Car and Driver licensing

[BADecker]

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?

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.

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.

[1714018887]

1714018887

[1714018887]

1714018887

[1714018887]

1714018887

[1714018887]

1714018887

[1714018887]

1714018887

[1714018887]

1714018887

[BADecker]

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.

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

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

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:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Cornell also says this about it:

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.

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.

[franky1]

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

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

[franky1]

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.

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

[BADecker]

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

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


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 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.

[franky1]

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.

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

[BADecker]

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.

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

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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 loca governmnts 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

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.

[franky1]

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

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

My Eyes Are Bleeding.

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

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.

[franky1]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[franky1]

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

[franky1]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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.