U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways

[Cebu_4_2]

Here we go again...

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
Apr 21, 2015

371,816 views56 Likes51 Comments

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS


"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." -

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” -

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution."

(Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.'

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]"

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: -

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 -

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) -

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 -

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

[ximmy]

There are two laws. One for elite classes, one for tax paying commoners.

Guess which one you are in?

[expat4ever]

More and more people are starting to catch on to this. I'm seeing more and more youtubes on it. Lots more sucess than fails.

[Ares]

It's well known established case law that you do not need a license, or even vehicle registration. I just do it so that I do not get harassed by ignorant dirt stupid "law enforcement" "officers". If I get a ticket I just challenge jurisdiction. No Corpus Delicti no case.

Driving = PRIVILEGE

Traveling = Right.

Even during plea do not even answer guilty or not guilty. Just tell the judge when asked if you understand the charges "NO!" and when he / she ask what don't you understand, just ask if this charge is criminal or civil. Criminal, Objection! Wrong court motion to dismiss, Civil Objection! The state cannot be the one judging or prosecuting the case if it's civil, if it's criminal someone has to be the victim. The state is not a victim so either way you win.

[Ponce]

You know the rules and I know the rules....but......does the cop knows the rules?...he would probably shoot you for not knowing the rules....or not knowing HIS rules.

V

[crimethink]

If I get a ticket I just challenge jurisdiction. No Corpus Delicti no case.

(...)

Even during plea do not even answer guilty or not guilty. Just tell the judge when asked if you understand the charges "NO!" and when he / she ask what don't you understand, just ask if this charge is criminal or civil. Criminal, Objection! Wrong court motion to dismiss, Civil Objection! The state cannot be the one judging or prosecuting the case if it's civil, if it's criminal someone has to be the victim. The state is not a victim so either way you win.

No court works this way. You have absolutely no recourse if the "judge" simply enters a plea of guilty, and assesses the fine.

There are those who have actually been in court, vainly citing the Constitution and natural law, and there are those who think they know "how it works" from watching Talmudvision.

[crimethink]

I challenge anyone who believes this bullshit to cite a single case where asserting these "rights" has resulted in a dismissed citation.

Like ximmy said, one law for "them," one law for us.

[Ares]

No court works this way. You have absolutely no recourse if the "judge" simply enters a plea of guilty, and assesses the fine.

There are those who have actually been in court, vainly citing the Constitution and natural law, and there are those who think they know "how it works" from watching Talmudvision.


Appeal and bring up the judge to the judicial review board for misconduct.

[Ares]

I challenge anyone who believes this bullshit to cite a single case where asserting these "rights" has resulted in a dismissed citation.

Like ximmy said, one law for "them," one law for us.

Marc Stevens has a pretty good success rate of traffic cases getting dismissed by asserting your God given rights. But its not an easy process and these assholes will fight for that 200-300 FRN ticket every step of the way.

[madfranks]

You know the rules and I know the rules....but......does the cop knows the rules?...he would probably shoot you for not knowing the rules....or not knowing HIS rules.

V

This is it, and it can be distilled down to "do what I say and I won't hurt you." Law doesn't matter. These tards don't know or even care to know what the laws are or what the courts say. They are told they have authority over you, and you are trained to obey them, and they know they can hurt or kill you and not get in trouble. What more do you need to know?

[crimethink]

Appeal and bring up the judge to the judicial review board for misconduct.

ROTFLMAO!

You seriously believe that, don't you?

Show me one case where a judge has been meaningfully censured for a "procedural error." It's hard enough to get rid of them when they do malum in se criminal acts.

[crimethink]

Marc Stevens has a pretty good success rate of traffic cases getting dismissed by asserting your God given rights. But its not an easy process and these assholes will fight for that 200-300 FRN ticket every step of the way.

So he claims. Does he cite verifiable cases, where one can independently ascertain what he claims?

You have no effective recourse against them if "they" declare you are "guilty" and now "owe" them X amount of FRNs. Appeals? LOL.

If these "I have natural rights" techniques actually worked, all one would need to do is assert common law prohibition against conflict of interest: "judge" and "plaintiff" both paid by the same entity.

[Ares]

So he claims. Does he cite verifiable cases, where one can independently ascertain what he claims?

You have no effective recourse against them if "they" declare you are "guilty" and now "owe" them X amount of FRNs. Appeals? LOL.

If these "I have natural rights" techniques actually worked, all one would need to do is assert common law prohibition against conflict of interest: "judge" and "plaintiff" both paid by the same entity.

Which is why you ASK which jurisdiction is being applied. You make them state it on record you do not assert anything. You go into court saying you're a living breathing man with god given rights etc etc. The judge is just going to rule against you every single time.

You ask and paint him into a corner with his own bullshit answers on and for the record and if he still violates his oath of office and your 6th Amendment rights on the record he loses his immunity. Then you can go after him personally in a civil court.

Charlie Sprinkle did it in California years ago, even took it as far as suing the Governor (Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan) at the time.

[Ares]

ROTFLMAO!

You seriously believe that, don't you?

Show me one case where a judge has been meaningfully censured for a "procedural error." It's hard enough to get rid of them when they do malum in se criminal acts.

So in Crimethinks world, resistance matters not, just pay the penalty and do not question authority it just isn't worth it....

[Serpo]

So in Crimethinks world, resistance matters not, just pay the penalty and do not question authority it just isn't worth it....


In a word ..............................................yes

[crimethink]

So he claims. Does he cite verifiable cases, where one can independently ascertain what he claims?


An example of what he claims is "proof":

http://marcstevens.net/articles/texas-prosecutor-cannot-prove-laws-apply-ticket-kicked-out.html

The linked document (http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/texas-ticket-kicked.jpg) is meaningless. The case number & name are redacted, so one cannot verify the reason for the Motion to Dismiss.

Another:

http://marcstevens.net/articles/dave-gets-ticket-kicked-new-jersey.html

Same thing, redacted, so not verifiable: http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ticket-kicked.jpeg

It could have been dismissed for anything.

And it's always the same thing: "we redacted the information 'for privacy'" - mighty convenient to make verification of claims impossible..."trust us."


I do see, however, Marc Stevens (a probable Jew) makes a business of selling readily-available-for-free "legal document templates":

http://marcstevens.net/store/motion-to-strike-dismiss.html


And "consultations" for $100 an hour!:

http://marcstevens.net/store/consultations.html

[midnight rambler]

So in Crimethinks world, resistance matters not, just pay the penalty and do not question authority it just isn't worth it....

Incongruent isn't it?

[crimethink]

Which is why you ASK which jurisdiction is being applied. You make them state it on record you do not assert anything. You go into court saying you're a living breathing man with god given rights etc etc. The judge is just going to rule against you every single time.

You ask and paint him into a corner with his own bullshit answers on and for the record and if he still violates his oath of office and your 6th Amendment rights on the record he loses his immunity. Then you can go after him personally in a civil court.

Oh, man, this is better than a comedy club!

You expect a fellow lawyer to find in favor of you, a non-member of the unholy fraternity?

You file a "civil action" against a sitting judge, and you'll, at minimum, have monetary sanctions applied to you. "Frivolous case without merit."

You expect us to believe the "justice system" plays by fair & steadfast rules? What sort of fools do you take us for? The "justice system" is wholly and woefully corrupt, and makes up "rules" as necessary along the way.

[Ares]

Incongruent isn't it?

Always has been. The only "thought crime" is to go against his world view and what he believes is the way things are... :-/

[Ares]

Oh, man, this is better than a comedy club!

You expect a fellow lawyer to find in favor of you, a non-member of the unholy fraternity?

You file a "civil action" against a sitting judge, and you'll, at minimum, have monetary sanctions applied to you. "Frivolous case without merit."

You expect us to believe the "justice system" plays by fair & steadfast rules? What sort of fools do you take us for? The "justice system" is wholly and woefully corrupt, and makes up "rules" as necessary along the way.

Just shut the fuck up already you defeatist sorry sack of shit. I'm done debating you. You just aren't worth it. I've never blocked anyone before but I'm tired of this worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fucker.

[ximmy]

No license necessary to drive this car...

http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1.0_Driverless_Car_of_the_Future_Adlores.jpg

[crimethink]

So in Crimethinks world, resistance matters not, just pay the penalty and do not question authority it just isn't worth it....

Dishonest non-sequitur.

I do not pretend that I have magic formulae that compel the "justice system" to do as I say. You do.

Just as one does not display an "active" firearm in an "encounter" with pigs and expect not to get shot , one does not engage in arguments "judges" merely laugh at and expect them to comply.

There are a variety of means to monkeywrench the System, but using Talmud-like magical incantations are not among them.

[Serpo]

Against any adversary we should immediately give up ..................

[crimethink]

In a word ..............................................yes

Nope.

[crimethink]

Always has been. The only "thought crime" is to go against his world view and what he believes is the way things are... :-/

Cite case names & case numbers - no redactions - of the alleged cases where your claims "work," or be known as a liar.

[crimethink]

Just shut the fuck up already you defeatist sorry sack of shit. I'm done debating you. You just aren't worth it. I've never blocked anyone before but I'm tired of this worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fucker.

Just another fucking liar. That's you.

No proof, just "believe me," "trust me."

[crimethink]

Incongruent isn't it?

All you "trust me, this works" types will never, ever show proof. "I'm not going to 'compromise my privacy'." The line of every con-man.

[Ares]

Against any adversary we should immediately give up ..................

In crimethinks pussy world yep. Just give up. The game is cooked there is no hope of resistance for you. Just pay, pay, pay and support his statist mentality of cock sucking for the rest of eternity.

[crimethink]

Against any adversary we should immediately give up ..................

That may be your philosophy, but not mine. Do not pretend to speak for me.

[crimethink]

In crimethinks pussy world yep. Just give up. The game is cooked there is no hope of resistance for you. Just pay, pay, pay and support his statist mentality of cock sucking for the rest of eternity.

Ares: just another con-man who says "trust me," and gets violently mad when you say, "but I need proof."

[Ares]

This message is hidden because crimethink is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list



LOL the douchbag faggot keeps posting his support the statist at all cost bullshit.

[crimethink]

LOL the douchbag faggot keeps posting his support the statist at all cost bullshit.

Ares, lying con-man who tries to convince people "believe in me," but if you ask for proof, he gets as angry as though you twisted his panties into a tiny knot.

[Glass]

I challenge anyone who believes this bullshit to cite a single case where asserting these "rights" has resulted in a dismissed citation.

Like ximmy said, one law for "them," one law for us.


Cite case names & case numbers - no redactions - of the alleged cases where your claims "work," or be known as a liar.

A dismissed case does not become a case, therefore it is not possible to cite a case that was dismissed. No transcript etc. Best someone could do is provide a review or record the events. Or alternatively go to court and prove it works yourself.

Delivery of information also affects the way it is received. But it would still be better not to try and argue law on the road side. We see that often ends in unlawful unpunished killing of the respondent to be.

[crimethink]

A dismissed case does not become a case, therefore it is not possible to cite a case that was dismissed. No transcript etc.


This is simply not true.

A case is filed, and ends with a disposition, closed for conviction or closed for dismissal, usually.




Best you can do is provide a review or record the events.


Which are all in the case file.




Or alternatively go to court and prove it works yourself.

And when it doesn't?

[crimethink]

Marc Stevens' "return policy" - none:

http://marcstevens.net/store/return-policy.html

All sales are final.

and

If sending a money order, please leave the pay to line blank, do not put “cash” in, leave it blank.


"Trust me"...that once I have your money, you're never getting it back.

[ximmy]

Just shut the fuck up already you defeatist sorry sack of shit. I'm done debating you. You just aren't worth it. I've never blocked anyone before but I'm tired of this worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fucker.

Please refrain from calling other users "sorry sacks of shit" or "worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fuckers" please.
Thank you for your cooperation.

[crimethink]

Marc Stevens and I agree wholeheartedly on something:

http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/gun.jpg

A graphic from his website.

However, there are liars & fools who claim that one can defeat that gun in your face with magic formulae and special incantations.... :rolleyes:

[Glass]

This is simply not true.

A case is filed, and ends with a disposition, closed for conviction or closed for dismissal, usually.




Which are all in the case file.




And when it doesn't?

Can you provide me with a record of a dismissed case? Traffic or otherwise.

When it doesn't is when you either appeal or pay. You decide.

one thing to realise is, you make your own law. All crimes in the USA are civil in nature, which makes them negotiable. How and if you want to negotiate is up to you. If you have the courage to do so, then do so. Otherwise, as most people do, they pay and move on.

The constitution is clear. The rulings are clear. Can you use the information or are you unable or unwilling or some kind of cowardly lion (movie reference)? Or just a strawman. It's up to you.

[crimethink]

Please refrain from calling other users "sorry sacks of shit" or "worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fuckers" please.
Thank you for your cooperation.

It's OK by me, ximmy. It's actually pretty funny. Ares has always done this...went full-psychotic on me whenever I've challenged his "trust me" position.

[Ares]

Please refrain from calling other users "sorry sacks of shit" or "worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fuckers" please.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Sure if it's not warranted I won't, when it is I will. Crimethink is a defeatist sorry sack of shit. Always has been. Every single thread that gets brought up on tactics to defend yourself in court his sorry ass chimes in as if he is some person of knowledge on the subject and just basically boils it down to just pay the fucking fine.


So no fuck him. I'll take the ban if need be. I won't refrain from calling him a sorry sack of shit or a worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fucker.

So to reduce any further conflict with the mentally challenged midget I'll just ignore him. I've added him to the ignore list and no further communication will be had with him.

[crimethink]

Can you provide me with a record of a dismissed case? Traffic or otherwise.


Yes, of course...or I wouldn't have claimed it. I will get you cases if you certify you'll actually go check them and report back.




one thing to realise is, you make your own law.


He with the most guns makes "law."




All crimes in the USA are civil in nature, which makes them negotiable. How and if you want to negotiate is up to you. If you have the courage to do so, then do so. Otherwise, as most people do, they pay and move on.


This is the Talmudic position. Malum in se crimes are crimes whether the government says they are or not. Malum prohibitum "crimes" are not crimes despite the government insisting they are. NONETHELESS, the government will enforce these malum prohibitum statutes against you, and citing the Bill of Rights, God's Law, or whatever will not stop them.




The constitution is clear.


I challenge you to take a friend with a video camera, and walk with an AR into any government meeting into your area. Post the results. The Constitution is indeed clear...and readily ignored by the government.




The rulings are clear.


Just like the Bill of Rights. See above.




Can you use the information or are you unable or unwilling or some kind of cowardly lion (movie reference)? Or just a strawman. It's up to you.

You will have the right to call anyone else a coward after you take up and implement my challenge, above.

[crimethink]

Sure if it's not warranted I won't, when it is I will. Crimethink is a defeatist sorry sack of shit. Always has been. Every single thread that gets brought up on tactics to defend yourself in court his sorry ass chimes in as if he is some person of knowledge on the subject and just basically boils it down to just pay the fucking fine.


So no fuck him. I'll take the ban if need be. I won't refrain from calling him a sorry sack of shit or a worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fucker.

Ares the angry liar. NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE - EVER - to prove his claims. NOT ONE.

[ximmy]

Sure if it's not warranted I won't, when it is I will. Crimethink is a defeatist sorry sack of shit. Always has been. Every single thread that gets brought up on tactics to defend yourself in court his sorry ass chimes in as if he is some person of knowledge on the subject and just basically boils it down to just pay the fucking fine.


So no fuck him. I'll take the ban if need be. I won't refrain from calling him a sorry sack of shit or a worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fucker.


well then...
http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/retroclipart/retroclipart1405/retroclipart140506349/28346502-woman-scolding-husband.jpgThis is the extent of my punishing powers...

[Ares]

well then...
http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/retroclipart/retroclipart1405/retroclipart140506349/28346502-woman-scolding-husband.jpgThis is the extent of my punishing powers...

You missed my edit. :)

So to reduce any further conflict with the mentally challenged midget I'll just ignore him. I've added him to the ignore list and no further communication will be had with him.

[crimethink]

You missed my edit. :)

So to reduce any further conflict with the mentally challenged midget I'll just ignore him. I've added him to the ignore list and no further communication will be had with him.

WAAAAAA! crimethink "offended" me so I will RUN AWAY from him. LOL.

[crimethink]

http://www.beforethecross.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/wavewhiteflag.jpg

I accept Ares' unconditional surrender...

[Jewboo]

Please refrain from calling other users "sorry sacks of shit" or "worthless boot licking cop cock sucking mother fuckers" please. Thank you for your cooperation.



http://cdn-media-2.lifehack.org/wp-content/files/2015/02/giphy-6.gif

Nooooooooooo! Don't say that Ximmy. Say something like "You gonna take that Crimethink?"


:)


http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-42-16509447.jpg?size=67&uid=31a9a641-59c2-414b-b7d2-49fe13d6020a
Be like this Ximmy

[crimethink]

http://cdn-media-2.lifehack.org/wp-content/files/2015/02/giphy-6.gif

Nooooooooooo! Don't say that Ximmy. Say something like "You gonna take that Crimethink?"


:)



It's amusing to me. Poor Ares is such a True Believer he goes psychotic whenever someone questions his True Beliefs.

Any hatred involved in this situation is on his part, not mine. I feel sorry for him.

[Glass]

Yes, of course...or I wouldn't have claimed it. I will get you cases if you certify you'll actually go check them and report back.




He with the most guns makes "law."




This is the Talmudic position. Malum in se crimes are crimes whether the government says they are or not. Malum prohibitum "crimes" are not crimes despite the government insisting they are. NONETHELESS, the government will enforce these malum prohibitum statutes against you, and citing the Bill of Rights, God's Law, or whatever will not stop them.




I challenge you to take a friend with a video camera, and walk with an AR into any government meeting into your area. Post the results. The Constitution is indeed clear...and readily ignored by the government.




Just like the Bill of Rights. See above.




You will have the right to call anyone else a coward after you take up and implement my challenge, above.

I wasnt calling YOU a coward. Sorry. It was a general you as in all of us. The lion was a movie reference as noted. Most people are cowardly lions and TPTB count on it. I'll readily admit I've lost my bottle in the court. It can be an overwhelming experience.

As to the dismissed cases. If a case is dismissed there is no record. A finding of Not Guilty is a completion of case and would result in a record of events.

What I would do, is, if the case is going to be dismissed on constitutional grounds or similar, i.e. the Attorney and Court will not win so better to dismiss it than create a record. I would object. I would object and go to costs. Everyone has costs to defend themselves and those are compensatory so keep a tab on your costs and claim them. Most people don't. They get the dismissal, are happy and then they forget the rest and leave. I'm confident the awarding of costs will result in a court record of the matter.

After all, its' their money they are paying out. (Actually your money at the source but never mind).

If anyone has facebook, look for aussie speeding fines. They have a .com web site as well. Good information and many things to bring to court or use on the side of the road if suitable situation arises. Examples of cases won. Examples of common law rulings, some US ones refered to as Common Law is the same here as in the US. Highways are all created in Fee simple here meaning they are common law jurisdiction.

I need a couple of hours, but I should be able to put together a bit of a crib sheet of things to think of to raise or do when dealing with traffic citations.

Does the US has a federal clause whereby discrepencies between a state law and a federal law, one law prevails over the other? Here we have a more limited federal statute system. It is similar to the US where the states have resonsibility for some things like traffic, drugs, guns and so on? Here, if there is a a problem between a state and federal law, the federal law prevails. In the US I think you might want a state law to prevail as the Feds write a lot of unconstitutional laws.

One of the big ones here is proper use of radar and camera devices. they all need to conform to Federal measurement laws. None of them do, not in how they are calibrated, not in how they are handled, stored, positioned at the road side and used. As a result a lot of cases get thrown out on that basis.

I gotta get moving for the day but I should be able to come back in a couple hours.

[crimethink]

I wasnt calling YOU a coward. Sorry. It was a general you as in all of us.


OK, thanks.




As to the dismissed cases. If a case is dismissed there is no record. A finding of Not Guilty is a completion of case and would result in a record of events.


Are you conflating "charges" and "cases"? In our system, a "case" is generated when "charges" are filed. The issuance of a citation is a streamlined filing of "charges," generally not subject to review prior to submission to the court. A case automatically results when the traffic court clerk gets the citation.

Once a matter has a case number, it's filed, and there is a case record. If the State asks for dismissal prior to hearing, there is still a record.




Does the US has a federal clause whereby discrepencies between a state law and a federal law, one law prevails over the other?


Yes, but with limited applicability (the Supremacy Clause): most traffic "laws" are state statutes, and not even theoretically subject to Federal supremacy. And worse, even if you assert a US Constitutional right to a jury trial, the "judge" just laughs at you, and states an "infraction" (most traffic "crimes") does not entitle you to a jury trial.



In the US I think you might want a state law to prevail as the Feds write a lot of unconstitutional laws.


Unfortunately, the states do it just as readily, and not always in "certain" states. For example, here in California, sometimes "laws" are more lenient than assumed, and vice-versa.




One of the big ones here is proper use of radar and camera devices. they all need to conform to Federal measurement laws. None of them do, not in how they are calibrated, not in how they are handled, stored, positioned at the road side and used. As a result a lot of cases get thrown out on that basis.


Many challenge radar, camera, and breathalyzer data/results, but the State almost always has an "expert" (on the payroll) to certify their "accuracy," and the "judge" simply accepts that on "judicial notice," i.e., the "expert" "wouldn't lie" even though he has direct conflict of interest. There are a minimal number of successful dismissals when one challenges such "results," largely because there is no "expert witness" called. The same is not true of "it's my right to do X." Your results are always dependent upon the attitude of the "judge," if he/she has even a semblance of sense of justice. Most don't, though - they're just tax administrators (most aren't even "judges" in the big cities, but "commissioners").




I gotta get moving for the day but I should be able to come back in a couple hours.

OK

[expat4ever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opS9iCf7uaI

[expat4ever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1n43pKQtfE

[expat4ever]

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489 “With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face”. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512

Supreme courts ruled “Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime”“In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. “In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. ” People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163

[expat4ever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F9OjC8qIaw

[expat4ever]

This one was a sort of fail. Whats interesting is he is ticketed for not having license, reg or ins but is then set free to drive on down the road. I think he did lose in court though but others have won.
I think the above SC cites are proof enough of the trickery going on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzEMTXJZ8Pc

[Jewboo]

Let's see some constitutional attacks upon:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/TRAVEL/05/05/no.fly.list.questions/t1larg.nofly.list.gi.jpg
NO FLY LIST



:rolleyes:

[expat4ever]

I watched a video last night where one guy sued the tsa and was then dropped from the no fly list.

[crimethink]

Reality for the vast majority:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7lndGi-sI

[crimethink]

More Reality:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWe-Uc4CCo

[crimethink]

Yet More Reality:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InyCNDZJOGA

This guy was not "operating" or "driving" the vehicle - just traveling, in every sense of the word.

[crimethink]

Reality magic words can't stop:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoBgkAmJUn0

Longer version.

[ximmy]

Young man flexes his rights, gets a free ticket on the night train to the big adios up in the sky.

The officer began to get aggressive with Guilford when he was not immediately obedient and attempted to flex his rights during the traffic stop. Guilford refused to show the officer his license and registration because he had broken no laws and the officer had no reason to stop him.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/#WW81Cr3hB7oKvb0u.99




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8mortvncDc

On a power trip, Frost violently ripped Guilford out of the vehicle and forced him down to the ground. Guilford attempted to remain filming while he complied with the officer’s orders and moved to the ground. Sadly, Guilford was not moving fast enough for Frost, so he tased the young boy. At this time, both the body camera and the cell phone footage got cut off.

http://cat.sv.us.criteo.com/delivery/lg.php?cppv=1&cpp=iUrs3XxqMmNKS08xSUVHbWlVdnRyeXVnVzZLS09mUEtmVH c3Y2w5T2tsbUY0NFBlenNPbUZST25HYnU5dVhpcXNDQWJTZnZU a0xFRFc4eXdmZHp4V0JzcHJEYTlyUjU2UzE5ZlNOYkxwOUlQM0 02Y0RVWHpXdTJsYTNVQi9tajA0M0M5b05jQktIRnA1K1psSHU4 aEFwWTI0bTQ0V3RpdUpucUNIOU80UmRkVGV6am5BVmdDamR1Vj VHdjZuaW5DL3gzV0poVUFRSllHRFRBUldCTlZrMXhzRmxNelpR VENDbGxueWJXNkhxS2ZCOVFNPXw%3D http://ib.adnxs.com/getuid?http%3a%2f%2fdis.criteo.com%2frex%2fmatch.a spx%3fc%3d11%26uid%3d%24UID

Off camera, Frost shot and killed the young boy. The known details are sparse because the killing happened out of the view of the dash-cam, and the body camera was turned off at that point. However, the officer claims that the young boy attacked him, so he “feared for his life” and killed him, firing 7 shots from his weapon.
After the announcement that officer Frost would not be charged, the Guilford family released the following statement: (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2015/06/16/press-conference-eaton-guilford/28801761/)
“There was no reason or necessity for the officer to physically remove our son from the car without considering other options to avoid an unnecessary violent escalation. It must be also noted that Deven was not in possession (of) any weapon and emphatically told the officer that he was not armed. We also have serious concerns about whether the officer used unreasonable force against Deven under the circumstances.”

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/#WW81Cr3hB7oKvb0u.99

[crimethink]

"I don't need a driver's license." Motorcycle confiscated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnioRne2W2w

"Ambassador" Osborn was found guilty:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/-sovereign-citizen-drove-illegally-court-says

[crimethink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8mortvncDc

This is all a hoax. Everyone knows a Free Man on the Land is immune to arrest, Tasers, and gunfire.

:rolleyes:

[Shami-Amourae]

"I don't need a driver's license." Motorcycle confiscated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnioRne2W2w

"Ambassador" Osborn was found guilty:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/-sovereign-citizen-drove-illegally-court-says


http://culturejpn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/larp1.jpg

[Glass]

"I don't need a driver's license." Motorcycle confiscated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnioRne2W2w

"Ambassador" Osborn was found guilty:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/-sovereign-citizen-drove-illegally-court-says

I would never recommend falsifying documents or fabricating some. Expecially ones not recognised internationally.

I also would not recommend arguing weird things in court. The constitution is not a weird thing but it should not be the foundation and only pillar of your rebuttal. Best to solve the issue with the recognised tools. Those being the ones they are using. If you can get this resolved by questioning the evidence and showing it to be lacking you will have better results. You can use constitutional issues but it should be as to superiority of law, state Vs federal if it suits your argument. If it doesn't then shut up about it.

You should also not argue the issue on the side of the road. Neither of those two examples represent a valid response to the OP as they are OT. You want and need your day in court so shut up, take the citation and state working on your position for court.

[expat4ever]

Ok then. disregard what the SC says and do as Crimething says. He is the master of all law and he is all knowing.

[crimethink]

I would never recommend falsifying documents or fabricating some. Expecially ones not recognised internationally.

I also would not recommend arguing weird things in court. The constitution is not a weird thing but it should not be the foundation and only pillar of your rebuttal. Best to solve the issue with the recognised tools. Those being the ones they are using. If you can get this resolved by questioning the evidence and showing it to be lacking you will have better results. You can use constitutional issues but it should be as to superiority of law, state Vs federal if it suits your argument. If it doesn't then shut up about it.

You should also not argue the issue on the side of the road. Neither of those two examples represent a valid response to the OP as they are OT. You want and need your day in court so shut up, take the citation and state working on your position for court.

I agree with everything you say. I disagree with others on this thread, because they insist that nonsense is true.

I have won several victories against the State, just not with magic words as alleged by the con-men.

[expat4ever]

How much clearer does it need to be?
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

[crimethink]

Ok then. disregard what the SC says and do as Crimething says. He is the master of all law and he is all knowing.

Tell us, why are you an "ex pat" if this "Free Man" bullshit actually works? Why not stay in America, and file whatever UCC-666 filing you needed to to live without fear of arrest, taxation, and so on?

I understand what works and what does not. Others, yourself included, insist magic formulae will "force" State actors to bend to your will. That's delusional.

[crimethink]

How much clearer does it need to be?

Please know what you're doing when you claim to understand something.

That's a case from 1930, in the Supreme Court of Appeals for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

[crimethink]

http://culturejpn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/larp1.jpg

The more I think about this, the more it really, truly applies! These people are delusional, living in pure fantasy, fancying themselves something they simply cannot be.

Check these kooks out:

http://www.usadot-gov.org/courtrulings.html

Fake "Department of Travel," modeled on the Department of State.

LARPing as "government officials." His Excellency the Supreme Ambassador of Constitutional America for Free Travel on the Land. LOL.

[expat4ever]

Please know what you're doing when you claim to understand something.

That's a case from 1930, in the Supreme Court of Appeals for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Ok so the people in the US were different than today and doesnt apply or state case law doesnt apply? So does that mean that terry stops only apply to people in Ohio?
You see as usual you claim something with no explanation. So its case law from VA from 1930. Do you have case law that overturns or invalidates this case?

[crimethink]

https://i.imgflip.com/oltno.jpg

[expat4ever]

Tell us, why are you an "ex pat" if this "Free Man" bullshit actually works? Why not stay in America, and file whatever UCC-666 filing you needed to to live without fear of arrest, taxation, and so on?

I understand what works and what does not. Others, yourself included, insist magic formulae will "force" State actors to bend to your will. That's delusional.
I'll be leaving when I decide on the right place. Should happen this winter. I dont insist that anything works. What I read is case law that says exactly what you claim doesnt exist. There's plenty of case law out there and it doesnt matter how old it is. If it hasnt been overturned then its still valid.

[expat4ever]

And as usual, you have no valid argument to the thread devolves into your insults. I'm done. You win.

[crimethink]

Ok so the people in the US were different than today and doesnt apply or state case law doesnt apply? So does that mean that terry stops only apply to people in Ohio?
You see as usual you claim something with no explanation. So its case law from VA from 1930. Do you have case law that overturns or invalidates this case?

Why don't you cite a case - in the last 40 years - where it has been applied?


We conclude that by denying Miller a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself-the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel.   We also conclude that Miller's free exercise of religion is not violated by California's valid and neutral requirement that all applicants for a new or renewed driver's license provide a social security number.   Finally, Miller does not present a hybrid claim, which would require that we apply strict scrutiny to the DMV's failure to issue him a driver's license, because he has failed to supplement his free exercise of religion claim with another constitutional claim of colorable merit.

Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (1999), United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

There are plenty more, but if you deny that applies, a thousand more won't matter.

[Shami-Amourae]

The more I think about this, the more it really, truly applies! These people are delusional, living in pure fantasy, fancying themselves something they simply cannot be.

Check these kooks out:

http://www.usadot-gov.org/courtrulings.html

Fake "Department of Travel," modeled on the Department of State.

LARPing as "government officials." His Excellency the Supreme Ambassador of Constitutional America for Free Travel on the Land. LOL.

All Anarchism is LARPing.

The entire non-aggression principle is based on pure fantasy.

The natural order thing is eat or be eaten. Kill or be killed. The person with the most control over force is the one who wields the power. You aren't that person. Accept that. If you can't then your only other option is to start a violent revolution.

In all Anarchist groups there's always leaders, and/or people who are looked up to, even if they will claim they are equals. That's how humans work. Most people are followers, and a few are leaders. Anarchists don't realize that most people naturally want to be led and told what to do.


A lot of these Sovereign Citizen movements have "legitimacy" since it's very expensive to do actual trials in the criminal justice system. It's in the interests of courts to work out plea deal to speed through the process to cut costs and resources. When you have some Sovereign Citizen guy come along the judge basically is face palming and just like "whatever, I don't want to deal with this shit", and lets them off. Then the Sovereign Citizen guy scurries off, and tells his pals his tactics work. The entire Sovereign Citizen movement is built around this "hack" in the justice system.

[crimethink]

And as usual, you have no valid argument to the thread devolves into your insults. I'm done. You win.

Did you take something personally? Your "ally" started the profane ad hominem directly against me, and you said nothing. Where have I insulted you personally?

[crimethink]

All Anarchism is LARPing.

The entire non-aggression principle is based on pure fantasy.

The natural order thing is eat or be eaten. Kill or be killed. The person with the most control over force is the one who wields the power. You aren't that person. Accept that. If you can't then your only other option is to start a violent revolution.

In all Anarchist groups there's always leaders, and/or people who are looked up to, even if they will claim they are equals. That's how humans work. Most people are followers, and a few are leaders. Anarchists don't realize that most people naturally want to be led and told what to do.


A lot of these Sovereign Citizen movements have "legitimacy" since it's very expensive to do actual trials in the criminal justice system. It's in the interests of courts to work out plea deal to speed through the process to cut costs and resources. When you have some Sovereign Citizen guy come along the judge basically is face palming and just like "whatever, I don't want to deal with this shit", and lets them off. Then the Sovereign Citizen guy scurries off, and tells his pals his tactics work. The entire Sovereign Citizen movement is built around this "hack" in the justice system.

The extreme cognitive dissonance of the "Free Man" (they hate & object to the term "sovereign citizen") "movement" is so easily seen, and it's utterly pathetic. The Jew Marc Stevens was cited earlier in this thread, and he's one of the typical "Free Men" - claiming that you just use magic formulae, and the State actors shrink in horror in the shadow your master power. Yet, at the same time, Stevens has a graphic like this on his website:

http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/gun.jpg

"The Law" is not right because it is true. "The Law" is "right" because they have awesome power to imprison or kill you.

[crimethink]

Another:

On appeal, Tolces contends...his driver's license should be reinstated because Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350.6 fn. 1 is not applicable to him and is unconstitutional because it infringes on his right to travel and violates his right to equal protection.

(...)

Because driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right, we find that Tolces has failed to establish any violation of his constitutional rights due to the suspension of his driver's license.

Tolces v. Trask (1999), 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 294 / 76 Cal. App. 4th 285, California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District

[7th trump]

Unfreaken believable....................no Palani?
9 pages and no Palani to set all you fools straight.

Personally I think Crimethink would destroy Palani in 5 sentences.

[crimethink]

My personal belief about the right to travel / drive an automobile / operate a motor vehicle (whatever we or a System stooge wants to call it):

The Ninth Amendment secures this right, and therefore all "laws" infringing that right, save (arguably) those involving a malum in se crime, are unconstitutional.

However, the letter & intent of the Ninth Amendment, and my beliefs, are totally irrelevant in a "traffic court." Why some insist this is not so baffles me. Every single Amendment, save the Third, including and especially involving clearly-named rights, has been violated by both executive government and "the courts." Why is it difficult to understand the same executive & judicial government will dismiss any argument of the implicit right secured by the Ninth Amendment?

[Jewboo]

...this "Free Man" bullshit...



https://farm1.staticflickr.com/148/382228890_d7b65ed51d_o.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/His-Imperial-Majesty-Emperor-Norton-I-portrait-crop.jpg/281px-His-Imperial-Majesty-Emperor-Norton-I-portrait-crop.jpg



Born
Joshua Abraham Norton
circa 1817–1818
London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) (?), England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England), United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton#cite_note-1)


Died
January 8, 1880
San Francisco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco), California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)


Years active
1859–80


Known for

Proclaiming himself Emperor of the United States


Parent(s)
John Norton
Sarah Norden






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

:)

[crimethink]

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/148/382228890_d7b65ed51d_o.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/His-Imperial-Majesty-Emperor-Norton-I-portrait-crop.jpg/281px-His-Imperial-Majesty-Emperor-Norton-I-portrait-crop.jpg



Born
Joshua Abraham Norton
circa 1817–1818
London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) (?), England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England), United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton#cite_note-1)


Died
January 8, 1880
San Francisco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco), California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)


Years active
1859–80


Known for

Proclaiming himself Emperor of the United States


Parent(s)
John Norton
Sarah Norden






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

:)




"Emperor Norton" was a Jew. Ever notice how many Jews are involved in this "Free Man" bullshit? It's a great con-game...hundreds of thousands if not millions bilked out of fools for "redemption" schemes and so on.

[Jewboo]

"

Ever notice how many Jews are involved in this "Free Man" bullshit? It's a great con-game...hundreds of thousands if not millions bilked out of fools for "redemption" schemes and so on.



Then when the goy fool is facing real prison time some jew ACLU lawyer hops in the game...lol.

[Jewboo]

LARPing as "government officials."




http://blog.justshareit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/emperor-nortons-grave.1533.large_slideshow.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52b7952ee4b07e8bce6a436c/t/5547a7e7e4b024395aeedb63/1430759399544/Plaque_Home_of_Peace_05032015_b.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

:rolleyes:

[BrewTech]

371,816 views56 Likes51 Comments

yup indeedy!

[crimethink]

yup indeedy!

Huh?

[Ares]

And as usual, you have no valid argument to the thread devolves into your insults. I'm done. You win.

You made it farther than I did, congrats. He's a broken record of sucking statist dick and not questioning authority. The only thing worse is knowing that you support a system that allows jews to control you with. He's just so fucking stupid to even figure out and keeps cheerleading for state control and handing over the keys to his life for others to control.


Keep sucking that statist cock crimethink, and licking those Jewish bought statist boots on your throat. I'm sure it will work out for you one day.

[Camp Bassfish]

As to the dismissed cases. If a case is dismissed there is no record. A finding of Not Guilty is a completion of case and would result in a record of events.



One example comes to mind off the top of my head. A defense attorney can make a motion to the judge for dismissal after the prosecution has presented its case, if the defense believes that the presentation falls far short of beyond a reasonable doubt. At that time the judge can either continue the trial, or dismiss the case. There would be a record of this.

[crimethink]

You made it farther than I did, congrats. He's a broken record of sucking statist dick and not questioning authority. The only thing worse is knowing that you support a system that allows jews to control you with. He's just so fucking stupid to even figure out and keeps cheerleading for state control and handing over the keys to his life for others to control.


Keep sucking that statist cock crimethink, and licking those Jewish bought statist boots on your throat. I'm sure it will work out for you one day.

You are nothing but a mentally ill thug who lives in a delusional world. Essentially, no different than any Nigger. You pretend you can use Talmudic tactics to defeat Talmudists, without grasping you cannot out-Jew a Jew. And, your incessant lies about what I don't actually believe mark you as Jew-like, as well.

[Ares]

http://media.makeameme.org/created/Look-everyone-a-md3sls.jpg

[crimethink]

http://media.makeameme.org/created/Look-everyone-a-md3sls.jpg



So to reduce any further conflict with the mentally challenged midget I'll just ignore him. I've added him to the ignore list and no further communication will be had with him.

Ares = LIAR