Islam vs the DMV?

[whitefeather]

Can it get any worse...

"Experts in Islamic law are being called to testify in the lawsuit of a Muslim woman fighting a state order to take off her veil for her driver's license photo.

Sultanna Freeman, 35, says Florida's insistence on photographing her face violates her religious rights.

``I don't unveil ... because it would be disobeying my Lord,'' Freeman testified Tuesday at the start of her non-jury trial.

Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail argued that having an easily identifiable photo on a driver's license is a matter of public safety.

``It's the primary method of identification in Florida and the nation,'' Vail said. ``I don't think there can be any doubt there is a public safety interest.''

Freeman's attorneys argue that state officials didn't care that she wore a veil in her Florida driver's license photo until after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an allegation the state denies.

``This is about religious liberty. It's about whether this country is going to have religious diversity,'' said Howard Marks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Both sides planned to call experts in Islamic law at the trial, which continues Wednesday. A copy of the Quran has been entered into evidence.

Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, wore her veil for the photo on the Florida driver's license she obtained after moving to the state in 2001.

Nine months later, she received a letter from the state warning that it would revoke her license unless she returned for a photo with her face uncovered.

Freeman claims her religious beliefs require her to keep her head and face covered out of modesty and that her faith prohibits her face from being photographed."


UMMMM...let me think here...how do you want to be identified with your face covered...I might as well go in the DMV and wear a ski mask and say this is part of my religion...and if you refuse to take my picture i sue... Its me, just take my word for it

[berto64]

Stoopid bureaucrats! If the wench doesn't drop the veil for the photo, simple, no %#@%**&&% drivers license! Whaddya expect from Florida anyway? Sounded like it's not a middle eastern name anyways.

berto

[Lowrider]

Count on the ACLU to always be there protecting your Constitutional rights. Unless of course it's your 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights.

Hey Berto: How ya making out since crashing your scooter, Brother? All healed up? How much damage to the bike? What the hell happened?

how frivolous... The DMV should use her "MUGSHOT" that is on record. Heck, it was plastered all over national TV today! LMAO!

[inplanotx]

Too much chad stuck in the veil, she should get a life! No photo, no license. It is a priviledge, not a right!!!!!!!!! Give in to this and everyone will wear some type of face cover and all is lost. How silly can Florida get? Can see it now, a state full of lone rangers with eyes. Sorry to those of our memebers that live there!

[Evilahole]

Either that cow gets a full face photo or I'm going to refuse to get my photo on my renewal this year based on the belief that taking a picture of me would steal my soul away.
Lets see how the courts will handle that one.

[dirtyjap]

What ever happened to seperation of church and state.Fla law as stated in our driver's handbook calls for a full face photo. Noboby has seen my baldheaded step-father without a hat for 30 years.But he still has to take it off for his DL.The law says she has to take off the veil, her religion says she cant they're seperate issues.Driving is a privilage not a right it says so in our DL book.Also says that the DL is the proprety of the state

[berto64]

Lowrider,
You have PM.

berto

[Shizamus]

Let's see if this muddies up the waters for ye any....

Right to Travel
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.

The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.

In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.

These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling --discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

[Lowrider]

Berto: PM back at ya, Bro.

[dirtyjap]

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.

So what you're saying is that she dosn't need an drivers license. So whats the problem? She can just drive without one until she gets stopped and fight the charge on those grounds. I'm sure this will be her next step.They're taught to use our legal system. But I do have to say your argument sounds a whole lot the argument that" Fed income tax is supposed to be voluntary "argument from the 80s ,that got a lot of people in trouble.

[1952Sniper]

Folks, this woman is not Arab, and she's not a Muslim. She's poor white trash with a long history of child abuse. She and her husband are using this religious BS as a shield. The husband was found with all kinds of fake IDs. Something is up with them, and they're trying to hide behind this religion. It's pathetic.

Next time I go to renew my license, I'm going to wear a ski mask. I'll tell them it's my religious beliefs that all government photos should be made while wearing a ski mask.

[Jerry]

ACLU .... doesn't that stand for American Communist and Lesbians Union? Don't mean to offend any lesbians out there.

[berto64]

Be happy to see you.

berto

[SouthernMoss]

Careful, Jerry. Let's try not to alienate too many folks, ok?

Ok Jerry, be nice... because I think I'm a Lesbian too

[TF118]

Ya missed the point or confused the ''right to travel'', which everyone has and nobody is denying this woman, with the ''privilege'' of a driver's license ....the license is a privilege not a right ...regarding travel ...passenger seat, bs, plain train, LPC's or any other mode of travel is open without restriction, there is a very good reason that you must pass a driver's exam before you may exercisely the PRIVILEGE of opperating a motor vehicle on public highway's ...denial of this privilege has no bearing on her right to travel

[1952Sniper]

I wonder how much longer we will be "free" to travel without providing documentation on who we are.

I get the feeling that it won't be too much longer before we'll have to be showing our ID to someone just to get on a bus.

[berto64]

Don't forget, Ya already have to show photo ID to board a commercial airliner. Gonna have to do that in July. Damn, flying useda to be fun!

berto

[Jerry]

Sorry SM and all, I knew I shouldn't post that ACLU definition. I sure don't want to offend anyone on this forum .... the lefties I might want t offfend probably don't visit here.

I'll be good ... I Promise!!!

[SouthernMoss]

Apology accepted, Jerry. Carry on!

[Smoky14]

What does she NEED a license for anyhow? Under Muslim law she isn't permitted to drive anyhow.

Under civil law GET YOUR PICTURE TAKEN AND SHUT UP.

[whitefeather]

forgot about that....don't they have to sit in the backseat?


Just another hypocrite

[LewairLavell]

Well the important facts I think are this:

First, find the word photograph in the Quran. If it could be proved by showing me the scripture in the Quran where it talks about not taking pictures of a womans face, then I'd have to rethink it. Otherwise she ain't got a leg to stand on.

Second, as far as travel goes, I say this. If Denny's can get sued over blocking interstate commerce by refusing to serve 2 black guys at a restaurant, then just wait til that first person who's gotten stopped by the police and held up so that they miss a flight or some nonsence like that sues the cops for interfering with interstate commerce, I think that's all it will take.

[whitefeather]

ORLANDO, Fla. (June 6) - A Muslim woman who says her religious beliefs forbid her from publicly showing her face cannot wear a veil in her driver's license photo, a judge decided Friday.

Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be burdened by showing her face on the license, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled after hearing three days of testimony last week.

Freeman, 35, had sued Florida after the state revoked her license in 2001 when she refused to have her photo retaken with her face uncovered, saying it violated her religious beliefs. Her previous license showed her veiled with only her eyes visible.

Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, wore her veil for the photo on the Florida driver's license she obtained after moving to the state in 2001.

Nine months later, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she received a letter from the state warning that it would revoke her license unless she returned for a photo with her face uncovered.

Freeman claims her religious beliefs require her to keep her head and face covered out of modesty and that her faith prohibits her face from being photographed.

Her lawyers argued that instead of a driver's license photo, she could use other documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card to prove her identity if necessary.

But a state attorney countered that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to lift their veil and expose their face if the action serves a public good. Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail said arrangements can be made to have Freeman photographed only with women present to allay her concerns about modesty.

During the hearing, Freeman conceded that she has had her face photographed without a veil since she started wearing one in 1997. She had a mug shot taken after her arrest in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care. The children were removed from her home, according to records from the Decatur (Ill.) Police Services.

Child welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their concerns about religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to the Decatur Police records.

Thorpe didn't allow much of the facts about Freeman's arrest into evidence.


HMMMMM interesting....