Car and Driver licensing

[franky1]

yes your turn to speak. not own the court

thier claim against you is breach of contract and tresspass
you broke the rules of the road and done something on property you were nt suppose to be on

again you keep being ignorant about contracts and tresspass

you can make any counter claim you like asking if you injured anyone and your claim will be dismissed as no injury is even the claim against you. again its not what you are being accused of. so you wont win your claim, it will just be struck out and the case against you will continue as if you never made a claim

you foolishly think making a counterclaim makes the laim against you disapear. sorry but it dont work like that

your stupid trick is like this:
to walk into the womens bathroom and watch women naked. get sued for indecency but try to defend yourself by asking if you had a gun on you and did you shoot a women.
the case is not about murder or physical harm so everyone in the court will just look at you and think your mentally ill for even thinking your turning up to a murder trial when infact your being civily sued for something else

the only actions resulting from your claim is being put on a mental psych hold for 72 hours

meanwhile the claim against you about the tresspass and breaking the rules still has proof, witnesses and you foolishly admitting the claim against you when you stupidly told them that you were in the situation/location. but then add on the holding the gun nonsense

[1715085060]

1715085060

[1715085060]

1715085060

[1715085060]

1715085060

[1715085060]

1715085060

[1715085060]

1715085060

[1715085060]

1715085060

[franky1]

by the way. in real law
the claim is the case for/against you and the complaint is the reason/description of the case for/against you

claim vs complaint is not two different levels of court proceding
when a legal complaint is made its the evidence/reason/description of the claim. it does not mean there is no claim. it means a complaint is just the evidence/reason of a claim

so pretending their is no claim, shows that you have no clue how the court system works

for their to be a claim there needs to be a reason.
a complaint without a claim is simply you being a whiny kid. a complaint in court is the reason for the claim
you can formalise your complaint as more then just being a whiny kid, by making it into a formal case. but pretending that while in a case against you is not a case against you and just a complaint. is like saying your not in court that has been alloted a timeslot, organised getting  a judge to sit it and invited everyone involved to turn up.. but just making a forum post whinging at someone

so while a claim against you is occuring. just being a whining kid is not going to help you. yes you should formalise your complaint by filing it as a counter-claim but that does not mean the auto destruction of their claim againt you simply by filing your own counter claim.
you wont win by default by making a counter claim. in your complaint of your counterclaim has to have merit. it has to have proof and actual reason.

just making a counter claim that you identify yourself as a pink helicopter or a transvestite dildo corporation wont help

and then you still have to deal with their claim against you containing their complaint

[BADecker]

by the way. in real law
the claim is the case for/against you and the complaint is the reason/description of the case for/against you

claim vs complaint is not two different levels of court proceding
when a legal complaint is made its the evidence/reason/description of the claim. it does not mean there is no claim. it means a complaint is just the evidence/reason of a claim

so pretending their is no claim, shows that you have no clue how the court system works

for their to be a claim there needs to be a reason.
a complaint without a claim is simply you being a whiny kid. a complaint in court is the reason for the claim
you can formalise your complaint as more then just being a whiny kid, by making it into a formal case. but pretending that while in a case against you is not a case against you and just a complaint. is like saying your not in court that has been alloted a timeslot, organised getting  a judge to sit it and invited everyone involved to turn up.. but just making a forum post whinging at someone

so while a claim against you is occuring. just being a whining kid is not going to help you. yes you should formalise your complaint by filing it as a counter-claim but that does not mean the auto destruction of their claim againt you simply by filing your own counter claim.
you wont win by default by making a counter claim. in your complaint of your counterclaim has to have merit. it has to have proof and actual reason.

just making a counter claim that you identify yourself as a pink helicopter or a transvestite dildo corporation wont help

and then you still have to deal with their claim against you containing their complaint

Well, well. To claim a complaint still makes it a complaint. The claim of a complaint totally silences the claim in favor of the complaint.

A claim made in complaint form doesn't have the strength of a claim directly made as a claim. You have them backward. Complain all day long about something. People around the world complain. But when you claim something, you are saying it is yours... or at least something of equal value. If you give good reason, and nobody stands against your reason, you win.

Hiding a claim under a complaint doesn't take away from the complaint. Whine all day long. You are not claiming anything when you do it in complaint form.

If you are going to claim something, why shroud it in complaint form? Claim it directly. If you simply claim your complaint, all you are doing is claiming that you are whining.

Making a claim as a man, requires in fairness that a man answer. If the claim is that the complainant will not  take the oath and get on the stand, and if the claim is for a $million if the complainant doesn't, a complainant man has to get on the stand and rebut "viva voce" the claim. The State is the complainant, but is not able to rebut viva voce. The claimant wins.

The claim against me is not occurring. It was a complaint. It says so on the paperwork. Are you saying that the paperwork is faulty? Such falls into the realm of perjury.

I can't file a counter-claim. The complaint paperwork might be backed by a million claims. But it is still a complaint formally. No way to file a counter-claim.

Filing my claim into the case makes it my case until my claim has been rebutted. Rebuttal must be done by the State, since I have the right to face my accuser. If the LEO is my accuser, why isn't his name on the indictment rather than the State's name? Since it is not, he is not my accuser.

The State, my accuser, needs to take the oath/affirrmation, get on the stand, and tell/show tht damage that has been done to him, and prove that I did it. If the case is that I was going 20 mph over the speed limit, how did that hurt the state? Was the state injured... a broken arm, a cut, breach of a contract? Let my accuser, the State, get on the stand and tell the jury. Not the State's representative. The State, my accuser.

Suppose that the State has a power of attorney with someone in the State to be a speaker for the State. So he takes the oath/affirmation and gets on the stand. Does he have first-hand knowledge of any damage I did to the State? Did I bust up some concrete? Did I set a State forest on fire? Did he see it happen?

This is why, when a man/woman is involved, the State doesn't have a case. The only chance the State has is to get the man/woman to be the client of an attorney... thereby becoming a ward of the court. Or to get the so-called defendant to agree that he is the person on the indictment. If the State can't do this, they lose.

[franky1]

i just read the first paragraphand just (facepalmed)
1. pages ago rebecka'd(aka badecker) was saying a claim trumps a complaint. now hoe saying a complaint trumps a claim
how foolish

2. you cant hide a claim under a complaint.. the claim is the court case the complaint is the reason
you can hide the reason but cant hide the case.

3. a claim and complaint made easy:
here is the difference
state makes a claim against rebecka'd and the complaint is that he violated the rules of the road
rebecka'd goes to court thus acknowledging the claim against him and the reason. but then he just bitches and whinges and speaks like an idiot without filing his own claim.
making his bitching and whinges just a bitching complaint without a claim, much like just verbally abusing nonsense you see homeless people spout out when talking to pidgeons

meaning rebecka'd is the one who has just wasted his own time by just being a whiney bitch. rebecka'd if he had any substantial legal complaint to counter the other party that had even a vague chance of having merit. rebecka'd should formalise it in a counter claim. otherwise he might as well just be screaming in the streets

trying to deny the opposition has made a claim and/or complaint. yet be at the court shows that a claim has been made where no hiding has occured because rebecka'd is there in court as requested so he must have known about it

rebecka'd you really need to try learning stuff from an actual court. not from youtube of your fanclub of freeman cultists

i would love to see rebecka's turn up to a court and say that there is no case and the judge just laughs and said "but you turned up to it, right"

a non court formalised complaint is just like having an argument in a pub/bar about how nasty the warm beer tastes. a formal complaint is filed as a claim

[franky1]

as for the other stuff
reecka'd you keep ignorin tresspass and contracts. which are part of the constitution and law.

you can cry all you like about not breaking concrete. but thats not what you are being accused of

if i tresspassed on your property and you decided to take me into your barn.. if i was to be stupid to do a badecker ploy. i would ask you why are you accusing me of humping your wife...
you would be wondering what im on about because im only in your barn because i stood on your grass
i would continue to do a backer and ignore the tresspass and continue to spout off crap about how i must have murdered your mother, even though she is alive. my badecker ploy woul be to continue shouting out random other crimes just to waste time and get detained under a psych hold.

meanwhile the tresspass case continues on

i see no reason to actually do a badecker because acting like a mentally damaged idiot helps no one. and has nothing to do with the tresspass/contracts parts of law

i still dont know why badecker thinks the no driving licence is about breaking concrete..
all i do know is badecker doesnt understand the law to even know what the law he would be breaching by driving without a licence and what the issues of the law are.
hint. its not about broken concrete

[BADecker]

i just read the first paragraphand just (facepalmed)
1. pages ago rebecka'd(aka badecker) was saying a claim trumps a complaint. now hoe saying a complaint trumps a claim
how foolish

Except that none of the things you are saying make any sense at all.

[BADecker]

as for the other stuff
reecka'd you keep ignorin tresspass and contracts. which are part of the constitution and law.

All you are doing is blabbing things that don't have anything to do with anything that was posted.

[franky1]

as for the other stuff
reecka'd you keep ignorin tresspass and contracts. which are part of the constitution and law.

All you are doing is blabbing things that don't have anything to do with anything that was posted.

your boring
your "damaging concrete" has nothing to do with rules of the road linked to driving licence requirements

if you dont understand contracts and tresspass. you obviously ignorant of the law of this whole topic
as proven by the last 11 pages of your misunderstandings.
even today you dont even know what someoene is accused of when they are caught without a licence hense you making up tht somehow its to do with damaging concrete.
again its nothing to do with damaging concrete. so try learning what someone is being accused of in such topic

and again the human accusing you does not need to be the victim.
otherwise murders would not be a crime because the victim cannot stand if they are dead.
an accuser can be a representative or a witness of the victim
the accusation is breach of contract/tresspass not 'damage'

[BADecker]

as for the other stuff
reecka'd you keep ignorin tresspass and contracts. which are part of the constitution and law.

All you are doing is blabbing things that don't have anything to do with anything that was posted.

your boring
your "damaging concrete" has nothing to do with rules of the road linked to driving licence requirements

if you dont understand contracts and tresspass. you obviously ignorant of the law of this whole topic
as proven by the last 11 pages of your misunderstandings.
even today you dont even know what someoene is accused of when they are caught without a licence hense you making up tht somehow its to do with damaging concrete.
again its nothing to do with damaging concrete. so try learning what someone is being accused of in such topic

and again the human accusing you does not need to be the victim.
otherwise murders would not be a crime because the victim cannot stand if they are dead.
an accuser can be a representative or a witness of the victim
the accusation is breach of contract/tresspass not 'damage'

Since you don't understand contracts and trespass, you are obviously ignorant of the way law works. You continually prove it by sidestepping the issues and misapplying the things I say.

Since it doesn't matter what someone is accused of when he is caught without a license, why would anyone want to understand? If the accused files a claim into the court complaint case against him, there needs to be injury shown before the case can go anywhere. And since the complaint is made by the State, how is the State going to get on the stand man-to-man so that he can be cross-examined by the accused? But if the State can figure out a way to take the oath and get on the stand, how was the State injured, concrete or otherwise... broken arm? breach of contract?

A complaint is not an claim of injury. If it is not a complaint, but rather a claim against me, it might be a claim of injury. But the State only files complaints in standard traffic cases, because the judges and attorneys know that the State can't get on the stand. My claim that I file into their complaint case requires the State to get on the stand and show the injury. Can the State get on the stand? Explain how he can do it.

If someone wants to file a claim against me, that's his business. Even if the State could file a claim, as I have repeated, I will stand as a man, file a claim into the state's claim, and in that claim require my accuser, the State, to get on the stand and give evidence of his injury. If the State can do this, show me how... since it is the State that is accusing me on the indictment, and since standard law gives me the right to face my accuser so that I can cross-examine him.

If an accuser wants to file a claim against me, it won't be the State. Why not? Because the State can't get on the stand and show an injury to itself or to someone else. If the State plus a man are listed on a claim indictment jointly, it's a form of class action suit. I will require that they all take the stand so that I can cross-examine them all. The State can't get on the stand. Case dismissed... or do you have a way for the State to get on the stand?

Everything you say attempts to bypass a whole bunch of standard court proceedings and rules of court... to say nothing about the right to trial by jury as stated in the 6th and 7th Amendments.



EDIT: The above is only a tiny part of it. Notice that there is a statute that was broken listed in the complaint against me. But when you look at the literal statute, and define the words in the statute, it is always a "person" that the statute is talking about. The definition of "person" does not include "man" or "woman." Since I am standing as a man in court, the statute doesn't apply to me.

[PopoJeff]

§ 1501.  Drivers required to be licensed.
(a)  General rule.--No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway or public property in this Commonwealth unless the person has a driver's license valid under the provisions of this chapter. As used in this subsection, the term "public property" includes, but is not limited to, driveways and parking lots owned or leased by the Commonwealth, a political subdivision or an agency or instrumentality of either.




person[ pur-suh n ]

noun
a human being, whether an adult or child:
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):
Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being:



Are you a human being?

[franky1]

ok badecker has officially lost the plot

by him now saying it doesnt matter what he is being accused of. means he is going into court ignorant of what he is defending himself against

and what is badeckers counter claim. to ask someone to stand up and explain what badecker is defending against.
maybe badecker should try reading the claim... its al there.

again the victim of contract breach, tresspass, damage, loss or injury can be represented by someone else. again i emphasise this to appeal to the single braincell badecker uses to type.
"hey single brain cell research murders. you cannot get away with murder simply by claiming the victim cannot stand infront of you"
if your only defense and counter claim is to cry that the victim cannot stand. then you have become a loser by all possible definitions

badecker has become absolutely absurd with his ignorance

[BADecker]

ok badecker has officially lost the plot

by him now saying it doesnt matter what he is being accused of. means he is going into court ignorant of what he is defending himself against

and what is badeckers counter claim. to ask someone to stand up and explain what badecker is defending against.
maybe badecker should try reading the claim... its al there.

again the victim of contract breach, tresspass, damage, loss or injury can be represented by someone else. again i emphasise this to appeal to the single braincell badecker uses to type.
"hey single brain cell research murders. you cannot get away with murder simply by claiming the victim cannot stand infront of you"
if your only defense and counter claim is to cry that the victim cannot stand. then you have become a loser by all possible definitions

badecker has become absolutely absurd with his ignorance

Folks, we have always had the ability to limit government's control. People like franky1 don't seem to like freedom for some strange reason. Or, they are trolls who are fighting for the people who get wealthy off controlling us.

It's time that we stood up as men and women, and threw off the shaqckles that government people are attempting to control us with.

1. Stand in court as a man or woman. Don't be represented by an attorney, because signing an agreement with an attorney makes you a ward of the court. In other words, you have already lost, pending the decisions that the court makes, even if they let you win this one. This doesn't mean that you can't use an attorney. But don't sign a client agreement. Rather, sign a co-counsel agreement with him, and stand up and do your own talking in court, at times with the attorney to advise you.

2. The 6th and 7th Amendments allow for you to elect to have a jury trial, no matter what any court decides otherwise.

3. Your property is your property. If government decides to challenge your use of your property, they have no authority to do so. The only things that limit your use of your property is when you harm some other man or woman, when you damage their property, or a direct threat to someone or to a group. That's it! The law is simple.

Study the law. Later, study the statutes and codes. Join with other like-minded people, and change the country back to what is should be... "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all," not only for government people who try to convince you they are your masters and you are their slaves.

[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.

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

Is that from Brokeback Mountain?

[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

Is that from Brokeback Mountain?

Easy Rider, with Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson.

[franky1]

badecker
you got no clue

you claim you dont want the law, you claim you want to be free of the law. but then try to assert things that are nothing to do with the law held against you. you try to then pretend the law has meaning but only for bits that suit you, but you have misunderstood the law that you think works in your favour

how about understand the whole law, not just parts of it.. and i mean really research and learn it
the only way to beat the law is to know the law. and you, simply have not done the proper law research. you have limited yourself to freeman crap. thats like asking a kid on the 'special bus' for his opinion of quantum physics.
essentially, your not really getting the right info from the best source


by the way 7th amendment does not guarantee you a jury trial
infact using your examples of what you would have said in court as your counterclaim would not warrant the requirement to call on a jury
do your research
you cant just ask for a jury and get one automatically, just because you requested one in your crying whimpers

[BADecker]

badecker
you got no clue

you claim you dont want the law, you claim you want to be free of the law. but then try to assert things that are nothing to do with the law held against you. you try to then pretend the law has meaning but only for bits that suit you, but you have misunderstood the law that you think works in your favour

how about understand the whole law, not just parts of it.. and i mean really research and learn it
the only way to beat the law is to know the law. and you, simply have not done the proper law research. you have limited yourself to freeman crap. thats like asking a kid on the 'special bus' for his opinion of quantum physics.
essentially, your not really getting the right info from the best source


by the way 7th amendment does not guarantee you a jury trial
infact using your examples of what you would have said in court as your counterclaim would not warrant the requirement to call on a jury
do your research
you cant just ask for a jury and get one automatically, just because you requested one in your crying whimpers

How do you even live... you are alive, aren't you? You can't even read what is right before your face... oh, that's right, It's covered by your palm (facepalm).

I tell you the law, and you don't want the law by not agreeing with the law. Then you (in outlaw form) say that I am the one who doesn't want the law. How in the world did you ever last this long on the forum at all?

If you want to understand the law, read two things:
1. Blackstone's Commentaries;
2. Maxims of Law.

So you're the kind of joker who wants to sue anybody, even if it costs you way more than $20 just to get your jury win. Nobody is talking about requesting a jury. The correct way to say it is to require a jury.

Oh, btw. It's trial by jury, not jury trial.

Aren't we having fun? I don't ask kids on a special bus. I tell them, just like I am telling you. Here is your stop. Get off the bus.

[franky1]

well atleast you admit you were on the bus and showing how you love to tell idiots what to do. sorry im not on your bus so im not listening to your nonsense

anyway. its obvious you have not read them books from cover to cover you just like your freeman sites that summarise and misinterpret it all

milions of people have seen the flaws that you keep spouting out. as they have done research further than you have shown capable of doing.

but have a nice day trying to beg for a jury using your stupid methods. it wont work.
11 pages of this topic and you still have not even thought to yourself that it might be worth really studying law

you havnt even shown good knowledge of just the laws around driving licence.
so maybe start there

ill make it easy for you
you love karl lentz so much. just try and learn what karl 'la la la' through. learn the law he didnt talk about.
ill give you a spoiler. it was not about freedom to travel

[BADecker]

well atleast you admit you were on the bus and showing how you love to tell idiots what to do. sorry im not on your bus so im not listening to your nonsense

anyway. its obvious you have not read them books from cover to cover you just like your freeman sites that summarise and misinterpret it all

milions of people have seen the flaws that you keep spouting out. as they have done research further than you have shown capable of doing.

but have a nice day trying to beg for a jury using your stupid methods. it wont work.
11 pages of this topic and you still have not even thought to yourself that it might be worth really studying law

you havnt even shown good knowledge of just the laws around driving licence.
so maybe start there

ill make it easy for you
you love karl lentz so much. just try and learn what karl 'la la la' through. learn the law he didnt talk about.
ill give you a spoiler. it was not about freedom to travel

I realize you are having a difficult life within yourself. And I think that many of the people who post in this forum do, as well. But, you ARE important. Whether she loves you or not, you are very important to your wife. So, feel loved, and stabilized within yourself. Then seek out the true knowledge. You can do this. You owe it to yourself to do it, because you are important in the scheme of things... just like everyone else.

[franky1]

so badecker avoids research yet again. badecker doesnt even want to learn the truth of the karl lentz stuff he quoted as reference. thus shows his limited knowledge and lack of understanding even the stuff he quotes

i think badecker definetly should not be giving tips for what people should be doing in a court room, nor behind the wheel of a vehicle
this last 11 pages of the topic proven he is not capable of winning in his scenarios. but just wasting time and hoping people give up chasing him
maybe he should learn SLAPP is not a strategy as many courts throw out the claim before even inviting people to turn up as its contents contain no merits to even bother forming a case

if only badecker knew that just making random claims wont guarantee he gets a day in court let alone showing enough evidence to convince the need of a jury. badecker might actually try new tactics that are not the freeman flaws

[af_newbie]

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?

No.  You are not a free man/woman in a free country.  You are subject to government laws in the country you live in.

Unless your country is a monarchy and you are a member of the royal family.