Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 17:30 In article <x-12E205.14360704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > In article <V7ydnd9-c-XCZnfYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <abmdnZscCa5SaXfYnZ2dnUVZ_tGlnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Chas wrote: >> >> > Yesss; yo'r paperz pleez. >> > First action of a police state is to control free movement; second is >> > disarming them. >> >> The first action is to dumb down the population, then manipulate that >> population and make sure that anyone who sees what is going on is >> kookified. Then it's restriction of movement and disarming the >> population. >> >> >> >> >> Don't drive, and you don't have to worry about abiding by the rules of >> >> the road. Problem solved! >> > >> > No, even being a passenger subjects you to search, seizure of effects, >> > required production of identification without probable cause to interfere >> > with you at all. >> > Riding may be a privilege as well- >> >> People were so well conditioned into producing papers on demand when >> driving that the scheme has been carried to where it is everywhere and >> has been ruled acceptable by the government's courts. >> >> Once a person steps outside their home they may be forced by a >> government employee to produce ID based on reasoning that can be easily >> manufactured. > > This is factually and legally incorrect. Court victories for those of us against papers checks have been few and far between. http://www.papersplease.org/wp/ Both Gilmore and Hiibel lost their court cases. All the government has to do is lie and say they got a report that someone in the area did something that looked wrong. That is something government can easily fabricate any time it needs to.
From: Dysfunctional Youth on 4 Mar 2007 17:28 Scott M. Kozel wrote: > If Proffsl can't or won't obtain a drivers license, then he is welcome > to travel as a passenger in someone else's car, to travel on public > transportation, to travel on a bicycle, and to travel by walking. It'll be public transport, a bike, or walking. Would you really want to ride w/this fool? He'd never shut up. -- Comrade Otto Yamamoto of Hollywood http://mryamamoto.50megs.com "Where we know the difference between a banana and a highway!" http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/fearandloathing.php
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 17:35 In article <QOGdnVaxn_2P2nbYnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > >> Yes; you don't have to exercise the privilege- and you can't exercise > >> your > >> Right without waiving your due process rights. > >> Good point. > > Do you think you sound like you're making a valid point by using terms > > like "due process" out of context? > > Do you think you own the term- that it's your jargon alone? I don't own it, but, having been to law school and now being an experienced prosecutor, I know what the term means. It's something I think about nearly every day. What makes you think you understand it? > The police can interact with you as you operate a vehicle in ways they could > not do in any other situation- commensurate with their authority as you > exercize a privilege, not a Right. So you admit it is a privilege, not a right? You sure are waffling. > > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the > > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's > > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process > > rights. > > The conditions of your driver's license gives them authority to interdict > you with scant attention to 4th through 9th guarantees- a function of the > Compelling State's Interest recognized by the court; the Weasel giving > permission to the Fox for chicken inspection. Elaborate on how you think someone's constitutional rights are affected. Because they're not. > > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you > > need a driver's license. But its foolish to think that you will be > > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without > > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from > > time to time. > > Yes; and we lost something with that. What did we lose, exactly? We're alot safer for it, with minimal intrusion into anyone's lives. > There is something about having one's life flayed open for scrutiny and > judgment based on nothing but a failure to produce the government card that > is anti-American. It should be in the same scrapheap as 'vagrancy'/'no > visible means of support'/Jim Crow laws. So now driving a car means your life is "flayed open for scrutiny"? Hyperbolize much?
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 17:36 In article <zMCdneZz9dTL2nbYnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > What city requires ID to ride the bus? > > Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. Greyhound is a private company, they're allowed to require whatever documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. If they require 3 witnesses to attest to the purpose of your trip and a certified copy of your birth certificate, it might be bad for business, but its legal. Or should a bus company be required to let anyone on their property without knowing who the person is?
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 17:38
In article <2vadnSoqnvI_2nbYnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > > > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the > > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's > > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process > > rights. > > Do you means specifically driver's license or government issued ID in > general? Because the later isn't practically true anymore with court > victories being few in the 'post-911-world'. I mean both. Even in situations where you need government identification, a driver's license and a non-driver's ID card are of equal legal weight. > >> > I think that every state offers a non-driver's ID > >> > card that is just as valid for ID purposes as a driver's license. > >> > >> Yes; another option for an adult i.d. card- > >> 'yo'r paperz pleez' > > > > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you > > need a driver's license. > > Then he better have a passport. Well, sure, if you don't have identification doing some things could be difficult. But it depends on the situation. > > But its foolish to think that you will be > > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without > > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from > > time to time. > > Private when there is credit or trust (such as a check) is involved I can > see. I cannot think of any other reason for it other than an illusion of > security. If you insist its only an illusion, then of course you won't see a purpose for it. |