Originally Posted by Undrstm8ed

And do you know what the funniest part about it all is..

Hardly ANY of them [Statists] can fathom what if I am right, the Licensing, Insurance, and registration was to fully be disclosed as fraud and the rights of the people restored again in the sense of the freedom to travel or locomotion whatever some may want to argue it..

What if everyone found out they NO LONGER had to pay for registration, pay for or apply for a license, or insurance for that matter. You would see a systematic breakdown of everything from communication to lost souls and minds looking for something to lead them to a new source of spending money in such a way to contribute to the roads, schools, ect through any and all maniacal means of excise taxation possible to fight off drooling and confusion. LMAO

People would actually resist NOT having to pay for those things because they actually believe those funds go towards some form of benefit of sorts.. Amazing.

If gas was to go to $18.36 tomorrow morning, you could watch nearly every neighbor/friend/relative get inline to buy gas at $18.36. and people wonder where the problems in this country stem from?

Hellllllloooooooooo..., Statist.. is it me your looking for will be the new Adele song. LOL

But I'm the kook... Shhhhhhhhh 5 years, 3 stops, 3 tickets/citations, still driving without registration 5 years same truck, 2 different States, Can't tow it without a warrant and NO policy enforcer wants to be held personally liable once they find out they have no immunity.

Now that your rights have been violated, and believe me when I say "THEY WILL", the next thing they will claim is “Well, we acted in good faith...We had good faith reliance that you broke the law...And that means you can‟t sue us. That‟s a lie. Since these two cases, Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1 (1980).

Basically what these two cases say “Where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute.”

These are both civil rights cases. “The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of state law of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States encompasses claims which are solely based on statutory violations of federal law, and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity, to which they were entitled. Now when ever his happens, folks, you must understand something that goes for both of these cases: Owen was a police chief in the town of Independence, Mo. He got into a gripe with the city council and they fired him without just cause. Owen turned around and sued. They claimed that they acted in “good faith”.

The Supreme Court said “You are deemed to be officers of the law; you are to advise us of the law; you can hardly claim that you in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can‟t claim ignorance of the law, because a citizen out here on the street can‟t claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court or some officer of government doesn‟t know the law and then they go ahead and abuse somebody‟s constitutional rights.

So in matters of constitutional rights both these cases uphold one point: Whenever they violate your constitutional rights they do so at their own peril. It even says that at Title 18 Sec 241, 242. It says that upon conviction you are subject to a $10,000 fine, 10 years in jail, or both, and if death results life in prison. They‟re telling you “Don‟t violate somebody‟s rights”.

Title 42 USC sec. 1983, 1985, & 1986 clearly establish your right to sue anybody that does that. Now they‟re going to claim that you can‟t sue them, because they have judicial immunity. Well, guess what? These two cases remove judicial immunity. There is no judicial immunity for violating someone‟s rights.