have your opinion, and beliefs, that's your Right and ability you were born with. You can carry on in your life living it the way you have been. If your happy, then great. Keep on doing what your doing as long as your not causing injury to somebody else.
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Beat you by a year....
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Will-I-Ever-Get-My-Right-To-Carry-Back/page8
Hands off man! LOL
:lol:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Will-I-Ever-Get-My-Right-To-Carry-Back/page8
Hands off man! LOL
:lol:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Aw, you guys! There's plenty to go around. :lol:
FireStar M40
Regular Member
Isn't It Interesting that Eye95 Didn't Answer Your Question..
DKSuddeth. We all know by Eye95's above non-answer that not only does he disagree with the OP.. but in addition, he also does care (or agrees with) the state trampling on peoples rights.
Side Note.. If one Googles the words "Could Care Less meaning", the results show the following, ie: "You Care" or are "In Favor" of something or someone. So in your above quote and context.. you were correct on both counts!
Congratulations! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who's able to read into Eye95's non-answered answers.
FireStar M40
P.S. I liked the way you slipped the ol' subliminal "Could Care Less" curve ball in there.. you sly one you.
DKSuddeth. We all know by Eye95's above non-answer that not only does he disagree with the OP.. but in addition, he also does care (or agrees with) the state trampling on peoples rights.
Side Note.. If one Googles the words "Could Care Less meaning", the results show the following, ie: "You Care" or are "In Favor" of something or someone. So in your above quote and context.. you were correct on both counts!
Congratulations! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who's able to read into Eye95's non-answered answers.
FireStar M40
P.S. I liked the way you slipped the ol' subliminal "Could Care Less" curve ball in there.. you sly one you.
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
here's the problem I have with your attitude, ideas, and mindset. You're going on the premise that if the court says something, then it is so and past law be damned. that was one of the main reasons our forefathers abandoned the crown and forged a new nation, so that these things wouldn't happen to them and their future.
we have the right to travel anywhere and anyhow we see fit, including driving a personal vehicle. If the state decides that they want to call it a privilege and license it, that does not mean it's no longer a right, it just means that it's being denied us.
the worst thing you can do is endorse that tyrannical idea.
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
how about by horse? or bicycle? covered wagon? can any of those forms of travel be denied or licensed then?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
This flies in the face of the popularity doctrine espoused by the Supreme Court in Heller.
eye95
Well-known member
My post says nothing that you imply it says.
I have a real problem with THAT mindset.
Folks, use the track-back links (the blue arrows). Find out what I really said, not what someone disingenuously would have you believe I said. I find that behavior despicable.
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Wanna hear it from Law Enforcement???
[video=youtube;pcGSd4-1xho]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcGSd4-1xho[/video]
[video=youtube;pcGSd4-1xho]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcGSd4-1xho[/video]
since9
Campaign Veteran
I agree. Courts make bad judgments all the time. What's most important is to keep doing what's right and change the system from the bottom up, by appeal to a higher court if necessary.
Exactly. That's a steep slope, and I part with $175 a year to avoid having to climb it.
I wonder if my parting with $175 is an endorsement? I do not endorse it, but since I don't have $1 million lying around for the fight it would take to reach SCOTUS, I choose to part with $175 a year.