• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Favor Owed--Fourth Amendment dot Com

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
And all some of us are asking is for you to provide the court documents, redacted as necessary to protect your *real* identity, that support your claim that you have successfully defended your right to drive an automobile without having obtained a driver's license from your state. That shouldn't be difficult, assuming they actually exist.
Please don't be dense, there exist no court documents, kangaroo, revenue courts do not want their scam exposed. The case simply gets dismissed with prejudice, via the kangaroo judge.. It is a verbal dismissal, no stamped documents, no receipts, etc.. They endeavor to keep the general public and the ignorant, from attempting the same argument...

However, when my book, hits the shelves, I shall forward you and others an autographed copy..

My .02
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Sounds like J. Wellington Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." He'll establish his bona fides in the future but you must believe him today.
Kind Sir, do I not trust in you when you post of your exploits, please allow me the same courtesy.

CCJ
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,285
Location
northern wis
Please don't be dense, there exist no court documents, kangaroo, revenue courts do not want their scam exposed. The case simply gets dismissed with prejudice, via the kangaroo judge.. It is a verbal dismissal, no stamped documents, no receipts, etc.. They endeavor to keep the general public and the ignorant, from attempting the same argument...

However, when my book, hits the shelves, I shall forward you and others an autographed copy..

My .02
CCJ
Right.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
In 33 years in law enforcement I heard and seen it all constitutional drivers license, plates no drivers license home made drivers license, home made constitutional plates.

Claims of the right to travel with both. been handed pages of reason why the driver didn't need a DL. while always claiming a constitutional right to travel and drive.

I never seen any one of these arguments prevail in court.

We had a big Posse Comitatus movement in Wisconsin for a while.

Are all these arguments invalid no are they all valid no. I am a constitutionalist in my political views but after seeing these people act they do some times have some strange ideas.

I would love to have CCJ post actual court documents or cases where some one has prevailed making these arguments and won.
Firearms, first off, thank you for your service.
Quick question, in those kangaroo courts, that you mentioned, did the judge and prosecutor get compensated via the same entity?
Ill await your reply..
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
"Riight, sure Francis." Where's Sergeant Hulka when we need him.
LOL, Hulka, You got a problem boy? I got a hell of a sense of humor.. Anyone else want to be a comedian here?

Word salad, you would make a great Sgt, Hulka, in my humble opinion..

CCJ
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,285
Location
northern wis
Firearms, first off, thank you for your service.
Quick question, in those kangaroo courts, that you mentioned, did the judge and prosecutor get compensated via the same entity?
Ill await your reply..
Regards
CCJ
I never mention any thing about kangaroo courts they are a item that you insist exist.

Having been involved with courts in 7 or 8 counties during my career every hearing had a court reporter that recorded all official actions.

But Then all my work was done at the circuit court level and never with municipal courts that only handle civil citation related to municipal ordinances . They have a looser standard then the circuit or higher court level but I still believe all actions are recorded.

But I can only comment on the Wisconsin court system.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I never mention any thing about kangaroo courts they are a item that you insist exist.

Having been involved with courts in 7 or 8 counties during my career every hearing had a court reporter that recorded all official actions.

But Then all my work was done at the circuit court level and never with municipal courts that only handle civil citation related to municipal ordinances . They have a looser standard then the circuit or higher court level but I still believe all actions are recorded.

But I can only comment on the Wisconsin court system.
Thank you Sir!
 

dmatting

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
442
Location
Durham, NC
No one is going to believe you just because you say it is so. And what you are saying isn't exactly consistent.

...I have not had the so called privilege of driving now, for about 22 years.. I have no license.. However I follow the laws of the road..
In my 22 years, I have won (3) driving without a privilege cases..
...I have been stopped 2 times in 25 years...
So, which is it? In the span of three days you make conflicting claims.

...I have posted this same case many times here. It seems people only read what they want to read.. I have also used said case in the kangaroo traffic court, each time, case was dismissed...
In the member information area of your postings, it shows that your location is "nj" - which we would read as New Jersey. How could you possibly use a ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court for anything in New Jersey?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
No one is going to believe you just because you say it is so. And what you are saying isn't exactly consistent.



So, which is it? In the span of three days you make conflicting claims.


In the member information area of your postings, it shows that your location is "nj" - which we would read as New Jersey. How could you possibly use a ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court for anything in New Jersey?
I have not had a drivers license in 25 years, oh yes, I still know how to drive and I do in fact drive.. Cited twice for driving unlicensed, won both cases.

Your results may differ.

CCJ
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I have been stopped 2 times in 25 years, yes, i obey the rules of the highway, both times without the state issued DL.. When I receive the complaint, I file for discovery, I file a MTD, along with a well articulated brief, both times the cases were dismissed. Results may vary for others.
countryclubjoe said:
I have not had the so called privilege of driving now, for about 22 years.. I have no license.. However I follow the laws of the road..
In my 22 years, I have won (3) driving without a privilege cases.. Surely they are not published, the powers, to-be simply dismiss any case, where the defendant is knowledgeable of his/her rights.. The scam shall continue, simply because folks, like yourself, buy into the corrupt system
countryclubjoe said:
I have not had a drivers license in 25 years, oh yes, I still know how to drive and I do in fact drive.. Cited twice for driving unlicensed, won both cases.
1) How does one win a case that's dismissed?
2) If the case goes to court and is dismissed there's going to be a record, judges don't say "meh, why don't we pretend this never happened, m'kay?"
3) If the case doesn't make it to court then there should be a record of the county solicitor requesting the court to nolle prosequi the case.

Any way I look at it there's going to be evidence that something happened.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Charles
You are an intelligent fellow, let youtube and google and case law be your guide along with your own independent thinking,
From our rules:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.


I'm sorry. But for all the time you've spent telling us why you won't provide any meaningful evidence of your claimed legal exploits, you could have easily posted a copy of one of your "well reasoned legal briefings" (redacting any personal information as necessary). I simply cannot think of any reason for refusing to post at least that other than simply not having what you claim to have. I hate to question a man's honesty. But in this case I simply have no other choice. I've asked sincerely and repeatedly for some smidgen of evidence. You claim to file well reasoned/written legal briefs as part of your defense. It would be trivial to post a copy of one.

Having won a traffic case in "kangaroo court" my experience is that the court does issue a written decision. In fact, the paralegal who counseled me on how to proceed with my own defense for an unwarranted traffic ticket was tickled pink when I phoned, somewhat disheartened that the judge had not issued a verbal verdict on the spot but instead taken it under advisement to issue a decision later. "You won!" my friend explained over the phone when I told her how my day in court went. "If they were going to find you guilty, they'd have done it in open court in front of God and everyone. But since you won, they have no desire to let other defendants sitting in court know there is any hope. They will mail a written decision with your win so that nobody else in court gets to see it." And she was absolutely correct. The written decision of my acquittal showed up in the mail a week later.

That makes a lot more sense to me that does a "kangaroo court" judge listening to great argument and then dismissing with prejudice in open court. My goodness, the whole court might figure out his scam and go running to you for advice on how to beat the racket. It is much safer for the court to announce with great gravity that he will issue a written verdict later and get you out of the room before anyone else gets any ideas.

So I'm also having a hard time believing that you've had cases dismissed with prejudice but have no written records at all of any such dismissal. I know there would have had to have been a written ticket and/or summons.

Simply put country club joe, you are following in exactly the same pattern of every other person I've ever met who claimed that they "traveled" in a private auto-carriage without needing registration, license plates, or drivers license. You are refusing to provide any meaningful evidence to back up your claims and also refusing to provide any usable information.

This site has value precisely because posters back up legal claims with evidence, and that evidence gets examined and criticized or confirmed by other posters. Youtube has as much garbage as it does useful information. That is why I come here, rather than Youtube when looking for legal information.

Much as some of folks may not like others here, we all know who is credible and who isn't when it comes to offering usable information on matters legal.

This thread has moved you solidly to the non-credible category until you choose to rectify that by backing up your claims with some evidence.

I also think that lacking some credible evidence, your on going claims of driving without a license and mocking those who obey the law by having a license actually move into the realm of advocating for illegal activities in violation of rule 15. But I fully expect you to get a pass on that from the owners/mods.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I second these motions! I think most responsible drivers would like to give the DMV the boot.
Thank you.

That is indeed a scam.
It is a scam in the sense that the stated "benefits" of the DMV/Driver License Division are not worth anything near what we are required to pay. DLs and vehicle registrations, in most areas, are a simple matter of exacting and collecting money (in the form of taxes or fees) simply because the government can.

The question is, Does the government have the constitutional and statutory authority to exact these taxes? Sadly, I've never seen anyone who claimed the government did not have constitutional and statutory authority who was willing to back up their claims with any meaningful evidence.

Apparently, those who mock others for registering their vehicles and maintaining current driver licenses are unwilling to assist those folks in gaining the education they need to confidently exercise their rights and break free from the unjust and illegal taxation. Frankly, one might consider such persons who refuse to help others escape tyranny to be as bad or worse than the tyrants themselves. The tyrants have self interest to justify their supposed oppression of others. But what reason have the enlightened for not sharing their knowledge as freely as we do our knowledge regarding how to legally carry a gun for self defense?

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Here in Virginia the right to travel/drive and the requirement for a license or permit is explicitly defined in a Virginia Supreme Court case from 1930. Thompson vs. Smith.

Court ruling:

...

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. (emphasis is mine).

...
There has been no case since then that refutes this decision.
+1
I have posted this same case many times here. It seems people only read what they want to read..
The very next paragraph from this decision reads:


The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

Seems the court has said the city can require a license to drive on private streets as long as the granting and revocation of said license is not done arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

Since no case since refutes this decision, then the part of the decision about cities being permitted to require a license to drive, must also remain in full effect.

CITATIONS to the contrary are welcome. But I tire of emphatic assertion and misleading quotes taken out of proper context.

"Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful."

Charles
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
From our rules:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.


I'm sorry. But for all the time you've spent telling us why you won't provide any meaningful evidence of your claimed legal exploits, you could have easily posted a copy of one of your "well reasoned legal briefings" (redacting any personal information as necessary). I simply cannot think of any reason for refusing to post at least that other than simply not having what you claim to have. I hate to question a man's honesty. But in this case I simply have no other choice. I've asked sincerely and repeatedly for some smidgen of evidence. You claim to file well reasoned/written legal briefs as part of your defense. It would be trivial to post a copy of one.

Having won a traffic case in "kangaroo court" my experience is that the court does issue a written decision. In fact, the paralegal who counseled me on how to proceed with my own defense for an unwarranted traffic ticket was tickled pink when I phoned, somewhat disheartened that the judge had not issued a verbal verdict on the spot but instead taken it under advisement to issue a decision later. "You won!" my friend explained over the phone when I told her how my day in court went. "If they were going to find you guilty, they'd have done it in open court in front of God and everyone. But since you won, they have no desire to let other defendants sitting in court know there is any hope. They will mail a written decision with your win so that nobody else in court gets to see it." And she was absolutely correct. The written decision of my acquittal showed up in the mail a week later.

That makes a lot more sense to me that does a "kangaroo court" judge listening to great argument and then dismissing with prejudice in open court. My goodness, the whole court might figure out his scam and go running to you for advice on how to beat the racket. It is much safer for the court to announce with great gravity that he will issue a written verdict later and get you out of the room before anyone else gets any ideas.

So I'm also having a hard time believing that you've had cases dismissed with prejudice but have no written records at all of any such dismissal. I know there would have had to have been a written ticket and/or summons.

Simply put country club joe, you are following in exactly the same pattern of every other person I've ever met who claimed that they "traveled" in a private auto-carriage without needing registration, license plates, or drivers license. You are refusing to provide any meaningful evidence to back up your claims and also refusing to provide any usable information.

This site has value precisely because posters back up legal claims with evidence, and that evidence gets examined and criticized or confirmed by other posters. Youtube has as much garbage as it does useful information. That is why I come here, rather than Youtube when looking for legal information.

Much as some of folks may not like others here, we all know who is credible and who isn't when it comes to offering usable information on matters legal.

This thread has moved you solidly to the non-credible category until you choose to rectify that by backing up your claims with some evidence.

I also think that lacking some credible evidence, your on going claims of driving without a license and mocking those who obey the law by having a license actually move into the realm of advocating for illegal activities in violation of rule 15. But I fully expect you to get a pass on that from the owners/mods.

Charles
Thank you for your kind reply, I have you on my list, as one of the top ten, to receive a copy of my book when it hits the shelves..

" Wise man do not always spread wisdom"..

Until then, I look forward to much civil discourse on other topics of individual liberty.

Regards
CCJ
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,285
Location
northern wis
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. (emphasis is mine).

Full text of case is here: https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24
This seems clear as mud to me. They can but they can't.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,433
Location
White Oak Plantation
Regulate as they see fit...a tax stamp located in the windshield (think emissions sticker) would fit the bill. Licensing is used to show proof to other states' municipalities. If Missouri desired they could choose to not issue a license and switch to a tax sticker. Other states would need to recognize the tax sticker.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Regulate as they see fit...a tax stamp located in the windshield (think emissions sticker) would fit the bill. Licensing is used to show proof to other states' municipalities. If Missouri desired they could choose to not issue a license and switch to a tax sticker. Other states would need to recognize the tax sticker.
All of the non-revenue functions of auto registration and licenses to drive (which in mind serves as a near universal ID and as a bail card for minor traffic offenses) could be served with a very modest fee to issue a license plate which could be valid forever and a very modest fee to issue a driver license which could be valid for 10 years or until you change addresses, whichever comes first.

Issue a new DL to update the photo for $15 every 10 years, or to update the address for $10 as needed.

Charge a $5 administrative fee to update addresses on license plates.

Require proof of insurance to be carried in the car and/or submitted to the DMV every year.

If emissions and/or safety testing is required, nominal fee and a sticker that expires. But as discussed in this article emissions compliance is achieved a lot less expensively and invasively by setting up mobile testers at the bottom of freeway off ramps than by forcing everyone to run his car through an emissions test every year. Utah just dropped our safety inspection based on data from most other Western States that don't have safety inspections and have no higher rate of equipment failure related crashes than do States with such inspections. Turns out the guy who owns/drives the car has a pretty good incentive to keep it in decent repair and the kind of problems that cause crashes can crop up between mandatory annual inspections anyway.

Short story long, most everything else about DLs and DMV is clearly just a revenue function.

Whether a car is new or old, luxury or economy, motorcycle or F-350, really has no effect on the cost of building or maintaining roads. From the lightest of cars up through the largest of standard passenger trucks, weight differences just don't matter. Heavy commercial trucks (ie tractor trailer rigs) and freeze-thaw cycles are responsible for most road damage. But luxury taxes or otherwise soaking the rich is politically painless, so most places impose higher taxes on newer and/or more expensive cars.

An odometer reading or GPS tracker is the most accurate way to gauge taxes or tolls for fair share of road usage, but are also more invasive than most of us care for. So a per gallon gas tax is a close enough approximation at least until alternative fuel cars get far more numerous.

If the revenue is to be collected, I wish they'd at least give us the option to pay it less often in larger amounts and spare us the hassle of annual registration on the cars and having to renew licenses every 5 years. I know some States have much longer terms on these items.

What is quite clear to me, however, is that State and local governments are fully within Constitutional constraints to impose these taxes and registration & licensing requirements on those who operate motor vehicles on public roads. Despite some emphatic assertions, I've never seen any actual evidence to the contrary.

Charles
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
UTBAGPIPER said,
But as discussed in this article emissions compliance is achieved a lot less expensively and invasively by setting up mobile testers at the bottom of freeway off ramps than by forcing everyone to run his car through an emissions test every year.
And yet, I find it MUCH more convenient to take my vehicle in to a testing station AT MY CONVENIENCE every other year sometime in the month that my registration comes due than deal with the inconvenience of dealing with a roving random mandatory mobile checkpoint to check my vehicle without regard to where I am going or the urgency of my travel!
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
And yet, I find it MUCH more convenient to take my vehicle in to a testing station AT MY CONVENIENCE every other year sometime in the month that my registration comes due than deal with the inconvenience of dealing with a roving random mandatory mobile checkpoint to check my vehicle without regard to where I am going or the urgency of my travel!
And for that very reason, along with self preservation and simple courtesy I choose to inspect the lights on my car (daylight running, nighttime headlamps, turn signals, marker, license plate, and brake) at least monthly. A bulb can burn out anytime and unless your car provides an indicator of a burned out bulb the only way to avoid driving around with failed lights is to inspect them regularly. A burned out bulb is grounds for a police officer to stop you and issue a warning or citation for equipment failure. It also increases the risks of a crash if blinkers, marker, brake or other lights are not working.

In like manner, responsible car owners would continue to either check their vehicles or have them checked for proper operation on some regular basis. In addition to compliance with law and regard for the environment, most cars get maximum fuel efficiency when emissions are lowest (some diesels such as VWs being a notable exception).

Turns out every car built in about the last 20 or 30 years monitors itself for emissions and will light up a "check engine" light (at least) if there is a problem. The responsible car owner will know that he needs to service his vehicle. Until then, he needn't spend time or money checking emissions. Unlike bulbs, the car will tell him when emissions (or the sensors monitoring emissions) are out of whack. Newer cars almost never have a problem. Emission problems as cars age remain relatively rare until you hit very high mileage.

And from what I've read, a roving mobile checkpoint does not involve a stop (except possibly following a violation). It measures emissions coming out the tailpipe as you drive by. If your car fails, you get a citation (either following a stop or via a mailed letter) to go get your car tested at a testing station. But instead of everyone spending the time and money to do it every other year (or every year if you car is a bit older), the testing is only required for those few drivers whose cars fail the test as they drive by a mobile testing station.

The article to which I linked discusses power curve problems, of which auto emissions are one. These days, the vast majority of cars run very cleanly. A tiny number are grossly out of compliance. Auto emission rates do not follow a normal or bell curve and so should not be treated as some normal distribution.

In other words, roving mobile test stations only impose costs on those few whose cars are demonstrated to be failing. There is not a priori restraint on the vast majority whose cars are working properly.

But, a large portion of the population has an emotional response to the idea of random, roving, real-time testing. So we are unlikely to move away from our current wasteful system that is not nearly as effective at actually reducing excessive emissions as would be the random testing.

Charles
 
Top