Car and Driver licensing

[franky1]

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

[1714932288]

1714932288

[franky1]

And they don't even use the Karl Lentz best methods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oYlJCbqqq8

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

[BADecker]

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

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.

[franky1]

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.

[PopoJeff]

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

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

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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.

[BADecker]

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

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.

[franky1]

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'

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

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.

[franky1]

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

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

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.)

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

[PopoJeff]

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

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

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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

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

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.

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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/

[BADecker]

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.

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.  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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.  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.

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.

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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?