Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-14-2011, 07:53 PM   #1
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Judge Absolves FBI Over Ferrari Destroying Joy Ride



-

Quote:
Judge Absolves FBI Over Ferrari Destroying Joy Ride

US government will pay no damages after a federal agent wrecked a $750,000 Ferrari during a joy ride.

A federal judge on September 27 absolved the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from any liability after an FBI agent destroyed a $750,000 Ferrari during a joy ride. Motors Insurance Corporation had been seeking to recover the value of a 1995 Ferrari F50 that was in the custody of department officials. Motors dropped a separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit against the department on October 3.

The vehicle in question originally had been stolen in 2003 from Algar Ferrari, a Pennsylvania dealership. Motors paid the $630,000 insurance claim, which gave Motors title to the missing exotic. Ferrari only produced 349 of the highly sought-after F50s, so its value increased over time. On August 12, 2008, the FBI stumbled upon the stolen car in Lexington, Kentucky during an investigation into a separate crime. The agency held the vehicle with permission from Motors while the thief was investigated. On May 27, 2009, FBI Special Agent Frederick C. Kingston got behind the wheel of the Ferrari with by Assistant US Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson in the passenger seat.

"Just a few seconds after we left the parking lot, we went around a curve, and the rear of the car began sliding," Thompson wrote in an email to a superior. "The agent tried to regain control, but the car fishtailed and slid sideways up onto the curb. The vehicle came to rest against a row of bushes and a small tree. Both myself and the agent exited of our own power."

The car was totaled, and the DOJ refused to accept any responsibility, asserting sovereign immunity. The department stonewalled all requests from Motors seeking information regarding the incident. The Federal Tort Claims Act does allow for an individual to recover damages caused by the negligence of federal employees while acting within the scope of their employment. This law, however, includes a "detention-of-goods" exception, 28 US Code Section 2680(c), that absolves the government from claims "arising in respect of... the detention of any goods" by a law enforcement officer.
US District Court Judge Avern Cohn found that the exception covered the case at hand because the Ferrari was being detained by law enforcement.

"It is certainly unfortunate what befell MIC's vehicle," Judge Cohn ruled. "However, the vehicle was damaged while being detained by law enforcement officers within the meaning of Section 2680(c). As such, the government cannot be liable under the FTCA for what occurred. Accordingly, the government's motion is granted. This case is dismissed."

Cohn noted that presuming the car was destroyed during a "joy ride" would have made it even harder to recover damages because that would mean the agents had acted outside the scope of their official duties. As such, the government would not be liable for their conduct.

A copy of the ruling is available in a 30k PDF file at the source link below.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3611.asp
wow. they crashed going around the very first corner they came to

loved the 'sovereign immunity' part..

CNN's Rick Sanchez and the tireless propaganda minister of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mark Potok, have teamed up to demonize the Sovereign Citizen movement



-
driving with no licence or plate: Common-law Right to Travel - Encounter with London Ont Police
__________________

Last edited by bmdbley'sBro; 10-14-2011 at 08:11 PM.
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011, 07:55 PM   #2
5style
Hatters gon Hatt
 
5style's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toronot
Posts: 5,130
pathetic, they should have to pay just for the sole fact they wrecked a f50
__________________
Cayenne hunting!
5style is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 12:19 AM   #3
calegrant
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,268
I'd love to see one of those freeman society twats get into an at fault accident and then explain to the cops as they're being arrested why they have no license, registration or insurance. Being on public roads operating a vehicle is a privilege, it's your right if you choose to get your ass out and walk.
__________________
calegrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 01:05 PM   #4
davericher20
black and blue
 
davericher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 storey 3 bedroom 1 car garage
Posts: 3,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by calegrant View Post
I'd love to see one of those freeman society twats get into an at fault accident and then explain to the cops as they're being arrested why they have no license, registration or insurance. Being on public roads operating a vehicle is a privilege, it's your right if you choose to get your ass out and walk.
ohhh here we go.
another ignorant statement brought on by misunderstanding. It's gonna take 18 pages of insults and personal attacks to get it through your head that this is a free country, and everyone has the right to travel. It's not a privilege. IS IT a perfect system? no. But neither is the one we have now. There's NUMEROUS threads on this so please search. And if you can't find anything, google it and youtube it.

Freeman on the land
Freeman society
Sovereign

Cheers
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by JINT View Post
Some people have serious track experience from the cruise, so what is fast to you, isn't fast to them.

Last edited by davericher20; 10-16-2011 at 01:16 PM.
davericher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 02:32 PM   #5
325isdan
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: GTA
Posts: 1,165
Once you set foot on Canadian soil you must abide by Canadian Laws regardless of who you are or what country you come from. Unless you're a diplomat of course, you can do what ever the hell you want.
325isdan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 06:48 PM   #6
calegrant
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by davericher20 View Post
ohhh here we go.
another ignorant statement brought on by misunderstanding. It's gonna take 18 pages of insults and personal attacks to get it through your head that this is a free country, and everyone has the right to travel. It's not a privilege. IS IT a perfect system? no. But neither is the one we have now. There's NUMEROUS threads on this so please search. And if you can't find anything, google it and youtube it.

Freeman on the land
Freeman society
Sovereign

Cheers
Right, because being on public roads with an unregistered vehicle with no license doesn't make you a criminal because you're part of the freeman society, you're "travelling" Cry ignorance all you'd like, I fully understand the concepts..I just think they're complete and utter bullshit and just an attempt to get around the fact that certain things need government structure and authority.

What do you think is going to happen when one of these people actually does get into an accident, hiding behind their society is going to absolve them of responsibility? They're going to be in financial ruin or in prison, and rightfully so. I have no qualms with individuals using their rights to live more free lives, just don't make me a part of it and putting me at risk to prove a point and try to skirt around the systems which are necessary. You endanger other peoples lives by occupying our roads without adequate proof of a safe operating motor vehicle or the know how to drive said vehicle. Cry freeman all you'd like, you hit me or my family and cause us bodily harm...you're going to be a freeman hiding in the woods praying I don't hunt you down.
__________________

Last edited by calegrant; 10-16-2011 at 06:53 PM.
calegrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 03:06 PM   #7
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by calegrant View Post
Right, because being on public roads with an unregistered vehicle with no *insurance doesn't make you a criminal because you're part of the...(*FBI)


What do you think is going to happen when one of these people (*FBI) actually does get into an accident, hiding behind their society is going to absolve them of responsibility? .
Fixed lol - you just didn't see / read it or - your whole family was eaten by a sovereign?

The FBI took an unregistered uninsured stolen recovery car, joy ride it & crashed it,
thankfully hurting no one and then claimed.. are you ready?:
Sovereign Immunity



* as for un-insured hitting you , hurting your family...political groups & idiologies asside..
when the insurance corporations go to the ontario gov 3X's in 1 year asking to raise rates
and the gov says yes everytime & the cost of insurance sky rockets due to pure greed..
are you not now at greater risk of being injured by an un-insured driver...(yes)?
__________________

Last edited by bmdbley'sBro; 10-18-2011 at 03:09 PM.
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 06:30 PM   #8
SickFinga
Moderator
 
SickFinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by davericher20 View Post
ohhh here we go.
another ignorant statement brought on by misunderstanding. It's gonna take 18 pages of insults and personal attacks to get it through your head that this is a free country, and everyone has the right to travel. It's not a privilege. IS IT a perfect system? no. But neither is the one we have now. There's NUMEROUS threads on this so please search. And if you can't find anything, google it and youtube it.

Freeman on the land
Freeman society
Sovereign

Cheers
Can you explain to me why you think that right to drive and right to travel are synonymous?
SickFinga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 06:37 PM   #9
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by calegrant View Post
I'd love to see one of those freeman society twats get into an at fault accident and then explain to the cops as they're being arrested why they have no license, registration or insurance. Being on public roads operating a vehicle is a privilege, it's your right if you choose to get your ass out and walk.
its like the retards that complain about how its a "right" to own a home.

no its ****ing not. Its a privilege.

**** it should be a privilege to breath to be honest to many retards and assholes on this planet.
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 10:49 PM   #10
davericher20
black and blue
 
davericher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 storey 3 bedroom 1 car garage
Posts: 3,608
Driving- Using a car or any other automobile to travel
Travelling- Moving from one place to another by any means

Here's some legal jargon examples from the states. It applies here too but I didn;t search hard enough for the article. You get the idea
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

here's a blog I thought was an interesting read. More of what I've seen/heard about people doing
http://driving.justincredible.me/
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by JINT View Post
Some people have serious track experience from the cruise, so what is fast to you, isn't fast to them.

Last edited by davericher20; 10-18-2011 at 11:41 PM.
davericher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 11:52 PM   #11
calegrant
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by davericher20 View Post
Driving- Using a car or any other automobile to travel
Travelling- Moving from one place to another by any means

The means by which you are travelling is driving, are you not walking if you're travelling on foot? It's ridiculous you'd even try to make that argument, good luck using it as a defence when you kill someone in an unregistered vehicle as an unlicensed driver! Can you honestly disagree that government regulation of our motorways is not only beneficial, but necessary? The risks involved with motorways is huge, the only way by which they can even be considered safe is the regulations set forth by those who moderate them. You feel safe on the road now because of the steps taken to make them as such, the introduction of lanes, signals, signs, driver training, law enforcement. How safe would you feel if it was pure anarchy on the road, no signs were put in place and anyone could drive wherever they chose, however fast they chose and were not required by any moderating body to stop for whatever reason? Those mediators for us users of the roads keep the vast majority of us in our daily travels free from accident. At what point do you allow a citizen to dictate for themselves what to be safe and what not to be safe? Are speed limits necessary but vehicle inspections are not? How can we know that all users of the road will maintain a safe operating vehicle? We do not, and many have already shown that they will risk the safety of others for their gain if given the opportunity, you and I do it everyday by contradicting posted speed limits by even going 1km/h over. The degree in which we contradict these rules may differ, but it's still contradiction of that which is necessary.

Insurance isn't perfect, especially when privatized. However that alone is not grounds for abolishing all safety measures necessary. I want a solid reply from you, do you think government moderation of our road ways is necessary and to what extent?


Quote:
* as for un-insured hitting you , hurting your family...political groups & idiologies asside..
when the insurance corporations go to the ontario gov 3X's in 1 year asking to raise rates
and the gov says yes everytime & the cost of insurance sky rockets due to pure greed..
are you not now at greater risk of being injured by an un-insured driver...(yes)?
Don't try to use fear as a tactic to justify criminal behaviour which puts law abiding citizens at risk for your own benefit. Perhaps you're stupid enough to see that as a reasonable excuse, thankfully the overwhelming majority are not. Using a 5000lb 110km/h weapon as a platform to fight for your ideology is pathetic, selfish and downright dangerous. Yes sometimes we get screwed over by the government in regards to driving, but by the logic of those found in that last video that is justification for totally ignoring the legislation and enforcement necessary to keep roads safe. Perhaps these so called free citizens should start driving on the left side of the road too as to completely contradict necessary laws!
__________________

Last edited by calegrant; 10-19-2011 at 12:10 AM.
calegrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 11:30 AM   #12
davericher20
black and blue
 
davericher20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 2 storey 3 bedroom 1 car garage
Posts: 3,608
When you de-licence, you aren't immune to the criminal code. If you kill someone while driving an unregistered car you go to jail for killing them, a peace officer will throw the cuffs on and away you go. That's a deterrent. A peace officer will put you in jail if you're operating your vehicle dangerously.
I'm sure you can get insurance for your car even when de-registered, I would want to. Simply because I don't have 2 million to cover someones back pain.
I'm not advocating being reckless and devoud of responsibility, and there are people out there that are schmucks......they're called criminals, and they get taken care of, freeman or not.
I never said that insurance is the only reason to de-licence, there's lots of reasons to de-licence and get rid of your SIN. It means you aren't forced to do certain things unwillingly if you don't want to.

People scream bloody murder about the justice system, court system, laws, by-laws taxes not being fair and it needs an overhaul but they can't do anything about it. These people are!
Don't be a hater.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by JINT View Post
Some people have serious track experience from the cruise, so what is fast to you, isn't fast to them.
davericher20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 12:53 PM   #13
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by davericher20 View Post
Driving- Using a car or any other automobile to travel
Travelling- Moving from one place to another by any means

Here's some legal jargon examples from the states. It applies here too but I didn;t search hard enough for the article. You get the idea
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

here's a blog I thought was an interesting read. More of what I've seen/heard about people doing
http://driving.justincredible.me/
good links

Quote:

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS


By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml
-

Quote:
Driving IS YOUR RIGHT. Free Use of Public Highways IS YOUR RIGHT.

These are absolute truths without question, held up by courts in Canada and the USA, and fully recognized (albeit not publicly) by police forces everywhere. Every citizen and peace officer should read this page completely. TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE", and use of your private automobile on public roads and highways CANNOT be regulated, taxed, restricted or constrained in any way whatsoever whether it be via police roadchecks and traffic stops or by use of such schemes as "mandatory" insurance, registration, driver licensing (contracts), etc.



READ CAREFULLY

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

From the day of the signing of the Magna Carta (the day of the horse and buggy) highways are free to the public. New rights can be granted, but existing rights can not be taken away (this is a basic principle of common law). The Charter of Rights was introduced in 1982. Until then the court relied on the common law (laws inherited from Britain).

• The Charter doesn’t override previous rights.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. (Comment in margin: “Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter”)

The Common Law:
• Magna Carta – was signed in 1215 when people placed a knife to the throat of King John
• English Bill of Rights
• Absolute Right of Bail
• Assize of Arms

Deceased MP Stanley Knowles declared in the House of Commons about the Common Law:
“It consists of a number of statues, some of them Canadian, some of them pre-1867, some since 1867. After all, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1688 and many other statues are in effect part of the constitution of Canada”.

Examples of Inalienable Rights
• Personal security. • Personal liberty.
• Right to own and enjoyment of personal property.

The government doesn’t own the highways.
• The government holds the highways in trust for the people. (Example: a trustee is holding your money, but has no jurisdiction to spend it without your consent, even if he thinks it’s in your best interest).
• The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest.
But not to destroy your rights to use them.
• Traveling on public highway in your car is a right not a privilege.

Fees
• An execution of a right can not be charged a fee.
• Insurance fees can not be mandatory. Advice: Use identification plates for cars that are not tied with insurance .
• Historical note: when insurance was first introduced rates were low. In Manitoba, in past 10 years, motorcycle insurance went up over 288%. The amount of motor-cyclists went down from 20,000 to 5,000.
• Other types of unlawful fees are: parking fees, speeding tickets, charges for registration and renewal of a driver license (they are there to raise revenue for police).

A "DRIVER" is defined in the National Safety Code - the Federal regulations governing commercial operations on Canada's highways - as: "A DRIVER is a person who drives a commercial vehicle".


__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 04:22 PM   #14
SickFinga
Moderator
 
SickFinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,687
Well, I did some research and as expected those rulings are taken out of context. Since only Thompson v. Smith talks about using a car I googled that case. Surprisingly it was a bitch to find, google was giving me the same copy/pasted stuff on all those sovereign citizens sites. After about 30min of googling I found it on Google.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...00988685921366

Read about it and you will see that it actually says that states can issue and revoke driving licenses in the interest of public safety.

Lets say that ruling was talking about driving without a license is a fundamental right. How exactly does a ruling in a Virginia court apply to Canada?
SickFinga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 06:54 PM   #15
calegrant
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
good links



-
All you seem capable of is referencing links and are rarely ever able to even post without one. You think we're sheep yet you seem unable to even form your own thoughts, keep it up...it's why the vast majority of this sight laughs at you.
__________________
calegrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015