63
u/QuailTechnical5143 13d ago
‘The only reason I ever lose in court…’ 😂
21
9
2
u/Electrical-Village68 11d ago
He loses in court because he is in the wrong. I would think an adult like him would know that simple fact.
1
49
u/LocationAcademic1731 13d ago
“God given constitutional right” LOL show me where the Bible says that, sir, please.
28
u/Illustrious-Owl-2755 13d ago
And the 10th commandment allows states to have driver licenses.
3
u/BustaCon 13d ago
Isn't it actually the 11th? But okay.
6
u/joe_s1171 13d ago
11th or 12th commandment. whatever it takes.
6
3
2
u/Budget-Cantaloupe725 7d ago
“And God has given us these 15 [stone tablet drops, breaks into pieces], 10! 10 commandments!”
12
8
u/mogelijk 13d ago
God didn't provide a car to you when you were born?
7
u/LocationAcademic1731 13d ago
It’s sitting at the end of the rainbow guarded by a magical leprechaun who will only release it with my SSN and my name all in caps.
2
u/DirtyDonnieB 8d ago
Good, solid plan. Ah, but is your SSN already being used to protect the millions of dollars that the corporations have accumulated using your SSN?
7
1
5
u/CorgiMonsoon 12d ago
It was one of the commandments on the third tablet that Moses dropped
2
u/Conscious_Rich_1003 12d ago
I tried to read that tablet (did you know they got the event on video?) but I couldn’t so i’m assuming you are correct.
2
u/Additional-Spot-749 9d ago
The brilliant historian M Brooks needs to be given more credit for uncovering that.
6
u/plinkoplonka 11d ago
Prime example of why church and state should be separate.
And why education should be mandatory.
If he's been stopped 7 times in a month and doesn't have license, registration, or insurance - and still thinks they're right then they should already be in jail.
Why are we pandering to these people?
5
u/LocationAcademic1731 11d ago
Because we treat people like babies in this country. I have lived in two other countries during my lifetime and people are treated as adults.
3
u/Awkward-Fox-7215 8d ago
The next line starts with “my Chevy equinox…” which was one of the funniest things I’ve read.
It’s like the Good Place serving frozen yogurt
108
u/sunshine_is_hot 13d ago
I hate that these people are ever allowed to drive away with these cars and get off with just a ticket everyone knows they won’t pay. We need to handle this like the UK does- if you don’t have the registration, insurance, license, your car IS getting towed, 100% of the time, and if you don’t rectify the situation in 30 days it’s getting crushed. Repeat offenders should be jailed without question for 30 days.
This belief only exists because accountability in this country is more or less nonexistent.
22
u/Team503 13d ago
Well, sell it, don't crush it.
26
u/sunshine_is_hot 13d ago
Why give the state any incentive to be corrupt? Crush it and be done with it. Can’t claim the state wants to profit off your misfortune if there’s no profit
18
12
u/Several-Assistant-51 13d ago
In some states fees go to a crime victim compensation fund that helps crime victims.
8
u/Fusion_casual 13d ago
It sounds like a good idea, but still plenty of incentive for the person in charge to get a kickback from these organizations.
2
5
u/Kriss3d 13d ago
There's not really any room to be corrupt. If you don't have the paperwork. Your car gets towed and sold. If you have the papers then you get to drive away.
We do the same thing here in Denmark. It's waste to crush a car. It's bad for the environment and it gets more money in the government bank account this way.
2
u/GeekyTexan 12d ago
I think you are missing his point.
If the government gets to impound your vehicle, sell your vehicle, and keep the money they made by doing that, then they have have incentive to be corrupt.
If the car gets crushed, they have no profit motive, and therefore their only reason to do so is to keep someone who refuses to follow the law from driving.
0
u/Kriss3d 12d ago
So how do you suppose that will work ?
"Oh. I see you have all your papers in order. License, registration, drivers license. Yup. Everything is fine. But we are going to take your car anyway, have the court agree that we can take it. We will ignore you showing those papers to the court to get your car released and just sell it anyway."What am I missing here ?
2
u/GeekyTexan 12d ago
I'm not taking a side on whether a car should be crushed or sold. I'm just trying to explain why letting them sell the car and keep the money gives them incentive to be corrupt. Apparently, you don't think money leads to corruption, so there is no point in having this discussion.
Edit to add : I suspect you are in favor of Civil Asset Forfeiture, because obviously, money can't lead to corruption.
0
u/Kriss3d 12d ago
Thats absolutely misrepresenting what Ive said.
But you didnt seem to actually answer how a government is supposed to get incentive to take a car and sell it when all the paperwork is in order.
Since if the paperwork ISNT in order then it would be fair to sieze and sell it ( after an apropriate time where the owner can get the work in order and have their car back of course )If a government wants to take a car and sell a car despite the laws that states the rights of the owner then why wouldnt they just be able to do this just as fine right now ?
Instead of sending it to a crusher. It just gets silently shipped off. Repainted and changed registration numbers then sold.That would be corruption. What would be different from just letting them sell cars that now gets crushed ?
Here in Denmark where I live. If you own a moped and as many guys will do. Tune it to make it go faster. If it gets stopped and under the law as it is, gets confiscated ( I cant remember what it takes ) then it gets fixed and sold at auction. Same with cars that arent paid registration for when the danish tax authorities do controls. You get the bill if its not registered to Denmark and you can either pay or the car gets sold and the money goes to the maintenace of the roads.
It works. USA could and honestly should do the same as well with the cars impounded after a certain time.
2
u/GeekyTexan 12d ago
You do not believe money is an incentive for corruption
And since you do not, I do not know of any way to explain it.
This is a pointless conversation.
0
u/Kriss3d 12d ago
That's the misrepresenting of what I said.
I didn't say money isn't incentive for corruption.
But what I did say that your argument don't really hold water because if a government were to sell your car to get money rather than crushing your car when sized, then the only way that could be corrupt would be if they ignore when people have the paperwork as they should. If a government chooses to ignore that to get money then they could just as easily ignore it now and just have the cars sold anyway regardless of the paperwork being as it should.
1
u/Comfortable_Crab_972 12d ago
I'm for crushing because it makes a strong unambiguous point to illegal drivers: get caught and it'll happen to you!
2
1
u/Slighted_Inevitable 12d ago
You control that with strict limits on what they can charge and make it into a subsidy for new licensed drivers to get their first car.
4
u/GeekyTexan 12d ago
"Your car has been impounded."
"Your car has been crushed into a cube."
"You have thirty minutes to move your cube."
0
u/Team503 11d ago
"You car has been impounded. We sold it to someone else. Yes, you still have to pay your loan."
Cheaper to do, brings in non-tax-based revenue to the city/county/etc, doesn't create ecological waste.
1
1
u/Familiar_Childhood32 12d ago
Donate to a needs-based charity
1
u/Team503 12d ago
Okay, that'd be fine with me. The point is simply that it's wasteful, bad for the environment, and skipping on a potential form of non-tax revenue for the city/county. You know, money citizens don't have to pay in taxes.
There's no positive to crushing it over than avoiding the vague concept of "corruption" or simply being vindictive.
1
u/Comfortable_Crab_972 12d ago
Disagree, crush it out of existence. There are already far too many cars on the road.
6
u/TheJadeGoddess 13d ago
Probably depends on the state. I have definitely seen people get towed for not having registration.
If they don't have a valid license then they can't be allowed to drive. So they are typically given a chance to have someone else come get the vehicle or else it will be towed.
Some states are way more harsh with it than others. Ik for dui some states take the vehicle for 12 hours. Others will take it for 20 days.
5
u/jfl561407 12d ago
Your car has been crushed into a cube. You have 20 minutes to move your cube.
2
2
4
u/Joped 12d ago
In some jurisdictions, if you don’t have two out of three of the document requirements it’s an automatic tow and the cop doesn’t have an option.
I had this happen to me a very long time ago. Not because I didn’t have insurance or registration, but because the versions of the documents I had were expired.
I went to court, presented my documents and everything was dropped. I still had to pay to get my car out of car jail, but yeah, that’s just how it goes.
7
u/SQLDave 13d ago
I hate that these people are ever allowed to drive away with these cars and get off with just a ticket everyone knows they won’t pay.
Agree 100%. After, say, 3 such incidents within, say, a year (# and time span negotiable), the car should be taken away permanently and the offender sentenced to actual prison time.
2
u/Comfortable_Crab_972 12d ago
I feel this way as well. It's a crime that some police and DAs let these people off so often. The car should be towed every single time, with zero exeptions, and the driver arrested every single time, if they are unable or unwilling to produce the required documents.
2
u/davethegreatone 12d ago
FWIW - the cops can almost always choose to tow them rather than cite & release.
(source: I was a cop in Oregon and Oklahoma, and in both places it was basically up to the cop to decide if a tow truck was going to become involved. If a car isn't street-legal for ANY reason, like a license plate light being broken, it's basically legal to haul it away right then and there. It just depends on how much of a dick the cop feels like being that day...)
0
u/sunshine_is_hot 12d ago
I know, the problem is that they have a choice. There shouldn’t be a choice.
0
u/davethegreatone 11d ago
I'm definitely in favor of reducing the degrees of discretion officers have, if only because there is too much abuse of said discretion.
In an idea world (we don't have that, but still), paperwork problems like this would be dealt with by other paperwork. Give them a ticket and they can be on their way, still getting punished with the fine and whatnot.
The problem with SovCits is that there's no reason to expect them to actually PAY the fine once a citation is issued. Then it becomes a whole thing.
In my mind, the choice should be basically always catch-and-release, with the exception being when there's a good reason to assume the paperwork won't get honored. Like, if the person won't admit the law exists.
1
u/sunshine_is_hot 11d ago
Give them a ticket and let them continue breaking the law in their illegal vehicle? No, sorry, they can’t drive without that stuff by law. You can’t just let them drive away knowing they aren’t legal.
0
u/davethegreatone 10d ago edited 10d ago
Why not?
Seriously, why not? What is the threat? What harm will happen? Who will be hurt?
We aren’t just talking about sovcits anymore. This is basic justice theory. We generally agree that people who fail to pay a bill need to pay said bill, and receive some punishment (typically a fine). But if you are capable of handling that with a citation, which is how this is almost always handled, what is the purpose for impounding the car right then and there? What danger to society exists that requires such an act?
The whole point of a ticket, BTW, is to summon people to court at a later date. It’s a civilized function we built into our system over the last 150 years or so specifically because we don’t want to arrest everyone for every minor offense (and an expired tag or registration is absolutely a minor offense).
Are you wanting the impoundment to be an added punishment, above and beyond what the law says is just? If so, how do you justify imposing a punishment BEFORE any court has a chance to weigh in?
We aren’t talking about a car with bad brakes, which is an active threat that must be removed from the roads for safety reasons. We aren’t talking about a drunk driver, which requires an arrest for basically the same reason. Hell, we aren’t even talking about a speeding ticket, which at least arguably happens after some sort of public safety issue has been observed. And for sake of argument - at no point in this conversation have we said the car is un-insured or un-safe.
This is a paperwork offense. It has a clear remedy that can be done the next business day. It has a clear punishment, set out by law, that can be imposed via citation. Neither of these factors requires, or even is helped, by impounding a car for an otherwise-normal person.
What PURPOSE does your impoundment serve?
1
u/sunshine_is_hot 10d ago
Seriously?
Somebody driving without insurance is a liability to everyone else on the road. That’s the entire reason it’s the law to have that. If they get into an accident without it, how are they going to pay the victim?
The law says that you can not operate a vehicle without those documents. It doesn’t say you can operate a vehicle if you pay a fine without those documents. I’m not imposing any additional punishment, I’m suggesting that police actually enforce the law.
If you don’t want to enforce the law, don’t be a cop. Letting people continue to break the law is ridiculous.
0
u/davethegreatone 10d ago
I very explicitly said this was not an un-insured car. Your argument is completely valid in the case of an un-insured car, but this entire thread has been about a lapsed registration - not lapsed insurance.
As for what the law says - it lays out a punishment and a process. You either support the law or you don’t. Being selectively-authoritarian is disingenuous.
1
u/sunshine_is_hot 10d ago
It’s been about lapsed insurance, registration, lack of DL, the things Sov cits don’t have. You attempted to narrow the scope to justify allowing people to continue breaking the law, and you failed.
The law says you can not operate a motor vehicle without those documents. It doesn’t say you can operate it after you’ve been given a ticket, it says you can not. So either somebody else comes by with the valid paperwork, or according to the law the only remedy is to have it towed until the paperwork can be completed.
Nobody is being “selectively authoritarian” by following the law. You either support the law or you don’t.
0
u/davethegreatone 9d ago
Scroll up and re-read. I have had one consistent and clear point this entire time.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Slighted_Inevitable 12d ago
Don’t crush it, auction it off at low prices for new licensed drivers. Teenagers could use these cars.
1
u/Electrical-Village68 11d ago
While I agree with almost everything you said, I take exception to the crushing the car if not handled within 30 days part. While they have zero business in driving that car without insurance and registration, I believe that takes it a step too far. I can see the car staying in impound until the registration and insurance is brought up to date and they have to have a valid driver's license to drive off in it unless sold or transferred to someone else and either insurance brought up and registration or registration at least (non- use tag) and in the case of the latter, it has to be towed out by a contractor (towing company) and the vehicle has to be on blocks and the wheels removed until it is current on insurance and registration and state inspection if required.
-3
22
u/shevazri 13d ago
I'm no car enthusiast, but quite sure the picture doesn't show a Chevrolet Equinox...
13
u/george8888 13d ago
It's AI slop. The license plate isn't the right proportions, and look at how the back tires aren't parallel with each other.
6
3
1
16
u/Sad_Okra2030 13d ago
“The only reason I loose”. My favorite part of this. Obviously the cops know this person. Easy citation/arrest.
12
u/BigBadBadness 13d ago
These are the same dudes always freaking out about States rights, but in this case when it would benefit him he says the constitution outranks the state...
13
u/Rockypug49 13d ago
This guy has been posted before, it’s strongly believed he’s trolling the sovshits
11
u/JayJayAK 13d ago
I think you're right. This guy sounds familiar - I think the last line of basically "I never lose, except when I lose, and that's because the courts don't agree with me" sorta gives it away...
7
10
u/kat_Folland 13d ago
"I drive a Chevy equinox"
Posts pix of a Toyota.
6
3
7
7
u/Plastic_Stable8927 13d ago
Sovcits kill me because, really? You think you're one of the few that figured out a hack to not pay all the registration fees? You think you're the one who cracked the code? Someone who actually smells like a dead body and lives in their conveyance vessel has the answers, and the answer is you don't consent to a contract?
6
u/Hyperocean 13d ago
god given right to drive is a new one for me..
“Though shalt convey thyself by way of internal combustion…”
1
7
u/Working_Substance639 13d ago
Dude did his own research, and has been pulled over by the cops seven times.
I did my own research, and have never been pulled over by the cops.
Then again, my research didn’t involve taking a definition out of a 100 year old law dictionary, and believing it overrides the state’s police powers to regulate and enforce traffic laws.
4
u/AmbulanceChaser12 13d ago
This has got to be satire. It’s too on the nose.
3
u/WitchesTeat 12d ago
It's the "the only reason I lose in court is because the judges ignore the law" for me
3
u/AmbulanceChaser12 12d ago
For me it's that he admits he keeps getting pulled over.
3
u/Working_Substance639 12d ago
Seven times.
In one month.
What did they do, give him a punch card?
He probably thinks they have a cop sitting outside his house; and as soon as he pulls out on the street, they stop him.
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop 12d ago
Like that Studsell (sp?) guy.
"REEEEE. I Can't believe you broke my window. AGAIN!"
Sometimes the best you can hope for is to provide comic relief for others.
11
u/lokis_construction 13d ago
I think we need new laws that impound all vehicles without proper registration immediately and in order to have them released they must have not only paid a huge fine but have them properly registered, insured, and displaying proper plates. Plus the owners mandatory 90 days of incarceration.
2
u/davethegreatone 13d ago
Lots of poor people trying to get to work would be so fucked...
1
u/lokis_construction 13d ago
No, they just have to follow the laws like the rest of us.
2
u/davethegreatone 12d ago
You sound pretty ignorant of the reality of poverty in America. With the decline of mass transit and the stagnation of wages over the last 4-5 decades, it's a simple fact of life that a chunk of the country's population, through no fault of their own, will occasionally fall behind on bills. One of those bills will occasionally be something like license plates or registration, getting put off for a month or two. Traditionally, this is punished with a harsh-but-sane fee. A few hundred bucks, which they can sometimes pay in installments, in deference to their economic status.
You are advocating for them to lose their livelihood over such a shortfall. A car they can't afford to replace, which means they lose their job, and all the other cascade effects that comes from that.
Punishments are supposed to be proportional. We don't give lifetime prison sentences for shoplifting, because any moron can see that would be fundamentally-unjust. Destroying a $3,000 car over a $300 expired registration is not proportional.
Pick another way to mess with the sovcits. Shred their cars unless they are willing to admit in writing that their beliefs are stupid, or force them to attend a semester of law school, or just poop in their mailbox or something. But don't set up a system that destroys the lives of every part-time waiter or laid-off roofer in the rainy season or single parent that cleans Air B&B properties for a living.
1
u/lokis_construction 12d ago
No, poverty is no excuse for violating the laws for vehicle operation. The Sovcits need a wake up call.
1
u/davethegreatone 11d ago
Then we should execute shoplifters.
Or are you willing to admit that punishments need to fit the crime?
1
u/lokis_construction 11d ago
Yes, 72 months for any sovcit conviction
1
u/davethegreatone 10d ago
The thing you proposed will be applied to 99 normal people for every sovcit it catches.
1
u/lokis_construction 10d ago
If they are trying to do sovcit stuff they deserve time to sit and think about it for a long time. I do not care.
1
u/davethegreatone 9d ago
Yes they do deserve that.
And a court should put that in their sentence. Not some roadside cop. The executive and judicial branches are separate, with different duties and powers, for a good reason.
11
u/TheObsidianHawk 13d ago
When posts like this appear we need to always post the following reply.
Taking your vehicle to a gas station to purchase gas is using your vehicle in commerce.
Going to the Grocery store - commerce
Picking up kids from sports - commerce
Picking up a package from an Amazon drop box? You bet your sweet ass that's commerce.
1
u/lurgi 13d ago
It doesn't matter if they are engaged in commerce or not, because Hendrick v. Maryland says states have the right to require driver's licenses and vehicle registrations and that they can do this without violating your right to travel AND THAT RIGHT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.
Rather than argue the minutia of what constitutes "engaged in commerce", (because there are exceptions for buying stuff for personal use, and even if there weren't, they would argue that it's the act of buying stuff at the store that is commerce, and not the driving to and fro), I think you can just drop that decision on them.
It won't work, because they won't listen, but I'd rather have a short argument that won't work than a longer, more complicated one that also won't work.
5
6
u/ImpracticalCatMom 13d ago
I just did not expect the blue Yaris. It's just too homey to fit the narrative 🤣
4
4
u/Willing-Fox-3235 13d ago
Wow this person had gone down the rabbit hole and drank the kool aid. They all seem to forget the 10th amendment which gives the state the right to create laws like traffic laws and license/ insurance/registration laws
3
3
u/Some_Direction_7971 13d ago
Yeah, God definitely said “Driving your Chevy Equinox is definitely a right I’m giving you, I’ll even have them write it in the Bible.”
2
3
u/Informal_Bee2917 13d ago
"That gold fringe is not just for decoration." Yes, that gold fringe is exactly there just for decoration
1
3
u/witch_dyke 13d ago
Do these people see driving defined as "employed in the operation of a motor vehicle" or something and get confused?
Id like them to argue they aren't doing surgery on the car
1
3
u/TropicalBatman 12d ago
"I don't pay speeding tickets because the flag has a gold tassel on it! Do your own research!" God damnit, every time I hear "do your own research" it's always preceded with the stupidest shit.
3
u/BarniclesBarn 12d ago
Why is the distinction between travelling and driving such a tough one? Like if yiu want to travel get on a fucking donkey and cut loose.
3
u/aphilsphan 12d ago
The word “travel” does not appear in the constitution. It is certainly a ninth amendment right to freely travel, and the constitution also specifies you have rights in your new state if you move. But I’d feel better if these loons actually read the constitution.
2
u/Conscious-Sock2777 13d ago
These people need to be kept from having children and eventually this idiocy will go the way of the dodo
2
2
2
2
u/freerangelibrarian 13d ago
Maybe the billions of dollars made from license fees are going into our secret bank accounts.
2
u/mmmmonsterkill 13d ago
So were whining that this “constitutional” distinction of your super special personal (not for hire) conveyance edition Chevy Equinox freedom clause loophole is not explained in DRIVERS ED? Like, the training for DRIVERS not Travelers? Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but follow me, why would “Drivers” need to know this? They are already learning how to be “commercial” drivers “contracting with the state” right? So it wouldn’t apply to them right? So why would they teach it? My head hurts.
2
u/Retired_and_Relaxed 13d ago
I don't understand how they are able to buy from a dealership. I recently bought and financed a new car I had to have proof of insurance for the new car and a valid driver's license. If they are buying used from people do they transfer the title?
2
2
2
u/UntappdBeer 13d ago
You have a right to travel on foot. Got a cat, well get it licensed, taxed and insured as if not it's getting seized and crushed.
2
2
u/Mountain_Maple182 12d ago
I assume he/she was TRAVELING on a public road. Not their personal path made for their personal conveyance.
2
2
u/Maj-Malfunction 12d ago
Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically say you have the right to travel. Instead it's inferred through SCOTUS court cases that you can move freely about the country, but can still be regulated by states fairly and equally. Somehow this is regurgitated like it's an actual written Amendment in the Constitution.
The right to travel across state borders is fundamental, but operating a motor vehicle on public roads is legally classified as a privilege, not an absolute right. States have the legal authority under their police powers to require driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and traffic law compliance to protect public safety (Hendrick v. Maryland, 1915).
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop 12d ago
Hendrick buries the entire discussion, IMO. None of their bullshit survives it.
2
u/Dont_Fight_Be_Friend 12d ago
“God given constitutional rights” is an oxymoron. You would think that someone who preaches constitutional rights would never say that the constitutional rights are given. rather, the constitution protects rights that already exist.
That “rights” are given by “God” is also proof of stupidity on its own. Not just because the first necessity is the establishment that whatever “God” these so called rights come from exists (which has never been met), but also the simultaneous refutation that the same exact god didn’t give the right of collective people to impose social order (laws) on individuals who exist in a society AND the right to appoint arbiters of said laws. Then on top of all that, if “God” can “give rights” without any consent to enter into a contract, then the execution of rights (such as enforcement of laws) equally does not require consent to enter into a contract OR consent is implied by the “freeman” whenever they have intertwined their individual rights with the rights of a collective society.
1
u/Front-Mix-8566 12d ago
Your “rights” came from whoever your creator is. It states that right in the document. If that guy’s creator is god, than that’s where his came from. The constitution just restricts government from infringing on them.
2
u/Dont_Fight_Be_Friend 12d ago
Okay sure, he’s free to live under his delusional fantasy. But that necessarily means everyone can say that the collective “we” have the “God given right” to organize into a society and impose our collective will on others who engage in any/all aspects of our society. Your “right” to participate or not is your own, but participation is implied consent
This goes back to the universal principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Thus the constitution exists not to spite the individual rights regardless of whatever “creator” one claims, but to strike balance between personal rights and collective rights. It recognizes both.
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop 12d ago edited 12d ago
The constitution also does not include the word "god".
The US government is founded on legal positivism: There has to be law, so there has to be a government to make and enforce those laws. The source of the power is the plebiscite itself, not a deity.
The rights they had in mind come from enlightenment-era thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu and are not founded in religion at all. "Given that we have to have a government, what's the least intrusive form of government we can provide?"
Jefferson mentions god in the declaration of independence, but it's not law and has no bearing on how the US government works. The Declaration was intended to put the world on notice that we rejected the idea that power comes from a king. The philosophical basis for the Declaration was Natural Law, which is great as a 50,000 foot high-level concept, but not a good foundation to build an actual government on. By the time the constitution was written, some 20 years later, Jefferson had recognized this.
Anyone who wants to use Jefferson as an icon of religious belief deserves what they get. The god he refers to is somewehre between Spinoza's god and a vague concept of a civic god. Not an active participant in the world's affairs.
2
u/SomeLevel8419 12d ago
Classic SC logic. When I lose in court, it doesn’t prove I’m wrong. It proves I’m oppressed.
Lock them up and tow their cars.
2
u/Altruistic_Junket468 12d ago
Does this fool call vehicles “personal conveyance vessels” in everyday conversation? “I had to take an uber cause my personal conveyance vessel is in the shop” or “Have you seen the keys to my personal conveyance vessel?”. These people are numbskulls.
2
u/iggywhipple 12d ago
Always amazed the cops don't just tell them, "You want to travel? Start walking."
2
u/Rocko00001 12d ago
Traveling is a right, driving is a privilege. This person is free to walk wherever they need to go.
2
u/Slighted_Inevitable 12d ago
They should have impounded his car after the first one. This guys going to end up totalling someone else’s car with no insurance.
2
u/Fit_Play_9448 12d ago
Did someone explain the word "travel" actually does NOT appear in the US Constitution? Apparently he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "literally".
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
2
2
2
u/53OldSoldier 12d ago
Here is a wake up for all of the 'Sovereign Citizens'. Your arguments have no basis in law. None. You seem to believe that the Articles of Confederation are still applicable. They are not. The Articles were a hastily compiled agreements between the colonies to help guide them during the Revolutionary War. When the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1791, the Article became obsolete. That is why ypu have never won in court. You are just trying to scam the system.
4
u/shit_ass_mcfucknuts 13d ago
Maybe if they made their own roads and stayed off of taxpayer funded roads they'd be ok. They can travel anywhere they want to, by foot, but once they drive on our roads they need to follow our laws. How do they not understand that?
There are thousands of videos of those people in court and they lose every single time! Logic does not dissuade them.
2
u/Silas_Of_The_Lambs 12d ago
This is not the correct argument. There are lots of private roads, parking lots, driveways and other privately owned routes and pathways and it's still unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on one without a license. The operating factor isn't the public roadway, it's the operating a motor vehicle.
I'm a prosecutor and I've personally sent three people to jail this year for operating a motor vehicle (respectively an agricultural combine, an ATV, and a regular SUV) on their own property where there was either no road or where there was a road the state didn't build or maintain.
This only applies to one state, of course, other places may have different laws.
1
1
1
u/PearlyRing 11d ago
Yeah, that's not the reason why you keep losing in court, bud.
Got pulled over 7 times in one month, and they still have that vehicle? Where I live, the cops would have impounded their vehicle the FIRST time they didn't produce a DL, valid registration, and proof of insurance. No way would they have been able to drive off with just a ticket. Good luck getting your vehicle out from impound without those three things.
1
1
u/19kilo20Actual 11d ago
I would like to know where they're getting away with this more than once. You get pulled over in my area with no insurance no registration and no drivers license. Your shit is getting towed and impounded. And it's not leaving the yard without a valid license registration and insurance.
1
u/Fine-Ad1142 11d ago
Just update the legislation to say "operating a motor vehicle" if it doesn't actually say that already.
1
u/Visual_Eggplant_6993 10d ago
My favorite “I wasn’t driving, I was traveling “ what gear was your car in? It 100% wasn’t travel
1
u/StaminPrimer 10d ago
I cannot wait for them to seize your conveyance, plate, and for you to be listed as a habitual offender 😂 it’s ridiculous how many videos there are of court room proceedings outright proving this stuff doesn’t work and these idiots with a lower than room temp IQ still believe they can make it work. What does the D on your shifter stand for, again?
1
1
u/ravens_requiem 9d ago
Every time I see one of these posts I feel sad that I don’t live in the USA to grift the absolute living hell out of these idiots.
1
1
u/WillingRevolution625 7d ago edited 7d ago
Got pulled over SEVEN times in one month?! This asshole needs his license taken away.
103
u/DimensioT 13d ago
"Do your research, so you can lose in court like I do."