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: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Whether he is right or wrong does not matter.

It is people like him who actually get off their backsides and DO SOMETHING about what people on here type about in their armchairs.

The world needs people like him frankly.

The day you stop caring and the day you stop questioning things is the day you lost.

edit on 8-9-2011 by Anonymouth because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
So the government requiring practically your whole life's story just to get a driver's license isn't a search by the government?


Being able to drive a car is not a requirement. So in the end getting a drivers license is voluntary, as is forgegoing a drivers license for a state ID.

In the end though, if you want to use certain services, both private and public, one requirement is to show ID. If you dont have the ID, there is nothing wrong with that, but just like any business, they dont have to help / sell you anything if you dont have it.

Secondly, when you get your DL / State ID, you are consenting to have personal information placed into a database (DMV/DOR/etc). As said before, you arent required ot have an ID or DL. Just dont expect businesses to make an exception.


Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
And an unreasonable one at that?

Since its voluntary, its not unreasonable, and the courts have upheld that.



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


A civilian who decides to walk into their neighbors house and look around for drugs / illegal items violated the law, specifically (if the homeowner is not home) Burglary in the 2nd (in my state) and if the homeowner is home its 1st degree.

If a police officer does the exact same thing, not only are we technically burglarizing the property, we are also violating his civil rights, specifically the 4th amendment. LEO either needs a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.

Your neighbor who searched doesnt require a warrant since he is not acting under color of law.

This is why I said the guy does not understand how the 4th amendment applies to his case.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymouth
Whether he is right or wrong does not matter.

It is people like him who actually get off their backsides and DO SOMETHING about what people on here type about in their armchairs.

The world needs people like him frankly.

The day you stop caring and the day you stop questioning things is the day you lost.

edit on 8-9-2011 by Anonymouth because: (no reason given)


Questioning and caring are both good, but whats needed is for people to go one step farther and actually start voting and taking part in the process. Firing the elected officals who perform poorly or pass laws / support laws that are jus moronic.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If showing ID is practically mandatory in this country, than how is it in any way voluntary. I have to show ID to get on a plane? Oh I could drive, so its voluntary. Oh wait, I still need to do that to get a driver's license. Oh wait, I could still walk from Florida to New York, so its voluntary.

What's that, I'm going to need a credit card and ID to try and get a hotel room? Oh I guess I could just sleep out in a ditch or something, but then I'll get busted for vagrancy.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


At least you still have the illusion of choice. That is all he was trying to prove to you.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gentledissident
 


You are misplacing your focus. It does not matter whether your vehicle is technically a motor vehicle. What matters is how the statute or law defines motor vehicle, and I'm pretty sure most automobiles are included in that definition. The law could define motor vehicle as a large banana on 4 wheels if it so chose, but then it would not apply to very many people.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If showing ID is practically mandatory in this country, than how is it in any way voluntary. I have to show ID to get on a plane? Oh I could drive, so its voluntary. Oh wait, I still need to do that to get a driver's license. Oh wait, I could still walk from Florida to New York, so its voluntary.

What's that, I'm going to need a credit card and ID to try and get a hotel room? Oh I guess I could just sleep out in a ditch or something, but then I'll get busted for vagrancy.



you are exactly right. this is why people like this man, pursuing stuff like this in court is a GOOD thing. since the world changes, society changes, and there are always advances with technology, etc... the interpretation of a law may also need to change over time. if it were interpreted by the courts at one time in history, based on what the circumstances of the environment was at that time - it may need to be reevaluated and interpreted again later to meet the needs and circumstances of society as society itself changes. this is WHY we have a judicial system, not only just for putting criminals way, but for interpreting laws and applying them to the current state of society, especially when so many laws were written so long ago - and at the time the lawmakers may not have foreseen a lot of the things we deal with today. look how much the country has changed in just say... 20 years.

anyone who tells you that you should just accept the status quo and you should never question it or exercise your right to due process and your day in court is just plain wrong and you shouldn't even listen to them. change doesn't happen by sitting there, it happen by the few people who get up and do something, like you said. if this case does NOTHING else, it has gotten at least a handful of people we know of, as evidence by this thread, discussing it and discussing the law it is based round, right? and that in and of itself is a great thing. i have never been a big fan of rolling over and saying "oh well. it is what it is." what's the worst that can happen, the guy loses his case? even in that situation, he has risen the question an brought attention to the issue to the people. and that is never a bad thing.

(p.s. i can't edit my last post, but i typo'd "statute" as "statue" and it has been burning a hole in my brain that i do not have the option to go back and correct it. LOL)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Questioning and caring are both good, but whats needed is for people to go one step farther and actually start voting and taking part in the process. Firing the elected officals who perform poorly or pass laws / support laws that are jus moronic.


true, but taking that even one step further, you have to bring it to the attention of people in the first place. and a case like this accomplishes that. if this guy's case inspires even one person to become enraged and to register to vote and actually vote, then the man was successful. sometimes a case like this will light a fire under people's a$$ses. i don't see how it can hurt anyone so i don't understand what the argument against this man pursuing this case would be - considering all the asinine things that our tax dollars are wasted on, this case is certainly not the worst thing that anyone's tax dollars have been spent on. that's for sure.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
This particular issue is one that I have to noodle around a bit because as a libertarian I do not believe the government has a say in what mode of travel I choose to exercise. I am a free man and have a right to travel. So how does the DL requirement fly in the face of that right? People who advocate the need for a state issued DL say that driving is a privalge but I disagree. I have a right to use the most efficent means of travel at my disposal. So what about public roads? Well can I choose NOT to pay the tax that covers the construction of those roads? Not really so I am now charged a fee to build the roads that are only a privalge to drive on. So what about safety? The DL says that the state has concluded that I meet specific standards of driving ability. So if I am in an accident and hit by a licensed driver I can sue the state in a civil court because obviously this drive cannot meet those standards right? Well NO I cant. In fact the state is not involved at all in that situation other than to assign fault. I have to go to private firms to cover the insurance and costs of that accident. So exactly what is the DL for again? The DL is a state issued ID card lets quit pretending it has anythig to do with driving.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If showing ID is practically mandatory in this country, than how is it in any way voluntary. I have to show ID to get on a plane? Oh I could drive, so its voluntary. Oh wait, I still need to do that to get a driver's license. Oh wait, I could still walk from Florida to New York, so its voluntary.

What's that, I'm going to need a credit card and ID to try and get a hotel room? Oh I guess I could just sleep out in a ditch or something, but then I'll get busted for vagrancy.



All of which are voluntary. As far as private business goes, they can set whatever criteria they wish. You arent required to comply with it, unless you are wanting something the business has. You arent required to get a drivers license or state id, nor are you required to perform actions that requires the possession / use of the 2.

You arent forced to fly - you can drive, walk, ride a horse, take a bus, a cab, hitchhike, ask your neighbors etc.

Take personal checks as an example. They are not a legal form of currency. Private business accepts checks, on their own standards, and honor them as an IOU. The check "IOU" is redeemed at the bank, moving money from one account to their account.

So yes, its voluntary when you want to fly and are required to show ID.

Why is that voluntary if you are forced to show ID?

Because at any point, you can decide not to fly if you dont want to show ID.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by highpriestess
 


Im all for people making their stand against perceieved government over reach, however this guy does not have any legal standing. He is not being forced to comply withanything, since he has the option of complying or not complying.

There is no 4th amendment violation, although my guess on trying to invoke this was to ensure a hearing based n a perceived constitutional violation.

I cant see this going anywhere, and I see it blowing up in this guys face because of the arguments he is choosing to use. Hopefully, it will stay with the guy and not create case law.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


i get what you are saying but the bottom line is that just because you think that it doesn't have any legal standing doesn't mean that it doesn't. that is for a judge and jury to decide. and in all fairness, we have only read an article on the matter - we haven't seen any documents, if any, that may have been filed with this court to see what they truly assert. Nor have we even heard the argument. Luckily we live in a country where judgement is passed AFTER a fair hearing, and not before it based on the opinions of people who are not close enough to the case to know what all the facts truly are, or heard ANY legal arguments on the case. know what i mean?


ETA: let's not forget that the 4th amendment states "the right of the people to be secure in their PAPERS" (among other things) - and i can totally see the legal argument here in all the documentation require to obtain a license and the fact that those documents are placed in a database. and trust me... if there were anyone on the planet who would be the first to go "meh... not worth your time.. let it go..." it would be me. when i am doing intake on cases, i am VERY honest with my clients if i think their case is weak and has no argument... and i will decline representation on behalf of the firm in a heartbeat. my co-workers actually have always pegged me as the "hard" one. lol.


edit on 8-9-2011 by highpriestess because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


How can you say their is no 4th amendment violation? Have you ever actually read the 4th amendment?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


How can you say their is no 4th amendment violation? Have you ever actually read the 4th amendment?


I have, have you? As I stated it doesnt apply to the individual, it applies to the Government, and in this case there is no forced requirement. The guy can choose to provide the info or not provide the info, which is what it boils down to.

Secondly there is no criminal treatment / implication present in the requirement.

A person is secure in their homes, and SCOTUS has extended some of the basics of privacy to a persons car. A person has no expectation of privacy in public.

If a cop shows up at this guys house, seizes him and forces the guy to provide all required documentation via the police ransacking the guys house, then you have your 4th amendment violation.

A person who is not obligated to provide information, and the government action following, which is to not issue the ID, is not a 4th amendment violation. Why? Think of the exceptions that exist for the 4th amsnement -

* Warrant
* Plain sight contraband
* search incident to arrest (recently refiend and narrowed in Arizona Vs. Gant)

and......

* Consent



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by highpriestess
 


Right, but before it goes to the court / process one of the key elements is - did a crime occur / was this party injured / etc.

All I pointed out was the lack of standing with the 4th amendment, since the issue revolves around documentation which is provided voluntarily.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by highpriestess
 


Right, but before it goes to the court / process one of the key elements is - did a crime occur / was this party injured / etc.


the man didn't give a ticket to the police officer. he did not initiate the court proceeding. he was given a ticket; therefore, a crime DID occur, according to the law officer and prosecutor that brought this case to court. and he has pled not guilty to the crime and asserted an affirmative defense using the fourth amendment - challenging the law he has been charged with.

Since this is not a civil case, the whole "was this party injured" (damages) is not even applicable. Damages only apply in civil cases.

Due process allows us to defend ourselves in a court of law.... he is well within his rights to assert his fourth amendment right in this case.

you are getting way off track with your argument here. and i am not saying that to be rude.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


As unconstitutional as it may be, I feel it's a good law, no illegals drunk driving killing me or my family, no ME guys car bombing if they can't get a license. WTH? Does everybody just want bad things to happen? I feel safer on Florida roads knowing some people are not driving, geez.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
...In the end though, if you want to use certain services, both private and public, one requirement is to show ID. If you dont have the ID, there is nothing wrong with that, but just like any business, they dont have to help / sell you anything if you dont have it.


So DL's are the mark of the beast? jk but that's the same argument I expect to hear...you dont have to accept this chip in your arm at all! No sweety, you can live however you want...but you won't be able to without it.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It's nice to see someone with the guts to do that. It's easy to sit around and complain but how many of us actually get up and make a stand for what they believe in with action? I think its great. As far as having a national id I think its bs. If you are a citizen of the United States of America and live in a state of this country, then there's your "national" id. At least thats the way I see it.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


As unconstitutional as it may be, I feel it's a good law, no illegals drunk driving killing me or my family, no ME guys car bombing if they can't get a license. WTH? Does everybody just want bad things to happen? I feel safer on Florida roads knowing some people are not driving, geez.


yeah... because those kinds of people, who would break laws like that, will adhere to the no driving without a license law and not drive anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join