Is "searcher" a "Subject"?

[searcher]

Famspear,
I said, Miller IS a case YOU WILL LIKE. HERE IS ONE YOU WILL HATE !! Whoop-tee-doo.
Oh how I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Oh how I love this case !! I do not want to put a period where a comma should go, so, IF YOU DARE, here it is. I LOVE IT !!!

833 F.2d 1046 (1987)
John C. LEAHY, Jr., Appellant
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

P.S. Everything is pointing to this S.S.N. S.S.N. this & S.S.N. that. SSN,SSN,SSN. Just as I suspected. It,the S.S.N. started out, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES.Now, you must have it for everything, to exist, live that is. Where is the law that says you or I must have a S.S.N.?

[searcher]

by webhick » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:35 am
Why would anyone "intentionally" do that? I KNOW you & yours can bring up cases.I think I just forgot to add a few more periods, which would mean, the statement includes the rest of what is said without having to print it out. How does this make me a "GD" liar? Give me a break !!!
What I am learning,here, is,the Constitutions are subject to legislative interpretation, alteration,etc.The Legislators use to be Subject to the Constitutions. Now,that is reversed too.I smell Treason, & I do know that is not a nice thing to say, but I'm just about "there" from the comments of Quatloos members to prove it. This is not meant to say I am saying some or any Quatloose members are traitors, but they are apparently unknowingly letting me know who is. I know everyone is LOL but hold on. Soon there will be nothing left to hold on to anyway

[Pottapaug1938]

by webhick » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:35 am
Why would anyone "intentionally" do that? I KNOW you & yours can bring up cases.I think I just forgot to add a few more periods, which would mean, the statement includes the rest of what is said without having to print it out. How does this make me a "GD" liar? Give me a break !!!
What I am learning,here, is,the Constitutions are subject to legislative interpretation, alteration,etc.The Legislators use to be Subject to the Constitutions. Now,that is reversed too.I smell Treason, & I do know that is not a nice thing to say, but I'm just about "there" from the comments of Quatloos members to prove it. This is not meant to say I am saying some or any Quatloose members are traitors, but they are apparently unknowingly letting me know who is. I know everyone is LOL but hold on. Soon there will be nothing left to hold on to anyway

Since you are such a great Constitutional scholar, searcher, , perhaps you can be so good as to provide us with the way that the Constitution defines treason in Article III, Section 3.

[Famspear]

Famspear,
I said, Miller IS a case YOU WILL LIKE. HERE IS ONE YOU WILL HATE !! Whoop-tee-doo.
Oh how I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Oh how I love this case !! I do not want to put a period where a comma should go, so, IF YOU DARE, here it is. I LOVE IT !!!

833 F.2d 1046 (1987)
John C. LEAHY, Jr., Appellant
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

P.S. Everything is pointing to this S.S.N. S.S.N. this & S.S.N. that. SSN,SSN,SSN. Just as I suspected. It,the S.S.N. started out, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES.Now, you must have it for everything, to exist, live that is. Where is the law that says you or I must have a S.S.N.?

"Searcher", you're still not showing a lot of coherence here. The Leahy case is another "I don't want to give the driver's license bureau my social security number because I'll jeopardize my eternal soul" cases.

Where is the law that says you must have a social security number?

Let's give some examples.

You are, in some jurisdictions, required to PROVIDE a social security number to obtain a driver's license, which means that you are required to HAVE one if you want to obtain that driver's license. I am not going to look up the citations for you, at least not right now. There is no ruling to the contrary in either the Miller case opinion you yourself cited or the Leahy case opinion you yourself cited. Go back and read the texts. In particular, read the text of Leahy very carefully.

Also, if you are an American citizen, you are required to USE a social security number in your federal income tax return filings. See Internal Revenue Code sections 6109(a) and 6109(d). In order to USE a social security number legally, you have to HAVE one.

This is not rocket science.

[webhick]

Why would anyone "intentionally" do that? I KNOW you & yours can bring up cases.I think I just forgot to add a few more periods, which would mean, the statement includes the rest of what is said without having to print it out. How does this make me a "GD" liar? Give me a break !!!

I didn't call you a "GD liar," I said that you fabricated quotes. Please re-read wserra's post about your quotes for an explanation. It was a lot more than just missing a few periods. Why you fabricate quotes is your problem, not mine. That you fabricate quotes is, on the other hand, my problem. I'm thisclose to solving that problem by smacking you with a ban hammer.

Wait, no. I'm smacking you with the ban hammer as hard as I can. I already gave you a final warning and you responded with a shrill accusation and an attempt to make you look like a victim.

Good-bye searcher.

[LPC]

"The use of the Public streets IS NOT a privilege, BUT A RIGHT. It is a RIGHT or LIBERTY, the enjoyment of which is PROTECTED by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. A license, therefore, implying a privilege cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, AS IS the RIGHT of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner.” City of Chicago v. Collins 175 ILL. 445, Pgs. 456, 457.

Some of that "quote" actually appears in the Collins opinion, some is just made up. For example, the word "liberty" (or "LIBERTY") does not appear in it. Neither does the word "constitution".

Ah, facts! (Which are stupid things.)

I've compared the actual text of the opinion with Searcher's "quote." The language that is in both the actual opinion and the "quote" are in bold. The language that is in the opinion but not the "quote" is not bolded, and the language that is in the "quote" but not the opinion is in red and is bracketed.

The use of the public streets of a city is not a privilege, but a right. [It is a RIGHT or LIBERTY, the enjoyment of which is PROTECTED by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.] Tiedeman on Limitations of Police Power (section 281) says, in distinguishing between a license and a tax: ‘It is therefore conclusive that the general requirements of a license for the pursuit of any business that is dangerous to the public can only be justified as an exercise of the power of taxation or the requirement of a compensation for the enjoyment of a privilege or franchise.’ In Cooley, Tax'n, p. 596, it is said: ‘A license is a privilege granted by the state, usually on payment of a valuable consideration, though it is not essential. To constitute a privilege, the grant must confer authority to do something which, without the grant, would be illegal; for it what is to be done under the license is open to every one without it, the grant would be merely idle and nugatory, conferring no privilege whatever.’ A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner.

Moreover, the holding is simple: the City of Chicago did not have the power to enact the ordinance in question, because the Illinois legislature never granted it:

Which is consistent with the later Illinois cases I cited.

[LPC]

I am simply trying to show you the cases contradict each other.

And I am simply trying to show you that the cases don't say what you claim they say, or that you think they say.

You're comparing oranges with lumps of crap that you've painted to look like apples.

[grixit]

Good-bye searcher.

Dang, that's got to be a record! Well, no loss, i was about to invoke the Amish Death Penalty, but you saved me the trouble.

[Gregg]

I remember one case involving a state where the traffic tickets said "Violator". One person refused to sign it, on the grounds that they were not a violator, that was just the opinion of the cop and if they contested the charge then the principle of innocent until proven guilty applied. The court agreed and the wording on the tickets was changed.

The City of Hamilton, Ohio in the mid 80s got all touchy feely and legally changed the name of the city to "Hamilton!". Very shortly afterwards, in muni court, a traffic defendant challenged the ticket which stated in the pre-printed part "within the city limits of Hamilton, Ohio" saying that according to his own research, no such city existed.
The court agreed, tossed the ticket, and every ticket for the rest of the night. The city then had all their tickets re-formatted.

[Pottapaug1938]

I decided to resurrect this old thread because, on Planet Merrill, there is an active thread entitled "Consent to Service of Process", all about how motor vehicle license and registration laws are mean and evil because we all have a right to travel on public thoroughfares. Most of the thread consists of typically humorous Suitor idiocies ("corporation sole" makes its appearance, although not by that specific name); but these seem to sink to a new level of stupidity. Keith Alan starts off with:

"My latest thought is to gift the vehicle title to the US, but retain possession of the car. In the State of California, drivers (operators, users, movers, whatever) who drive US vehicles are not required to be licensed."

And, after Anthony Joseph points out that the owner of a motor vehicles is responsible for things like auto insurance, Keith Alan replies:

"That's true. My thinking is though, that as the agent operating the agency created on the birth certificate, I could gift the car to the US, making them the registered owner, and keep an agent's lien on the title. I think this would be accomplished on the transfer of title form prior to registration."

"I haven't been able to find any information on what the process is when the US registers vehicles in the State. It could be they are exempt from registration and insurance requirements, but I don't know that yet."

"So you're right, the burden of insurance would fall on the US. However, it would be my person filling out the forms, and I need to figure out how to navigate through process."

"When I know more, I'll buy a cheap vehicle and use it for a test."

WOW. I'm speechless. This buffoon actually seems to think that he can transfer ownership of a car to the US government, and have them assume all responsibility for things like keeping the car insured; AND he still gets to have full and exclusive use of the car.

[notorial dissent]

Idiot is pretty much the operative status here, and pretty well describes and explains the whole thing.

[The Observer]

WOW. I'm speechless. This buffoon actually seems to think that he can transfer ownership of a car to the US government, and have them assume all responsibility for things like keeping the car insured; AND he still gets to have full and exclusive use of the car.

This only show how little they understand about such legal definitions of ownership, property and agents and the like. Imagine Keith Allen's surprise when the state appears one day to claim the car he stupidly titled to them and they remove it from his property.