Car and Driver licensing

[franky1]

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

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.

[Mometaskers]

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.

[franky1]

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

[Naida_BR]

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?

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.

[PopoJeff]

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.

Qualified immunity.  Look it up

[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.

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.

[BADecker]

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?

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.

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.

[PopoJeff]

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.

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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



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

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[franky1]

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

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[squatz1]

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

[guigui371]

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.

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 

[BADecker]

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.

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"
However, there were horses, horse-drawn carriages, steam powered vehicles, and later, gasoline powered vehicles that originally weren't licensed. The licensing originally came about through harm and damage being done... where people and horses that were not used to noisy, original cars, were harmed by the noise one way or another. If it were not for the noise - and maybe the faulty mechanics back then - there would have been no licensing. So we see, licensing done today is something that isn't needed. Since it is being foisted on us by government, government should pay us.


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 

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.

[TwitchySeal]

If safe driving depended on licensing, then there wouldn't be any accidents.

Think about this for a minute and then try again.