It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Libertarian gets ticketed on purpose to make argument in court

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Libertarian gets ticketed on purpose to make argument in court


www.tampabay.com

...And this gave him what he really wanted — a chance to come to court Wednesday on a crusade against a law he believes is unconstitutional.

It's the federal "Real ID" law that require a lot of documentation from Floridians getting drivers' licenses and identification cards.
...
The state began requiring the new documentation in January 2010. Wyllie...refused to renew it because he said it would have required him to give up his 4th amendment rights
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
This could end up being potentially a major case against the Real ID act. The fact that the judge actually is postponing the hearing is a sign she is taking it seriously. It is going to be a long legal battle, but ultimately this can lead to a major breakthrough against a thoroughly unconstitutional law.

www.tampabay.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Good for him, and I support this case. I had a DL revocation last autumn and had to visit the DMV to have it reinstated. However, I had a second license created shortly before that, after I changed residences and was able to use that one instead of applying for a brand new one and go through all of the hassle to provide them with their requested documents.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Violate his 4th amendment rights... This guy has no idea what he is talking about. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. Secondly there is no search taking place, nor is he being detained / arrested.


edit on 7-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
Good for him, and I support this case. I had a DL revocation last autumn and had to visit the DMV to have it reinstated. However, I had a second license created shortly before that, after I changed residences and was able to use that one instead of applying for a brand new one and go through all of the hassle to provide them with their requested documents.


You may want to check into the status of your license. I have come across people who did the same thing you are talking about, and in the system it still shows as revocation / no valid operator status. Simply possessing a drivers license from before the incident does not make it valid, and you can still be cited / arrested.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




People arent required to get a dirvers license.

You're right. You can drive without one legally. Driver licenses are only required for those doing business on the road. If you are just traveling (which is most people) you don't need a driver license.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




People arent required to get a dirvers license.

You're right. You can drive without one legally. Driver licenses are only required for those doing business on the road. If you are just traveling (which is most people) you don't need a driver license.


In the United States you cannot drive without a valid operators license. In almost all states if you are stopped, and you have a valid license and just dont have it with you, we use the computer to verify status (in addition to new systems that show us the drivers photo when we run the license).

Contrary to the incorrect sovereign citizen crap posted above, you are required to have a valid operator license when you operate a motor vehicles on any public right of way.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




People arent required to get a dirvers license.

You're right. You can drive without one legally. Driver licenses are only required for those doing business on the road. If you are just traveling (which is most people) you don't need a driver license.


Got a source, or maybe hopefully a high court decision to back that up?

I like taco's.

Don't you think that is some information I'd like to have?


edit on 7-9-2011 by rbnhd76 because: ohh, having a taco party outside bill's office, huh?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Violate his 4th amendment rights... This guy has no idea what he is talking about. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. Secondly there is no search taking place, nor is he being detained / arrested.


edit on 7-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


So the government requiring practically your whole life's story just to get a driver's license isn't a search by the government? And an unreasonable one at that?

And what do you mean by the 4th amendment applies to government and not the individual?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


After reading the article I praise the guy for taking this to court, good for him, we have become nothing but servants in this nation and this no far from carrying papers like in Nazi Germany.

Thank God Ga is against real ID.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I believe you have just provided evidence that the system does not work;lol give them time to close any and all loop holes.Just think how stupid it all is that we even need permission to go where ever we choose to go!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I think this guy definately showed courage and patriotism, but I really don't think this "Real ID Law" as a huge problem. I don't think we have it like that here in Buckeye country as far as renewing your license goes, but I had to have two form of ID when I originally got it. It isn't really unconstitutional in my opinion because it doesn't seem unnecessary, they're just making sure you are who you say you are to the best of their ability. Identity theft is on a lot of minds these days.

Now, what I do think is some what unconstitutional (but more importantly, stupid) is that they allow the DMV of all organizations to put that information (birth certificates, SSN's, ect.) into a database.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Unless your car is electric you are not driving a 'motor' vehical.

A motor is electric
An engine is powered by fuel.

When was the last time you saw a steam motor?, or a desiel motor? or a gasoline motor? That animal doesn't exist.
The DMV and all its assorted laws is a farce buit for the last century around tricking people into buying equiment for the state to feed off of theough fees fines and taxes.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. The guy wants to face the courts?

Judges: either appointed by politicians or elected through the same corrupt electoral processes as those politicians. Only an idiot would think these people are capable of exercising impartial jurisprudence. We might as well try to find a Vulcan to preside over the court.

Advocates (attorneys): licensed by the state to follow the state’s rules. Unless you want to defend yourself, you have to hire someone sworn to uphold state protocol, lest they lose their license to practice law. If a taxi driver doesn’t follow the state’s rules, he can lose his license. If a lawyer doesn’t follow the state’s rules, she can lose her license. Therefore, the taxi driver (or anyone else operating a motor vehicle) complies with state decree to maintain his license. The lawyer complies with state decree to maintain her license.

Both representation and arbitration are totally corrupted. Unfortunately juries are manipulated by both. I fail to understand why a self-proclaimed libertarian would trust the courts, when they are comprised of those people who employ methods libertarians despise, and also achieve ends libertarians despise.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Violate his 4th amendment rights... This guy has no idea what he is talking about. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. Secondly there is no search taking place, nor is he being detained / arrested.


edit on 7-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
en.wikipedia.org...


Hmm... Only applies to the government you say? Either the trolls are getting dumber or there are more disinfo agents wandering around.

The Federal Government is demanding citizens private papers. The Federal Government has no right to ask for those things as Drivers Licenses are handled via an interstate compact(Which is how all interstate agencies and programs should be handled) that bypasses the Federal Government.

The most Congress can do is pass regulation demanding uniformity among drivers licensees but that is about it. It doesn't have the authority to actively be a part of Authorizing drivers licenses.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Unless your car is electric you are not driving a 'motor' vehical.

A motor is electric
An engine is powered by fuel.

When was the last time you saw a steam motor?, or a desiel motor? or a gasoline motor? That animal doesn't exist.
The DMV and all its assorted laws is a farce buit for the last century around tricking people into buying equiment for the state to feed off of theough fees fines and taxes.


You're just trolling right? If not than I suggest you re-evaluate the definition of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is just a broad term used to describe many types. Such as 'firearm' is used to generalize a broad range of weapons. Each state also has it's own statues regarding the definition. The same principle applies to being able to get a DWI for riding a bicycle.

Unless you are either using your very own two feet on the pavement like the Flintstones or some sort of telekinesis and you are not on rails. Than you are operating a motor vehicle.
edit on 7-9-2011 by zarlaan because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by zarlaan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Unless your car is electric you are not driving a 'motor' vehical.

A motor is electric
An engine is powered by fuel.


Just so you know
1. a comparatively small and powerful engine, especially an internal-combustion engine in an automobile, motorboat, or the like.

Also, It's "vehicle".



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
sometimes the "legal" definition of a word is slightly different than the technical or scientific definition of a word. So to know what the legal definition of "motor vehicle" is in Florida, you would look in the Transportation Code (or whatever they call their statues that relate to vehicles in Florida, in Texas we call it the Transportation Code) and prior to each section there should be definitions of the legal terms that are used in that section.

in the legal profession we use law dictionaries, not regular dictionaries... Black's Law Dictionary usually being the favorite (or search Westlaw, which is what i prefer, but you have to have a susbscription/account with them and if you don't work in law, it isn't worth it to get one), for that reason - the legal definition and the "real" definition of a word are not always the same.

i am pretty sure that pretty much every state in the US (including Louisiana, which is usually the oddball if there is going to be one) pretty much recognizes the term "motor vehicle" as the valid term in this case. i have never come across a court case in which the difference between engine and motor have become an issue.

In personal injury cases, the insurance companies, as well as the plaintiff attorneys always refer to car wrecks as "motor vehicle collision" in all the documents that are filed with the court (petitions, answers, motions) and in the discovery requests and responses. i haven't worked in every state in the US, but i did work for Allstate and that seemed to be the uniform term across the board for all the states in which we did business and had litigation, so... i doubt there is any legal weight given to the difference between motor and engine.

I have to say, though, that was a very interesting point and made me think for a minute. i love concepts like that because when you are drafting certain motions, such as Summary Judgments or JNOV's - you are always looking for creative and crafty ways to get your motions granted, so i certainly am not going to give you a hard time for thinking outside of the box


i hope this guy pushes this case, i am very curious to see where it goes.... he is pro-se though, and that is scary... hopefully he has some experience in a courtroom so he doesn't blow it. interesting case, OP, thanks for posting!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Violate his 4th amendment rights... This guy has no idea what he is talking about. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. Secondly there is no search taking place, nor is he being detained / arrested.


edit on 7-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


You are the one who has no clue what you are talking about. The 4th amendment applies to government in that they are NOT TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS along with the rest of the bill of rights. Also it doesn't just apply to searches it also applies to being secure in ones person and property. The real ID clearly violates the rights of individuals something government has no authority to do.

Of course he'll get no justice as the courts and government are de facto or rogue and in the habit of violating rights as a matter of routine operating procedure.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rbnhd76

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




People arent required to get a dirvers license.

You're right. You can drive without one legally. Driver licenses are only required for those doing business on the road. If you are just traveling (which is most people) you don't need a driver license.


Got a source, or maybe hopefully a high court decision to back that up?

I like taco's.

Don't you think that is some information I'd like to have?


edit on 7-9-2011 by rbnhd76 because: ohh, having a taco party outside bill's office, huh?
Here's some sources, Some from the US Supreme Court

Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 221
Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579
Kent v Dulles 357 US 116,125
Schactmon V Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938 at941
Bennett v Boggs 1 Balbw 60
Davis v Wechsler 236 US 22 at24
Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436,491
Miller v US 230 F 486 at 489
Sherer v Cullen 481 F 946

also look up the definition of a driver in Blacks Law Dictionary

Basically drivers licenses for the average traveler (driver) is nothing more than a revenue stream for the states.
The major reason for this is if the states says you are a good drive they could be held liable in a civil court, say a wrongful death suit.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join