Car and Driver licensing

[coolcoinz]

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

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

[1714166341]

1714166341

[1714166341]

1714166341

[1714166341]

1714166341

[1714166341]

1714166341

[1714166341]

1714166341

[BADecker]

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

Send the software back to them.     

[franky1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

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

try to learn how things work

[BADecker]

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

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

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

try to learn how things work

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

[franky1]

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

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

your powers of illusion are obvious basically

[BADecker]

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

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

your powers of illusion are obvious basically

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

[PopoJeff]

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

[BADecker]

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

[PopoJeff]

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

 I cant.  I just cant.   Good luck man. 

[BADecker]

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

 I cant.  I just cant.   Good luck man.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

False arrest. I will seek damages.

[PopoJeff]

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

 I cant.  I just cant.   Good luck man.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

False arrest. I will seek damages.

Ok  sure.  Have fun with that

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

False arrest. I will seek damages.

Ok  sure.  Have fun with that

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

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

[UltimatePro]

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

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

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

use some common sense now and again

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

use some common sense now and again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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