Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
BENNINGTON — A Dorset man, who told the court he does not recognize the right of the state to require a driver's license, was arraigned on Monday after police said he hit a Manchester Police officer with his car while trying to escape a traffic stop.

. . .

During a court hearing, Armstrong referred to himself as a "sovereign citizen" and asked the Bennington County State's Attorney's office to produce any contract between himself and the state of Vermont.

In what he called a petition to the government for a redress of grievances, Armstrong said he did "not consent to any hearing or any assumed jurisdiction of this court" and explained why he did not believe he needed a driver's license.

"Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The concept is that if I am coerced or forced to pay for a privilege granted by public servants, I am not of a free people as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America," Armstrong wrote.

To read more:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Vermont sure is a strange place!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Vermont sure is a strange place!
No argument here. Although this is really the first time we've seen something like this that I can recall, which is why it's newsworthy. This kind of thing seems to be more common in places like Idaho. If you read the whole article you see that it has some of the same elements, including the guy insisting on a particular wacky spelling of his name.
 

·
Connoisseur
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
Just another one of the crazy kooks who constantly assert that the State or Federal Government has no right to exert any authority over them, whether it be taxes, Driver licenses, or whatever.

Cruiser
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
The federal government does not have a "right" to anything. We as the people consent to award the government certain powers. This is one that we have as a people agreed to grant the government. People have rights, not governments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Just another one of the crazy kooks who constantly assert that the State or Federal Government has no right to exert any authority over them, whether it be taxes, Driver licenses, or whatever.

Cruiser
They seem to congregate among the anti-tax nuts. Google the phrase "idiot legal arguments" and you'll find a web page devoted to the spurious arguments some of these people have used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
He's lucky he only got the pepper spray. These days, what with massive grants for military training and DOD equipment provided to local constabularies via the US Department of Fatherland Security, thereby nationalizing and militarizing local peace officers, the more common mode of control is the ubiquitous high-powered electric cattle prod.

Some people just need more love from the State to learn who's boss.

Steere said he had his leg, which hurt and became discolored, checked out by the Manchester Rescue Squad.
Oh, my goodness!

I experienced the same thing just yesterday. Some criminal in my office left the door of a filing cabinet open, obstructing the path between me and the vending machine. My thigh now "hurts" and is "discolored."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
I agree with PJ O'Rourke, who said that giving money and power to Congress was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Still as long as they control the gulags and the state security storm troopers, it would probably be best to follow their rules, and in so doing, try to show just how irrational, assinine and counter-productive those rules have become. Personally, I believe that the Republicans and the Democrats having been waging a war on our liberties for about 120 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
He's lucky he only got the pepper spray. These days, what with massive grants for military training and DOD equipment provided to local constabularies via the US Department of Fatherland Security, thereby nationalizing and militarizing local peace officers, the more common mode of control is the ubiquitous high-powered electric cattle prod.
While assigned to Department of the Army, The Pentagon, my job was to coordinate military support to the civil sector, including police. This was quite routine. Military support to law enforcement has always been a normal feature of Federal operations. This even includes indirect military participation in law enforcement operations, although strictly controlled under posse comitatus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Military support to law enforcement has always been a normal feature of Federal operations. This even includes indirect military participation in law enforcement operations, although strictly controlled under posse comitatus.
I refer you to an essay (dating from the tail end of the Clinton administration), appearing on the website of the Homeland Security Institute, which describes itself as "a Studies and Analysis Federally Funded Research and Development Center established pursuant to Section 312 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002." It is entitled, The Myth of Posse Comitatus, by Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve.

What legal bar does the Posse Comitatus Act present today to using the military to prevent or respond to a biological or chemical attack on the soil of the United States? In view of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act in the past 20 years, the answer is "not much."

The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military's role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331-334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act's erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.
Although I had not heard the term "homeland" outside of movies about Nazis, apparently Maj. Trebilcock had, and the Army was apparently quite comfortable with its use for some time before Sept. 11, 2001.

I suppose it's kinda funny to point and laugh at the kook in Vermont who breaks out the sovereignty defense for a traffic ticket, but perhaps its less funny when the Midland County Sheriff's Office rolls out an armored personnel carrier supplied by the Pentagon (still bearing the "kill marks" on the side wall of the vehicle, presumably representing some dead people in Iraq or Afghanistan) to seize 400 children, breaking the bones of two of them in the process.



And it got less funny when when the Texas courts of appeal later ruled "The department [of Child Protective Services] did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health and safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," and that the "removal of the children was not warranted."

Of course, these kinds of tactics in what I used to call "the United States of America" are not exclusive to the era of the Department of Heimat Security.



If a traffic ticket is not enough to prompt you to start thinking about the principles of legitimacy of force and authority, I suspect that it's a distinct possibility that some agency of the US government will give a great many more of us the opportunity, at some point in our lives, to focus our attention to these questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.

Out in farming country where kids work you will see children driving farm equipment, and even in some states 12 year olds driveing cars. What city people don't understand is that you can not rely upon other people, much more, government. Which explains why Democrats are not popular among the rural population. Because, all Democrats think about is you need to hold governments hands all the time, and this is the way Democrats write their laws. The idea of self reliance is a foreign thought to Democrats. City people have no idea what there minds and bodies can do under the rigtht guidance. I love seeing 8-9 year old Children on a tractor driving down the road with two full hay wagons and others guys and gals sitting on the wagons having a good time. I get tired of Democrats belittleing people all the time. City kids are loosers in some ways because they have never been given a chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.
I assume I'll regret this, but here goes:

Can you point me to the provision of the Bill of Rights (or its penumbras and emanations)that covers driving a motor vehicle on public roads without a driver's license?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
I assume I'll regret this, but here goes:

Can you point me to the provision of the Bill of Rights (or its penumbras and emanations)that covers driving a motor vehicle on public roads without a driver's license?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,004 Posts
When we look at the Bill Of Rights and how it came about I would say the guy is right - The Government does not have the right to tell us what we can and can not do, such as driving.

Out in farming country where kids work you will see children driving farm equipment, and even in some states 12 year olds driveing cars. What city people don't understand is that you can not rely upon other people, much more, government. Which explains why Democrats are not popular among the rural population. Because, all Democrats think about is you need to hold governments hands all the time, and this is the way Democrats write their laws. The idea of self reliance is a foreign thought to Democrats. City people have no idea what there minds and bodies can do under the rigtht guidance. I love seeing 8-9 year old Children on a tractor driving down the road with two full hay wagons and others guys and gals sitting on the wagons having a good time. I get tired of Democrats belittleing people all the time. City kids are loosers in some ways because they have never been given a chance.
I know you vet your sources with great rigor, so I am certain you can tell us in which state twelve-year-olds are permitted to drive. I was under the impression that the youngest full license age in the country is 15 years...okay, fourteen in North Dakota...and the youngest learners' permits are granted at fourteen years of age. However, I am ready to be proven wrong.

Buzz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I agree with PJ O'Rourke, who said that giving money and power to Congress was like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Still as long as they control the gulags and the state security storm troopers, it would probably be best to follow their rules, and in so doing, try to show just how irrational, assinine and counter-productive those rules have become. Personally, I believe that the Republicans and the Democrats having been waging a war on our liberties for about 120 years.
Amen :cool:
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top