Jump to content

Lawyers in here: My Son's research concerning a driver's license


USNRET

Recommended Posts

He is 14 and currently undergoing taught at home driver training.

He stated that according to the SCOUS driving was a right not a priviledge. I asked for case law and he submitted a link to several pages which seemed legit. Now he is not one to buck the system but the question intrigued me after reading his submission. My response, which he accepted, was that the state required either insurance or financial bond for a driver to operate a non-commercial vehicle and that the insurance companies would not cover a non-licensed driver and the last time I checked he didn't have the ability to obtain a bond.

 

To the Esquires in the group, have you ever defended a non-licensed operator of a private vehicle which caused no danger or impediment to traffic and if so what was the ruling?

Edited by USNRET
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer but I have seen this come up from time to time on Libertarian forums, usually by the same people that are into "US Citizen" with ALL CAPS NAME vs citizen of a state and Admiralty law for our courts etc. Its actually pretty interesting if you really look into it. If you dig far enough down the rabbit hole I think its legit to not have one and that is why when you get a drivers license you are signing a contract that says, "Driving is a privilege not a right." and thus waiving your natural right to transportation. That being said, if you want to go down that road you better lawyer up real good and be prepared to be hassled and labeled a "Sovereign Citizen type domestic terrorist" by law enforcement. 

 

This is a pretty good video from a courtroom that outlines how it all works:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

A license is a privilege, mot a right, it is a privilege license.

It can be taken away or or denied as long as there isndue process. Send me the name of the case from SCOUTUS and I can try and see where he got off track, which is easy to do with SCOUTUS opinions.

Or he can call me, you have the number.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

As far as driving without a license, it is a class c violation, same as a speeding ticket, but non moving, can usually get dismissed with payment of administrative fee.

No one would take that to trial, the law is well established that a state can require a license to drive, and establish regulations for the issuance of a license.

What did get litigated was requiring a thumbprint for getting a license, TX Sup Ct said that was cool. A very conservative court I might add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Here is a link to a Fed Case from 9th Court of Appeals decision.

Havenhim read Section II of the opinion and it lays out very clearly prior SCOTUS cases going back into the 70s that driving a car is not a fundamental right and why.

Here is one quote:

The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.   The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right. -

See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html#sthash.fa7zwUBX.dpuf

When you see a Court say an argument is "utterly frivolous" it is time to take heed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love sovereign citizens!  :D

 

Look it it in your "book of codes!"  This is by far my favorite Youtube vid of this type, shows this crazy chick trying to tell a CHP officer what he can and cannot do as her boyfriend was arrested for no drivers license and some other possible narcatics infractions.  This cop is so cool, and there are so many great lines in this video.  :lol:

 

Edited by wvu80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It rarely turns out well for them. As Wold points iut, he ended up in jail, for a long time, with more charges.

They are all the same. Above aberage intelligence, very articulate, but they have a processing switch that gets flipped where they sincerely believe in the most fundamentally flawed logical arguments.

Copyright of their name for example.

Here is local paper about mountain man.http://m.belgrade-news.com/news/article_8926881a-5654-11e3-bac2-001a4bcf887a.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps driving is a right, but driving without proving to the state that you understand and are mature enough to not harm yourself or a bus-load of others has got to be illegal if the lawmakers say so. Since I was a youngster with a learner's permit, I have wondered why the big deal about a "privilege not a right". If the law of my city, county, or state says I can or cannot drive, I will obey that law. Where is the common sense in the argument that everybody can drive no matter what?  Forget about presidence!, none is needed, people can get hurt or die!

 

I bet if you asked a justice whether a 13 year old has the right to drive a car, after the snicker, the answer would be a bold heck NO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think driving is a Right. It is a privilege that is well regulated. You sign the contract which is your license; you agree to the myriad of motor vehicle laws. It is interesting that with any transaction you have with .gov they require your signature (consent). Now I have heard that signing the license WITHOUT PREJUDICE precludes the judge from holding you accountable to the laws governing motor vehicles. Which is an interesting topic in and of itself, but I don't know how viable the tactic is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love sovereign citizens!  :D

 

Look it it in your "book of codes!"  This is by far my favorite Youtube vid of this type, shows this crazy chick trying to tell a CHP officer what he can and cannot do as her boyfriend was arrested for no drivers license and some other possible narcatics infractions.  This cop is so cool, and there are so many great lines in this video.  :lol:

 

 

HAHAHA This made my morning. "Were free people of the land, we have all the rights but dont have to follow any of the laws!"

 

The best part was the fact that the cop wasnt some Unconstitutional DHS goon at a "border" checkpoint or anything, he was a deputy of a Sheriff who was democratically elected by the people of the county to enforce laws passed by democratically elected local officials which is pretty much exactly how the founding fathers set up our Republic. I am a pretty die hard Constitutionalist and this deputy acted with nothing but patience and restraint. The girl should have just got out of the car and asked, "Officer, am I being detained?" If the answer is "No" then just walk away.  

Edited by twk123
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I don't think driving is a Right. It is a privilege that is well regulated. You sign the contract which is your license; you agree to the myriad of motor vehicle laws. It is interesting that with any transaction you have with .gov they require your signature (consent). Now I have heard that signing the license WITHOUT PREJUDICE precludes the judge from holding you accountable to the laws governing motor vehicles. Which is an interesting topic in and of itself, but I don't know how viable the tactic is.

The "without prejudice" tactic in that context is another one that is considered "frivolous"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I skimmed through it, and noticed that out of all of those citations none deal with whether a state can require someone to get a driver's license.

That is your son's specific question as I recall. If driving is a right how can they prevent me from driving.

First step is determine whether driving is a fundamental right.

Freedom of travel is a fundamental right, lot os cases on that.

What the specious argument that is advanced by some groups is that the only way to accomplish this is by driving, and therefore driving is a fundamental right.

If you look at the 9th Circuit case I linked, it is clear that Sup Ct. has held that as long as you have some mode of travel, whether, air, bus, or by FOOT, your right to travel is not infringed.

What is common with the fringes is they lay out the logic of a premise of an argument, quote language from cases that don't have anything to do with the specific issue, and they ignore the cases right on point where the issue is addressed.

When you point out to them that the Court rejected the argument, their logic turns circular. They will say that Court says travel is fundamental right, you say, but same court says driving isn't, they respond with something out of left field like, if you haven't signed agreement with state, or "without prejudice" they have no power over you. You then hop down that bunny trail about where they come up with that.

The video of mountain man was about him not paying for a fishing license. Then claiming he is a free man with right to forage for food.

Sorry, no, the fish belong to the state, whether you are hungry or not. It is no different if he went on someone's property and took their chicken for food and he was jailed for theft.

He switched argument to that is not my name, that the prosecutor is operating as an esquire under English law and on violation of the Constitution of whatever year. Judges tells him to sit down and shut up, he will get his chance, he refuses and gets led off in handcuffs.

In mountain man's mind he believes he has won. More importantly, those who are like minded as him also think he won and think he has advanced legitimate legal arguments that are a precedent.

Here is a quote from one of the citations in your linked site:

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets Indiana Springs case isn't a U.S. Supreme Court case. They copy and paste from like minded people who agree with their legal view, and they don't check it.

Here is a clue, if SCOTUS had ruled in a case that driving is a fundamental right it would be at the top of their page with a direct quote.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I love sovereign citizens! :D

Look it it in your "book of codes!" This is by far my favorite Youtube vid of this type, shows this crazy chick trying to tell a CHP officer what he can and cannot do as her boyfriend was arrested for no drivers license and some other possible narcatics infractions. This cop is so cool, and there are so many great lines in this video. :lol:

HAHAHA This made my morning. "Were free people of the land, we have all the rights but dont have to follow any of the laws!"

The best part was the fact that the cop wasnt some Unconstitutional DHS goon at a "border" checkpoint or anything, he was a deputy of a Sheriff who was democratically elected by the people of the county to enforce laws passed by democratically elected local officials which is pretty much exactly how the founding fathers set up our Republic. I am a pretty die hard Constitutionalist and this deputy acted with nothing but patience and restraint. The girl should have just got out of the car and asked, "Officer, am I being detained?" If the answer is "No" then just walk away.

What if officer said: "Yes you are being detained."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I love sovereign citizens! :D

Look it it in your "book of codes!" This is by far my favorite Youtube vid of this type, shows this crazy chick trying to tell a CHP officer what he can and cannot do as her boyfriend was arrested for no drivers license and some other possible narcatics infractions. This cop is so cool, and there are so many great lines in this video. :lol:

Great video.

From there she probably got a public defender who tried to explain to her that none of her legal "arguments" had any merit, that he tried to look up the U.S. Confederate Code and came up empty, to which she said "I have seen it on the Internet, I know it exists."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think driving is a Right. It is a privilege that is well regulated. You sign the contract which is your license; you agree to the myriad of motor vehicle laws. It is interesting that with any transaction you have with .gov they require your signature (consent). Now I have heard that signing the license WITHOUT PREJUDICE precludes the judge from holding you accountable to the laws governing motor vehicles. Which is an interesting topic in and of itself, but I don't know how viable the tactic is.

The "without prejudice" tactic in that context is another one that is considered "frivolous"

 

 

You actually need to use the "Extreme Prejudice" tactic...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I love sovereign citizens! :D

Look it it in your "book of codes!" This is by far my favorite Youtube vid of this type, shows this crazy chick trying to tell a CHP officer what he can and cannot do as her boyfriend was arrested for no drivers license and some other possible narcatics infractions. This cop is so cool, and there are so many great lines in this video. :lol:

 

HAHAHA This made my morning. "Were free people of the land, we have all the rights but dont have to follow any of the laws!"

The best part was the fact that the cop wasnt some Unconstitutional DHS goon at a "border" checkpoint or anything, he was a deputy of a Sheriff who was democratically elected by the people of the county to enforce laws passed by democratically elected local officials which is pretty much exactly how the founding fathers set up our Republic. I am a pretty die hard Constitutionalist and this deputy acted with nothing but patience and restraint. The girl should have just got out of the car and asked, "Officer, am I being detained?" If the answer is "No" then just walk away.

What if officer said: "Yes you are being detained."

 

 

Then you make them explain under what suspicion of crime you are being detained for so unless you are actively helping with an investigation your only conversation should be:

 

"Officer, Im I free to go?"

"No"

"Officer, am I being detained"

"Yes"

"Officer, please state your reasonable suspicion of a crime for which I am being detained"

 

Then depending on the answer you cite that you can only be detained under reasonable suspicion and if that cant be provided you should be free to go or if there is suspicion then keep you mouth shut and dont say a word without a lawyer by your side. Just say, "I wish to remain silent until I have legal representation." The most important thing is to use the exact words and be extremely polite as the Cruiser is recording everything and the last thing you want is to look like an A**hat while sitting in a courtroom.

 

(I actually attended a seminar on this in College)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then depending on the answer you cite that you can only be detained under reasonable suspicion and if that cant be provided you should be free to go or if there is suspicion then keep you mouth shut and dont say a word without a lawyer by your side. Just say, "I wish to remain silent until I have legal representation." The most important thing is to use the exact words and be extremely polite as the Cruiser is recording everything and the last thing you want is to look like an A**hat while sitting in a courtroom.

 

(I actually attended a seminar on this in College)

 

 

And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Edited by eth2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...