• 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.

Does Mandating license plates violate " Our right to Privacy"?

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
But, since you mentioned it... Does your 'right to travel' encompass riding a hose on a limited access highway (aka interstate)?

In rural Pa, ohio and NJ, I see horses and buggies all the time... I even see police people on horses in NY and NJ...
Joe, I realize your ability to understand the written word is compromised by your lack of education, therefore I can forgive you for not being able to comprehend what the expression 'limited access highway (aka interstate) means.
I'll try to use smaller words in the future.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
There is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people.. Here are some straight forward case..

" The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonable made, is not to be defeated under the name of laical practice" Davis v Wechsler.

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" Miranda v Arizona

" The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime" Miller v U.S.

" There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.' sheerer v Cullen

More to come.

My .02

Travel is a right, operating a motor vehicle on public highways is not. You have posted no citation that states otherwise.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
It would probably be impolite of me to point out that CountryclubJoe plagiarized his post from FarmGuardian.com. For those to whom 'plagiarized' is a big word, it means "stole" as in CountryClubJoe stole the intellectual property (words) from the true author.

There is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people.. Here are some straight forward case[sic, I'm sure Joe means cases]..

" The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonable made, is not to be defeated under the name of laical[sic, I think Joe means 'local'] practice" Davis v Wechsler.
"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" Miranda v Arizona
" The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime" Miller v U.S.
" There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.' sheerer[[sic, It's "Sherar, Joe. All you had to do was a simple copy and paste, a 5-year old can do it for gosh sakes] v Cullen
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Joe, I realize your ability to understand the written word is compromised by your lack of education, therefore I can forgive you for not being able to comprehend what the expression 'limited access highway (aka interstate) means.
I'll try to use smaller words in the future.

thank you for the forgiveness O' holy one.. Your reverence and pedantic personality mask the fact that you are a quasi- intellectual however have no fear oh quasi one, I shall still enjoy opining with you and your second year law school mentality.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Travel is a right, operating a motor vehicle on public highways is not. You have posted no citation that states otherwise.

The fact that it is a right is citation enough. Well, for those that understand what a right is anyways.

Cannot regulate travel. Can regulation driving.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Travel is a right, operating a motor vehicle on public highways is not. You have posted no citation that states otherwise.

You say and the DMV thieves say " operating a motor vehicle" A person that advocates for natural rights and studies the constitution says " traveling in ones automobile'.. than wins the case in the kangaroo court..

The fact that you were a government actor and supported the licensing and permit scheme/fraud does not make your argument cogent. In my humble opinion you are looking thru opaque eyes due in part to being institutionalized by the system..

Government cannot LEGALLY put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason... MY CITATION is found in Article six of the U.S. Constitution to wit. " This constitution and the laws of The United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.. shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not one word withstanding."

My .02
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Government cannot LEGALLY put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason...

True, but there is nothing unconstitutional, illegal, immoral or fattening about reasonable restrictions. That's why it's a criminal act to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when the principal intent is to cause panic (to paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919))
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
It would probably be impolite of me to point out that CountryclubJoe plagiarized his post from FarmGuardian.com. For those to whom 'plagiarized' is a big word, it means "stole" as in CountryClubJoe stole the intellectual property (words) from the true author.

I prefer the old fashion method, however I shall seek the expertise of my 6 YO grandson to relieve me of my computer illiteracy.. Regarding your plagiarized claim, my post was verbatim from memory from an article with an unknown author. Again you can't resist the urge to act the police officer.
I understand that you are institutionalized by the corrupt system an that you are incongruous to folks that believe in " natural rights"..
Again let me reiterate that I understand that you feel the need to berate others so as to hide the fact that you are a " quasi-intellectual".

" I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts"... John Locke..
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You say and the DMV thieves say " operating a motor vehicle" A person that advocates for natural rights and studies the constitution says " traveling in ones automobile'.. than wins the case in the kangaroo court..

The fact that you were a government actor and supported the licensing and permit scheme/fraud does not make your argument cogent. In my humble opinion you are looking thru opaque eyes due in part to being institutionalized by the system..

Government cannot LEGALLY put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason... MY CITATION is found in Article six of the U.S. Constitution to wit. " This constitution and the laws of The United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.. shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not one word withstanding."

My .02

The problem is you are claiming rights that are not rights. Travel is not interfered by DL, and registration laws. Get over it.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The fact that it is a right is citation enough. Well, for those that understand what a right is anyways.

Cannot regulate travel. Can regulation driving.

+1
Finally someone that is not " institutionalized by the corrupt system".. and someone that understands "natural rights"...

My .02
Regards
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Regarding your plagiarized claim, my post was verbatim from memory from an article with an unknown author. Again you can't resist the urge to act the police officer.

So... you're saying "I can't remember where I got it, or who I got it from, but I remember it Exactly", is that it?

countryclubjoe said:
" The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonable made, is not to be defeated under the name of laical practice" Davis v Wechsler.

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" Miranda v Arizona

" The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime" Miller v U.S.

" There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.' sheerer v Cullen

Compared with

FarmGuardian.Org said:
]
". . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)]

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]

". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
[Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)]

Decide for yourselves if it was plagiarized nearly word for word and line for line or not.

Joe, you're a t̶h̶i̶e̶f̶ plagiarist and you know it.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The problem is you are claiming rights that are not rights. Travel is not interfered by DL, and registration laws. Get over it.

Its odd, because people travel in automobiles all the time w/o getting a DL ... (talking about operators, not passengers) .. and, in some states and areas ~ nothing happens to them. Nada, zip. No registration either.

When you get a title (ie proof of ownership) you trade this in for a certificate. Read your car "title"..its not a title at all.

You yourself can build a car ... the gov't will want you to create a title for it and then for you to hand it over to them.

When done, who owns the car? Argument could be made (and have been for a while) that the person who holds the title does (as that's the purpose of a title) ~ ie the state.

Fun subject matter !

Want to have more fun? Next time you buy a new car ... ask the dealer for the title (not certificate) .. see what they tell you....then you'll learn even more.

The more you know, the less you blow (hot air).
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
So... you're saying "I can't remember where I got it, or who I got it from, but I remember it Exactly", is that it?



Compared with



Decide for yourselves if it was plagiarized nearly word for word and line for line or not.

Joe, you're a t̶h̶i̶e̶f̶ plagiarist and you know it.

I may be at fault for attempting to articulate natural rights unto folks that are institutionalized like yourself however I will do whatever it may take to educate folks about their " natural God given rights"... A statist like yourself calls it plagiarism, I call it, Playing it forward, In 21st century America Getting out the message of Natural Rights via so -called plagiarism is a strategy not a crime.. If you care to debate copy right laws i shall indulge your curiosities. In 21st century America there are no laws restricting in posting the words or ideas of another.. If you or I post a quote from one of the Founders without lending credit to said founder we are not guilty of a "crime". Plagiarism could be used for good intentions or bad intentions, however unless the plagiarizer is being " compensated financially" for their so-called plagiarism there exist " no crime".. For a quick example, if you say, you're fired, are you plagiarizing Mr. Trump? Clearly no, you are simply mimicking your king. Hence even a person with a second year law student mentality like yourself understands that " plagiarism in 21st century America or elsewhere, could be construed as a " colloquialism" among the citizens of their time.

Please cease and desist with your police officer mentality.. You do not have the brains to be a prosecutor,, you shall always be a institutionalized puppet that cannot think outside the proverbial box..

I stand for individual liberty and natural God given rights. What Sir do you stand for? I am willing to " plagiarize' myself in the name of liberty. What sir are you willing to sacrifice in the name of liberty? While I may be at fault in articulating the prose of another so as to solidify my theory of natural God given rights, you sir are at fault for being a sheeple of the highest order.. I prefer being a " plagiarist as opposed to being a " sheeple"...

Again let me query you sir, what sacrifice are you willing to make in the name of liberty?

My .02
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
True, but there is nothing unconstitutional, illegal, immoral or fattening about reasonable restrictions. That's why it's a criminal act to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when the principal intent is to cause panic (to paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919))

I understand they taught you this concept in second year law school. Is open carrying a weapon and causing public panic a criminal act simply because some ignorant citizen or LEO feels threatened because you are exercising your 2nd amendment right? The plain answer is NO NO NO

However the ignorant leo and the ignorant citizen may feel your principle intent in open carrying is to cause a panic. Screw what they think..

We can construe different scenarios until our fingers fall off.. The bottom line is that no license should be mandatory to exercise a Natural God given right and no government agent should be enforcing such a silly mandate.. They swore an oath to uphold the highest law of the land, that should be their only job .. Enforcing quasi statutes and ordinances and threatening law abiding folks with violence for non-compliance to the quasi unconstitutional statutes and ordinances is a violation of said government agents oath..

The constitution is the supreme law of the land... The 9th amendment of said constitution is the answer..

Licensing fees, permits fees are another form of tax and another form of initiating naive citizens into the bogus unconstitutional scheme..

My .02
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Its odd, because people travel in automobiles all the time w/o getting a DL ... (talking about operators, not passengers) .. and, in some states and areas ~ nothing happens to them. Nada, zip. No registration either.

When you get a title (ie proof of ownership) you trade this in for a certificate. Read your car "title"..its not a title at all.

You yourself can build a car ... the gov't will want you to create a title for it and then for you to hand it over to them.

When done, who owns the car? Argument could be made (and have been for a while) that the person who holds the title does (as that's the purpose of a title) ~ ie the state.

Fun subject matter !

Want to have more fun? Next time you buy a new car ... ask the dealer for the title (not certificate) .. see what they tell you....then you'll learn even more.

The more you know, the less you blow (hot air).

Wow! Talk about hot air...
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
And the fact that in some places in the US, DL's and registrations are not required by the LEOs of their respective communities.
I was unaware that local law enforcement had the authority to do that; I'd always thought that licensing was a matter of state law and the state legislatures.


Would you, or could you list one of these communities where law enforcement decides if a driving license is required?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Just letting you know the theories that are out there ...

And the fact that in some places in the US, DL's and registrations are not required by the LEOs of their respective communities.

David
Folks like Walkingwolf aka Mr.conjecture and Fallschirmjager aka Mr.QI-- are unable to think outside the proverbial legal box, however to no-fault of their own.. They have been indoctrinated and institutionalized. They represent and support " State liberty" as opposed to " individual liberty", yes,they support the 2nd amendment however their support for other constitutional rights and God given rights stops therein at the 2nd..

" new opinions are always suspected and usually opposed by the ignorant, without any other reason but because they are not already common" Locke

My .02
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I'm not going to argue as everyone deserves to have an opinion and and no material facts were presented.

Heck, I'll even accept CCJ's estimation as to what his opinion is worth.
 
Last edited:
Top