Car and Driver licensing

[BADecker]

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.

Almost 100% of the judges are smart enough to obey the law. And it is your duty to give them fair warning when they are not. But if they are messing with your rights... U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So, the judge is careful to dismiss the case when you present him with the law that protects your rights. It's also why the court system tries to get you to be represented by an attorney, or at least yourself. If you are represented, you signed away your rights.

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

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

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

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

[1715205220]

1715205220

[1715205220]

1715205220

[1715205220]

1715205220

[BADecker]

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

Think about this for a minute and then try again.

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

[TwitchySeal]

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

Think about this for a minute and then try again.

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

What does safe driving mean to you?

[PopoJeff]

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

[guigui371]

~snip~

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.

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

[BADecker]

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

Think about this for a minute and then try again.

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

What does safe driving mean to you?

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

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

How about you?

[BADecker]

I see you citing US code 241.  What are you gonna do with that? - At the moment, I don't have any intent to use that code. I don't know if I ever will in the future.   Are you filing a criminal complaint in federal court? - I am currently not filing a criminal complaint. Generally, I would be filling a claim if I were filing something in the way you are speaking. Why are you asking if I am filing a complaint? Such is dis-honorable, sticking your nose into the business of other people.  Using the same law book you think you can circumvent? - If I used a code, I would be stating the essence of the part of the code I was referring to, and then CF the code itself. Since I am not a licensed BAR member, using a code directly is something I can't do without the approval of a licensed BAR member. To receive such approval would place me under their jurisdiction, which is something I won't know that I want to do until I have the actual case, and my actual suit, in mind. This is why I only state the essence of the code, and CF the code, itself. Besides, if I open my case in Federal District Court, the magistrate/judge is only a referee. The jury is the real judge.
What AUSA is going to approve your complaint ? - I don't off hand know what an AUSA is or what it might be referring to. But it is irrelevant, since I am not doing a complaint, and would most likely do a claim, not a complaint, if I were doing something like this.

Furthermore, that' code isn't even being used in the right context. - I didn't use that code. If you are going to suggest that a code isn't being used correctly, you need to show who isn't using it correctly, and how they aren't using it correctly, or what you say is meaningless. Here's its intention and proper place for use https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3239&context=dlj

You can't just pick a code/section that you think applies to a circumstance and say "see, there it is...that's law." - That's common understanding I would think. After all, somebody who doesn't know what he is doing wouldn't be using just any code without counsel.   
There's so much more to it. Other conflicting sections, criminal definitions, case law, rules of criminal procedure.

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

[BADecker]

~snip~

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.

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TwitchySeal]

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

i think this really needs quoting again for BD sake

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

i think this really needs quoting again for BD sake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

[TwitchySeal]

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


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

[franky1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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


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

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