Bitcoin Forum

Is not your car your property? And are you not a free man/woman in a free country? I think Government should pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed.

What do you think?

8)

You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.

^^^ Thank you. But government should pay us to have to license.

I mean, the cop that stops you if you are speeding, has been ordered by his boss to do so. He gets paid to follow the orders of his boss.

So, if you get your licenses like they order you to, aren't they acting like your boss, when they order you to do something? If you follow their orders, shouldn't you get paid by them for doing so?

8)

You guys still have a nice law over there in the US. If you were in Europe you'd be surprised how shitty it is in here.
In most EU countries you can't

Drive a car when someone with a license is sitting next to you.
Can't learn to drive with your father, like children used to do. You have to be in the presence of a certified instructor, you can't be alone or with parents even on some country roads.
In some countries when you get caught driving without a license you can be denied the right to drive for a year or two.
You can't drive a fucking moped without a license, which is insane.
Even when you think you know how to drive, you can't take the exam. You have to pay for the course first.
You can't drive a small electric car or one of those chinese micro cars without a license.
You need separate insurance for every car. This means that if one person owns 5 cars he has to pay the insurance 5 times. Ridiculous!

I'd really prefer the US corde and your nice wide roads to the shit we have in the EU.

I live in EU and in my country you can drive when someone  with a license and 2+ years experience is sitting next to you. But you have to pass theory exam first. Remaining things that you wrote is true. And if you just got your driver license, insurance will be f*cking expensive for you. Though, I'm not familiar with these things in USA, how it's different from EU there?
OP, your post doesn't makes much sense. Yeah, car is your proper, but public roads aren't. You can't do whatever you want there and you have to follow laws.

Then you are thinking selfishly if you are thinking about receiving payment just to use your own property. Like other taxes, it is imposed by the government to generate money for a public purpose. It's for everyone. The tax you pay goes into many places.

• Salary of government workers
• Garbage collection
• Police
• Firefighters
• Other government services

TBH, I don't like paying taxes as much as I would want to but it's required and it's for a better cause, if there are corrupt people collecting those fees, it's not on my conscience. I just know I'm doing the right thing and it's for the betterment of everyone in the country.

bUt nOt iF Im a sOvIeRiGeN CiTiZiEn bRo i dOnT HaVe tO FoLlOw uR LaWs

/s (if needed)

But in all seriousness. This is what it comes down to. You're able to own a car and drive it on your private land if ya want to -- but thats kinda useless if you want to use it for what everyone else in America wants a car for, transportation.

Suck it up and pay the freight.

I think if you use something that is provided by the government, then you should help to pay for it through taxes.
If you want to drive a car on roads and through traffic management systems that are run and maintained by the government, then you should pay to do so. Licence fees and vehicle taxes help to pay for what the government provides.

not really

these days, almost all of the money goes to servicing old government debts multiple decades in the past, so in a way you are paying for these things: from the 1930's, 1940's. 1950's, 1960's....



I disagree

If for instance, you live in the US and pay US federal taxes, some of your tax dollars are being used to pay for the Manhattan Project (assuming the funding is still outstanding, a distinct possibility), or certainly for the Vietnam War.

If I paid for the Vietnam War, I would find it weighing on my conscience. I guess everyone's conscience is different :-\

It is show that you passed your examination that you are ready to drive a car.  A license is a privilege but not a right.  License can also avoid accident because you passed your exam then of course you can drive a vehicle in a safe way.

When people lived in group, their interest conflicted. The acts of ones were affecting others. That's why they self created rules and ruler to govern over themselves.
We've created our government so that they'd restrict personal freedoms in the favor of communal comfort. Communal comforts are to be decided by the whole community through democracy. If you don't like what your government is doing, change them.

As you mentioned the roads were the properties of the government, but the roads were laid on the public money. To the increased number of vehicles on the road we can't allow everyone without proper learning to drive the car. This is why everyone who wants to drive a car needs to get licensed taking a driving test. This is the reason why we need license and not just because of governments road we need to take license.

Not all the roads. Some are dirt roads not managed by anyone, yet they are usually on the land owned by the government. So this means that if you go outside your home, you land on the property owned by the government, because there's no land that is not owned by anyone. The government made sure to sign every piece of land that nobody has laid claim to to itself. Once you had to maintain a piece of land to call it your own and demand people to ask before crossing it. The government is as always above the law, because it decide what the law is. It doesn't put signs or fences on the land it owns, it doesn't maintain it, but it can push you around if you step on it.



We can't allow? We as the majority? We as the bigger group that is going to dictate the smaller and weaker group what to do?
Maybe you're referring to the royal we? I'm not with you on this.

Wanna know what this "we can't allow" reminds me of?
We can't allow some people to be too rich, we have to redistribute! We can't allow these people to do what they want, they have to ask us first! We can't allow these people to be lazy we have to make them work for the good of the society. Do you see where this is going?

Consider that the right to travel is a freedom that is supplied by government. Government has all kinds of ways to support payment of roads without licensing... such as toll roads. In addition, the rights of way that are "enhanced" by government making roads, are really an impediment to people who wished that the roads were not in their way, so they could travel on the rights of way.

However, Former LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), Jack McLamb, shows us that the right to travel is a basic legal right, even though most LEOs consider doing it without licensing is a crime. Right to Travel:
The problem is that people don't generally know how to fight this in court when a LEO accuses them of a crime like this.

But the question in the OP essentially is, shouldn't government be forced to pay people who they force to get licensing? I mean, you can't legally force someone to do work on your property without paying him. So, since the public is in trust to government, shouldn't the government be forced to pay when they force you to get their licensing, especially when it is a right for you to do without their licensing?

8)


EDIT: The 5th Amendment:
Notice that the bolded part says that there needs to be due process of law, not due process of code or statute. By forcing payment for licensing, the property of the vehicle owner is essentially being forced into public use by license payment. To be fair and legal, the license payment should be to the vehicle owner if nothing else, as reimbursement for whatever payment he had to make to government.

This your answer is just the perfect one. Since he is arguing that he should be paid for getting a license, then he should just avoid it all together because I have not seen how someone who is on wheel chair would need a licence. Most times people always think the only motive of government is to raise money via any means necessary forgetting that sometimes its actually a way to protect you and also protect other members of the society. Imagine everyone getting paid for a license then it means we all would have one even though we all cannot afford a car and say we all afford a car, then we all drive at once which overstretched the facilities then we get taxed higher to further complain about that not considering other effect to the atmosphere that exhaust pipes would caused.

oh no badecker... i think you been watching them 'freeman of the land'.. 'sovereign' youtube videos from like 5 years ago.

let me catch you back up just a little bit..
sorry but there is alot of myths that got busted as to the 'freeman of the land'/sovereign crap

let m guess you have a silly belief that when we are born that a secret bank account is created in peoples 'Names' and all the bullony about the capitalisation of the name..
sorry that just was silly stuff that had alot of nonsense involved. purely to get a group of no-bodys to look like they are lawful scholars to then charge consultation and conference/meetup fee's

Licensing isn't just about money; it's also about public safety. A two tonne car travelling at 110 km/h (70 mph) has about 1 megajoule (750,000 foot pounds) of kinetic energy, equivalent to 250 grams (half a pound) of TNT, which, as it happens, is roughly the yield of an M67 hand grenade. As terrorists are (surprising recently) starting to figure out, a car makes a very effective guided missile that can (either accidentally or maliciously) destroy another car completely, kill or maim a whole crowd of pedestrians, or partially demolish a small building. Even the most ardent gun nuts will concede that some licensing restrictions are necessary on the use of such weapons in public.

Those who can't abide by these (rather generous, IMO) restrictions are free to travel by less dangerous methods.

These "bosses" are those people that are implementing rules and regulations in the road and those rules should be followed by us citizens. That point of yours is I think sorry to say but, doesn't make any sense. Since, it's your need/want to drive outside and outside is government's property. So if it's your needs/wants, then why should the government needs to pay you for doing what you want?

For the sake of argument, let's say that would be the case. Let's say the government will pay for people that got their car licensed and themselves licensed. Where do you think the funds will go? The whole fund for the year of the country will deplete more and more since many people got licensed and many more will follow.

All you are suggesting is that government doesn't have to obey their own laws and court cases as listed in my post you quoted.

Watch this.
- Government places signs all over the place that tell people the limits of safety. Some of these are speed limit warning signs.
- At the same time, government never stops anyone who drives any speed he wants, except to advise him that he is driving dangerously.
- If there is an accident, the guilty party pays for others who have been injured/killed... if he lives, otherwise it is his insurance.
- They throw the whole book at the guilty person, to the point of execution, except if he was driving within the speed limit warning signs.

If these things were done, especially the execution thing, people would drive safely and carefully. People would be punished for the harm and damage they did. We would get rid of all kinds of stupid fines that enrich government people and LEO inappropriately. And with the threat of execution, people would drive safely. But if they didn't, they aren't going to do so now. They won't even obey not driving on a suspended license.

Let's clean things up, and allow people to be free. No more victimless crimes. No more pussyfooting around. Freedom, and real payment for negligence.

BUT...

That wasn't the point of the OP. The point was that government should pay us for forcing us into licensing ourselves and our vehicles.

8)

to BD
the right to travel is not a freedom supplied by government. its a biological ability supplied by your feet.

to Fp
exactly people can walk to places, swim. under their own muscle power of their limbs
BaDecker has definetly ben watching too much of them 'freeman' videos.. im guessing it will take him a couple years to escape that loop as he seems to be stuck in 2014 trends

The funds will go into the pockets of the people, if government pays people to get licenses.

Government doesn't have to make their rules and laws for licensing and driving the way they do. They make all their rules for government enrichment.

If government really made it according to their rules and laws, they would do it according to my post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197289.msg52940248#msg52940248, and the website in it - http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm. As it is, LEOs aren't following their own laws.

I'm not making this up. It isn't my opinion, or at least not alone. Essentially government says the same thing that I do.

8)

I completely agree. The 9th Amendment (really the 9th Article to the Bill of Rights) is the most important piece of law legislation during and since the time of the Constitution formation and adoption. The 9th Amendment:
Cornell also says this about it:
In other words, since we had the right to travel without licensing, by our private conveyance, before even the Constitution was set in place, if government forces us to get licensing against their own, basic, foundational law, they should at least pay us to get the licensing.

8)

i think you forget that the funds put into government are from the people too
meaning if you want £20 in your bank for updating a licence. it will cost the tax payer(people) £40
£20 to you and £20 for the labour and admin to produce the documents

think about it its only ~3 hours of labour. but to open the post type in your details. validate your driving test certificate is real. produce document, print the plastic card, double check all details are correct and post it back is not a simple 2 second task

so if you want to receive £20 be prepared to have paid more than £20 for that privelige

and please please please stop watching them freemason stuff and just believing it on face value.. atleast do some research
especially if you start believing the tripe about secret 'credit' accounts in peoples 'N'ames.. just dont even bother to believe that tripe. its all been busted and laughed at years ago

you have the right to walk, dance, talk, wiggle your ass.. all the natural biological abilities
but to use something that is not your biology that can be considered dangerous and able to be used maliciously is not a free right

sorry but a lambo was not around in the days of the constitution.. nowhere does it say you have the right to drive a lambo
if you want to travel. fine. use your feet

You are starting to get the idea. If people demanded all the rights they have, Government would be put back into the place it is supposed to be, rather than remaining some of the biggest money-making rackets around. And the people would be free from government's stupid constraints.

8)

i went though the whole freeman rabbit hole like 7 years ago. but i actually went into the details and researched beyond the hype, i went through it all and found the flaws.

if people actually demanded their rights and stopped accepting the services of the governments. guess what
first. you end up walking to work. nxt you realise you dont have time/ability to dispose of the trash piling up on your back lawn because local governments stopped servicing you. next you learn to barter because the government/bank money becomes obsolete. then your grand children when they grow up revolutionals your dvolved state into forming a cartel of 'public' service offerings. and thus they end up re-establishing a governemtn, but under a different brand

you do not have the right to travel in a vehicle unhindered. you do not have the right to have garbage disposed of or even water supplid to your house for fre via pipes.

but if you want to go off grid and walk to the nearest river/stream to collet buckets of water and walk to work. fair play. but atleast know what your rights actually are.
your rights to travel end at your little toe not at the front bumper of a vehicle

heres some small little tip-bits
 'civil' right is not a 'human' right.
once you realise the difference you start to learn how not being a civilian/citizen changes how you should expect life to be

First, I think that you are forgetting the law that I repeated at my post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197289.msg52941411#msg52941411.

Second, people had horse-pulled carriages and wagons long before the Constitution. You might even be able to make a case for steam engine vehicles before the Constitution.

The consideration that something is dangerous doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is actually dangerous. Consider that laws don't make cars safer. You can tell by all the dangerous accidents that happen all the time. Some of these accidents are happening because the drivers take their eyes off the road because they are fearfully looking for cops in their rear view.

So, by making laws rather than advisories, government is promoting more accidents, and they are getting more iligitimate pay out of it. And people are forced by fear to slow themselves down needlessly.

Government should pay us top get licensing.

8)

Just curious. What flaws did you find in Karl Lentz's application of Bill Thornton's understandings? I should say, basic flaws or basic understanding.

8)

how deep do you want to climb out of the rabbit hole you fell down..

i could go on for hours busting the flaws of the 'freeman' stuff

first of all, the basics of human vs civil. is if simplified down about 'illegal aliens' and 'tresspass'
if your not a legal citizen(not member of public)(not under government rule) then you are tresspassing and will be deported.

if you try using government services you will be denied. roads are a service. so without showing you have a licence(permit(permission)) to use their services then you should not be on the road.

legal acts of the road(government service) is that the public(citizens) should not walk on the road but use the pavement and crossings. roads are made for vehicles and laws of how those vehicles apply to how they should act on the roads

if you dont want to obide by those government legal acts. then become an illegal alien and hide off the grid.. or walk on land which you own or have permission to walk through..
but if you are found using government services accept to be charged for that service.

ok its ben a few years. so lets dig in
https://www.youarelaw.org/common-law-discussion-karl-lentz-billy-thornton/
mp3. #1 time0:00-15:00
guy goes to court and say he doesnt recognise the courts the case lasts 7 minutes and is ended.
it clearly says in the mp3 the liability order was still active. after the case
all that happened was just wasting the courts time.
the liability order was no quashed
the guy then went to say to those he was liable to that he went to court. but didnt say that those he was liable to just went away.
what half of this freemason crap is about is not lawfully dismissing liability. but actually trying to waste everyones time soo much that they just give up after their accountant works out that its more expensive to keep trying and to just write it off as acceptable loss of revenue.

things like this are done all the time. if you have a credit card/loan owing £500 but know it costs a credit card company £500 to pay to a financial omburdsmen to make a decision. and then £1000 to go to court, and court of appeals. the freemasons would try making credit card companies aware of the costs its costing them to keep fighting for their funds, and mentioning after that the person can just claim bankruptcy meaning the credit card company wont get anything back. thats not the person winning because of human rights. but just getting a company to make a loss and move on.
but the fremasons hide all that tactic in lots of half truths and ploys to make it sound ik its about human rights

mp3. #1 time15:00-30:00
ok this segment is about what authority a court has.
basically anyone can choose any fair venue to argue their case. many contracts can b formed whereby if a person has a problem with thier telephone service. they can first go to their telephone regulator, then tribubal, mitigation, then court.

people can form their own court. but if one party such as  government that feels you have tresspassed or broke one of the rules of the use of their property they can ask you to attend their court.

if someone stands on your land then you can escort them to your barn and get them to defend their actions or suffer the consequences.
EG at a drinking bar/pub, but customer dosnt have money for the drink. you can take them into the kitchen and mak them wash dishes/glasses as payment/punishment/reimbursment of lost costs
but be careful.. your punishment may not be lawful or legal which means you could get in trouble for the punishment you give out.

the whole going to court and saying you dont recognise their authority is not declaring your innocence its just wasting the courts time. if its related to a government service which you broke the rules of then the government courts have procedures for that. they simply add a warrent to get you to turn up later. you actually can end up getting in worse trouble than just admitting you as a human did make a mistake by driving unlicenced

EG by claiming your not a citizen of government you could end up in a detention centre until they can identify a country you are a citizen of to deport you to. rather than just paying a fine for being unlicenced on the road

ok. to get to the crux of what i think badecker is trying to forsee/desires
a country without government.

to completely dissolve a government is to not allow a new one to form.
which would be a no-vote turnout (i cant see that happen)

but lets say it did. ok no government, no assistance, no service. suddenly its a complete capitalist and no society
people fight each other to keep their border walls of their houses/gardens as 'theirs'

basically its the civil war and war on independance in reverse

then whn the dust settles and pools of blood dry
they argue about who maintains the roads and who pays for it. eventually neighbourhood associations form.
because neghbourhoods adjoining other neighbourhoods. to come to common ground on certain rules so that those moving long distance are not getting headaches following new rules each suburb they move through. townhall committees are formed.
towns link together and need to come to common ground on certain rules so state senators are formed.
then we are back to having a government.. after alot of bloodshed and property loss

all that literally changes is the brand name of who is the 'management' company that arbitrates things

how deep do you want to climb out of the rabbit hole you fell down..	This line is possibly the point of it all. You might have knowledge of what you mean, but in general, it doesn't make sense. Same with the courts - legalease. So, simply maintain your own court by filing a claim (becoming prosecutor) right into their court, therby making it your court, every time they want to make a complaint against you (make you a defendent).
i could go on for hours busting the flaws of the 'freeman' stuff	Anybody could do the same. The freeman stuff isn't the route to go.
first of all, the basics of human vs civil. is if simplified down about 'illegal aliens' and 'tresspass' if your not a legal citizen(not member of public)(not under government rule) then you are tresspassing and will be deported.	Don't steer court into human vs. civil. Human is written right into the basics of the Constitution and Bill of Rights Articles. Drop the "vs.," and simply use the "human" side exactly as it is written. If they don't bring up the idea of public, and who is under government rule, why bring it up? That isn't what your case is about.
if you try using government services you will be denied. roads are a service. so without showing you have a licence(permit(permission)) to use their services then you should not be on the road.	Even government people write that if you use "right to travel" in the correct way, you have that right. There are people all over the place that do this.
legal acts of the road(government service) is that the public(citizens) should not walk on the road but use the pavement and crossings. roads are made for vehicles and laws of how those vehicles apply to how they should act on the roads	You sound like you were trying to change government somewhere along the line. This isn't the point of Karl or myself. Rather, we use government as it is meant to be used by people.
if you dont want to obide by those government legal acts. then become an illegal alien and hide off the grid.. or walk on land which you own or have permission to walk through.. but if you are found using government services accept to be charged for that service.	Government legal acts don't always apply to what you are doing, or to your life. Why try to make them apply when they don't? Are you trying to rebuild government to your own specifications? In the Jack McLamb site I listed in a previous post, we are shown that government has said things that are different than our regular thinking. Use the court cases correctly, and you can drive without licensing. (Using them correctly includes referring to them rather than using directly.)
ok its ben a few years. so lets dig in https://www.youarelaw.org/common-law-discussion-karl-lentz-billy-thornton/ mp3. #1 time0:00-15:00 guy goes to court and say he doesnt recognise the courts the case lasts 7 minutes and is ended. it clearly says in the mp3 the liability order was still active. after the case all that happened was just wasting the courts time. the liability order was no quashed the guy then went to say to those he was liable to that he went to court. but didnt say that those he was liable to just went away. what half of this freemason crap is about is not lawfully dismissing liability. but actually trying to waste everyones time soo much that they just give up after their accountant works out that its more expensive to keep trying and to just write it off as acceptable loss of revenue.	So what? The joker doesn't know what he is talking about. He isn't using the law. He is mostly doing what you were doing... using government legalease, and trying to run a government's case rather than filing your own case into theirs. That isn't what Karl does in point... remain a defendant in their case. However, the page you listed wasn't found. As an alternative, try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrobPy1orU. This is #10 of 10 interviews with Karl. Listen to the rest of them, as well. They aren't freeman. They are different.
things like this are done all the time. if you have a credit card/loan owing £500 but know it costs a credit card company £500 to pay to a financial omburdsmen to make a decision. and then £1000 to go to court, and court of appeals. the freemasons would try making credit card companies aware of the costs its costing them to keep fighting for their funds, and mentioning after that the person can just claim bankruptcy meaning the credit card company wont get anything back. thats not the person winning because of human rights. but just getting a company to make a loss and move on. but the fremasons hide all that tactic in lots of half truths and ploys to make it sound ik its about human rights mp3. #1 time15:00-30:00 ok this segment is about what authority a court has. basically anyone can choose any fair venue to argue their case. many contracts can b formed whereby if a person has a problem with thier telephone service. they can first go to their telephone regulator, then tribubal, mitigation, then court. people can form their own court. but if one party such as  government that feels you have tresspassed or broke one of the rules of the use of their property they can ask you to attend their court. if someone stands on your land then you can escort them to your barn and get them to defend their actions or suffer the consequences. EG at a drinking bar/pub, but customer dosnt have money for the drink. you can take them into the kitchen and mak them wash dishes/glasses as payment/punishment/reimbursment of lost costs but be careful.. your punishment may not be lawful or legal which means you could get in trouble for the punishment you give out. the whole going to court and saying you dont recognise their authority is not declaring your innocence its just wasting the courts time. if its related to a government service which you broke the rules of then the government courts have procedures for that. they simply add a warrent to get you to turn up later. you actually can end up getting in worse trouble than just admitting you as a human did make a mistake by driving unlicenced EG by claiming your not a citizen of government you could end up in a detention centre until they can identify a country you are a citizen of to deport you to. rather than just paying a fine for being unlicenced on the road	I agree. Doing things like these are silly if they are done just the way you say. The trick is that you don't do these things, but rather, use the part of the courts that get you your results. The formal reason for the licensing is so that government and everyone else easily recognize that you are a person who is a reasonably safe person to be traveling in an area. When you beat them in court, you can travel without licensing. But why go to all that trouble? Get a license. Karl never talks about citizenship except if the citizenship issue is the one being brought up by government. In fact, his point is that he is a man, and if they bring up citizenshp to move him away from his claim, Karl asks them what citizenship has to do with it? That's not what the case is about.

---

Here's the point. There is a side of government and law that is not the legal side. Rather, it is the lawful side. It works like this, very simply.

Whenever government takes you to court for something, they always file a complaint against you. If you file a claim (not a motion) inside their complaint, they are required by law to have a person on the stand accusing you of harm or damage... real harm or damage... not some simple thing like you damaged their law by not obeying it, or their feelings were hurt.

They can't do it because of the 4 legs of the table in court. They need an accuser who can take the oath and get on the stand and testify. They need the accuser to have been harmed or damaged in some way that he can show and prove is harm or damage. The other two are evidence and at least one witness that show that you did it.

The thing they will do is try to move you back into the complaint side of the court when you file your claim into their case. They do this because a claim trumps a complaint. When they can't do this because you are shrewd enough to not let them, you win.

To say it another way, the name on the indictment is your accuser. If the name is the State of XXXXX, vs. Jon Doe, and JD files a claim (not a motion) into their case requiring to face his accuser and question him/her on the stand (standard law), who does the indictment say the accuser is? How does the the State of XXXXX get on the stand? But even if he does, how is he going to testify? But even if he can testify, where is the harm or damage? But if there is harm or damage, hasn't JD been an honorable person and agreed to pay off the harm or damage on the private side? But if JD has already agreed to pay, where is the case? It was settled on the private side, right? But if they won't accept the conditions of JD's payment when JD says this is all that he can afford, UCC says that the debt is cancelled because they wouldn't accept his offer of payment. If there is no harm or damage in the first place, there can be no guilty verdict in a properly written claim case.

The reason the right to travel usage isn't popular is that people constantly let government run all over them in court.

8)

My Eyes Are Bleeding.

when i start seeing badecker us very 'freemany' buzzwords. i can tell he is very deep in the rabbit hole and not ready to step out.

what he dont realise is the very basics
bill of rights/constitution are written words and are civil contracts

if they were about human rights/ability then illegal immigrants and native americans, african-america in the 1800-1950's would all have them same rights by default. but they dont

the bil of rights/constitution is meant to be a contract that allows certain people to have certain freedoms while on american land. but also allows those fredoms to be taken away. not by mutating people into a llama so its no longer human. but just void its contract with a human when put in prison/detained

come on think about it. if there was no civil contract there would b no prisons or police because no one could stop anyone in an uncivilised world of human nature

as for use of courts.
sorry but thats just playing the time wasting game of hoping they give up by trying to go for the flipping the claim around..
ok heres a thought.
imagine the word court = barn
you trsspass on their property and they take you into their barn. you can flip flip all you like and waste time and hope the farmer falls asleep so you can snek off.. but barn rules still apply

the only true case you can have is if you made a claim in your own barn with your own barn rules
this whole freeman stuff is not about human rights, its civil stuff
each court/barn has different purpose. eg family court dont handle certain cases.
a true defense is not to try making a family court dissmiss a family case due you to counterclaiming murder or other non family stuff
same goes for human rights claims are not done in some civil courts

you cannot claim owner ship of the court/barn when its someone else court/barn you have to follow the court/barn rules.
freeman try to get cases dismissed by wasting the courts time by trying to break the court/barn rules

..
anyway.. point being
if your own your own private land, yes you can drive without a licence...
if you drive on government property, expect to follow rules of their property

Nice try. But you are using generalities. When you use the law that is there for you to use, these generalities stand only as you use them by the law.

8)

ok ill let you take the slow route out the freeman rabbit hole

but while you take the long route i hope u travel by foot or by vehicle on your own private land if you do not wish to follow the rules of the highways

i wondr whats next for you
'freemen say the right to reproduce is a sovereign right and so rape is ok'??
truth is biological ability is biological ability. yes you can walk, talk, procreate (travel, speach, sex) but if your on a certain land mass that has rules to follow whil your on that land mass. either get on your private land and walk, rant and bang your cousin.. or in a civilised world, follow the rules..

many people over the last couple decades went totally deep hole intofreeman and actually got in more trouble than expected doing all the freeman stuff. in the UK i remember early 2000's many police officrs didnt even understand what people wer on about when drivers were shouting out their 'right to travel' and would just hand them pieces of paper to produce their documents within 14 days.
they'd not do so. and one day find their vehicle got siezed

pretending governments dont exist or have no power is like pretending bee's cant sting you. which in that case your better off not going near bee's habitat.

Why do you keep on bringing freemen into it? There's only about two things they are trying to do:
1. Rebuild what is already built in the Constitution and laws;
2. Make changes to the Constitution and laws.

Doing #1 requires a big fight like the first time.

Doing #2 is prohibited by the Constitution and laws.

Why don't you re-think what you wanted to get done when you were a freeman-like activist, and use the laws and processes that are available to get the job done?

Look up Section 744 in the Federal Courts section of CJS. The Federal District court is there for you to use. "They" can't prohibit you from FDC until the court is seated. Then the jury has to do the prohibiting, because the magistrate/judge is only a referee.

If you let yourself get talked out of it by a magistrate of limited authority, it was your blunder.

8)

you have many things to learn.
im still laughing how you want to pretend that fdc doesnt affect you to not need a licence but then pretend they do when it suits you.

you cannot pretend you can walk into court, say what you got to say and just have a case dismissed.
havnt you learned anything about innocent people being imprisoned, fined and such.
even people that have the same mindset as you learned the hard way.

the simple fact is if you use their service and break their rules expect to be judged by that breach of contract. pretending in their court that their contract does not apply is like walking into a farmers barn and demanding to be set free proclaiming you never tresspassed on his land, even though your actually standing on it that very minute

remember if you dont want to follow their rules of the service they provide you. then why do you follow their rules of their court
it was you that was denying the concept of federal acts, civil laws.
it was you that thought that the right of travel(written act/law) was the same as human right/ability to move

your whole topic has ben seemingly trying to deny the authority of courts and feds and laws

sorry badecker but on a highway, you do need a licence.

you still have alot of climbing to go

i can imagine badecker in this scenario
(BD walks onto someones driveway/front lawn)
property owner comes out and say get off my property or ill hurt you physically or financially
BD stupidly says 'you cant order me to do nothing, unless you pay me. so im gonna do what i want on your property unless you pay me'
property owner loads his shotgun, but first indicates to BD the sign clearly saying 'tresspasseres will be shot'
BD still demands payment to move
BD is now 6 foot underground

see what i mean about you just trying to play the waste courts time..
guess what...
to get to a stage of being in a court of jury you have to have either done a vicious crime and gone through the detention, bail, initial precedings stuff, way before standing infront of a jury.

or if for a lesser crime you have to go through even more of thier court administration stuff to get a trial.

do you honestly think you can just wake up one random day an just walk into court without a schedule and some jury is just going to be sat there waiting for such random walk-ins.
the court system dos not hav the same walk-in process as a mens barbershop does

hck even barber shops have a procedure. if they have someone who specialises in female hair weaves but only works on tuesdays. if you took your wife in on a monday and demanded your wife get a weave. they can easily tell you to come back another day.

No wonder you had a hard time in the freeman stuff you attempted. You don't even seem to be able to grasp that there are other ways. And on top of it, you seem to think that I am doing the crazy things you did, and I can't seem to get you to understand that I am not, and that there are ways that work that are different than freeman stuff.

I feel kind sorry for you. You believed so hard in the kinds of things you did, that you can't even see anything else. But thanks for coming out with it. I would have never guessed if I hadn't read it from you myself.

8)

Is that all you have? Blabbering about nothing pertainent? Don't you realize that if you are brought into one of their administrative courts, you can file your own case in a State court against any one of them for harming you? And you start it by filing your claim right into their case.

What? Do you somehow think that because I suggest a point, that such is all that there is to performing what I said? You been hitting the bottle again? You don't even seem to want to hear it. I'm surprised you haven't blocked me, yet.

8)

i am laughing sooo soo hard right now

i could have gone on for hours picking holes at it all, and yes i have mentioned many things about many different aspects outside the freeman philosophy. but you seem to keep trying to twist your way back to how you think the freemen concept is correct... sorry but no money is going in your pocket for using other peoples/businesses/governments services

i was never and have never been a freeman..
funny part is i have the ability to research something without being suckered in.
you however have been using very revealing buzzwords that have shown you are deep into their belief system

but goodluck driving on a highway without a licence.. oh and remember if you see flashing lights and sirens behind you... it aint an icecream truck offering you icecream and $20 as a thank you for stopping and trying their service

have fun

edit to reply below.(saves bumping nonsense topic)
badecker.. you really are like 5 years out of date in research time.. either hurry up and catch up or stay stuck where you are thinking your fall down the rabbit hole is a 'woke' moment. sorry but your still dreaming

I'm glad you are having fun laughing. A good laugh is good for the spirit at times.

At the same time I am a little sad for you. Picking holes in your own stuff and not even realizing it, is kinda sad.

8)

If you think about it that way, then that's your call. You can never say where the taxes/funds are going to and for the debts or to the right things, like I mentioned. You can never do anything about it anyway. It's better to think about the positive stuff instead of thinking negatively.

Well, I don't live in the US. I'm not even sure in what aspect it's going to be with how the tax dollars are being used. I just know that it goes to the government. It's not the citizens' fault that the nation started spending ~$120 billion on the Vietnam war causing a lot of inflation with oil prices etc.

What do you suggest anyway? Is there really such a thing as freeman?

Think of this as a segue from the posts above.

You are using a gov't property road and it's not yours that's why you need to pay for a license for you to be able to use the road.

The payment will serve as funds for the maintenance and order of the road you are "borrowing". Something like that.

They implement rules to follow so that the people who "borrows" the road just like you as a driver with a vehicle, will be organized. Imagine if they just let you and other people drive without any rules, it's a disaster!

I am not 100% sure but I guess you guys are getting my point.

What country are you talking about? In the USA, the roads are public property. The government doesn't own them. By law, the government has to maintain rights of way for the people. You are talking reasonable moral and ethical talk, but it is not legal talk.

We don't know for sure that road payments are not used for something other than the roads. Road money might all be borrowed money, with a tiny bit of the license fees simply going to make payments, and the rest being used for who-knows-what.

When government makes road rules, exactly who makes the rules? People! Drivers are people. Nobody forces people to drive safely. People just do it. Rules simply make it easier for people to be safe drivers.

It's like this. Government is required to make rights-of-way for people to use to cross the land. Government is also required to not steal my property. If they want to make highways of concrete and steel on the rights of way, that's their business. They don't have any right to steal my money just so I can use the rights of way they have messed up with their concrete and steel.

If government people can't find a legal way to get money for government to build their roads without stealing from me, they should resign.

8)

lets word it like this..
citizens, public. imagine them like a special members club
not all humans are invited inside this special club unless they are ancestord in by birth or have a 'green card'
just look at mexican illegal migrants. do they get to vote in this special club... no

so this special club. vote for management company to work on their behalf and choose local representatives.
this is like any business with senators acting as regional managers and government is the HQ
this special club put the property assets of the US into governments control.
its like bitcoin if you dont individually own the private key to your coin.. then the custodian service owns the coin but pretends to be managing it on your behalf
remember that bitcoin factoid about private key control. it may help you in this community avoid losing out to exchanges

so the special club vote for their local representatives and give the local representatives power of attourney to do as they please without you needing to personally give them permission each day.
much like how some lawyers can tell doctors to cut off your life support system if your in a coma. or decide your gold digger current wife should get all your assets after your death instead of your kids

the special club has some.. SOME clauses that can remove the representatives. such as impeachments, 2-4year re-elections
but the point is the management company is empowered.
they set the rules of the highways and as long as the rules apply people have to follow the rules or be processd by the rules of punishment that go along with breaking the rules.

the buildings that arbitrate disputes are the courts and they are the management companies house. not an individuals house.
so the judge/jury follow the house rules where by you as a individual have to schedule an appointment to visit them if you want to make a claim or you must have broken a rule for the management company to schedule an appointment and send you a kind invitation in the form of a summons/subpoena

people that are members of the special club also known as being a citizen, 'public', society are not employee's. they are customers. its why you have to pay taxes and such. as thats your membership fee to then get special privileges such as social security, permit to work, have fire/police services. garbage removal and other privileges

all these privileges are not human rights tuff that a mexican migrant would get. but a civil right that those who are classed as citizens get.
and yes memberships have rules too and can cost you for breaking the membership contract.

atleast try to understand the basics before pretending they dont exist because you simply dont know.
but in short. your not getting paid for having a driving licence
atleast have some common sense

---

im not saying how this whole 'member of the public'/citizen vs government management system is good or bad, right or wrong.
im not saying that if all civil rights/privileges were also included as basic human rights whereby a civil rights bill is not needed as all humans would be covered would make the world better or worse.

but atleast please do your friggen research as to who this system was established.
hint: before the declaration of independance, civil war. vs after indpendanceday/civil wars

and yea try not to keep assuming ll humans had civil rights. think about mexicans, foreigners, even black people 70 years ago before making your assumptions

This is all great and stuff, and if you want to do it this way, you will wind up with the results that it brings you.

But beneath all this is the common law. Amendments 6, 7 and 9 show that people - actual flesh and blood humans - can take accusations against them to their local jury that doesn't have a judge/magistrate doing any part of the judging. It's called common law court of record. This is upheld by CJS, Federal Courts, Section 744.

If a smart Mexican came up over the border illegally, and he was caught, he could require a jury trial, and stand as a man in that trial. If he wrote up a claim against anybody in general, and filed it into the complaint against him, he could require government to get on the stand, and show the damage he caused, so he could pay it off. The government can't get on the stand. The government isn't a man. Government doesn't show, case dismissed.

Doing it this way places him outside everything that you talk about. In the things you talk about, the courts always have representation for/of the parties. It might be by attorney representation, or it might be pro se, or it might be propria persona, or it might somehow even be sui juris. They do this because representation means that the actual party being accused isn't standing in the court personally. His representation by someone else means that the whole thing falls into and under complaints... even if he makes a claim through representation.

If a man stands present, not represented by anyone, and not representing anyone, and files a claim into their complaint case, his clam must be heard and cleared up before they can continue with the rest of the case. And since he is a man standing present in court, he has the right to have his accuser come forward on the stand, show the damage he was damage with, and prove that the accused did it.

In the case of the illegal Mexican, his accuser is invariably THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It says so on the indictment. So, let Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA take the oath/affirmation, get on the stand and prove how they were harmed by him. Government can't do it. Nobody shows up after 3 calls... case dismissed.

This only works if the guy stands as a man. It works because it is written right into basic law. And I am not saying that even if he is smart and shrewd, that he wouldn't need some help... some council-friend who has who has limited power of attorney for him, to put some paperwork into the courts for him, while he is incarcerated. He would have to be very clever to do it all right in court, writing up his claim on the spot, and submitting it to the judge right in court.

All this is foundational law in the USA.

8)

If they do I accept it with my full heart. ;D

But sadly we are not entirely free even if we live in a democratic country,all our efforts get sucked for government's benefit and for the politicians to get refill their offshore accounts.

you really have absolutely no clue
the reality is
1.the mexican doesnt just turn up on day, file a claim and walk into a courtroom where 12 people are always there just sitting there, purely for the sake of hope some random person files a claim

2. there is a schedule and organising that occurs first. such as a hearing before a trial
the point of a hearing is to hear the claim to see if there's any worthyness to it to even organise getting a jury to take a day off work and attend.. theres other stuff too

3. if you done a case against the us government. then federal employees legal team would turn up to represent. then all you would end up doing is acting like a manchild having a todler tantrum crying about how you dont recognise the opposition and its not who you are looking for.
the judge on the other hand would recognise them as the representing the fed, because again the court house is the federal court house and so the rules are in the feds favour

4. so by you screaming 'no thats not my accuser. i want my accuser.. yes YOUR CLAIM would be dismissed but the feds claim that your an illegal immigrant wont be dismissed..

you can try it.. i mean literally try it and stand in a court room waving your hands about shouting and spitting and screaming how you dont recognise the other party and you want the human known as "USA" to appear
but all your doing is wasting your own time on your own claims.. and not rectifying the claim against you

5. also its not just a time waste but you can actually get in more trouble such as a fin or few days in jail for bing such a prat wasting the courts time in the manner you think is how you should act

whats next
get pulled over by a cop and then put a claim in that you wish to summon your accuser Mr N.Y.P.D
go on think about it. walk into any place and just shout out. 'im looking for someone with a birth certificate in the name of mr n y p d
everyone just gonna laugh at you and either pretend you said nothing or think your in the middle of having a stroke/breakdown and call for an ambulance to later have a 72 hour psych hold/test done
plus you still dont get $20 for the cop stop service

if anything... by now if people aint laughing at badecker, they must be atleast seeing how obvious badecker has not himself even filed a claim or been in a courtroom or made any claims

all of his information is from websites that are freeman based but not gleamed from personal experience..

badecker. seriously, honestly and with deepest regards.
take two steps back from the scripts your reading and try to atleast put a critical hat on to knit pick the freeman stuff you follow

You really have no clue about this forum, do you? This isn't a training course for the process. But since you want to write the process out anyway, remember that filing a claim by a defendant so that he becomes the prosecutor, can fit in there at any of several different places, depending on what is happening in the trial.

The cop doesn't laugh when he loses the case in court. Didn't you go watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrobPy1orU yet, like I gave to you a couple days ago?

All I can say is, no wonder you lost with all your freeman stuff.

8)

??my?? freeman stuff
dude your the one quoting video links of the whole 'freeman' stuff
karl lentz is very much a poster child for the freeman people

couple days ago... i just checked all 3 pages of posts and seen that link not used before
did you know that video got debunked
the video never says the actual reason the case he scenario'd out got dismissed/discharged as he ' la la la la la'd out that part of the quote..

it was never about freedom to travel.
if you actually done some research it was the cops testimony being used as the guys defense about the reckless driving claim
again nothing to do with right to travel, freedom to travel

here
the virginia code law
"“Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving. ” Va. Code § 46.2-852"

because no life, limb or property was endangered.. he obviously was not guilty
as the cop even said no loss of limb, life, no damage to property
seriously if you actually thought that the link had anything whatsoever to do with freedom to travel.. then you really need to check things out more

but remember. its you taking the freeman stance. so i have no clue why you keep saying its my freeman stance
again for emphasis. that video link is nothing whatsoever about freedom to travel

just atleast try to do your research
karl Lentz went on to promote that video of how people who do drive recklessly can get away with it because of 'the lalalalala annotation'(which he does not mention but pretends its abut fredom to travel).. but the reality is the cops evidence proved innocence due to the testimony saying no endangerment to life, limb or property

if you drive recklessly.. you will be found guilty
P.S it only took me 5 minutes to debunk that video as not proof of the 'freedom to travel' freeman thing you want to promote

past point.
just for emphasis about this topic of driving licence. tresspass is also another category aswell as loss/damage
the video case scenario was not about being unlicenced and theirfore trsspassing/breaking the highway code. it was about reckless driving accusation.

It's quite apparent some who post legal info on here have never spent a day in the courtroom.

If you do all your legal studies on the internet, you'll learn the hard way.

The car is your private property of course, but purchasing a car does not give you the right to drive. You need a good health and decent driving abilities to obtain a license. Take  into account that when you're driving on public roads and you don't have that license you can literally get someone killed. Someone needs to pay the time of the examinators, your school hours and that shouldn't be paid from public money because not everyone has a car or the ability to drive.

It's your freeman stance, because in any court case where anybody is accused, he has the absolute right to face his accuser... accuser taking the oath/affirmation, on the stand, with injury, and witness and evidence to prove that the accused did the damage.

You never talk about the unrepresented man. You never talk about the rules that say he has to be answered by his unrepresented accuser... which has to be a man also. It's written right into the court rules.

If the accuser doesn't get on the stand when he is called by the accused, there is no case. If the accuser doesn't show injury or threat, there is no case. If the accuser doesn't call a witness and supply evidence, there is no case.

This is standard law. All of your talk is the government trying to convince you to accept them in some way that they don't have to have these things. As soon as you agree with them, you place yourself into a position to lose.

Judges and attorneys are people. If they hold exparte hearings and find you guilt when you aren't present, you need to attack them outside of their judge and attorney positions for harming you as men or women. If it is serious enough that their actions cause you to be incarcerated, you need friends with power of attorney to file your claim against them.

This is all standard law. Judges bow to it all the time, often without letting the case get to the point of a common law court of record... because they don't want people to see how easy it is to win with a common law court of record.

When Bill Thornton lost his big loss, he lost because he was trying to get into the plaintiff's case, and change it from within. The loss itself was that Bill wasn't an officer of the court so that he could even make the judgment that he was an officer of the court, and that's the way they destroyed his whole argument. If he had gone in man-to-man, his arguments would have been different (although they would have affected the same points), and he would have won easily.

In all your freeman stuff, did you ever file a simple claim? Was it ever without representation in court? Did it ever require your accuser on the indictment to get on the stand? Did you keep yourself from being pulled out of the common law into the legal side of the court?

All you are talking about is freeman stuff. It isn't the only thing that exists, as I have been showing you.


8)

You have the right to travel on the public rights of way. You have the right to take your property with you as you travel on the public rights of way. If you take your car property with you as you travel on the public rights of way, you have that right without licensing, because it is a right.

If you don't agree with them that you were driving, but rather, say that you were going from point A to point B with your property, you aren't using any of their legal styled words. You aren't doing what they say you are doing.

If you haven't injured someone, there is no cause for them attacking you to take you to court or make you pay a fine. But... you have to take it to court when they attack you, unrepresented, requiring your accuser to show his injury that you did. This is standard law.

But nobody who does it this way insistently maintains his innocence of injuring anyone. Rather, he is talked into accepting what Judge Judy says in whatever she says it. Or he is represented by an attorney, which makes him a ward of the court without the ability to officially say anything in court unless the judge lets him.

8)

WRONG

Mr Decker, you can certainly choose to believe what you want to, and I'm not going to argue with you about your misled beliefs. Sir, carry on, do your thing.

But to every other human reading the words he writes....... PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not believe his words at face value. YOU WILL END UP IN JAIL IF YOU BELIEVE THE STUFF HE WRITES.  Do your own research please.

Actually, it's high time to do what I am writing. But there are two ways to do it. There is simply going out and doing it. And there is Learning law first, with a group, and maybe within a Private Membership Association.

A couple decades ago I was part of a group in Phoenix who was studying law. While they didn't have things down as well as Karl Lentz, they had them down well enough so that several of the group drove without registration and license.

One of the group went to court - no car license. A bunch of us attended. The judge freed the guy, but I think he was a little intimidated by the group. Most of us didn't understand what was really going on, because the group was a loosely knit group, and the main studies were done by a half-dozen of the group.

The main man was quite intelligent. There were times that he had the judges of the whole State quaking in their boots because he constantly brought up law that showed they were wrong.

One of the main men was a guy who has become quite popular in some circles. He and his people have moved on to form their own group. Sure, they have their failures, just as PopoJeff suggests, because every case is slightly different. But they have their many successes, too, throughout the country. And they don't even use the Karl Lentz best methods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oYlJCbqqq8

Look them up at http://marcstevens.net/.

8)

Go search for "Sovereign Citizens Getting Owned And Arrested" on Youtube.  Imagine it's BADecker in every video.

I bet you can't wait for government to censor anything you might say.

8)

badecker.. you utter idiot

all you have been showing is freeman stuff. the video you linked is freeman stuff..

your the freeman fangirl

oh and here is some funny things about your 'face your accuser'

1. by your silly rhetoric, murder is not a crime if the human who is harmed is dead, as they cant then accuse you. because your flawed crap is trying to todler tantrum a silly rebuttle that the only human that can accuse you has to be the one who has been harmed by you, where no one else can represent thier interest, estate property on the harmed parties behalf

2.your also trying to insinuate that rape is not a crime if the accuser cannot physically identify you because you may wear a bag over your head. even if there is DNA evidence you going to assume that the accuser has to make a physical identification themselves

3. you talk about rights but ignore responsibilities, you talk about rights but ignore who gets the rights and who doesnt. civil rights is a different contract compared to human rights. and its why foreigners to america need to become citizens to gain the right to vote and use public services.

4. your links and rhetoric have not shown any signs of working as proven by the karl lentz video you linked where you were very addiment was about freedom to travel. but the video was selectively 'la la la la' for a reason
karl lentz didnt ned all the pomp and posturing of 'your in my court, i havnt finished talking' crap as its not his court as he doesnt own the deed to the building. nor did h summon the cop. it was the states/fed court that summoned karl lentz
even so. all karl lentz had to say in court was 'the cop just said i didnt harm or damage anything so it wasnt reckless driving'
and the result would have ben the same.. karl lentz just added and twisted it with alot of freeman mumbo jumbo wishy washy stuff just to make it sound like he won in regards to freedom to travel

seriously take a few steps back, take a few calm breathes realise your following of freeman stuff dropped you in it and showed that its not what you expected it to be

P.S i have sat in court as research for many different things just to see how things work. i do do my research and i think you have shown absolutely no care to research and just desire to believe whatever you find on websites/videos as true based on titles or conclusions without testing them out or digging into them or even critically thinking about them

i hope one day you wake up and start doing more research and actually check things out as i look forward to your awakening. but for now ill let you carry on dreaming as its just pure comedy reading the crap you think is true

franky1 [clicks link]
franky1 [listens to first 30 seconds of video]
franky1 [hears karl lentz talking]
franky1 [facepalms]

If this is all the imagination you have - the dead guy can't accuse you in court - you are seriously lacking. Don't you realize that the dead guy couldn't care less about your case in court? He's dead. He doesn't care about anything.

No wonder all your sitting in court doesn't produce any results in you other than what the judge wants you to hear. No imagination as to other ways to use the law.

I kinda feel sorry for you. But a lot of other people are willing to wake up.

8)

ok so i went on and listened to the first 10 minutes of badeckers latest link featuring his jesus superstar karl lentz, and found many many flaws

take karl saying about 'make it your court' rhetoric
sorry DB sorry karl but the BS of making the court public instead of private, has no sway.
"public" is a membership group of something like a association.. or to make it real simple its like having customers of a gym.. a gym membership..
so those who are members of the gym (members of the public) get certain priviliges/ facilities and also responsibilities granted to them.
these members dont own the gym they are customers of the gym. and they still need to follow the gyms/courts/states/feds rules

karl pretends that filing a claim is about switching from being treated as a customer to being an owner.. but it is not. you do not own the court when you enter their venue.

the actual real world eyes wide open truth is that by putting in your claim, you can then be an accuser and make the accused the one that has to defend themself and show proof and plead their innocence.
it has nothing to do with who has control of the court. the courts rules and policies remain the same.
seriously BD just take your admiration glasses off and just try, just once to be critical of karl lentz, instead of blindly following him
oh and by the way, by putting in your claim. doesnt quash their claim. you still have to plead your case in their claim. and by the way. when people are summoned. they usually dont have time to file their own claim from the time a police officer is knocking at the door with a warrent and handcuffs to the time your in court.
so dont even rely on the whole counter claim stuff.

but if you do counter claim. atleast try to counter claim about something evidential and dont just waffle out some speach you heard on youtube as ifs its gods words. actually have evidence to support the claim your filing involving things that you are involve in.

Cop:  license and registration please
Driver: I'm not driving, I'm traveling in accordance with some maritime law from 8 centuries ago.
Cop:  (chuckle) (Cool, one of these). In radio- got another one, bring the window punch

ok so i went on and listened to the 10->18 minutes of badeckers latest link featuring his jesus superstar karl lentz, and found many many flaws

and jusruning minute 17-18 i hear those golden comedy words which i explained earlier
karl lents questioned the attourny and asked if the attourney had FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.. where by karl tried to get the attorny dismissed by not being the actual person harmed/damaged

as i said before h even linked the video

i am still laughing at how predictable karl lentz tactics are.

oh and the waffle in minute 10-17.. was karl lentz just trying to say that filing your own claim means you dont have to understand thier laws/codes (he even analogises it like computer code he cant translate) and then says how filing own claim means he can make his own rules and his own law in his own language...

no. the law is the law. the venue has its own policies and procedures and responsibilities and rights if your in thier venue the people in it know the law and the jury know the law they suppose to follow. if you walk in with your own personal law that you created in your language you will get laughed at.
making a counter claim does not make your made up law suddenly valid. otherwise here is a law

i decree from this day forth that BD be recognised as a helicopter
and now in my post where its my authority to speak everyone reading this must comply to my law
??
sorry but i didnt make you become a helicopter because thats not how things work

one thing that BD keeps ignoring is with rights come responsibilities too..
BD and karl pretend they are responsible for nothing and can do anything according to their law

so i went on and listened to minutes 18-24

[more facepalms]
karl tries to assume the 'having rights'
sorry karl rights are things written on paper and granted to selective groups of people
(members of the public)(civil AKA citizen rights)

EG human rights might have right to travel. but it applies to humans. but not animals. as its a human right. emphasis human
even though animals have legs too and can put on leg infront of the other to move

biological ability and rights are 2 separate things.
everyone has the biological ability to move around. but that does not give you the right to tresspass or use your hand to grab a girls ass..

once you understand the different categories of abilities and limitations.. rights and responsibilities and which groups of entities have which and which entities can do which. the big picture moment start to click

a right is not the same as a ability no on can tak your ability to walk unless you decide to stand still or they harm you..
a right can be granted and a right can be revoked either individually such as losing your right to freedom when your put in prison
or
rights as a nation/group can be granted revoked. like the right to own slaves was revoked and the rights for black people to vote was granted.

karl believes rights are a basic human thing that cannot be taken away yet prisoners on death row will prove differently

once you learn that rights are given.. you then have to learn they come with responsibilities and concequences and limitations on how you can use those rights

Cop:  license and registration please.
Driver: Hey man, is that an order?
Cop: Yes.
Driver: And since you gave an order as a man, here's your invoice for $500 (or State max that the cop would have charge) for stopping me from going from point A to point B. See you in court.
Cop: Oh sure. But sign here (the ticket).
Driver: By: Signature, agent, man.

---

IN COURT ANSWERING THE DA'S INDICTMENT:

Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (first call).
Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (second call).
Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (third call).
(STATE-OF-XXXXX/CITY-OF-XXXXX doesn't come forward.)
Driver: I require State/City $max for wasting my time, etc.
Judge: Case dismissed.
(Driver sues the State/City for false complaint.)

---

DRIVER SUES COP IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MAN FOR STOPPING HIM FOR NOTHING:

Jon Doe (cop) is on the stand.
Driver: When you stopped me, had I done any damage or harm to anyone.
Cop: No.
Driver: Pay me the $max for false stop.
Judge: John Doe, guilty as charged. Pay the man.



8)

Ethics and morals of a nation, and nation operation theory, don't generally have anything to do with a specific case. Karl might believe all kinds of things. Some people might believe the same, others different. It doesn't matter.

What matters is if anyone harmed or damaged another man or his property.

If the people can't work it out, then the jury will decide... or the judge if there is agreement between the human parties that the judge decide.

8)

firstly mr BD freeman you are still using the freeman scripts of 'is that an order, heres an invoice'
do you even have any independant thought?


here is the funny thing
you go into a cafe. and you ask for a coffee.. the waitress can refuse to accept your order, can inform you they have no coffee as the machine is broke, they can take your order and accidently give you tea and not charge you for it

you foolishly believe police should pay people for stopping them. is foolish.. you have pretty much just watched a youtube video and accepted it on face value without doing any actual checks indepndantly

you cant just hand someone a invoice if they ask you to do somthing.
its a custom that there is an offer, consideration, acceptance/rejection. and even if accpting the offer. a cooldown period to cancel/reject the service

the whole 'heres a invoice' is not actually legally binding. its just a attempt to cause confusion hoping to scare of a naive cop. but the reality is that if you play that game. you will end up in court. oh and expect to cover their costs.

i absolutely dare u to stand infront of a door blocking it and when someone asks you to move you hand them an invoice. i really do dare you to try it and see where you end up


i find it utter foolish how karl lentz and now BD think people should always take things to a jury trial,  pay admin fee to file claims for things that are cheaper to do just like normal things are done.. where the result ends up the same.. whereby if you dont have a licence you will b banned from driving and then if caught still driving the punishment increases..
seems BD is attempting to actually get people locked up

itis soo soo obvious that BD has no first hand knowledge because all h refers to is karl lentz. and as shown in previous posts and loads of other sources available karl lentz has been debunked and demythed about the crappy freeman scripts he tries

BD until you personally have first hand experience.. i think you should refrain for advising other people from getting into trouble by blindly following your jesus

and then take yourself 5 steps back from your computer, have some calm time and actually have some inner thought time asking yourself 'hat if karl is wrong, lest actually investigate and research as a critic'

Oooo let me try.

How BADecker Turned his Life Around

After hitting rock bottom in 2026, BADecker found himself in an alley looking for his next high, willing to pay however he could.  Luckily for him, the syringe he found in a trash can didn't have what he was looking for, it had what he needed.  

It was a vaccine. 8)

Within 6 months the swelling in his brain had gone down significantly.  His thoughts were more coherent than ever and for the first time in 13 years he started bathing regularly.

Within a year he had made a couple of real life friends!

By 18 months he managed to accomplish a goal he never thought possible, he passed all the tests and got his first Drivers License!

Today he's an investigative journalist for the NY Times with 2 Pulitzer Prizes, a beautiful wife, and his second child on the way.  He enjoys volunteering for Madam President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' second term campaign.

IN COURT ANSWERING THE DA'S INDICTMENT:

Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (first call).
cop stands up 'i witness and accuse the driver'
Driver (says in his head: 'crap wasnt expecting that, dang i dont have a lentz script, what do i do what do i do, what do i do')
driver panics, sweat dripping from his brow, trying to search youtube for a script
judge: 'driver do you plead guilty or innocent to the accusation'
driver panics more , sweat more still searching youtube for a script
judge: 'driver i repeat you shall answer my question do you plea guilty or innocent. this is just a hearing not a trial of jury. we
have to know your response to know if it should be pursued to a jury trial or you accept a plea of guilt'
driver panics more , sweat more still searching youtube for a script
judge: 'driver i shall not repeat a fourth time, if you do not plea you will b held for wasting courts time until your ready to plea'
driver panics more , sweat more still searching youtube for a script

Thats frickin adorable.....

Has this really ever worked for you?

In my 18 years of experience in court, as either an affiant, prosecutor or witness.... this has never, ever, happened one single time.  Several have tried, all have failed.

That's because the people involved didn't do it right.

The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.

In the Nuremberg Trials, German WW2 leaders were found guilty even though the countries involved in the trials were statute law countries. Statute law countries would recognize that many of the German leaders were under orders to commit the atrocities that they did. So, they did it by orders, not because they were particularly against any of the citizens they killed and tortured.

Yet, even in these statute law countries, they were found guilty on a man-to-man basis... because they did wrong things to human beings, things where they had stopped humans for no reason.

In the States, where basic human rights are built right into the foundational laws, it has taken decades to get most of the people to forget how to handle themselves in a man-to-man way, against the cop statute leaders who mess with them.

But, the Nuremberg trials show that there needs to be harm or damage done by a human, before a cop or a German leader can punish him.

8)

I'm no expert on this.  But a 15 second google search led me to this 1979 Supreme Court Ruling.

Apparently someone tried to sue a Judge in 1964.

Supreme court said hell no, you can't sue a judge, they have absolute immunity.  We have an appeals process for that. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/193/

Good work, man. But if you look at the case closely, the judge was being sued in his judicial capacity... not his private man capacity. As you see, the defendant was appointed an attorney. He was not allowed to stand as a man. The case doesn't go into enough detail to tell us if he even tried to stand present, un-represent. The case doesn't match what I was saying.

8)

Fair enough.  LIke I said I don't know much on this topic.

Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?

[conspiracy websites without sources to non-conspiracy websites don't count]


"People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything."  <== This really isn't a good point.  It's the lawyers job to defend the defendant for this very reason.  If suing the judge were an option, we'd be seeing it happen often.

im still laughing

while BD thinks he has found a free money tree of invoicing cops, and suing judges by provoking a car stop by having no licence...
.. the reality is while BD is trying to waste courts time with his money grab the courts found him guilty of no licence and ordered him to pay a fine, with further penalty if the fine is not paid.

ok. so guess what.. karl lentz is not a milionaire from all the invoices and suits
BD definetly aint rich for the same

and BD especially has no first hand experience and is just trying to repeat scripts he heard from people who heard scripts from people who were just running scenarios out without truthful/full detail explanation

i am loving this comedy from BD.. and he still dont realise its comedy

A tree of money? No. Just simple trade.

If you have a job somewhere, and the boss orders you to do anything, he pays you. It's the law.

If a cop attempts to be your boss, and you obey, he must pay you. Why? Because he is another man giving you orders, and because the 13th Amendment says no involuntary servitude.

Cops get away with all kinds of nasty doings these days, simply because people don't use the 13th Amendment and collect their pay from their cop-boss.

8)

Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?

Any evidence at all?

again your avoiding the obvious
a job is not 'do some work' pay me

its a job offer. consideration/interview and there is a get out clause. resign/get sacked/retire

you are completely foolish about trade.
you have obviously not even done freelancing or self employment roles before
just standing infront of a door and if someone asks you to move you hand them an invoice for $500. does not mean they have to accept it

1. you can get in legal trouble for extortion
2. where your trying to seek funds can get you in trouble as it may be illegal to work in certain areas
3. expect a punch on the nose and them charging you for their service. as its obvious you were asking for it

in short by you driving around recklessly and without a licence on a public road is you asking for the police service and you accepting they will charge you for it
and thy can because.. its the law.. its general knowledge and also its just plain sanity

oh and if you wish to divert back to 'in my court'
sorry but if you go to a government funded courthouse. it follows the government rules for how it administers things, the jury know what to expect as they are following the government laws.. so you walking in pretending it becomes your personal court of your personal laws.. wont work.
thats like a middle easterner going into fed court shouting 'obey my sharia law, not your american law'.. sorry but sharia law although its the law of the person shoutings personal preference. its not the policy of the court
there are laws that actually exist and general knowledge that if police stop you you can be charged for certain things
there is NO law that exists nor general knowledge that random person can charge random person for being told to stop

i truly cannot believe how little you actually think about things before hitting the reply button

...
you can if you want make your house become your own court where your own house rules apply. but goodluck having the ability, power, authority to sway someone to enter it.

We are free to buy cars all we want, we can't just drive them around without having proven that we know how to properly drive them. That's why these licenses get revoked when you are found guilty of DUI.

BD's point is that the human body was not born requiring a licnce to walk or talk. so he has freedom to walk and talk as its a biological ability.
but was not born with a car or a gun.. h got those later by earning them.

what he then does is use myths and scripts from fools that think that tresspass and property are meaningless in regards to other people enforcing their written and granted rights but mean everything to him enforcing his written and granted rights. and also thinks that the property in question(road) is owned by him.
what he does not realise is that roads are government property and people are customers of the government
th government is a management company offering services to its members(customerbase) and if its customer break the management companies rules the customers can get in trouble and be banned from using their service, entering their property.

BD can drive an unregistered vehicle unlicenced on his own private land.
but the public roads for safety of members of the public has rules that must be followed

much the same as BD can set rules for his own private property if someone walks on his private land

I don't think that your thinking is true.
In every action that anyone does and can affect other people's lives, you need to get a license. Your car is your property but driving is an action that people might be in danger and this way it should be controlled with licensing policies.

Qualified immunity.  Look it up

Qualified immunity doesn't fit the man. Even the Nuremberg Trials show this. Qualified immunity only works when the driver wants to act within the System.

8)

Getting a license doesn't control anyone. If it did, there wouldn't be any car accidents, and certainly no car-accident deaths.

But that wasn't the point. If anybody orders you to do something, he should pay you to do it. If he orders you to get a license, he certainly shouldn't charge you to get what he orders, but really, he should pay you.

8)

Good thing I'm not in Nuremberg.

And when I give you a lawful order as a police officer, I'm doing it as an agent of the state. Your "as a man" theory doesn't work. It may work just fine theoretically in your internet cult of secret legal words, but in real world legal practice, it does not.

Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?

Any evidence at all?

A defendant in a case only wins if the judge, out of the kindness or wisdom of his heart, lets him win. A defendant has no ability to sue a judge if the judge doesn't let him.

8)

Okay. I can easily accept that it hasn't happened to you, yet. There are very few people who even attempt it.

8)

EDIT: But you are wrong. A police officer never gives an order without a man/woman doing the giving of the order.

Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?

Any evidence at all?

I don't really know what you mean. I already answered this question, although, if you read the answer, the answer wasn't a straight yes or no answer. So, I'll answer directly >>> No.

Do YOU have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant in America? Please show the sites if you do.

One other question. Why do you ask this question in the first place? Almost 100 percent of the time a defendant isn't in a position to sue a judge. Defendants defend against suits. It's plaintiffs that sue.

To sue a man who has a job as a judge some of the time, one sues just like he sues any other man. A defendant doesn't sue. Only a plaintiff sues.

8)

I asked because you suggested that if you were arrested for driving without a license, after demanding payment from the cop and being sentenced by a judge, you should sue the judge.

Pretty sure anyone that tried this would be laughed at by the cop and have their lawsuit dismissed and all they'd get for their trouble was whatever the sentence was.

guys i told you BD has no clue he has no personal experience..
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right

i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.

he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans

he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks

he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.

all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed

just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug

Can't rule out the possibility that he's the only sane one here and everyone else is crazy though.

Damn Twitchy. You caught us, you've finally made the world that he lives in a reality.

EVERYONE AROUND HIM IS WRONG. EVERYONE AROUND HIM IS WRONG. EVERYONE AROUND HIM DOESN'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET CODES TO BEAT THE LAW, BEAT THE JUDGES, THE COPS, ETC.

HEHEHEHEHEH HE IS SO MART.

/s

Such a refreshing topic that I read from the first post to the last one.


Where I disagree with you  BD is that someone freedom stops where someone else's starts.

And in society is generally accepted that rules are needed and that they must be respected.

Back to your example :
A : "I have the right to travel on the public right of way with my property"
B: "cars are properties"
A+B = C " I can drive freely on any public right of way"
I will add the point D : "we were allowed to walk anywhere before the constitution and the government, so I shall retain this right"


Now instead of a Car let's use a Flame thrower, a TNT vest and a fully loaded assault weapon (military one, not just a "gun")...  all 3 together at the same time, on the same person.
All of them are "properties"  hence because A, B and C (above), I should be able to walk on any public right of way, in any US states carrying them, without any issues.  And because my ancestor, the cavemen use to carry spears (or any type of weapons available at that time) then I shall retain my right to do carry any weapons that is now available (Tnt vest, flame thrower and automatic weapons...).


Basic logic says that if one counter example exists, then the argument is wrong.
Question to DB :
In the great US of A, can you freely walk on any public right of way carrying ANY property (including the one stated above + deadly vaporized gas + nuclear waste) without any conditions (license, authorization, specific containment .... ?).
If your answer is yes, then you can drive without a license.
If you answer is not, then why do you fight the fact you need a license ? 




Also, let's say you answered "yes" and don't require a licence.

What is the goal of a driving licence :
To proves that you know how to drive and that you implicitly agree to respect the driving code.
Without one, how do you know how to drive ? Self taught ?
If you don't have a license and you refuse to follow the rule of the driving code, why would you drive on the right of the road ? why not in the middle ? what about the left side ? 
Why respecting the traffic lights?  Because you are a free man, in a free country, using his property on a public right of way, who said that a red light could make you stop your property ?
should the red light pay you to stop your property ? Technically the right light is making you work, the red light is your boss. No ?


Come on DB  8)

You are missing the whole point. If safe driving depended on licensing, then there wouldn't be any accidents.

Licensing doesn't have anything to do with obeying safety rules. You read this whole thread so far. Did you forget the part about government placing loads of warning signs all over the place, and then letting people do their thing? Did you forget the part that if a highway peace officer determined that someone was driving unsafe - not obeying the safety signs in a dangerous way - he had the duty to stop the person and warn him to slow down or whatever?

Driving a thousand mph on a winding mountain road, if it hurts nobody, why should anybody care? Right now, on open ranges in Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming, even though the speeds are posted, it is written right into the laws and court cases that people can drive however fast they want. The only difference is that they better not harm anyone, damage any property, or threaten anyone by their actions.

Utah even has signs posted that they are not responsible if you hit an animal on open range, and damage your vehicle.

If you want to carry all kinds of your weapon property on public rights of way, who does that hurt? As long as you don't damage property and harm people in any way, why should anyone care? Harmed people and damaged property is the thing that matters. And licensing only TRICKS other people into thinking you are going to be nice. Licensing doesn't make anybody be nice.

That is the morals and ethics. The funny thing is, the morals and ethics agree with the law. People have been tricked into getting licenses so government can make money. Using the law correctly makes it so you don't have to. There are many people (though not a large percentage) who drive on the public roads and rights of way without licensing right now. And they are acknowledged by government to do it, if they have shown government that they are driving lawfully.

8)

Think about this for a minute and then try again.

Almost 100% of the judges are smart enough to obey the law. And it is your duty to give them fair warning when they are not. But if they are messing with your rights... U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights:
So, the judge is careful to dismiss the case when you present him with the law that protects your rights. It's also why the court system tries to get you to be represented by an attorney, or at least yourself. If you are represented, you signed away your rights.

Doing the thing with the cop, if done the right way, is one of your rights being exercised.

If you are really interested, try these two audios on Gus Breton's talkshoe - https://www.talkshoe.com/rss-common-law-word-nerdz.xml:

Episode 190 - David Myrland re the Death Penalty defense against Government Prosecution - https://fci-recordings.s3.amazonaws.com/production/conference_6074645_307617.mp3?response-content-disposition=inline&response-content-type=audio%2Fmpeg&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJH74ISJPD4R4YDTQ%2F20191105%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191105T035512Z&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=bd98974fea329535af798c5b3f0210b9069e1ac68ef941c57a985ab8acfeaf48

Episode 192 - Jessica Love's experiences on Traveling without License, Tags or Plates for 10 years - https://fci-recordings.s3.amazonaws.com/production/conference_6106898_308621.mp3?response-content-disposition=inline&response-content-type=audio%2Fmpeg&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJH74ISJPD4R4YDTQ%2F20191105%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191105T035516Z&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=fcafce7b8fd547aa52aca8873ab35e41415ce3d4c306dc1178e919a4166b6e7c

8)

This is a brief statement to make a point. What was your point?

8)

What does safe driving mean to you?

I see you citing US code 241.  What are you gonna do with that?   Are you filing a criminal complaint in federal court?  Using the same law book you think you can circumvent?
What AUSA is going to approve your complaint ?

Furthermore, that' code isn't even being used in the right context. Here's its intention and proper place for use https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3239&context=dlj

You can't just pick a code/section that you think applies to a circumstance and say "see, there it is...that's law."   
There's so much more to it. Other conflicting sections, criminal definitions, case law, rules of criminal procedure.

I can show you a state and federal law making it an offense to burn a flag. But, it cannot be charged or enforced.  just because it's printed in black and white in a law book doesn't mean there aren't other factors at play.

ok lets atleast rips some more holes in BD's scripts.. oops i mean his sources. but more like sauces


Episode 192 - Jessica Love's experiences on Traveling without License, Tags or Plates for 10 years
jessica driving without tags, plates for 10 years?
wait... her introduction to the call was that she had montana plates which she was using on a vehicle and then a Subaru AFTER 2011
...... so the 10year no plate stuff... that is busted in just the first 5 minutes of the podcast
should i even bother to go on... and listen to the rest


ok, i cant help myself.. lets rip more holes
so she thought she was getting case dismissed due to freedom to travel. but got first case dismissed because she wasnt on the public highway, she was on a private carpark

second car stop. she got ticketed even after her huff and puff. she also spend a few days in jail for it.

third car stop for broken tail light. she got handcuffed.. her tactic this time was to try playing the sympathy card about how her life is crappy and not worth being punished for a $5 lightbulb
she took a deal where she was not a 3rd time traffic charge offender, by agreeing to a minor charge for the resisting arrest..
this was about playing the sympathy card not about free travel using a vehicle on a highway

so the first 28 minutes of the podcast have no proof of freedom to travel in a vehicle on a highway
should i bother to continue

ok lets try a bit more.. by minute 31 a guy is advising what to say.. but then says he has never tried it himself, and jessica also agrees she hasnt tried either but they both say it should work... (facepalm)

dang. im still hooked on picking holes
so by minut 39. the guy talking to jessica starts to then talk about right to consciousness and religion and then says that its that law that got jessica to be able to walk out of court....

um no. jessica already said she got fined. so it wasnt a victory of no punishment freedom
dang are people really this dumb to forget something said just 15 minutes prior in the exact same podcast, purely because the latter thing they hear sounds like something positive.
the funny part is the guy nor jessica ven used a right to conscious argument in courts. but were just talking about it weeks later in a phonecall.. thus had no  bearing on the case(s) themselves

its like i could be in court. arrested put in jail for a few days, made to pay a fine.. and then i get set free... 2 weeks later i have a phoncall and say 'yay i walked out 2 weeks ago as a free person'.. and people just hear the 'yay i walked out 2 weeks ago as a free person' part

as my last post shows.
i cannot believe that BD after just listening to 5 minutes of his 192 jessica no plate 10 years story.. actually thought the podcast still had merit.
i cannot believe after the first 40 minutes BD still believed the podcast was about freedom to travel using a vehicle on a public highway, contained any substance of lawful or legal evidence of such

he really needs to take off his freeman religious cloak off and put a critical, independant thinking cap on.

You are right on a few of your points.
Having a license doesn't make driving safe.
As a matter of fact I got my motorcycle license yesterday (Yayy !)
And I don't feel safe yet, and i would't call me a safe driver.
Honestly if a kid jumps out of nowhere while on the bike, i don't know if I can avoid a crash.

Furthermore, i believe that people should be reassessed every 10 years to ensure their driving skills are good enough.


Government puts signs where he believe there is a danger, and or, speed must be adjusted.
But at the end of the day, everybody is responsible to drive safely to the road condition, to the conditions of their vehicle and to their abilities.

The government doesn't put a "danger" sign at each cliff, each body of water ... 


I like what you say about "Harmed people and damaged property is the thing that matters".
It made me though about it.
You statement sounds right, but is not correct.
"harming" someone is not just about physical harming, it could be about psychological, emotional, not annoying others ....


Do you think, I could  play the trumpets, very loudly, outside your house, between 1am and 5am everynight.
I am just enjoying my property on a public right of way. And you are not "harmed", are you ?


My point is that, if a self taught driver, is on the road, and doesn't comply to the general rules of driving (be on the right, stop at lights). Then other drivers might be in emotional distress / scared having to "avoid" that car while they come around the corner. Or if they are on the wrong way of the highway.
What if because they have to avoid that driver they injure themselves (crash). Then whose fault is it ? someone  suddenly got harmed.


My conclusion is that licensing people globally raise the driving skills (teaching) of people and reduce accidents.
Licensing doesn't mean that everybody will drive safely.
I would love to find some backed data that says that in countries where a driving license is mandatory, the flow of car is better, accidents are less and safety is higher. This is just my guess, but surely someone has done a proper comparison between countries.


Out of curiosity, do you know if there is a "law" that forces people to dress (ie, not be naked) to be on the public right of way ? if so, why aren't we paid to dress ?
Who is harmed if i want to waled naked on the public right f way?
Isn't it the same logic as your driving license ?

With your driving don't: harm anyone else; damage the property of anyone else; threaten anyone else; threaten damage to the property of anyone else.

And safe living is: don't harm anyone else; don't damage the property of anyone else; don't threaten anyone else; don't threaten damage to the property of anyone else.

How about you?

8)

This sounds great. And thank you for your advice. I expect that there are all kinds or people out there who could offer legal advice like you are doing. So, what's your point?

Besides, USC 241 in your reference, above, is exactly what I would CF it for.

8)

All you are showing about Jessica is, she had so extremely civil rights complaint possibilities that she could have filed, and harm/damage/threat claims she could have filed, that if she really knew the law and what she was doing, she'd be rich off the money she would have earned in court as payment for her illegal ordeals that she went through, against her rights.

8)

You must have really been brainwashed by someone in the legal system to be able to so succinctly think that the law is freeman stuff. How in the world do you even live?

8)

Reassessment every 10 years is way less than happens right now. People are self-assessed every time they go out on the road and don't get into an accident.

Government placing an excessive number of signs out there, is basically for two things:
1. So that nobody would have an excuse if they did harm or damage while not observing a warning sign;
2. So that government could not be sued for not providing appropriate warnings.
Since laws don't stop harm or damage from happening, get away from using laws, do the warning sign thing, and prosecute people on the harm or damage they do... not on disobeying stupid laws that don't stop harm or damage, anyway.

Everybody makes a harmless driving mistake sometime. If a driver constantly makes mistakes that threaten other drivers with fear, the threat is a thing that people can file a claim against and receive damages for, if they want. Some kids are naturals. They drive better than loads of licensed people, simply from observing their parents drive. Driving school might be a reasonable requirement, but if a driver drives better without school, better driving is what we are after, isn't it? Let them test out before attending school.

Lots of people make self-damaging mistakes in life. If a driver crashes and self-damages, as long as he doesn't harm others, so what? Thank you for wanting to warn people, so that they are protected even from themselves.

People in nudist camps often are kicked out for wearing clothing. No clothing beyond this point. It is customs of the particular society that reign. If the custom was that people could go around naked in public, it could be done. But if a person goes around naked in public when it is NOT the custom, he/she might be harming people simply by being offensive.

If a naked person is arrested with a complaint filed against him by government, all he has to do is file a common law court of record claim into the complaint against him. Government can't get on the stand so that the accused can face his accuser, but even if a speaker-for-government took the stand, where is the harm or damage to government, his accuser? Government is essentially just paperwork, A government worker is really a man or woman. No case, until a man or woman files a claim.

A complaint is essentially nothing. We complain about things everyday. Who cares if we complain to government? Government people are the ones who care, because they earn money off the cases they win.

A claim has to do with property ownership, where there was harm or damage or real threat against a human being and/or his property.

The reason why people lose in government complaints against them is in 5 things:
1. They stand represented rather than present in court;
2. They don't require the facing of their accuser (government, on the indictment) on the stand to question him;
3. They don't require evidence/proof of harm, damage, or threat;
4. They don't require at least one witness against them;
5. The don't require evidence that they were the doer of the harm, damage, or threat.

If defendants did these 5 things in a claim filed right into the complaint filed against them, close to 100% of guilty by complaint verdicts would be innocent or case dismissed... except when someone filed a following claim/counter-claim into the accusers claim he filed into the government's complaint. But government can't file a claim, because government as government is never harmed, damaged, or threatened. Government is only paperwork.

8)

6. They are guilty of the thing they are being accused of.




Have you considered offering your expertise to those preparing to stand trial?  You could be a true legend if your strategy works.

im saying YOU are the one using the freeman stuff
dang you directly link the stuff and yet you yourself dont even know what your linking
the people in the podcasts you linked are spouting out freeman stuff and your believing them
i have already shown you the holes in the stuff they said having no relevan to actually proving the no licence stuff works..

heck. its easy to say in conversation out of court that if you dance around like a fairy you might not get jail time but case dismissed due to a plea of insanity. bt even that is not anything that proves you can drive on public highways with a licence and never get in trouble

seriously... you need to take a breather and really have some deeper independant thoughts about the stuff you say and quote

also, a side note
you also say 'if they done this'
again you show no proof of it working. you have no clue if it would work because you have not personally tried it
the other podcasts from karl have not proved it has worked either

many people have ripped apart the freeman stuff years ago. its not new.
your just stuck back 5 years ago where many people were duped by it
and its time you woke up

i think this really needs quoting again for BD sake


BD
that karl lntz video you linked where he talks through a case... did you even know that was a hypothetical case
do you know why
because the way karl lentz was describing it how he said the jury were saying their guillty guilty guilty and the judge started reading out the maximum penalty
sorry bet thats not even the arrangement/order/play by play a court proceding even works

..
separate thing before ther would even be a trial by jury is things like a hearing. thats something both you and karl did not point out because both of you seem to lack the real experience of how things actually work

you have no clue and you personally have no first hand knowledge.. neither did that jessica girl have first hand knowledge that driving without a licence without risk of punishment works.. (she got punished)
so trying to put yourself as some hotshot expert that is advising people what to do, when you dont even know if it works as you have not tried it. makes you no expert but just a repeater of someone elses BS

to be honest i hope someone who know you and dos follow you blindly, does try it and when they fail. they make you pay the punishment
yes make you accountable for your actions

You call it freeman stuff because freeman never make claims while they are unrepresented.

Making a claim without being represented, in a common law court of record, or a Federal District Court (as opposed to a United States District Court) is not freeman stuff.

Freeman stuff always includes at least one of the following:
- complaint;
- administrative court;
- representation.

To do it not freeman, as a man, requires all of the following:
- claim;
- common law court of record, or Federal District Court;
- no representation, not even self-representation.

You simply file with the Clerk of the Courts... or if you were dragged into court, you write it up on the spot, and the bailiff hands it to the judge.

8)

Your accuser is not the cop. The cop is a witness. Your accuser is written on the indictment.

If the cop is the accuser on the indictment, he is not a witness, and the whole story changes.

If the cop and the State are accusers both, written on the indictment, they both must take the stand if required by the accused to do so. State can't do this. Dismissed.

8)

EDIT: As for Karl explaining his case, he could have gone and gotten the transcript. Just because a guy explains the happenings of a case from memory, doesn't mean that he isn't going to make some mistakes, or isn't going to embellish some of the story to get the ideas across.

As for Jessica, certainly she wasn't reading logbook notes of what happened throughout. She was recalling things, and even if she wrote recalled things out ahead of time for the talkshoe, this doesn't make her recall 100% accurate all of a sudden. Ten years is a long time to recall.

In addition, Jessica, some of the things that happened to her would have happened differently with other people. Cops do things differently, as do judges and others. They don't necessarily do the same thing every time. Ask PopoJeff. As a LEO there must have been times he gave out warning tickets, while other times he gave out a real ticket for the same infraction.

If anyone is wondering what happens when people try what BADecker is suggesting, search "Sovereign Citizen Fails in Court" on youtube.  There are tons of hilarious examples.


Here's a good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMYBlyVO7kY

an accuser does not have to be the one harmed or tresspassed upon
an accuser can be the witness

seriously
this is going in circles
ok going back as it seems to have not sunk in yet

if someone is dead.. murdered by you. you cannot just say that you are free because your accuser cannot speak(due to being dead) instead someone else with good knowledge and evidence can accuse you on the dead persons behalf

i utterly cannot believe you actually think your scripts you read from an outdated and hole filled social group actually has merit
seriously. go kill someone and ask your accuser to stand mumbo jumbo.
see where it lands you

take other examples where other people can have representatives of that which was harmed tresspassed on
someone in a coma
a child
deaf or blind person may have an advocate, interpretter
someone of a different speaking language have an interpretter
if you steal from a 7-11 the store manager of the store you stole from.. it doesnt need to be the CEO of 7-11
a witness
an agent/employee of the company where the company has given permission/authorisation to advocate for them

if you really think an accuser has to be the one that was harmed or tresspassed on.. then murder cases would be obsolete
(think about it without refering to freeman sites for a rebuttle answer)

Anybody can mess things up. Read the differences between freeman stuff, and a man making a legal claim, at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197289.msg52994494#msg52994494.

8)

You can't get a witness on the stand without the plaintiff accuser (listed on the indictment) showing up in court, and taking the stand first, if the accused stands as a man, unrepresented, and requires the accuser take the stand. The plaintiff is the joker on the indictment. If it is the State, the State can't get on the stand. But even if there is a representative of the State getting on the stand, show the harm or damage to the State. The State felt the pain how? The State had State property damaged how?

Again, the 4 legs of the case table. There have to be:
1. Accused;
2. Accuser;
3. Witness (in addition to the accuser);
4. Conclusive evidence.

In a common law court of record, it is a man-to-man operation.

8)

anyon can make a claim.. freeman non-freeman  illegal alien, citizen

but your rhetoric(freeman scripts) is this part
'face my accuser'
'i dont recognise your agent as my accuser'
'stand unrepresented'
'travel a public highway in a vehicle unlicenced'
'hand the cop an invoice'

which is the freeman stuff

and dang..
you still repeating the freeman stuff now
you are so jesus preaching lentz word for word '4 legs of a table'
dude seriously your like 5 years too late to the party. people have moved on from believing that BS its all ben debunked

oh and again for the 5th time
if you want to refer to common law.. you keep forgetting harm, damage, loss AND TRESSPASS
wake up

as for the 4 leg table thing
you dont need a witness if there is things like DNA or security footage
again the accuser can be the witness
the accuser can be an advocate for the one thats harmed or tresspassed on

you really need to try finding some first hand experience of things and stop your lentz religion

It's actual court room footage.

All this stuff is said in regular court cases under regular circumstances. It is also said by some of the freemen.

The difference is how and when it is said, and the circumstances.

Standing present, unrepresented won't cut it alone. A common law court of record must be required as well. And to start into such a court, there needs to be a claim by the accused who was probably a defendant until he made the claim. Courts recognize this stuff all the time. It's all standard law.

If you go and write a list of freeman stuff, for all we know, the freeman said all this when he was already found guilty, and it was his closing statement before sentencing. There needs to be a chronological order listed before anybody can know what you are actually talking about.

8)

As I said, anybody can mess things up, courtroom footage or not.

8)

i would love to see BD say
"i am Standing present, unrepresented"
and a judge interupts and says...
so your a christmas gift standing up, that isnt a regift from someone else.. ok sherrif, please take custody of this man, i recommend a 72hour psych evaluation hold

Where did you learn how to be represent yourself in court better than any lawyer ever could?  It wasn't one of those conspiracy websites that sells all the herbal supplements that you're always posting...was it?

which you have no personal experience of

 I can tell you exactly what would happen if he says that....

The judge will then ask if he is waiving his right to counsel. If he confirms that he is, he will sign a document stating such.

You did nothing but talk yourself in a circle.   You referenced a code as your basis for suit/warning ... and dont know wtf to do with it now

You admit that you are not a BAR member. You reference a Federal statute, but have no idea what an AUSA is. And you have exactly ZERO courtroom/legal experience.   Yeah, everyone should believe you know the legal system.  ???

Wrong! I didn't reference the code for my hypothetical case. Rather, I CFed (compared) the code to language I used in my case. There is an absolute difference. Why would I do this - CF? Because the code is inside the legal system. My writing that is similar to the Code is outside the legal system, inside the common law that existed before the Constitution. Judges understand this. I don't want to use their Code, because I didn't write it, and because I don't really know what it means.

I don't really care what people believe. Nobody believes the same, anyway. What does what I believe have to do with what you believe? All I am talking is simple common law... which existed long before the Constitution. The Constitution may have been codified, but it is also common law. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights shows that common law from before the Constitution may be used by the people.

All laws flow out of Constitution allowance. Codes are written by Thompsons of Canada, and may not correctly reflect what the lawmakers intended by the laws they passed. Why use Codes? They essentially don't apply to anyone not within the Code system. But CFing the Codes might help Judges understand what you are talking about by what you write.

8)

lets just play this one out.. again
lets ignore BD's mumbo jumbo freman scripts from his jesus lentz

so common law
harm loss as bd says
 and tresspass as he keeps avoiding

even under common law you are tresspassing on government property if you do not have permission(permit/licence) to be there

I really dont even know what to say anymore.  Reading his response gave me a headache. He's talking in circles again, and  answering questions that were not asked, and referring to statements that were not made.

About the only successful defense MrDecker will ever present is that of insanity

Nobody ever trespasses on government property. All that happens is that someone says they are trespassing.

8)

Nobody ever compares a code they used in language for their hypothetical case.  They just reference it.

 :o


(BAD is over in the flat earth thread getting destroyed by a flat-earther if anyone needs more entertainment)

uk government:
military bases?
parliament?(not the tourist section)
10 downing street?(not the tourist area)

so security guards and passes are not needed?
ok BD go try walking into the white house, i dare you

My explanations show why I say what I do.

For example. And forget the precipe meeting for a moment to make things simpler.

The accused is in court under a complaint, probably as a defendant. The plaintiff reads the complaint. The judge asks for a plea from the defendant. The defendant requires writing tools (paper and pen), and 10 minutes, to give the court a proper answer. In the answer, he writes out his claim... that no man will come forward and claim he did anything wrong (plus a few other simple things, like stating that he requires a common law court of record).

The judge doesn't want to accept this, so he tries to get the accused to plead guilty or not guilty. The accused says that he already gave the judge his answer.

If the judge is obstinate, and tries to put in a plea for the accused, it's a good idea that the accused have friends in court, who have power of attorney to place paperwork into the case for the accused.

If the judge, and the clerk of the courts are obstinate, and won't even let the accused put paperwork into the court, they start their own case against the judge. And if this goes up to the head magistrate, who often is the governor of the State, or to Federal or U.S. District Court, the judge at the trial is removed from the case and suspended until an investigation takes place.


The point is, there is no simple answer. The forum could be filled with pages of possibilities. So, to suggest that BADecker is somewhat insane, is totally incorrect. You know yourself, if you have really been in court, and are really as knowledgeable about court as you have been claiming, that there are loads of court cases that show this... a small percent perhaps... but many.

8)

People don't have to compare their writing to a Code, but they can, and some have.

8)

I have basically been speaking about the USA. The method is similar in the UK. It's Queen's Bench, and the Codes in the UK are more straight forward to what I am saying.

Government buildings as you are talking, might get people shot if they trespass. But if they make it to court, using common law, they can be freed. The only thing that they will lose at is if the legal resident, or his legal guards or other people, file a direct claim against the man for trespassing on their private residence... or something similar.

Certainly a man would have to know what he was doing. So, don't try it. Stay in your room across the hall from notbatman.

8)

Loads of court cases that show this?   Show me one.

1. you keep saying things like 'no body ever tresspasses on government property"
yet
white house - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_White_House_security_breaches#Into_the_White_House

you pretend there is no consequence of doing so
yet you just admitted

you then go back to denying tresspass exists. it does.
sorry but it really is a thing, not just of civil acts but of common law too. YOU WILL NOT BE FREED under common law

your igorance to avoid talking about tress pass. is the same as anyone saying 'no harm or loss' is not a thing

but you never do what you say. you only say what you say
you have no actual first world experience of things


by the way. think about this properly for one minute.
in the UK. why queens bench specifically.. why not do as you say in local county courts..
why have you been for 8 pages now been telling people that they can go into any court and proclaim their common law.. then spout out freeman scripts

License basically makes you eligible to drive a vehicle.It is totally normal to have your car parked and not a have a license. Just imagine the chaos if anyone of any age was allowed at his/her will to operate heavy vehicle capable of high speeds. The danger associated with such object makes it necessary to have regulations and restrictions.

"Anyone of any age" falls into the category of "age of majority," both in statute law, and in common law.

If you sit down at your kitchen table with pen and paper, and you write wording that includes "license" and "drive," does it necessarily have anything to do with Government using those words? Write out the wording that says you have a license to drive. Place it on a little card, laminate it, and carry it with you when you are driving.

Show it to any cop that stops you, or wherever else the driver's license is asked for.

If government doesn't like your drivers license, and they order that you get theirs, they should pay you to get theirs, just like any boss would pay you to do something for him.

Having government's drivers license doesn't make you capable of doing any driving. Nor does it make you a safe driver.

8)

Exactly. The use of the license is for driving the car not acquiring it.
Everyone is able to have a car but not everyone is able to drive it freely on the streets. If you don't know how to drive many pedestrians are in danger because of you.

Queen's Bench, because that is the place where man-to-man confrontations are done in the legal UK. Other courts in the UK are person-to-person courts. Do what you want, of course. But why accept that you are a person that they manipulate any way that pleases them? Rather, be a man, where the points of harm or damage to a fellow man are the law.

Actually, I do have first-hand experience, although it is in a slightly different area than this thread, and in that it never got to the point that we have been talking in this thread.

I wrote to government people on a man-to-man basis about suing them man-to-man, and they backed down. So I didn't have to sue them. But this doesn't say that they won't pick up the case, or start a new one, sometime.

Why have you, for several pages, now, been saying that I am telling people to go into any court?... or proclaim some common law?... or spout freeman stuff?

Much of what the freemen "spouted" is exactly the same as people "spout" in courts everyday to win the cases they win. The fact that some of the freemen didn't win has to do with some of the other things they spouted, or maybe the attitudes they had about some things. This thread isn't court. So the wording and the processes in the thread aren't things that would be used in court exactly as they are here. Why are you so against the law?

Looks like you are simply against me by lying by saying that I tell people to go into any court. Didn't I even suggest Queen's Bench rather than other courts? Didn't I say several times a "common law court of record?" This isn't any court. It's specific courts. So, you are a straight-forward liar about me.

The court isn't generally the place to proclaim some common law in the sense of telling people what common law is all about. However, judges use past court cases all the time. Attorneys use the same all the time. Court cases are considered to be common law. The courts use common law all the time in their operation. I'm beginning to think that you don't know at all what you are talking about, and are simply a troll, sent here to make sure the people remain ignorant of some of their options.

Watch what you will write next. It won't be a logical answer to my points. It will only be some blubbering accusations against what I am writing, with some vague reference to some of the things I am writing. Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about.

8)

How about bicycles, do you need a license to ride those in public roads? I have seen them being popular in some EU countries. I wonder in what category does a bicycle assisted with a (small) electric motor falls into, motorbike? Are these insured too?

And, do those rules apply in private property? What if you own a large lot with a road?

But you are saying a general thing. There are some streets in some jurisdictions in some countries that the thing that you say is exactly right.

In general, in the USA, the license is for making money that can be used by government rather freely in this or that. Rather than repeat it, check out what I said, above, here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197289.msg53002059#msg53002059.

8)

Many cities in the USA have bicycle licensing "requirements." Getting a license for a bicycle doesn't make the operator any safer. If he is going to drive his bike out into the middle of a highway, the license won't stop him. If he is going to drive over someone's flower bed, the license won't stop him. the license just hangs there on the back of the bike, somewhere. It doesn't do anything other than to be flashy and colorful... at least until it gets covered with mud.

Licensing of bikes is a method for brainwashing kids into thinking that cops are the greatest thing in the world, and for the cop shop to make a little extra money. In a man-to-man common law court, bike licensing won't stand, just as car licensing won't. But know what you are doing before you take it to court.

8)

Regarding the White House...

If you rent a house, whose property is it? Doesn't it belong to the owner? But isn't it the renter's residence? Whose property are you trespassing on? The property of the owner or the renter's residence? If it goes to court, the whole thing depends on who says what on his paperwork, not on the fact that a trespass was done. If the accusations are done by a complaint, the accused can use a claim to overcome them every time.

Few people answer a complaint with a claim in court. So all of the stuff you talk about doesn't apply.

8)

a licence/permit = permission
you cannot licence yourself to go onto someone elses property

seriously. you actually think that laminating a pic of paper with 'licence to drive' is adequate proof of authorisation to be able to not be a tresspasser on someone else property

are you that ignorant
seriously ask yourself are you really saying that permitting yourself is the same as having permission granted by the property owner

whats next 'consent to have sex with all girls' is your get out of jail free card for rape
whats next 'consent to euphonise anyone' is your get out of jail free card for murder

sereiously get a clue
or atleast
get some paper and write
"Badecker promises to do some independent research not involving freeman based resources"
and laminate it

renting the house meaning you have paid for permission to occupy it
you are an occupant not an owner

EG trump does not own the white house. he is occupying it for the period of his current job role. the whit house is government property

he has permission to occupy it
permission
permit
licence

Right. So if the owner or the renter files a claim against an accused, they will probably win. But if they file a complaint, and the accused files a proper claim, they will probably lose to the one they accused.

Now let's get back on topic. If the car is your property, and some cop or judge gives you an order to license it, they should pay you to do so. Free country. No slavery. Right to travel.

8)

your shoe is your property, and you travel in your shoes
but if you step onto someone elses land you are tresspassing on their property(their land)
and getting into freeman discussions about trying to waffle about how you describe your footwear or what brand it is or the purpose of your footwear or who owns your footware becomes meaningless..
because you still tresspasseed on the farmers property

if you want to try dismissing the fact of tresspass and property. then guess what. the car is not yours anyone can take the car at any time and travel without your consent using the car.

so now your left without the car and without anyone paying your pathetic invoice

Stepping onto the property of someone else isn't necessarily trespassing.

The fact that this isn't a court of law, and the fact that you are barely coherent in the things you write, show that you are simply wasting time.

You been drinking again? Of course, it's almost time to start over where you are. The question is, do you ever stop?

8)

oh im laughing

we have gon full circle to 7 pages ago.. and you still dont realise it

on my property i can have my own house rules. such as charge you for tresspassing it. i can set up my own court in my barn where the punishment is a fine or worse

when you break the laws of someone elses property, you end up in THEIR court
you trying to assume governments courts are your courts is your massive failure of all your freeman speaches

you cannot go into a english led court of law of british or american bases and then walk in trying to proclaim your own court of sharia law or freeman law.

or whatever mis-directed 4 table leg version thats not common law.

you need to learn what law is followed by which court. G government court has family, criminal, civil and true(unfreeman twisted(not BD's scripts)) common law.
remember the jury do not know or understand your sharia/BD's Lentz faith law/freeman misbeliefs. they are following the courts procedures because they are in that court.

I noticed about the full circle thing. In fact, you are spinning on your full circle so fast that you are way beyond dizzy... like insanely dizzy.

8)

ok last try to wake you up..
it seems you now deny facts of common law. like tresspass because it doesnt fit your script
so lets try your lentz law

you (and lentz) say you can create your own court and claim against someone under your law.. either it be common law, lentz law, sharia law whatever

but why then.. does lentz himself bring up the queens bench when talking about common law UK.. i thought you both were adamant that your scripts meant that people no matter what court they are summoned to locally or nationally, should make a claim in that court.. how can they make their own court

see how easy lentz law falls apart when you start questioning his scripts
atleast try just once to not be a full believer of lentz law AKA freeman stuff and just attempt for fairness of wanting to learn try to question it

by the way my question was rhetorical i dont need th answer as i know what it is. but for your benefit. dont just reply with some old script you heard or your twists to try to sound right. atleast do some critical thinking research and find out what actually is possible and what has actually been proven possible and not just the hypothetical misdirects of freeman/lentz and friends

goodnight

I kinda should apologize. And since I am apologizing, it wouldn't be right to blurt out what I am apologizing for, because that might negate the apology. So, thanks for the talk.

8)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=international+drivers+license&t=ffab&ia=web

8)

I think everything goes back to the rules and regulations that exist in each country is certainly very different. especially for developing countries licensing is really needed because there are elements of tax generated for the interests of the country. because the country desperately needs income as one of the spearheads of development of course is from the tax sector. it is not possible for all to be equal, there are times when the state also plays a role in certain matters.

But in the USA, essentially all the laws refer to persons. Person is defined as some form of artificial entity, generally. Where it is defined as an individual, it could have easily been defined as man or woman. So we see that even if individual means human being, it doesn't mean man or woman. Further, there is law that states that individual applies to infants, which means that they are wards of the state. In other words, men and women are outside of the purview of the law until people state that they are the person that is the object of the discussion. See https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

8)

no no no you idiot
you have no clue.
stop with your freeman rhetoric about "persons"

its not saying a person is an entity that is not human
its saying its a human, no matter if they pretend to be described by any noun
EG if a human says he is a judge.. the law still appies to him as the human whether he is a judge or describes himself as an employee, a dress wearing fairy or identifies himself as a helicopter.

the point and plain meaning of the word person is to do the exact opposite of your idiotic rhetoric.
your rhetoric is to try escaping liability by redifining your pronoun. however the 'person' means you can use any pronoun you like. your still going to be liable


no where in that does it say excludes humans. not excludes individuals or excludes people or excludes men/women
its done as an inclusive thing to prevent the stupid stuff you waffle on about

so even if you say 'im not a person. im here with friends we are people' .. sorry a judge still sees you as a person
so even if you say 'im not a person. i have testicles im a man' .. sorry a judge still sees you as a person
so even if you say 'im not a person. i run a business, im a business man' .. sorry a judge still sees you as a person

try to research "plain meaning" and why when you try to redifine nouns o your silly small minded definition, you will fail

Person. Man. Women.  All that nonsense will get you literally nowhere.  You can theorize all you want on the internet. But in reality, it will never work in any court. Good luck

if a man walked into a womans public bathroom and scared the women inside and they complained. no matter if the man declared himself a female a lesbian a transgender or anything. there would be consequences

but we can already guess badecker will pretend the law doesnt apply to him because he thinks he has the secret magic rhetoric to perv in womens bathrooms

So, you don't know about the law after all. Definitions are very important... and very specific. The closest that "person" comes to being defined as man or woman is when it has "individual" in its definition. "Individual" is defined in standard dictionaries as "human being," and "human being" generally, legally refers to someone who is a ward of the court... in the definitions, that is.

Since the law definitions could have been easily written with "person" to include "man" and " woman," the absence of these in the definitions shows that they do not apply. After all, when the words "include" or "includes" are used in definitions, the only thing that is included is what follows the word "include."

For example:Only the words of that follow the word "includes" are part of the definition.

Notice that "natural person" is part of the definition. What is a natural person? The definition of natural person generally is "human being." And, as stated above, a human being is defined as someone who is a ward of the court.

"Man" or "woman" are not found in the definition. So, go to court as a man/woman, and you are not defined as a person. This means you can't be included in any of the laws using the word "person," except that they have been specially defined at the site of the law itself, to include man or woman. Most have not been so defined.

So, how do you get to be a person in court? By acceptance. The word person is used, and you accept that it is you being talked about. A judge or attorney might know that you are not a person according to the definitions, but neither of them have the right to correct something you truly believe. So, it is you who have condemned yourself by not knowing that the statute wasn't talking about you in the first place.

8)

If the statute you are charged with breaking is written "person," it has to be applied this way. If you state that you are a man in court, and remind them that the statute says person, they will recognize such.

Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, this might not get you off the hook. The first thing that the judge might say (following introductions and the reading of the indictment) is: "How do you plead?"

The correct answer is: "I require pen and paper, and 3 hours to prepare a proper answer for the court." The court has to give you this time. And you write out your claim on the paper, and have the bailiff hand it to the judge. A proper claim takes you out of the jurisdiction of the judge's court, and moves you into a common law court of record, with a trial by jury if you want.

If you have no friends in court, and you are in chains, incarcerated, you will have a difficult time filing court docs with the clerk of the court. You will have to do everything on the fly, during the court session. Always require pen and paper, and a sufficient period of time, to prepare a proper answer for the court. Unless you have a very sharp mind, and can remember everything that is said in court, write it down, so that the record is set.

8)

includes is plural. you idiot meaning many items listed after includes

learn things properly
you will not escape liability with your rhetoric

badecker your posts smell too much like Karl Lentz rants.
shows you have not learned about karls 'la la la's' after all
you are ignorant of the law and only truest freeman crap.

just stop trying to pretend you know whats right because its obvious you have no personal experience of it if you can only quote other people. yet the quotes you use show flaws of those other peolpe too.

you even quoted ncsl and then tried to ignore the list of descriptors and pretend it only applies to one descriptor al because you ignored 'includes' and thought it said 'include'.. it just shows how far your misunderstandings, ignorance and just not willing to learn what things really are. and all you want to do is twist common sense into your narrow minded version of nonsense and then pretend your nonsense is general common knowledge of mass population.

you have no clue you might aswell be speaking german and declaring that all americans speak german

Thank you ever so kindly, franky1. I bet you were so brilliant as a kid, that you skipped elementary and high school, and went straight to college. What? You skipped college, too? Ah, oh...

8)

i bet you skipped school because you thought the special bus you got on was the school. so you just stayed on the special bus

I never skipped school. You're just jealous.      ;D

Lol.  This is great.  I really want to know how you come up with this stuff, and actually believe it. 

You think the statute you're charged with is the only applicable section of law to your case?   
You:  "Judge, that section says person, and blah blah blah...."
Judge: " well the rules of criminal procedure in this state say.....".

You: " i need pen, paper, and 3 hrs"
Judge: "No, you have 30 seconds to reply, or you'll be incarcerated immediately."

you were on the special school bus
just because it has the word in the middle didnt mean that it was an actual school

learn the plain meaning of things
i know you enjoy playing the inanity defense in everything you do in life. but the reality is that you have to become responsible for your words and actions

you cannot keep pretending you are a kid that doesnt have any liabilities or responsibilities. but i now understand why you want to describe yourself as a corporation. because you are not acting like a man
but others will see and treat you like a man, and that includes the law

and another example of your foolishness. i bet you truly believe that a 'person of colour' means a red-brick house
sorry but stupidity like that is where you would fail in life.

There's a netflix show about BADecker: https://youtu.be/1pBougV1JK4?t=251

"Meet Gilvin Daughtry. He knows his rights."

i see the similarity
but i thought badecker would up his game and be the idiot that takes a semi-auto machine gun into a school because its his right to bear arms and then shoot kids because their screaming at the sight of him is harming his ears
.. thats how i see badecker acting if he was ever let out into the real world

Lol No..

I pay absolutely ridiculous amounts of money just to comply with the law so I can drive my cars.. We are talking $1000-$1500 per year per car of money just poof gone forever with nothing to show for it because the government wants it that way or they will kill you if you don't comply..

Yes, even something as minor as car licencing, they will absolutely kill you if you refuse to comply..
Refuse to pay for the licence, refuse to go to court, refuse to go to jail, BANG your dead..
Government is nothing but a monopoly on violence and will escalate anything to the point of your death if you refuse to comply..
(I wouldn't try that sovereign citizen shit if I were you.. Right or wrong, a lot of them get killed by the government..)

The government want's you to spend your money, not keep it or buy any valuable assets with it.. They want you poor..
They want your money going to the big insurance companies and to the government for fees on top of fees on top of fees for licencing..
Get the money out of the hands of common citizens by any means possible to reduce our power..

I hate it very much..

It depends in under that jurisdiction a person can change gender. There are already countries where you can change your name and undergo a series of procedures and you will be officially a member of the opposite sex. There are even people who did it late in their 30s or 40s. Transgenderism is a plague. Soon a pedophile will be able to make himself papers saying that mentally he's a 10 year old girl and has the right to go to school with your kids.

If you want to live in a country you have to pay VAT and tax on termination and you cannot live need to have an expired license to drive a car but do not like to pay VAT for all things Because when you buy a car you pay the VAT to the government then there is no need to reissue the license. There should be some cars that are not operated by any kind of machine Then you will not have to pay VAT or tax.

What are you even talking about? Seriously, what is the connection between VAT and a driving license.
Not all countries have VAT. This is mainly a thing enforced by the EU.

And that part about not paying tax when the car isn't operated by a machine? Are you high?

Has anybody mentioned that you don't own the software in the various computers that are essential in modern cars? If they take the use of that software away from you, then the vehicle is useless. Expect that to be a penalty for electric car owners in the future.

I guess you can go offline then. I once watched a vlog by a guy who wanted to rebuild a damaged tesla out of 2 cars, pretty much like you used to do with any other brand. He had a lot of problems with it due to tesla communicating with base in case of trouble. So, now the car "knew" that it had crashed, and the repair was done by an unlicensed mechanic. Not only that but it also transmitted all data back to Elon. It didn't want to connect to the Internet because you don't deserve stuff like that if you repair your own car and you just can't be driving a car that had an accident, it's for our own safety!

Send the software back to them.     8)

my point was more of even if a birthed girl went into a womans bathroom and started acting weird. people can still complain about her.
so badecker trying to go in pretending to be a girl cant just use the 'im a girl' defense, because his actions were still harrassing an pervy no matter what pronoun he describes himself as

i think people who go through the gender re-assigning surgery gain the right to re declare their gender as that of their new body parts. but that does not give then the right to be a harrassing perv

also if they had a biometric/forensic data pre surgery linked to a crime, they cannot escape the crime by saying they dont recognise the previous name/gender.
EG if the dna data matches and eye witness reports show that people know badecker got re-assigned as rebecka'd then rebeckad still is liable for action when she was badecker

its like the fools that think they can escape the law declaring they are born again christians.. or in badeckers.. oops rebecka'ds case born again freeman
sorry judge will still find you guilty. and wont take time off because there is lack of morals and lack of sincerity as to why they changed his way

in short rebeckad wont get off by irritating the judge that he has not responsibilities and rules dont apply to him. rebeckad needs to appeal to the judges mercy not his stress tolerance

In a jury trial, the judge isn't judge. The jury is. Depending on how well you make your case, you could easily get off, or the State might wind up paying you.

8)

just goes to show how little you know
courts dont request citizens to take days off work for silly little things like driving licences cases

if you think every time you go to court you will be standing infront of a jury. shows how much clue you do not have

try to learn how things work

My apologies. I actually thought you knew how to read and understand. No wonder you have trouble with the law. You need an attorney to do your talking for you. Don't deviate from this because it fits you - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. I wonder if you can understand it at all.

8)

the lemming above mentions jury. and now sidesteps to talk about attourneys...

dang
rebecka'd(as ill now call you) you know you dun goofed about the jury thing. and now want to misdirect into another direction.
sorry but misdirects only work for capable magicians and many people end up finding out how the trick occurs leaving things not looking so mystical and magical as you think they are.

your powers of illusion are obvious basically

You're finally getting it, aren't you. My court, my rules. Standard rules of court are quite well thought out. I might use them.

8)

You think you're getting a jury trial for a traffic ticket or summary case?

It all depends on the pretrial hearing in the judges chambers. If the prosecutor drops the charges based on one or more of several things, I might just let the matter drop, as well. If he doesn't, I will have to press my claim in a common law court of record, thereby taking it out of the administrative court.

8)

 I cant.  I just cant.   Good luck man. 

If you are the arresting cop, you have to be there, too.    8)

EDIT: Look. If you are only there by affidavit or by dash-cam/vest-cam, the judge will consider it hearsay if I require verification. So, if you aren't there, there isn't any use in having a pretrial hearing. Might as well go straight to trial.

If we go to trial, I will file a claim as a man on top of your complaint, with the clerk of the court, before trial date.

I have the right to face my accuser. Standard right.

The indictment lists my accuser as The-State-of-XXX/The-County-of-XXX/The-City-of-XXX. Since I am appearing unrepresented as a man, not even represented by myself, but rather present, my accuser must take the oath/affirmation, get on the stand, and tell the court - viva voce - how I have harmed or damaged him/her.

Further, the definitions does not include a man/woman in the the way they are written. The defs only talk about persons. Even a human being is defined in federal statutes as a minor who is a ward of the court. None of this is me, a man.

False arrest. I will seek damages.

Ok  sure.  Have fun with that

That's a pretty good attitude to have. If you are a LEO out there enforcing code, you have probably run into some dangerous situations now and again. But maintaining a fun filled attitude can give you the stamina that it takes to carry on.

So, I accept your idea, and will try to remember it when the time comes that I am in a court situation.

8)

Did seems like trying to create outrage out of nothing. Like giving it meaning like free speech.

People should have licenses because you don't want nut jobs driving and causing accidents.

its not "your court" you silly fool
if someone trespassed on YOUR property you can take them into your barn and set any rule you like for your barn

but when your on roads made by state/government. thats their property meaning they decide the rules and they decide the policies of their court

again we have been over this already.
you cannot just walk into a state/fed court and demand they follow your prefered sharia law
you cannot demand 12 random people to take a day off work just because you think your king
you cannot then ask the jury to wear your prefered colour pink robes and dance the fairy dance when you talk

you need to realise you in their court and acting like a prat in thier court has consequences.
instead of demanding that people ignore court policies and procedures and just believe some fairy freeman policy applies. actually use their policies of their court against them.

every single post so far has been you trying to ignore how courts work and trying to insert your own opinion of your on fairy law

you keep forgetting contracts and tresspass and you forget who's property belongs to who
as soon as you use a road, guess what your using the state/govs property and need to follow their rules.
so learn their rules and use their rules against them
stop trying to make up new rules or new definitions that dont even make common sense
because being a moron is just going to make a judge want to section you for a psych hold

Freedom Speech Easy Rider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc11mJGre10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc11mJGre10)


8)

Well, of course it's my court. Look at all the court cases. They are all titled something like "Jon Doe vs. Jim Jones." All of them. In the example at left, it's Jon Doe's court. If he stupidly wants to give control of it over to some judge, that's his choice. But it's his court because not one thing happens - court is not even convened - until he files his case.

8)

it is your claim/defense of claim but not your court
the physical building and the employees inside it are not your property
the policies of the court and the training of the employee's did not begin with you

if you owned your own barn and someone stood on your property without your consent then you can take them to YOUR barn.
your property, your barn=your rules
 
but the rules of the road and court are not your rules as its not your property they are state/fed rules and property.
just because you are a member of the gym does not mean you own the gym
just because your a member of 'public' does not mean you own the public property/assets

this allow you be serviced by the court to make a claim and/or defend a claim in their court according to their rules policies and procedures

i know you think that elections means you own the gov but no.
people have food competitions and get to vote on which is the top chef to run a restaurant. that dont mean the customers own the restaurant

use some common sense now and again

you cannot just rewrite the dictionary and write your own policies in someone elses court.
instead you need to learn their policies and procedures and their rules to then know how to navigate them

you cannot just go into state or fed court and pretend you declare it "flat earth court of king reecka'd"
its still and always will be a state/fed court and so always will follow the rules, policies and procedures of the state/fed

atleast try to realise pretending to be a fairy results in a mental assessment possibility result. it wont change he laws or procedures

so learn the real procedures so that you can learn whats fair and unfair. then if being treated unfairly you can hold them to account

i still find it strange how much you go back and forth and making nonsense rather than just take the time to do some real research

by the way.. court papers title has the courts name and jurisdiction as the title. your name would appear under the title defendant.
your a defendant not a court owner.

You have made your complaint against me in court. It's my turn.

I claim that I have not harmed anyone. I claim that nobody will get on the stand and show injury or threat with proof and witness that I was the one who did it.

If you don't answer my claim, you lose/I win. Why? Because you had your turn. It is my turn. And since I am standing as a man unrepresented, you need to get on the stand as a man unrepresented and answer my claim... show that I am wrong.


You might say, " That's not how it works." But you don't know this, because you have never even seen anyone present a claim in court. But the judge knows all about claims, and how they are stronger than a complaint when done by a man.

8)

yes your turn to speak. not own the court

thier claim against you is breach of contract and tresspass
you broke the rules of the road and done something on property you were nt suppose to be on

again you keep being ignorant about contracts and tresspass

you can make any counter claim you like asking if you injured anyone and your claim will be dismissed as no injury is even the claim against you. again its not what you are being accused of. so you wont win your claim, it will just be struck out and the case against you will continue as if you never made a claim

you foolishly think making a counterclaim makes the laim against you disapear. sorry but it dont work like that

your stupid trick is like this:
to walk into the womens bathroom and watch women naked. get sued for indecency but try to defend yourself by asking if you had a gun on you and did you shoot a women.
the case is not about murder or physical harm so everyone in the court will just look at you and think your mentally ill for even thinking your turning up to a murder trial when infact your being civily sued for something else

the only actions resulting from your claim is being put on a mental psych hold for 72 hours

meanwhile the claim against you about the tresspass and breaking the rules still has proof, witnesses and you foolishly admitting the claim against you when you stupidly told them that you were in the situation/location. but then add on the holding the gun nonsense

by the way. in real law
the claim is the case for/against you and the complaint is the reason/description of the case for/against you

claim vs complaint is not two different levels of court proceding
when a legal complaint is made its the evidence/reason/description of the claim. it does not mean there is no claim. it means a complaint is just the evidence/reason of a claim

so pretending their is no claim, shows that you have no clue how the court system works

for their to be a claim there needs to be a reason.
a complaint without a claim is simply you being a whiny kid. a complaint in court is the reason for the claim
you can formalise your complaint as more then just being a whiny kid, by making it into a formal case. but pretending that while in a case against you is not a case against you and just a complaint. is like saying your not in court that has been alloted a timeslot, organised getting  a judge to sit it and invited everyone involved to turn up.. but just making a forum post whinging at someone

so while a claim against you is occuring. just being a whining kid is not going to help you. yes you should formalise your complaint by filing it as a counter-claim but that does not mean the auto destruction of their claim againt you simply by filing your own counter claim.
you wont win by default by making a counter claim. in your complaint of your counterclaim has to have merit. it has to have proof and actual reason.

just making a counter claim that you identify yourself as a pink helicopter or a transvestite dildo corporation wont help

and then you still have to deal with their claim against you containing their complaint

Well, well. To claim a complaint still makes it a complaint. The claim of a complaint totally silences the claim in favor of the complaint.

A claim made in complaint form doesn't have the strength of a claim directly made as a claim. You have them backward. Complain all day long about something. People around the world complain. But when you claim something, you are saying it is yours... or at least something of equal value. If you give good reason, and nobody stands against your reason, you win.

Hiding a claim under a complaint doesn't take away from the complaint. Whine all day long. You are not claiming anything when you do it in complaint form.

If you are going to claim something, why shroud it in complaint form? Claim it directly. If you simply claim your complaint, all you are doing is claiming that you are whining.

Making a claim as a man, requires in fairness that a man answer. If the claim is that the complainant will not  take the oath and get on the stand, and if the claim is for a $million if the complainant doesn't, a complainant man has to get on the stand and rebut "viva voce" the claim. The State is the complainant, but is not able to rebut viva voce. The claimant wins.

The claim against me is not occurring. It was a complaint. It says so on the paperwork. Are you saying that the paperwork is faulty? Such falls into the realm of perjury.

I can't file a counter-claim. The complaint paperwork might be backed by a million claims. But it is still a complaint formally. No way to file a counter-claim.

Filing my claim into the case makes it my case until my claim has been rebutted. Rebuttal must be done by the State, since I have the right to face my accuser. If the LEO is my accuser, why isn't his name on the indictment rather than the State's name? Since it is not, he is not my accuser.

The State, my accuser, needs to take the oath/affirrmation, get on the stand, and tell/show tht damage that has been done to him, and prove that I did it. If the case is that I was going 20 mph over the speed limit, how did that hurt the state? Was the state injured... a broken arm, a cut, breach of a contract? Let my accuser, the State, get on the stand and tell the jury. Not the State's representative. The State, my accuser.

Suppose that the State has a power of attorney with someone in the State to be a speaker for the State. So he takes the oath/affirmation and gets on the stand. Does he have first-hand knowledge of any damage I did to the State? Did I bust up some concrete? Did I set a State forest on fire? Did he see it happen?

This is why, when a man/woman is involved, the State doesn't have a case. The only chance the State has is to get the man/woman to be the client of an attorney... thereby becoming a ward of the court. Or to get the so-called defendant to agree that he is the person on the indictment. If the State can't do this, they lose.

8)

i just read the first paragraphand just (facepalmed)
1. pages ago rebecka'd(aka badecker) was saying a claim trumps a complaint. now hoe saying a complaint trumps a claim
how foolish

2. you cant hide a claim under a complaint.. the claim is the court case the complaint is the reason
you can hide the reason but cant hide the case.

3. a claim and complaint made easy:
here is the difference
state makes a claim against rebecka'd and the complaint is that he violated the rules of the road
rebecka'd goes to court thus acknowledging the claim against him and the reason. but then he just bitches and whinges and speaks like an idiot without filing his own claim.
making his bitching and whinges just a bitching complaint without a claim, much like just verbally abusing nonsense you see homeless people spout out when talking to pidgeons

meaning rebecka'd is the one who has just wasted his own time by just being a whiney bitch. rebecka'd if he had any substantial legal complaint to counter the other party that had even a vague chance of having merit. rebecka'd should formalise it in a counter claim. otherwise he might as well just be screaming in the streets

trying to deny the opposition has made a claim and/or complaint. yet be at the court shows that a claim has been made where no hiding has occured because rebecka'd is there in court as requested so he must have known about it

rebecka'd you really need to try learning stuff from an actual court. not from youtube of your fanclub of freeman cultists

i would love to see rebecka's turn up to a court and say that there is no case and the judge just laughs and said "but you turned up to it, right"

a non court formalised complaint is just like having an argument in a pub/bar about how nasty the warm beer tastes. a formal complaint is filed as a claim

as for the other stuff
reecka'd you keep ignorin tresspass and contracts. which are part of the constitution and law.

you can cry all you like about not breaking concrete. but thats not what you are being accused of

if i tresspassed on your property and you decided to take me into your barn.. if i was to be stupid to do a badecker ploy. i would ask you why are you accusing me of humping your wife...
you would be wondering what im on about because im only in your barn because i stood on your grass
i would continue to do a backer and ignore the tresspass and continue to spout off crap about how i must have murdered your mother, even though she is alive. my badecker ploy woul be to continue shouting out random other crimes just to waste time and get detained under a psych hold.

meanwhile the tresspass case continues on

i see no reason to actually do a badecker because acting like a mentally damaged idiot helps no one. and has nothing to do with the tresspass/contracts parts of law

i still dont know why badecker thinks the no driving licence is about breaking concrete..
all i do know is badecker doesnt understand the law to even know what the law he would be breaching by driving without a licence and what the issues of the law are.
hint. its not about broken concrete

Except that none of the things you are saying make any sense at all.

8)

All you are doing is blabbing things that don't have anything to do with anything that was posted.

8)

your boring
your "damaging concrete" has nothing to do with rules of the road linked to driving licence requirements

if you dont understand contracts and tresspass. you obviously ignorant of the law of this whole topic
as proven by the last 11 pages of your misunderstandings.
even today you dont even know what someoene is accused of when they are caught without a licence hense you making up tht somehow its to do with damaging concrete.
again its nothing to do with damaging concrete. so try learning what someone is being accused of in such topic

and again the human accusing you does not need to be the victim.
otherwise murders would not be a crime because the victim cannot stand if they are dead.
an accuser can be a representative or a witness of the victim
the accusation is breach of contract/tresspass not 'damage'

Since you don't understand contracts and trespass, you are obviously ignorant of the way law works. You continually prove it by sidestepping the issues and misapplying the things I say.

Since it doesn't matter what someone is accused of when he is caught without a license, why would anyone want to understand? If the accused files a claim into the court complaint case against him, there needs to be injury shown before the case can go anywhere. And since the complaint is made by the State, how is the State going to get on the stand man-to-man so that he can be cross-examined by the accused? But if the State can figure out a way to take the oath and get on the stand, how was the State injured, concrete or otherwise... broken arm? breach of contract?

A complaint is not an claim of injury. If it is not a complaint, but rather a claim against me, it might be a claim of injury. But the State only files complaints in standard traffic cases, because the judges and attorneys know that the State can't get on the stand. My claim that I file into their complaint case requires the State to get on the stand and show the injury. Can the State get on the stand? Explain how he can do it.

If someone wants to file a claim against me, that's his business. Even if the State could file a claim, as I have repeated, I will stand as a man, file a claim into the state's claim, and in that claim require my accuser, the State, to get on the stand and give evidence of his injury. If the State can do this, show me how... since it is the State that is accusing me on the indictment, and since standard law gives me the right to face my accuser so that I can cross-examine him.

If an accuser wants to file a claim against me, it won't be the State. Why not? Because the State can't get on the stand and show an injury to itself or to someone else. If the State plus a man are listed on a claim indictment jointly, it's a form of class action suit. I will require that they all take the stand so that I can cross-examine them all. The State can't get on the stand. Case dismissed... or do you have a way for the State to get on the stand?

Everything you say attempts to bypass a whole bunch of standard court proceedings and rules of court... to say nothing about the right to trial by jury as stated in the 6th and 7th Amendments.

8)

EDIT: The above is only a tiny part of it. Notice that there is a statute that was broken listed in the complaint against me. But when you look at the literal statute, and define the words in the statute, it is always a "person" that the statute is talking about. The definition of "person" does not include "man" or "woman." Since I am standing as a man in court, the statute doesn't apply to me.

§ 1501.  Drivers required to be licensed.
(a)  General rule.--No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway or public property in this Commonwealth unless the person has a driver's license valid under the provisions of this chapter. As used in this subsection, the term "public property" includes, but is not limited to, driveways and parking lots owned or leased by the Commonwealth, a political subdivision or an agency or instrumentality of either.




person[ pur-suh n ]

noun
a human being, whether an adult or child:
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):
Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being:



Are you a human being?

ok badecker has officially lost the plot

by him now saying it doesnt matter what he is being accused of. means he is going into court ignorant of what he is defending himself against

and what is badeckers counter claim. to ask someone to stand up and explain what badecker is defending against.
maybe badecker should try reading the claim... its al there.

again the victim of contract breach, tresspass, damage, loss or injury can be represented by someone else. again i emphasise this to appeal to the single braincell badecker uses to type.
"hey single brain cell research murders. you cannot get away with murder simply by claiming the victim cannot stand infront of you"
if your only defense and counter claim is to cry that the victim cannot stand. then you have become a loser by all possible definitions

badecker has become absolutely absurd with his ignorance

Folks, we have always had the ability to limit government's control. People like franky1 don't seem to like freedom for some strange reason. Or, they are trolls who are fighting for the people who get wealthy off controlling us.

It's time that we stood up as men and women, and threw off the shaqckles that government people are attempting to control us with.

1. Stand in court as a man or woman. Don't be represented by an attorney, because signing an agreement with an attorney makes you a ward of the court. In other words, you have already lost, pending the decisions that the court makes, even if they let you win this one. This doesn't mean that you can't use an attorney. But don't sign a client agreement. Rather, sign a co-counsel agreement with him, and stand up and do your own talking in court, at times with the attorney to advise you.

2. The 6th and 7th Amendments allow for you to elect to have a jury trial, no matter what any court decides otherwise.

3. Your property is your property. If government decides to challenge your use of your property, they have no authority to do so. The only things that limit your use of your property is when you harm some other man or woman, when you damage their property, or a direct threat to someone or to a group. That's it! The law is simple.

Study the law. Later, study the statutes and codes. Join with other like-minded people, and change the country back to what is should be... "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all," not only for government people who try to convince you they are your masters and you are their slaves.

8)

Is that from Brokeback Mountain?

Easy Rider, with Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson.

8)

badecker
you got no clue

you claim you dont want the law, you claim you want to be free of the law. but then try to assert things that are nothing to do with the law held against you. you try to then pretend the law has meaning but only for bits that suit you, but you have misunderstood the law that you think works in your favour

how about understand the whole law, not just parts of it.. and i mean really research and learn it
the only way to beat the law is to know the law. and you, simply have not done the proper law research. you have limited yourself to freeman crap. thats like asking a kid on the 'special bus' for his opinion of quantum physics.
essentially, your not really getting the right info from the best source


by the way 7th amendment does not guarantee you a jury trial
infact using your examples of what you would have said in court as your counterclaim would not warrant the requirement to call on a jury
do your research
you cant just ask for a jury and get one automatically, just because you requested one in your crying whimpers

How do you even live... you are alive, aren't you? You can't even read what is right before your face... oh, that's right, It's covered by your palm (facepalm).

I tell you the law, and you don't want the law by not agreeing with the law. Then you (in outlaw form) say that I am the one who doesn't want the law. How in the world did you ever last this long on the forum at all?

If you want to understand the law, read two things:
1. Blackstone's Commentaries;
2. Maxims of Law.

So you're the kind of joker who wants to sue anybody, even if it costs you way more than $20 just to get your jury win. Nobody is talking about requesting a jury. The correct way to say it is to require a jury.

Oh, btw. It's trial by jury, not jury trial.

Aren't we having fun? I don't ask kids on a special bus. I tell them, just like I am telling you. Here is your stop. Get off the bus.

8)

well atleast you admit you were on the bus and showing how you love to tell idiots what to do. sorry im not on your bus so im not listening to your nonsense

anyway. its obvious you have not read them books from cover to cover you just like your freeman sites that summarise and misinterpret it all

milions of people have seen the flaws that you keep spouting out. as they have done research further than you have shown capable of doing.

but have a nice day trying to beg for a jury using your stupid methods. it wont work.
11 pages of this topic and you still have not even thought to yourself that it might be worth really studying law

you havnt even shown good knowledge of just the laws around driving licence.
so maybe start there

ill make it easy for you
you love karl lentz so much. just try and learn what karl 'la la la' through. learn the law he didnt talk about.
ill give you a spoiler. it was not about freedom to travel

I realize you are having a difficult life within yourself. And I think that many of the people who post in this forum do, as well. But, you ARE important. Whether she loves you or not, you are very important to your wife. So, feel loved, and stabilized within yourself. Then seek out the true knowledge. You can do this. You owe it to yourself to do it, because you are important in the scheme of things... just like everyone else.

8)

so badecker avoids research yet again. badecker doesnt even want to learn the truth of the karl lentz stuff he quoted as reference. thus shows his limited knowledge and lack of understanding even the stuff he quotes

i think badecker definetly should not be giving tips for what people should be doing in a court room, nor behind the wheel of a vehicle
this last 11 pages of the topic proven he is not capable of winning in his scenarios. but just wasting time and hoping people give up chasing him
maybe he should learn SLAPP is not a strategy as many courts throw out the claim before even inviting people to turn up as its contents contain no merits to even bother forming a case

if only badecker knew that just making random claims wont guarantee he gets a day in court let alone showing enough evidence to convince the need of a jury. badecker might actually try new tactics that are not the freeman flaws

No.  You are not a free man/woman in a free country.  You are subject to government laws in the country you live in.

Unless your country is a monarchy and you are a member of the royal family.

And the basic law is to not take freedom away from anyone else. Built right into the basics of the law are the methods for punishing government officials for attempting to take your freedom away for nothing.

8)

nope

law is about taking freedom.. but to take it when bad people do bad things

in a lawless country, people are free. you have feet to walk, lips to talk. laws are made to restrict freedoms for those to impact others lives or property negatively

amendments are made to reduce the limitation or increase the limitation
but i find it foolish that now after 12 pages of waffle your saying laws are needed to give freedoms.

your just not grasping the concept of law at all

keep trying. you'll probably get it right in a few years

edit to respond to below post
dang badecker your still drilling the freeman mantra of man woman and person
DO YOUR FRIGGEN RESEARCH AWAY FROM THE FREEMAN CULT

remember amendments are changes to the law to give people rights. meaning the original law didnt include them
meaning the laws were initially made to limit people actions

also learn plain meaning.
plain meaning is not the complex crap you try to make out
plain meaning is in the law

But when is a thing bad? When is something that is done bad?

If you drive one mph over the speed limit, is this bad? Some States have official laws that say you can drive over the speed limit if you are not endangering anyone. So how do you determine what is bad? One way...

You do something bad when you harm a human being, or damage his property, or directly threaten him. That's it. And to show you, look through all the statutes and take a look at where the statute says "man" or "woman." Essentially all the statutes say "person," the definition of which doesn't include a man or woman.

It's right in the law. You don't have to go to some 400-page freeman brief to find it. If you want to call it freeman stuff, then you are calling the law freeman stuff. It can't be any plainer for you.

8)

But licensing doesn't change the ability to drive carefully in anyone. In fact, because there are cops out on the roads, there are more accidents. Watch people when they see a cop. All of a sudden they become fearful, taking their eyes off the road, and watching to see if the cop is going to come after them.

If we treated licensing the way it should be, people would have enough confidence to not care if the cop ticked them or not. Why? Because 100% of the tickets can be beat where there is no accident. It's just that people don't know how. (I am talking USA and Britain, here)

Making the government pay you to get the license would help to clarify the power you have. It would take a whole lot of driving stress out of your life as well.

8)

oh here we go again, clueless badecker

if no one had a licence and then a cop siren whirled behind them. more accidents would happen so more people would be afraid.
so driving licences do work as intended less people drive wrecklessly.

you. if you didnt have a driving licence would not be concentrating on driving if you seen a cop car. your brain would go to dream land trying to think of freeman waffles of how to introduce yourself to the police and how to try introducing your invoice pad to them.
where as normal common people would just drive.

your dreams would infact have more risk of causing a accident because your not trying to just drive carefully. your trying o be an ass to then try your freeman crap, which you wrongly think will work

its not your right to drive on a public road. thats what a licence is its a permit. a permission to be allowed on the public property.
if you think that a driving licence is just about passing a driving test. your wrong. otherwise people could just use their pass-test certificate as proof.
the licence is about other things which you are oblivious about

there are terms and conditions attached. where you can be banned from driving if you break those terms and conditions
even if you pass your test but then have a medical condition . you can have your licence revoked if that medical condition can cause issues.

a licence is not a warrant to do what you like until you cause an accident. its a licence that you agree to follow the rules to prevent the risk of even coming close to causing an accident.

if you want the freedom to drive like an ass.. do it on your own private land


as for governments paying people to get a driving licence.
guess what. governments get funds some how. so if people got paid.. they will get taxed later at a higher rate to recoup losses.
so theres no net benefit in getting paid.

it like you think that walt disney should pay its guests to visit its amusement parks and cinema's should pay its customers to watch movies.. i know you wish for a utopia where you can invoice your way into wealth. but the world does not work like that. your advice has many many flaws . as does your ability to not even be able to see them..so no one with intelliagence would dare pay you for your advice. and no one would pay you just to talk to you whether they are a friend, a stranger or a cop.

if you really want to find a way to make money that doesnt involve trying to scam people into paying you or being a pirate and just stealing things and abusing property thats not yours.. try to grow some ethics, morals and a conscious and actually do something that has a net benefit to the world

The main purpose of driving license is to make you eligible to use a vehicle, it is not paper of your car to prove your ownership. Car registration certificate is your car's ownership paper. When you have a high speed moving object in your hand and people around can be subject to accident if you dont know how to drive properly , just imagine how many fatality there can be. it is important to have better driving test and no loop holes so that whoever gets a license is indeed a responsible driver

Says the clueless joker^^ who doesn't even realize that punctuation means something, and therefore, couldn't understand anything about the law or even what he is talking about at all.

https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/punctuation-saves-lives.jpg?w=300&h=300 (https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/)

8)

Wrong!

The drivers license exists to make money for the State, to identify drivers easily, and to trick people into thinking that they are a little plastic card.

The receipt you got when you bought the car is your basic ownership paper. All that the title does is to confirm the string of owners of the vehicle, so that it is more difficult to buy a stolen vehicle.

Considering all the car accidents and deaths among licensed people and vehicles, the license doesn't have anything to do with driving properly.

You as an experienced driver can test the abilities of a new driver. You probably drive better than the driving instructor, except if you ARE a driving instructor, of course.

8)

the government builds and runs the roads, so you are with the license proving that you are sane enough to use it

The government is required to provide rights of way through the land. Get their stupid highways and roads off the rights of way so that I can travel without their dumb highways and roads in the way of my use of the rights of way.

Since the roads are public, they are mine as much as they are government's. License money is supposed to go to construction and maintaining them. But the accounting often isn't clear and plain. Meanwhile the rights of way are obstructed by their roads.

Licensing doesn't prove sanity. Sane people don't always remain sane. Even if you were sane when you got the license, in America there are no sanity tests given even then. And there isn't any testing at the time of license renewal, except for vision, maybe.

Licensing is all about money. Government and road construction companies make money off the licensing.

8)

you dont have the right of way to travel anywhere.
you cant just walk onto someones property and say its your right..

you know the because you protest about you loving guns to stop militia from entering your property because you believe they dont have a right to enter your property

kinda funny how you dont want people on your property.. hilarious how you think you should have the right to go anywhere without being penalised(shot) but hypocritacally want to shoot anyone else that does similar

the government is not providing roads as a right. its a public service. and it has rules to use that service

right of way and freedom to travel have limitations. especially on property you dont own.
public highways are not your property. you need to realise that.

the driving licence is not just about showing the ability to press an accellerator pedal, brake pedal and turn the wheel its about understanding speed limits and dangers of people and other vehicles. it about knowing to stop at a stop sign/red light.

its about following the rules.
if you follow the rules then there is no reason to be stopped for any traffic violation so continue with your journey. but if your the kind(and obviously you are) that panics and gets emotional about traffic cops. then maybe thats your brain sending you an emotional response that maybe your doing something wrong to fear them..
.. maybe try listening to what your body is trying to tell you.
if you dont do anything that can even be considered as rule breaking. then you got nothing to fear.

if you think rules and laws dont apply to you. then guess what you are therefore invalidating your own written rights, as you dont believe you should follow the rules

its kind of funny how you want others to follow the rules when those people can risk overstepping your boundaries but you feel its ok to overstep others boundaries..

so which is it. are you an uncivilised cavemen with no rules, rights or responsibilities. or are you someone that actually cares about rules that have been made to protect the majority(including you)

if you keep pretending that you dont recognise rules. then guess what the rules that you wish to be used to protect you dont apply either

...
and yes governments use money to maintain the roads. just like gym membership use money to maintain a gym. just like anything in life.. nothing just appears using fairy dust.

if you dont want to contribute to society and enjoy the services society offers. become a hobbit and just live off your own land. become self sustainable and dont bother anyone. brickwall yourself in so that you cannot interfere with other and others cant interfere with you.

however if you want to be part of society, accept that responsibilities come with it. and just stop being a cry baby demanding crap you dont deserve

I do not believe that anyone created such a thread. in my country people spend 2 months sitting in the classroom studying the road code, then people take the test and only if the person passes the written test will they pass the practical classes. How are the practical classes in my country?

The person has a driving school teacher or instructor where the person is enrolled and for two weeks the person will have practical classes, after the practical classes the person will take a practical test at my country's government institution responsible for land transport and if person pass the practice test the person will have a driving license. Ok, you will all ask me: With all these long processes there should be no accidents in my country, right? wrong!

Every day in my country many people die because of car accidents and guess the main reason for the many car accidents that we have in my country? Alcoholic beverages are the main cause of car accidents in my country.

The number of places selling alcohol is steadily increasing, and more breweries are being built in my country.

Basically, what's the point of having people go through a long process of take driving license, if my country's government doesn't do civic education so people don't drink while driving? Because the business of beer and other alcoholic beverages is very lucrative, the government closes its eyes. Of course it's the fault of people who drink and then drive cars, but my point here is:

Governments do whatever they want, they have created laws that they want and people just have to respect, driving license is required and there is no way to be against it.

because. if they didnt go through a process of learning.. there would be far more accidents.

basically the guy above who i think i should now call baddumber thinks people should not have responsibility for there actions and just drive crazy and do whatever they like. including driving on others property

its guys like baddumber who would definetly cause a crash. infact its guy like baddumber who would get a licence and then purposefully cause an incident to test his crackpot theory that he can get away with it.

without thinking of the consequences he could be setting himself up for. or consequences to others affected by his actions.

I was just joking. Seeing a bunch of guys together out like in the woods.

You said "a process of learning," right? Kids watch the bus driver every day they go to school. It's a process of learning. They can drive buses safely, just like they can drive cars safely from watching their parents for years and years. It's a process of learning. The license teaches them nothing... except that the smarter ones understand that the State is stealing their money.

8)

badumber
the driving licence is not a driving test..
there is more to a driving licence then just the test

dang you must be like 15 and never drove.
you seem to have no clue how things work do you

when you pass your test you get a certificate.
the certificate is the proof of ability to drive NOT THE LICENCE!!!

the licence is a separate thing. its a PERMIT a licence.. a permission proof..
its you applying for permission to drive on the road. the minimum requirements to be permitted to drive legally on the road is to be of a certain age, to be a citizen to have passed a driving test, to not have certain medical issues that can risk  potential incidents. and many other things. its a contract that then allows you to do something as long as you follow the rules linked to it

actually i think you must be 14.. becuse you dont even understand learners permit. which again is permission to use the road. but under stricter rules because you have not learned how to drive yet. things like needing a capable experienced driver with you. avoiding certain highways/motorways. not driving in certain weather conditions until you have passed certain tests

also learning to drive is not about being a backseat driver watching how your mom drives. its about doing theory test involving learning the rules of the road.

seriously just try to learn this stuff

also illegal immigrants entering america cannot get an american driving licence as they are not citizens. this means if they are caught not only will they be arrested for the driving offence but then when researching the person background. finding out they are not a citizen they then get deported too..

so all num-drum. chest thumping cavemen idea's that people should revoke their citizenships and not have driving licences .. will end up with people getting in more trouble.

atleast think about reality. not your utopian dream of outlaw pirate life.. which if you actually did get to have your outlaw pirate life.. you would be scared for your life and afraid to do anything.
yep you will

the rules are the rules. i get it you dont like them.
but first try to understand what the rules are and then learn why the rules are their

work out the benefit vs risk of the rules
here is one for you

money: try getting insurance as a non-licenced driver. i dont think you will get any. but if you did. the costs would be excessively higher than any saving you could make by not proving your roadworthy

here is another. if you got into an accident. without a licence the penalty is not just paying for the other parties bent bumper. but prison time and fines.

heres another one. just getting stopped by a cop can lead to alot of trouble

now if you still dislike the laws and think they should not apply to normal people. dont go to stupid websites run by the freeman cult o learn how to mis-interpret the rules. instead go to senators and learn how to change the rules

The only thing to say is that franky1 is so wrong in almost everything he posts in this thread, that there is no reason to even answer what he says. The answer would include writing the whole system of laws and ethics into the forum. But he wouldn't even understand then.

Btw, "include" or "Includes" in legal definition means only what is written after the word "include/includes." The word "include" in the previous paragraph is not the legal form of the word. So, it really means "include, among other things."

8)

badecker.
you are so wrong.
you have no clue what the plain meaning of things are.
law is the plain meaning

you keep trying to stir the pot by making complicated crap meanders. you cant even quote stuff right. other people have pointed out your failings. you have many tims quoted stuff that dont even refer to the things you make out they are about

its time you try to do some research away from your freeman cult. and actually research. you know read something. check it. understand it, check it again and then maybe decide if its worth quoting.
you seem to be a person that just grabs a unresearched opinion of something you wish was true and run with it like its the truth

did you even bother googling 'plain meaning law' to counter your own waffle misunderstanding

and includes is different than include. the final s means plural, meaning items mentioned after it are multiple, not a singular item

just go research the law if you really want to try giving advice.
or simply realise that you have yet more to learn. and then decide are you willing to try learning more. or give up

Driving license is not ownership doc but eligibility to drive documents. When you are in control of a moving object and people around are subjected to possible injuries and fatalities , you need responsible driver on road and hence you need test and a doc to support that.

Other people might not agree with you about the process. But the question was about government paying us, since they are the ones that are taking away our freedom by requiring the licenses. The 13th Amendment says no involuntary servitude. So, if a person volunteers to get licensing, okay. But if he doesn't, forcing it is involuntary servitude.

Look at Section 1 of the 13th Amendment:
There is the answer about the process. Let people drive unfettered by a license until they have an accident wherein they are convicted of a crime. Then punish them by making them pay for their own license. If they have no reason to be punished, because they were not convicted of a crime, government must pay for any licensing government requires.

Remember. In law, the law is the law. You can't do what makes sense just because you feel it is the sensible thing to do. If you and others feel so strongly about something, get the Constitution changed... in this case in the 13th Amendment.

8)

But the plain law is not what is found in the Codes and Statutes, at least for the Federal Government.

Congress passes a Law. Then, the Law goes to Thompson's in Canada. There they convert the Law into a Code or Statute. Almost always the Code or Statute is shorter than the Law was. Since it is shorter (and different), it absolutely is not the Law.

But if someone accepts it as the Law, because he is too ignorant to know that it is not the Law, then he has accepted his guilt by accepting the Code or Statute as a Law that applies to him. A Code or Statute has nothing to do with him. He is supposed to obey the Law if it applies to him. But in most circumstances, he never sees or hears the Law, but is convicted of breaking a Code or Statute.

Even if he is presented with the actual Law, most Laws don't have his name written in them to obey them. They don't even have any language that shows that the Law pertains to a group of people in which he is included.

All you seem to want to do is to be a good little slave, so that government people can make more money off you.

8)

canada doesnt even have a congress..
.. shows how little you know

also you might wanna do some more research on codes and statutes
you seem to be lacking knowledge of how they work and what the are

remember the 'la la la' stuff you karl lentz.. really research it. it will reveal something you are very ignorant of in this whole topic.
just try learning it, for once

LOL! Thank you for this. I needed a little bit of a laugh.

You been drinking again? LOL!

8)