Finding a Lawyer to argue that traveling is a right and not a privilege

[libertyjam]

Then what's to stop a 9yo from taking a joy ride in the car?

Down on the farm if you could reach the pedals you learned to drive.

 

[Deborah K]

Even if one were to concede the state did have such a compelling interest due to a responsibility to protect citizens against a clear and present danger, said interest would not apply to a person who has not demonstrated himself to be a danger. In actual practice, licensing is used almost exclusively for two purposes - tracking the population, and as leverage for extortion.

I often bristle at the mandate to carry auto insurance, as I drive infrequently and very carefully and have never been in an accident in my life. Yet if I drive without having insurance my license would be suspended. Where the state's compelling interest is in forcing me into a transaction with a private financial institution to purchase a product I have no need for and do not want at prices which are absolutely absurd relative to the actual risk of me ever having to make a claim against it, I could not imagine. Yet my right to travel and to enjoy the use of my own property and to be minimally functional in a society where being able to drive is all but mandatory for basic survival is made contingent upon purchasing said unwanted product, due to the threat of license suspension alone.

Aaaannnndd.....welcome to Obamacare - the next logical step!

 

[Deborah K]

Most is irrelevant. One is more than enough, and smashing our truck into the ditch was more than enough. I also think I should not be required to assume all the risk should someone neglect their eye care and drive when they need corrective lenses, or when they have diminished ability to drive. I would not want to be walking along on a sidewalk when someone with dementia forgets which is the gas and which is the brake. That scenario has happened other places.

The state has a compelling interest, and considering a driver's license is considered a valid ID, I don't think everyone should be allowed to have one.

I agree. As long as we have laws, they at least should be laws that protect our right to life. Having at least a bit of a standard for people who want to drive is acceptable to me.

 

[Deborah K]

Yes

Have you gotten any information from the ACLU? I'd be curious to know what the history is on drivers who opt out of drivers' licenses. Any successes?

 

[thoughtomator]

Aaaannnndd.....welcome to Obamacare - the next logical step!

Yeah, now what is the "privilege" that they'll take away? Your breathing license?

 

[Schifference]

Yeah, now what is the "privilege" that they'll take away? Your breathing license?

No license required. Only a permit based on respirations per minute calculated via at rest and under stress. Simple form used to calculate how often you are at rest. Side note if you are at rest too much there will be an up-charge/penalty.

 

[jmdrake]

Why, (they test you ones usually at 17/18 Y.O). I just simply want out of the contract with the DMV,, Ill keep my right to travel without a permission slip from the state.

The problem is that the lawyers , judges, etc are all part of the extortion upon the trained sheepel citizens that surrender their right for mere state privilege.

Google " Justice Tolman" right to travel v drivers license, plenty of interesting case law to read.

Regards

Well you asked for an honest lawyer. An honest lawyer will tell you that he most likely has no experience with what it is you are trying to do and can see no way possible he can win your case. A dishonest lawyer would say "Sure! I'll help you." take a hefty retainer up front and not really do anything. What you really need to do is to pursue your case pro se and get advice from lawyers on the side on what to do. Let them look over your filing, Shepardize the case law you're using to make sure it's still applicable, give you advice on what to say, but let you go in court and represent yourself. I've seen pro se plaintiffs do a bang up job sometimes.

 

[presence]

Then what's to stop a 9yo from taking a joy ride in the car?

keywords:

vicarious parental liability

family car doctrine

negligent entrustment

 

[Schifference]

I don't think it is possible to successfully argue and win in court that driving an automobile and the need for a license to do so is not necessary.

That would be like the government allowing a tax protester to win in court.

This great country demands the undisputed cooperation and support from citizens and requires that they remain united and take responsibility for their actions by always obeying all the laws and showing respect to those that are burdened with the position of making, interrupting, or enforcing the laws that keep you safe and allow you to pursue only what great government can provide.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's actually a written copy.. And I feel it has merit... I am not driving for profit, I am simply traveling via automobile.

I have not done business with the state in 20 years.. I did not violate any traffic laws, just a lucky stop by the leo... He randomly ran the plates, the automobile is registered to my lady friend, Hence his suspicion and me getting cited for driving without a valid license...

Regards

How did he come to stop you? What was lucky about the stop? Did he tow the car after finding out you don't have a license? Did you have a recently expired license or have you not had a license in a long time?

What are you trying to specifically discovery in your discovery of the court? What information do you seek in your FOIA?

 

[TheTexan]

For the record, I think the state has a compelling interest in whether people drive or not. I don't want someone in denial about his vision or ability to drive running his car into my house.

That's cool that you know the state well enough to know what his interests are. I've always wanted to meet the guy.

 

[acesfull]

How did he come to stop you? What was lucky about the stop? Did he tow the car after finding out you don't have a license? Did you have a recently expired license or have you not had a license in a long time?

What are you trying to specifically discovery in your discovery of the court? What information do you seek in your FOIA?

Hi NCL

Regarding discovery, I requested the police department's policy concerning randomly running the plates of citizens that were not violating any traffic infractions, IE, I was not cited for any infractions other then the driving without the permission slip from the DMV. Also I requested any and all communications between the dispatcher and the LEO, They failed to supply me with both request.... The judge ruled that my request was over broad and burdensome however allowed me another adjournment to prepare my defense, the prosecutor argued that my driving abstract was sufficient to support the states case, NO they did not tow my vehicle, I stayed with the vehicle and had friends pick me up...

I have not had a license in twenty years..

Regards

 

[acesfull]

Soon the state will require a license to operate your lawn mower or your chain saw or blender, hell they all have a motor attached to them. They may not be safe in the wrong hands, public safety you know...

regards

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I requested the police department's policy concerning randomly running the plates of citizens that were not violating any traffic infractions, IE, I was not cited for any infractions other then the driving without the permission slip from the DMV.

So were they randomly running license plates? If so, then why were you pulled over?

 

[maybemaybenot]

Even if one were to concede the state did have such a compelling interest due to a responsibility to protect citizens against a clear and present danger, said interest would not apply to a person who has not demonstrated himself to be a danger. In actual practice, licensing is used almost exclusively for two purposes - tracking the population, and as leverage for extortion.

I often bristle at the mandate to carry auto insurance, as I drive infrequently and very carefully and have never been in an accident in my life. Yet if I drive without having insurance my license would be suspended. Where the state's compelling interest is in forcing me into a transaction with a private financial institution to purchase a product I have no need for and do not want at prices which are absolutely absurd relative to the actual risk of me ever having to make a claim against it, I could not imagine. Yet my right to travel and to enjoy the use of my own property and to be minimally functional in a society where being able to drive is all but mandatory for basic survival is made contingent upon purchasing said unwanted product, due to the threat of license suspension alone.

The logic is that any driver can cause an accident, we can't tell ahead of time, and the only way to guarantee potential victims of negligence is if the hypothetical negligent actor is insured. I'm okay with licensing and insurance requirements because the government, in my view, should treat public property as private property on behalf of its inhabitants, and high quality roads require verified, trained drivers following certain rules. All privately owned land has rules regarding trespassing, and owners saying you can't bring a gun to his store or whatever the case may be. If the government monopolizes health insurance, they better be well-funded and cover my needs. If the government monopolizes roads, they better run it in an efficient and safe manner, because we all need it, there's no alternative to the state's option.

To the OP, this is an unwinnable case, you're not going to convince a judge to do something radical like this. It doesn't manner how rational or legally sound your argument is, judges are bound by pride and the appeals judges above them to rule in a predictable, mainstream manner. And that's kindof proper, its on the legislature or a constitutional amendment to change things, you're kindof asking for the judicial activists to save you from constitutional laws. The right to travel is totally unwritten, its based on the ninth or tenth amendment, and by definition the ninth and tenth amendment unwritten rights don't nullify otherwise valid laws (and its valid for govt to regulate the use of massive vehicles on property they're the caretakers of).

 

[acesfull]

So were they randomly running license plates? If so, then why were you pulled over?

They ran my plates for no other reason other then they can... The vehicle is registered to a woman, I am a man, officer suspicious decided to pull me over and demand my state issued papers, of which, I did not possess...

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

They ran my plates for no other reason other then they can... The vehicle is registered to a woman, I am a man, officer suspicious decided to pull me over and demand my state issued papers, of which, I did not possess...

How did you allay his suspicion?

 

[acesfull]

How did you allay his suspicion?

I won't know the answer to your query until I get him on the witness stand.

Regards

 

[CPUd]

If you're saying you got pulled over because he ran the tags and saw a guy driving instead of a woman, you may have a case. If he can't show a valid reason to stop you (based on your state's definition of primary violation), then the issue about the license shouldn't be able to be brought into your case.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I won't know the answer to your query until I get him on the witness stand.

Regards

How do you know that your maleness was the basis of his suspicion?