Originally posted by caballero
Im sorry but she knew more than they did about her constitution how in gods name is that anti-government?
Since the government itself is acting as "anti-Constitution," then for the woman to act within her Constitutional Rights would indeed make her
"anti-government" even though she acts "pro-Constitution." The difference is subtle, but it's there...The difference is that the
doesn't abide by their own Constitutional Oaths of Office in the first place.
Originally posted by caballero
It is our sole responsibility to protect our rights, the minute we let them infringe them is the minute that they win and we lose more than money or
time, we lose our shield from oppression.
This is precisely the reason why we must
keep our 2nd Amendment Rights sancrosect from any government interference whatsoever
without our weapons, we have no means to defend any Rights
at all. As Thomas Jefferson put it: "The People...are the only sure reliance for
the preservation of our liberties."
Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Driving a car is a privilege not a Right.
In a very fundamental way, this is wrong
. You have the Right to Travel Freely, as upheld by the Supreme Court in California & several other
Supreme Courts that have set the precedence that this is a Right on equal par with all of the Rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Where most of us go wrong is that we enter into a contract with the State Department of Motor Vehicles to waive
that Right, which they in turn
replace with the "privileges" you speak of. By the exact phrasing
of your statement, you're right...But that particular wording is also
used by the "state" to deliberately mislead people
away from exercising their Rights. More accurately, it should be said that
driving is a privilege, but traveling freely is a Right
However, the Federal & State governments do have the authority to make it a privilege for someone to make commercial profit or gain from the use of
. Hence, the creation of the DoT (Federal level) & the Department of Motor Vehicles (State level). For the average Citizen who wishes
in their automobile
and/or transport their personal property on public roads, there are no requirements for driver's
license...For that would be an "abridgment" to the fundamental Right to Travel Freely.
The trickery here is the exact terminology they use to trick the Citizen into signing a contract to waive their Right
to travel freely &
replace the Right with a State-sponsored set of "privileges." When you first buy your automobile, it must be registered only if you will use
it for any commercial or business purposes
: Technically, as long as you have no intent to use it for commercial gain of any sort, your automobile
remains officially classified
as an automobile. As long as your "automobile" is not re-classified as a "motor vehicle," then the person
sitting at the steering wheel is still classified as a traveler
, any items in the automobile are still classified as personal property
anyone along for the ride are classified as guests
Once the automobile is registered, this signs over partial-ownership to the State...Then they automatically re-classify it as a motor vehicle
Once classified as a motor vehicle, then the machine & anyone who climbs aboard are subject to the full restrictions & regulations set by the DoT &
Department of Motor Vehicles. The former "traveler" becomes a Driver or Operator...The former "personal property" becomes transported goods & the
former "guests" are reclassified as passengers. All of these Occupants have waived their Right to travel freely & have instead consigned themselves
as either the "supply, demand or transport of Goods" sides of commercial transactions.
However, if your automobile is stopped by police who notice that there's no license plates...Wow! They've violated your Rights as long as you can
uphole the truth
that you're not performing any kind of commercial or business transaction! But you'll have to defend that position in court,
where your use of terminology is extremely
important. However, if you still wish to retain your Right to travel freely & not get stopped by
every cop who looks at you, this is what needs to be done:
At every point along the way, from automobile purchase to getting your license, wherever you have to sign your name, you must also write next to your
signature the phrases, "Under Duress" & "All Rights Reserved, UCC 1-207." There's some more info over in
( Page 13, but the whole thread is a good read) but I also urge you to
look it all up yourselves...You cannot defend yourself in court if you don't fully understand
the meaning & intent behind your "remedy &
recourse" under law. For the phrase "Under Duress" you must explain to the judge that you would be under duress from the certainty that police will
unjustly stop & hassle you all the time for not having a license plate. The phrase "all rights reserved" refers to the specific UCC codes that keep
you from falling victim to any "non-disclosure" of the State or Federal laws & specific terms of DoT & DMV regulations as they pertain to the whole
of being able to travel freely in your automobile.
In fact, if you fully understand the meanings behind those two phrases added near your signature, you can avoid a lot
of hassles & still defend
your Rights against legalistic double-talk...All the way up to the level of the Supreme Court.