I would file a lawsuit if a cop gave me a civil ticket

[myjuicemike]

This is disinformation. If you really want to know about common law see TheMightySovereign in here. First thing you need to learn the courts have no jurisdiction on public roadways without a contract with the DMV. They cannot have a contract with the DMV because that would be a conflict of interest.

[worryphree]

They ARE doing it because they ARE crooks and criminals.

[alienmode]

tactikalguy take the mask off in your new videos man... you got quality content. gotta make better videos though... get more views

[vevevededede]

thegreatfish is on the ball here. civil only means your penalty is money in this instance without the possibility of jail.

[MrEvilsun]

In Canada, all tickets fall under the bills and exchange act, and is Federal law, in order to be valid it needs to be "in agreement" (contract law), the orignal copy must be presented in order to be legal and they need that negotiable instrument to make their money. If they will not present the original copy they are in violation of federal law, and immediatly lose.

[tamberineman]

love the videos man keep it up

[myclem6674]

I think that the missing link is how to properly address the court or courts in question. I would like to see videos of how to actually form the motions (what parties / persons go where, parts of a motion), where / how you're finding the facts that youre citing etc. The absolute basics would really help to direct my studies.  Everything helps.

[thegreatfish]

A civil citation is not a civil matter. This is usually very confusing for people out of the know, because they see the word civil and they think it means civil court, but this is wrong. In criminal law, a civil citation is merely one that you cannot go to prison for. It DOES NOT mean the issue falls under the civil court system. It's still a criminal matter. This invalidates your argument, since it means traffic stops are not based on a civil matter.

[wormsintherain]

@thegreatfish.......I dont think he was trying to say the issue falls under the civil court system. Your right traffic stops are supposed to be based on criminal matters not civil. That's what they use in order to be able to stop you for some bullshit. Without corpus delecti & the standard of proof being by "preponderance of evidence", how could there be a crime? In MO it's considered to be quasi criminal in procedure but truly civil in nature.

[thegreatfish]

@wormsintherain Actually crimes require proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is a higher standard than preponderance, which is required in civil cases. And I would disagree with your claim that traffic crimes are civil in nature. Civil law is based around remedies, criminal law is based around punishment. Since a traffic violation will have no recoverable loss, there's nothing to remedy, and so it would not be civil in any capacity.

[kansasisaband]

@thegreatfish Even if it has the boxed checked on your ticket, "Civil" and not "Criminal"? A speeding ticket is civil law ticket with a remedy of $210!?

[thegreatfish]

@kansasisaband Civil violations are used to denote crimes for which there is no possibility of jail time. Sometimes they are also known as infractions. Except for the fact that they are called "Civil" tickets, they are treated entirely like criminal matters. They will either follow the rules of criminal procedure or their own set of procedural rules modeled after the rules of criminal procedure, and they will likely be handled by a criminal court.

[rotnflesh]

This is where birth certificates come into play:

When you sign a birth certificate, you are signing as an agent of (named on certificate) to yield wardship of that child to the State; so, when a birth certificate exists, the state is the true "parent" and you are a "warden". They can take "their" child back at any given time.

This is where LEGAL FICTIONS come into play.

In Common Law, there must be a living body on both sides of the fence; "the state" doesn't exist. It's a legal fiction.

[rotnflesh]

Also to clarify this:

USC defines "State(s)" as territories or possessions of the United States

United States is defined as "federal corporation" or "seat of government of the United States"

"states" are states of the Union; sovereign nations with respect to the federal government.

Precedent authority: Constitution, Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, 26 CFR 1, 26 CFR 31, 26 CFR 30, Court Opinion, IRC. Thats where authority starts and continues.

[rotnflesh]

So the original authority is the US Constitution/State Constitution (where it is in harmony with the US Constitution); every lower authority has increasing restrictions put on it; it's either prima facie(evidence of law), has the force of law, or both. Supreme Court decisions/rulings/opinions have the FORCE of law through mediation on disputes arising from PRIMA FACIE law (statutes). So, if you have an OLLLLLLDDD supreme court decision, unchallenged successfully, you have LAW. Thats how it works

[rotnflesh]

So, essentially, you APPEAL a decision from a lower court using ancient dispute settlement opinions/rulings based on constitutional right infringement to win an appeals case, but you MUST assert your right to a common law procedure (and not back down until they deliver it) or they will assume maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. Constitution-->USC-->Supreme Court; don't waste their time with conjecture not supported by LAW and deliberation on original intent.

[rotnflesh]

Common law has no court of appeals; that's a MARITIME/ADMIRALTY concept. So, whether or not they will SAY IT (and they will avoid the question if you bring it up; try it sometime, I have) courts are operating in admiralty (international contractual) capacity. They are federal now (find a real local court and send me a link) and the fed. gov. is a separate nation to the Union of States; the only way they can try you is through admiralty and only if you accept jurisdiction.

[rotnflesh]

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

What THAT means is that courts have APPELLATE (APPEALS) jurisdiction over anything non ambassadorial or consul

[rotnflesh]

Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION.

To make it understood: A birth certificate is essentially a registration for wardship to the state.

[ellmc95]

Ordinance matter. How can you have a jury trail if it is not a civil or criminal matter?so he continued the hearing for OCT 27TH. WHAT SHOULD I DO?

[ellmc95]

went to court yesterday for a open burn violation. i told the stand in judge that i move to dismiss. he said everyone in the court would like to dismiss.i said i couldn't plead. guilty,not guilty. or bench trial. i said if i could get a jury trial? if i did consent to plead. everyone in the court looked at me like i was crazy! he said it was unusual but said it was my right . he said he couldn't rule on it it wasn't a civil or a criminal matter CONTINUED.....

[rotnflesh]

If anyone here is interested in taking control of their public persona, I would suggest they read all from those websites; the content is fantastic

Also, I would take Ricardo's advice: RESEARCH! Look up the US and State constitution, read the civil code, the FRCP, study relevant court rulings/opinions.

And, above all: Learn to write your own Affadavits; affadavits are NEVER filed with a court; they are RECORDED! Learn to use the required legalese and procedures!!

[rotnflesh]

.........from UNLAWFUL litigation (we're fighting legality with lawfulness, after all..remember, all: remove the spaces!!!):

famguardian. o r g / TaxFreedom / Forms / Emancipation / SSTrustIndenture.pdf

1215. o r g / lawnotes / work-in-progress / flag / flag.h t m (regarding the PROPER AND LAWFUL dimensions of a Civil American Flag, which creates an instant CIVIL JIRISDICTION over any maritime/admiralty court)

redemptionservice . c o m

Those are just a few websites; i have many

[RetSquid]

@rotnflesh

"Even were Mr. McCann to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole eagle converted the state court's United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime war flag could limit the state court's jurisdiction to take his child away from him. Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman."

McCANN v. GREENWAY

[rotnflesh]

Hey Ricardo, got some stuff for you!

After exhaustive research (4 months worth) after watching videos from you and others, I've created some powerful and spiffy documents that would pique the interest of any aspiring Freeman!

For one, several different Affadavits that cover all things pertaining to anyone's freedom and sovereignity (Affadavit of Notice, or Truth, to file with county and state secretary's)

Also, a few websites to help anyone take control of their strawman and make them immune

[BRUUNMAN]

Why don't you take the time to read a vehicle code and learn the laws, that way you wouldn't have to worry about recieving any citations, and making yourself look like an ignorant fool with all your preposterous claims of civil rights violations? Simple...obey law....don't get ticket. See how that works

[WDeet]

Can you better document the cited case, Sav. Bank v. Cameron, and what is this script on the screen? Do you know if traffic violations are civil in Texas? Where would one look for this information? You also mention Constitutional rights in this video, are there really such things? I thought the Constitution was shredded over the last decade? Thanks

[Rainy809]

Police come to hasty generalizations without sufficient evidence. The arguer must show evidence when connecting premises with conclusions to avoid making error.

[Rainy809]

Statutes are unconstitutional it is "Void of Vagueness Doctrine", Or vagueness doctrine Under this principle , a law (criminal statute) which does not fairly inform a person of what is commanded or prohibited is unconstitutional as violative of due process. The doctirne originates in due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment, and is basis for striking down legislation which contains insufficient warning of conduct is unlawful. And avoid discriminatory actions by police.

[DESERTHAWKIN]

state statutes are under commercial maritime admiralty jurisdiction and are created by a legal society so should only apply to members of that society.

[Tactikalguy1]

@DESERTHAWKIN ...... Cite the case that says that. If you claim this to be true, at least show where you got this info from. It doesnt sound true to me.

[wind0wninja]

Rebut the assumption

[nextdimensions]

do you need some people to come film your court date? i could ask some friends out there

[azdarryl42]

Thanks!

[vegaswolf]

wow..that is a brilliant point about RICO that it can apply to the State or Govt!!!

[mackbk718]

@vegaswolf I know too bad the Feds have to bring a RICO case, that would be like the Gambinos indicting the Genoveses

[Tactikalguy1]

@mackbk718 ......... No, the feds dont bring the RICO case against the state or government. Anyone is able to do it. Me , you , anyone.

[mackbk718]

@Tactikalguy1 Right on brah, lord knows there are plenty of racketeers to go after, keep up the good work. Peace and grace...M