2.(16) Withholding agent The term ``withholding agent'' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.
3. Eggs also come from reptiles, certain mammals, fish, birds, slugs, birds, and other sources.
Now why would you be dumb enough to call an egg a chicken? I did not put a limit on eggs yet you imposed one. How odd that you see everything to be limiting your rights, yet all eggs are chickens.
You have a right to travel on the public right of ways. Freeways are public right of ways and only allow motor vehicles/automobiles on them. If it was a privilege to use the freeways then the eminent domain could not be used to take land and no public money could be used to fund them.
Since they are paid for using public money and you're prohibited from walking, riding a horse, using an animal drawn cart along them, etc. Then it;s obvious that they are meant to be used by you in your automobile.
You cannot drive a car (by whatever words you want) without a licence. It is a privilege given to you by the State. If you are behind the wheel, you are driving by definition and not traveling.
Two questions: If you are willing to operate with unlimited liability, [exercising your right to travel without insurance or a license] then would you take the punishment if you were to get into a car accident and kill someone, not having insurance? How would the other party get compensated if you are not operating under limited liability?
This is so bunk. Like the law's just don't apply to 99% of what people think. If people believed this, the laws would be changed overnight. If people didn't, you still go to jail for driving without a license. Even if you try to pull the Constitution out, that would be changed in a heart beat if people really thought it let everyone disregard things they don't like.
California Vehicle Code Section 305; A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
CVC 415 (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
CVC 260 (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles.
CVC 12500 (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code.
Maybe if you jump up and scream "ABRACADABRA", you might turn into a rabbit, but there are no magic words when it comes to a licence. If you are behind the whell you are required to have a licence.
If your self-propelled motor vehicle/car/automobile/conveyance/super-duper-mobile is on a public road, it also needs a licence and registration.
It's like the term, "United State," there are 3 different meanings used in the IRC alone.
If they did not have different meanings then the law would simply say that they are all the same. The more I look into the law the more convoluted it really is.
The term fruit includes, oranges, lemons, grapefruit, and limes.
You are prohibited from eating fruit in public.
You get ticketed for eating an apple. You think you violated the law don't you?
"Includes; means limited to what is listed otherwise the law would be void for vagueness."
Incorrect.
“The terms ‘means’ and ‘includes’ are not necessarily synonymous. ... The natural distinction would be that where ‘means’ is employed, the term and its definition are to be interchangeable equivalents, and that the verb ‘includes’ imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition.”
Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc., 293 U.S. 121, 125, n. 1 (1934)
If a statute lists "oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and other fruit", the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase "other fruit" to mean other citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. The courts may assume lawmakers intended by "other fruit" all the many types of citrus: kumquats, limes, tangelos, etc. When lawmakers list items of similar kind, then say "and other" (or similar wo), the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word "other" to include only items of the same type.
Wrong again, the Supreme Court does not agree with your idea, as I already posted.
The maxim “is an aid to construction, not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.” Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88 (1940).
It “serves only as an aid in discovering the legislative intent when * * * [it] is not otherwise manifest.” United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 519 (1912); see 2A Sutherland Stat. Const. sec. 47.23 (1984).
“In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, ‘include’ is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.”
American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).
It is because of this canon of construction: "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," which (roughly) means that what is not included was meant to be excluded.
"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co
@RetSquid Just out of curiosity, are you a lawyer or member of the law enforcement community? If not, how did you become so well versed in legal arguments?
Neither, I just got tired of seeing some people post all of these lies trying to confuse other people and potentially getting them in trouble or in prison.
How? By lots of research and reading...examining all the bogus arguments and reading lots of cases, also due to "THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ, Created by Daniel B. Evans". What a GREAT source of information.
The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. *Congress already had the power to tax all incomes.*"
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
As for the claim by the IRS that, if the Form is not provided, the payor is to impose backup withholding of 31%, we must examine the form. On the form you will see that the person executing this form is stating that the number provided by them as theirs is correct, under "penalty of perjury". This is what the form requires, yet the statute regarding backup withholding for payee certification failure (that is, failure to certify that
your TIN/EIN/SSN is correct), 26 U.S.C. § 3406(e)(1), plainly states that the number can only be required, by the Secretary, to be provided under penalty of perjury in regards to "interest, dividends, patronage dividends, and amount subject to broker reporting."
Did you have a point? This has nothing to do with the tax being imposed on that person, just a fine point on withholding a portion of that tax by his/her employer.
Back of my license says Operator License so where does that leave your stupid fuckass argument?
If you are behind the wheel YOU ARE DRIVING, not "travelling" and just because Black's Law Dictionary defines driver in a commercial sense doesn't mean it takes prededent over the general definition of the term driver that the state uses when issuing licenses to drive.
@Blahblobify "Back of my license...": It seems this already went over your head. If you have a license, you are a commercial vehicle operator. If you do not have a license and your vehicle is not registered, it is not a motor vehicle, it is an automobile and you are not an operator, you are a traveler.
@Blahblobify Irrelevant. Unless your state law says otherwise, your car is not a motor vehicle unless it is registered for commercial use, so you are not driving a motor vehicle and do not have to adhere to laws that only apply to motor vehicles. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, but you seem hellbent on infuriating yourself and looking like an angry fool instead of offering a proper argument.
be allowed to vote or breed. Claiming rights that aren't provided by the basic founding ideals of the country you reside in just make you look ignorant. Again though, if you disagree and think you should have a right, that you are not guarunteed by the current foundational system of your country, that's something to approach politically. That's why we have amendments to our constitution and a bill of rights. They didn't think of everything all in one document, and times change.
that speed limits are stupid and they don't save lives. If enough people all had the same opinion, then they could petition the government to change the laws, and eliminate strict speed limits, and maybe change it to be something else, or only having speed limits in certain areas, but not all roads. That's where it gets interesting. If you go to politicians and say "i have a right to break the law! the constitution says it!" then they will write you off as another ignorant person who shouldn't
Does any of this make sense to all of you or am i being too boring and logical? This really isn't such a difficult concept. Now where it gets interesting is when you understand the basic of where we cross over from our rights, to your opinion of the regulations the government has in place, then we can all have a nice debate and learn something. As an example, you have to understand that you do not have a "right" to drive 150 miles per hour on the road. However you have a right to the opinion
the right to drive, just because you have the right to travel. What right to travel means is that you as a person, have the right to be free, and go about this country freely. So if you want to ask a friend to drive you to the bus station, take a bus to the air port, fly on an air plane to another state, and pay a taxi driver to drive you to a national tourist attraction so you can take photos, you have every right to freely do that activity and travel within this nation.
Now as far as right to travel goes, it is exactly what it says. A sovereign citizen has the right to travel. It doesn't say that you can travel any way you like. If you built your own home made plane and flew it in circles around an airport where you were endangering other planes, would that be okay because you have the right to travel? No. If you are incapable of operating a motor vehicle and do not know the rules of the road, and therefore do not have a driver license, then you do not have
to help ensure safety on those public roads, for which they are responsible. As part of this they require vehicles which will be used on public roads be registered with the bureau of motor vehicles, and for you to carry insurance so that if an accident occurs on those public roads, those who suffer physical injury and property loss may be properly compensated. These are simply their stipulations, to use the roads, over which they have jurisdiction because it is government owned, but public.
I don't understand why this is such a overly complicated issue. Roads are public, but they are property of the government. The government owns the land, is responsible for maintenance of the road, and managing anything that passes under the road like utilities, sewer, phone lines, water pipes, etc. In order to drive on their roads, they legally require you to obtain a driver license in order to prove that you know the rules for those roads, and are capable of skillfully operating a motor vehicle
all those you quoted where regulations set forth by those agencies which are company rules. When you carry that license you are by contract agreeing to abide by those acts and statutes. Which means your acting as a person (which means trust of the corporation) eg: Government employee. Which makes you by contract obligated to go by their laws. You stated the fraud however, because the government is not paying you for a service. Your not performing a service of government. NO CONTRACT
Correction in my first comment driving is ONLY commercial it means you are getting paid behind the wheel. I accidently said making a profit or not. sorry.
So now you reply to the judge ...your honor I wasn't driving I was traveling, and I wasn't operating I was moving about the common way<<<<that's what you say, and your honor I don't own a vehicle it is my recreational automobile, so If YOU the COURTS or the police and prove that I was making a profit behind the wheel I gladly accept these charges. The courts know they can't prove so he'll dismiss the case. Worked for me 3 out of 3 times.
you guys don't understand how this works there are 3 words you cannot use in the court room they are Driving or Driver, Operator, and Vehicle, so listen beautiful ppl who don't understand law.. Driving is commercial it means your getting paid behind the wheel whether making a profit or not. Operating is ANOTHER commercial word like that man is operating the crane that means he's getting paid to do so. Vehicle is a commercial vehicle if you don't use it commercially then its an recreational auto.
to all the stockholm syndrome sufferers commenting on this video......the guy is reading the words on the licence, finding out there definitions and it says driving is commerce. yet you are all saying he has to have a licence to travel. do any of you slaves know what commerce means? to be granted a licence to do something, the thing you want to do must in essence already be a fundamentally lawful act. this is all just too complex for the sheeple to fathom of course. pathetic.
Putting quotation marks around words doesn't change their meaning. If you are operating a motor vehicle YOU ARE DRIVING and you need a goddamn license to do that you stupid fuck shit.
@Blahblobify Putting quotation marks around words doesn't change their meaning. If you are operating a motor vehicle YOU ARE DRIVING and you need a goddamn license to do that you stupid fuck shit.
Good video and accurate. Although looking up and reading from your own state's statutes and definitions would also be a good idea in order to teach these brainwashed posters on here the truth. BTW, you will find that your state does not require you to transfer a title unless you want to register it. And no requirement to register it, nor to have plates unless registered.
@paranoidpatriot lol not really jus talking shit. im sorry but i fucking hate fake ass white boys lol trying to be something they're not. In the word of George Carlin "you will never be as cool as black guys to stick with your fagity polka" paraphrasing of course.
@Matador13th its cool, i know dudes who wear tight pants, cowboy hats and drive big trucks, but have never herded cattle or cleaned horse shit. as youngsters, we all mimic what our friends and heros do and how they dress and act. then, later, we grow into ourselves. it's kinda just part of growing up. but i wonder how often u judge people of other pre-made identities. or do u just make fun of the ones that allow u to be racist? "that's how black people act, not white people" is what u sound like
@cochranexyz The judges are the ones that say the laws don't apply to me. But if the cops knew it, they would stop writing tickets and collecting money. And to be clear, the laws don't apply to anyone. I have had more than just my own cases thrown out on this premise. The whole thing is a scam. If you want to keep playing along and giving up your freedom and money to this crooked system, go right ahead. But why get angry and insult those of us who got wise to the scam and want out?
@paranoidpatriot LOL. The chips on your shoulder must weigh a ton. You should move to a country where they have no laws, then. See how you like it there.
@cochranexyz No chips. I just don't like being lied to or manipulated. I like to be free rather than oppressed. I thought that's this country was all about. Why would I want to leave? Maybe it is you who should leave.
U right P one does not need a License to travel to and fro on his activities and I have challenged that many times and I live in the state of New Jersey,I was told to keep quiet with this info in court by the judge,after everyone was out the courtroom they waited till I was last and I told the judge it is my God given right I don't need a license to drive I don't drive with me and my family for profit and can go and will go as I please,the judge told me he gona dismiss my ticket don't come back
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the government and/or the central banking cartel, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He only trolls strawman and tax protestor videos. Strange, don't you think?
Go here it has the full and whole argument as a properly used successful legal brief It has had sucess in 3 States also has a precaution of what not to do or say...
us law books dot com Driver Licensing vs right to travel
Here is the link to the U.S. TITLES he mentioned in the videos for those interested in seeing it for themselves. It can't get any clearer or plainer. (remove the spaces)
That's Federal law, it has nothing to do with licensing a private non-commercial vehicle like you car, that is covered in State law, like I have posted.
@RetSquid Yes it does, via Maritime law and the Commerce clause of the Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. They have used this as the excuse to regulate everything claiming that ALL things, including your car is a "commercial vehicle" falls under commerce and under their jurisdiction. Unless your driving a Taxi,etc, private cars are not commerce.
Private cars are not commercial and the Federal Government does not regulate the licensing of them, so Federal law does not apply. State law applies and say the both you and your car must be licensed.
@RetSquid The states are following the Federal mandates to do so. NO LAW, RULES, CODE or anything else operating under color or pretense of law can be passed that supersedes the Constitution which is the Supreme law of the land. To force you to have to get a license to operate any mode of travel on the roads is to limit your freedom of travel and is against the rights protected by the Constitution which are to LIMIT government intervention in the peoples lives.
Sorry, you do not have a Constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle (car) on a public road. You are free to travel as you wish, just not behind the wheel. The Supreme Court has supported the State's rights to be able to regulate this.
@RetSquid If you are "free to travel as you wish" but can't use a horse, cart or car to do it, then you are not "FREE to travel as you wish" save for walking or taking a bike, both of which greatly limit your freedom of mobility. Just because corrupt courts and judges side with the common Maritime argument that because the roads are used for commerce + travel means that all who travel on them for ANY reason be licensed doesn't make it so. Many lawyers have said otherwise.
@RetSquid As I said, just because the lower courts are no longer buying the argument does not invalidate the argument or the truth of it. You are making your judgments based on whether or not it works and to what degree. In a police state you still have courts, elections, voting and an Appearance of "democracy", but it's an illusion, a scam as you are always found guilty if they want fines, to throw you in jail or to kill you. Same thing that's going on now.
@RetSquid They why are there so many Supreme court cases that state the opposite!? The need to "show your papers, your papers please" is one of the hallmarks of a police state and it starts with needing the "kings permission" to do anything. This permission is encapsulated in ALL the BS licenses they require you to have to do Anything, including using a vehicle that you purchase, maintain and own on roads built by your own tax dollars. They're already setitng up TS checkpoints on roads
@RetSquid You have given up MANY rights throughout the years by "signing" up for things: Social Security, Drivers License, Fishing License, Hunting License, Building Permits, Property Taxes, Identification Cards, Business License, Selective Service, Library Cards, Medicare, Financial Aid, Public School, Marriage License, Voter Registration, Jury Registration, and so on. NONE OF WHICH are mandatory!!!!!
ALL of these items are adhesion contracts, that have far reaching implications..
@Gungfuman77 without you knowing it. Some people will say "ignore these contracts" and work around them, I say begin terminating them for lack of understanding and intent, because once terminated, the contract is void....working around them keeps the contracts in force, and keeps you subject to the terms therein.
If you don't understand how these are all unrevealed contracts you're FORCED to get under "penalty of (so called) law" then you'll never understand why they're all wrong.
@RetSquid ANY contract not entered into knowingly, consciously and willfully AND without duress is invalid. Even todays courts acknowledge that about any legal contract you sign. By forcing you to get these licenses in order to do any of those things, you are entering into a contract with the system and are now enslaved by the terms of the contract. But you're not told that it's a legally binding contract and you're led to believe you're signing of your own free will, but you're not.
@RetSquid As I said..have fun with the system that you SO obviously love and enjoy. You are obviously one of those people that are SO inured so Hopelessly dependent on the system, that you fight to protect it....Enjoy.
@RetSquid Thus you are being deceived into giving up rights that you already have, but are being told that you don't have and need to get permission to fish, hunt, drive, get married, etc. Once you sign the contract, now they have you. This is why these things are not taught in schools anymore, so everyone can be far more easily controlled and manipulated by the system. All part of the dumbing down of America, to lock you into extremely narrow thinking so you can't see the whole truth.
@RetSquid It has Everything to do with it, because unless you understand HOW things got to this point, you'll never understand the scam or how the wool has been SO pulled over your eyes, which you obviously don't get at all. The government tells you that you don't have a right to travel on their roads Because of Maritime law, unrevealed contracts and the regulation of commerce. That is the argument they use to claim their right of enforcement in all of this. You can't separate them.
@RetSquid No it does not. ALL the roads are considered waterways. That is why you send a package and pay for "shipping", that's why a truck back into a loading 'dock'. That's why you have lanes of travel aka shipping lanes, that's why the grassy part between the roads (waterways) is often called an "island" and it's illegal to travel on it, because a ship (your car) physically can't go on land. It's why truck drivers hand over a "bill of lading" for a delivery, which is something a ...
@RetSquid Captain hands carries the "bill of lading" with him after he gets his goods to deliver. But on land it's called a "Way bill" per Bouviers Law Dictionary. The truck driver (captain) backs into the bay, then up to the dock, etc. Just as when you're born you're born out of water, after you first traveled down the "birth canal", delivered by the "Doc", in the delivery room because your mother now delivered another product for the government to own.That's why she gave "birth, just
@RetSquid As has been said....most of the world LOVES the slavery and living in ignorance. ALL LAW is based on words, definitions and specific meanings, that's WHY you have law dictionaries. I've read many books on this as had Maxwell who is a researcher into these things. The correlations are self evident save fro those who WILLINGLY seek to remain blind and dumbed down, so be it. I've told you two books to read to learn more about these things, but I'm sure it won't matter at all.
@RetSquid I've spoken to several lawyers about this in the past three years, all of whom acknowledged it all, yet most people have NO CLUE about any of it, nor do they want to. Then there are those whose minds are put into a box SO small that their minds are psychologically incapable of grasping the scope of the lies.
You need to find lawyers that actually know the law, the ones you talked to are morons. Ask them from case citations for a case where SCOTUS overruled the State's right to license anyone using a motor vehicle on roads, just one single case. Then I will conceed and never post on this subject again.
@RetSquid as a ship that pulls into a port is sent to a Berth and given a "berth certificate" etc. On and on it goes with the maritime terms and maritime laws applying to the land as the sea. This started back in 1852 and was essentially completed in 1933 when the U.S was officially declared to be bankrupt and owned by it's creditors, the bank of England. It's all money which is why money is kept in a "bank" aka river bank and why it's also called "liquidity", water, commerce, maritime
@RetSquid Read "They own it all, including you by means of Toxic currency" and "The Creature from Jekyl Island" to begin to understand these things and how it all ties into together with commerce, maritime law, contract, products, movement of goods, the roadways, licensing and control, which is what it's ALL about... control.
@RetSquid Just like they passed the NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act which now allows for the government to indefinitely detain and imprison ANYONE that they claim is a "terrorist", which can mean just disagreeing w anything the government says.Obama is the one that Wanted it to pertain to Americans put into the bill!
h ttp://ww w.forbes.co m/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/
Constitutional lawyers, Supreme court cases and historians know it's a fraud. Limits on travel, along with British troops busting into homes, arresting people without due process, illegal searches and other violations of the Magna Carta were some of the main "straws the broke the camels back" and started the first shot of the Revolutionary War. Read history.
@RetSquid Works fine for me. It's only a partial link. You have to paste it into the browser and possibly remove the extra / after the youtube dot kom then hit enter.
@RetSquid to be fair, retsqid is legally right on a few things he brings up, i made this video a while back and it was more speculation than experience, probably irresponsible of me. :( i have seen since then that judges rarely buy these arguments, but that doesn't mean they are any less sound, but it does mean they are not always effective. the truth is though, there are NO FACTS to prove any of the these "laws" apply to anyone, and i have seen that position get a lot of cases tossed out. :)
@paranoidpatriot If you judge the "correctness" of a law by what all the corrupt judges, lawyers and DA's say, then you are at their mercy and might as well give up and enjoy living in the coming police state. Just because some of the lower courts have decided to side with the maritime/commercial contract laws, tell you that you must have a license to travel on roads built by tax money because the FEDS want to conclude that it's ALL commerce doesn't make it so.
The Federal government has nothing to do with licensing your private, non-commercial vehicle/car. It has nothing to do with commerce, just the State's inherent right to regulate motor vehicles. It has nothing to do with travel, which is still unrestricted, you just can't be the one driving, THAT is not 'travel'.
But the law traffic courts in many states, including mine don't care. They just ignore it all, move on with the facts of the case even when I Constitutionally argued about Jurisdiction and find you guilty no matter what. You can only be fined if it's a criminal case, which they'll admit it's not. They do NOT obey their own rules and laws which is the very definition OF corruption and a kangaroo court. It will still work in many states, it all depends on where you live. Good stuff!
allowed to control interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, this is how they GOT YA. They've tricked everyone via these illegal contracts into becoming a corporation and in this way, to be once again made a SLAVE!! Not so much physically, but in terms of your job, driving, marriage, fishing licenses and so much more. When you get a ticket, they're suing you for "breach of contract" and extracting a fine from you. But it's done under admiralty/maritime law which is illegal by itself.
As you correctly mentioned, the "strawman" or fake man for those who are new to this. If you look on your drivers license, credit cards, debit cards, SS card, Bank statements and anything else legal, you'll notice that your name is always in ALL CAPS. To use it seems irrelevant, but under the law that means that YOU are a Corporation and via this MASSIVE legal deception, you are now BOUND to the same Commercial/Contractual laws as any corporation is. Since the Federal Government is...
@Gungfuman77 [tax evader complained of]"his name being in capital letters in a prior order issued by this Court and then ... makes an incorrect reference to this form of using all capital letters as being proper only in reference to corporate entities. This is an incorrect statement of the law and ... is illustrative of [his] continued harassing and frivolous behavior."
US v. M.L. Lindsay (10th Cir 7/1/99) _F3d_, 99 USTC para 50648, 84 AFTR2d 5102;
By forcing people to get a drivers license, which IS an unrevealed contract, they are in violation of the common law and UCC 1-308. You are being forced to comply with ANY license you get and thus this is illegal as it's a form of slavery. This is where the 14th amendment comes into play again where by only giving everyone "privileges and immunities" instead of rights, it superseded the "right to travel" already granted under the Constitution and has brought Everyone back into Corporate slavery!
Here is the Common Law for you: "No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that ... every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operator's license...."
-City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366
@RetSquid TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 2 > § 31> 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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. ...
10)Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other...
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege (unless you accept that you are a 14th amendment slave), but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived" Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago 169NE 221.
@RetSquid Not according to the definition of driving, which is "...Driver" means one Employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle"
Bouviers Law Dictionary 6th Ed. That's why you have a bus/taxi/truck driver. They have tricked the American people into thinking that when controlling their carriage (car) they're "driving". That is a strictly commercial term for one who is employed to operate a motor vehicle and doesn't not otherwise apply. Just as the minute you..
Yes, in the 1800s there were no cars so the only 'drivers' there were those you listed. The law today is about "motor vehicle operators" and you are the operator when you are behind the wheel.
@RetSquid The Thompson vs. Smith 154 SE 579 case clearly mentioned automobiles, not just horse drawn carriages. There are many other cases that also support this as well. Just as there are those you can support to the contrary, but the latter are corrupt judgments and cases that are in violation of the intent and purpose of the Constitution. ALL licenses are getting the permission of the feudal lord. Back in Feudal times you needed the lords permission to travel, own a house, to fish..
"The issuance and revocation of such [driving] permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare."
@RetSquid Right, note the KEYWORD here at the end "Safety". It's All about supposed safety..why?? Because police are now tools of the insurance companies who are almost all owned by the banks, especially the illegal central bank- The FED. The more they get you to buckle up, slow down, don't recklessly drive, the less injuries & less payouts from insurance co's, thus the higher their profits. Again, it all goes back to maritime /commerce law and it's all about profits, but it's illegal.
I'm leaving now, your midnless/lawless bableing is pointless, the law, the courts, EVERYONE says you are wrong, legally you don't have anything to back you up outside of your own imagination and twisted definitions.
@RetSquid "An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law." (*Keith Brooks v. State*, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W.2d 317)
We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law." (*Claude D. Campbell v. State*, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W.2d 401.)
Good thing it's REALLY called an "operator's licnese", huh? You have to have an operators license a/k/a/ "driver's license" to use your car/vehicle/automobile on a public road.
@RetSquid "There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense." ( *W. Lee Hassell v. The State*, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W.2d 400)
"The court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a "driver's license." (*Frank John Callas v. State*, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W.2d 360.)
@RetSquid It's only because you only have a few pieces, which is exactly what they want, that you don't understand my speech. I've quoted many Supreme Court Cases that uphold what I'm saying and could do so with many more too. You don't understand about commerce, the true legal terms and contract law which is what the drivers license is, thi sis why you and so many others are so confused..it's by design. See this then email the lawyer- /watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=jILkxbK_lzk
@RetSquid own a business, live in a certain town, etc This is why the founding fathers made everyone a free sovereign which until that time only kings were free sovereigns. In that is automatically included the right to do or go anywhere you wish by any means. They could have limited you even before cars, to travel only by foot, horse, donkey, carriage, boat, but it made no different how you traveled. Any such restriction is akin to an arrest which is against the Constitution.
for a thug you are a great reader lol.
great vid
thundus81 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Ask the OMB.
2.(16) Withholding agent The term ``withholding agent'' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.
3. Eggs also come from reptiles, certain mammals, fish, birds, slugs, birds, and other sources.
Now why would you be dumb enough to call an egg a chicken? I did not put a limit on eggs yet you imposed one. How odd that you see everything to be limiting your rights, yet all eggs are chickens.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
1. Ask them what?
2. Withholding does not matter, Section 1 makes 'every individual' liable for the income tax 'imposed'.
3. I use chicken eggs like most other people, my refering to chicken eggs does not exclude other eggs from existing.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man WOW, The truth gets removed? I guess they want to serve the control structure that wants to Enslave them and every part of there Life..
adam3176 3 weeks ago
You have a right to travel on the public right of ways. Freeways are public right of ways and only allow motor vehicles/automobiles on them. If it was a privilege to use the freeways then the eminent domain could not be used to take land and no public money could be used to fund them.
Since they are paid for using public money and you're prohibited from walking, riding a horse, using an animal drawn cart along them, etc. Then it;s obvious that they are meant to be used by you in your automobile.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
You cannot drive a car (by whatever words you want) without a licence. It is a privilege given to you by the State. If you are behind the wheel, you are driving by definition and not traveling.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
I know people who are doing it just fine, no license plates either.
The police stop them talk to them and send them on their way.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
What's a FREEWAY again and why do I see 'State Property - No Trespassing' signs at the onramps of 'FREEWAYS', and who the hell is the state? :)
libertylives2 4 weeks ago
Two questions: If you are willing to operate with unlimited liability, [exercising your right to travel without insurance or a license] then would you take the punishment if you were to get into a car accident and kill someone, not having insurance? How would the other party get compensated if you are not operating under limited liability?
A1nitak 4 weeks ago
@A1nitak You would be tried under common law and imprisoned for causing harm/death to another human being id imagine.
gunmanscotland 3 weeks ago
This is so bunk. Like the law's just don't apply to 99% of what people think. If people believed this, the laws would be changed overnight. If people didn't, you still go to jail for driving without a license. Even if you try to pull the Constitution out, that would be changed in a heart beat if people really thought it let everyone disregard things they don't like.
cdoftx 1 month ago
whats up dick long time no see paranoid, remember me? check out my uploads i got some good court audio up n police encounters.
youngstersgv 1 month ago
California Vehicle Code Section 305; A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
CVC 415 (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
CVC 260 (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles.
CVC 12500 (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid
Read your license again... What does it say it is?
Does it really say, "Driver's License"?
Maybe you need to learn how to read and it really says, "Driver License," like the gentleman in the video shows that is what his says.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
Maybe if you jump up and scream "ABRACADABRA", you might turn into a rabbit, but there are no magic words when it comes to a licence. If you are behind the whell you are required to have a licence.
If your self-propelled motor vehicle/car/automobile/conveyance/super-duper-mobile is on a public road, it also needs a licence and registration.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
It's like the term, "United State," there are 3 different meanings used in the IRC alone.
If they did not have different meanings then the law would simply say that they are all the same. The more I look into the law the more convoluted it really is.
The term fruit includes, oranges, lemons, grapefruit, and limes.
You are prohibited from eating fruit in public.
You get ticketed for eating an apple. You think you violated the law don't you?
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
A apple is a fruit so you would be violating the law, the word 'includes' does not exclude other things in the same class as those listed.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
Includes; means limited to what is listed otherwise the law would be void for vagueness.
Even in Jursidictionary you're taught that.
If it is not listed or described it does not apply.
Now if the law said, "The term fruit means; anything that is commonly considered a fruit."
Then you would be in violation for eating an apple.
But an apple is not listed as a fruit for our example.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
"Includes; means limited to what is listed otherwise the law would be void for vagueness."
Incorrect.
“The terms ‘means’ and ‘includes’ are not necessarily synonymous. ... The natural distinction would be that where ‘means’ is employed, the term and its definition are to be interchangeable equivalents, and that the verb ‘includes’ imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition.”
Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc., 293 U.S. 121, 125, n. 1 (1934)
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
If a statute lists "oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and other fruit", the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase "other fruit" to mean other citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. The courts may assume lawmakers intended by "other fruit" all the many types of citrus: kumquats, limes, tangelos, etc. When lawmakers list items of similar kind, then say "and other" (or similar wo), the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word "other" to include only items of the same type.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
Wrong again, the Supreme Court does not agree with your idea, as I already posted.
The maxim “is an aid to construction, not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.” Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88 (1940).
It “serves only as an aid in discovering the legislative intent when * * * [it] is not otherwise manifest.” United States v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 519 (1912); see 2A Sutherland Stat. Const. sec. 47.23 (1984).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
“In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, ‘include’ is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.”
American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
It is because of this canon of construction: "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," which (roughly) means that what is not included was meant to be excluded.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
A canon of contruction does not overide the law itself, nor case law.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
Case law is where one judge lies and another upholds the lie.
You're one of those who would never understand who to ask for a TIN/SSN/ITIN.
Or understand that there are at least 3 different "united States" in the IRC alone.
You seem the type to mistake the Subtitles in the IRC.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
You seem the type to ignore anything that proves them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Case Law is Common Law.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
If we were talking about a business this might apply, but we are not. We are talking about a individual's non-commercial driver's licence.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
WOW.... You're dense.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
Nope, just well-informed and educated. What is your problem with the obvious truth?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
I don't think you are at all.
I will ask you some simple questions to find out.
Who is a form W-9 for?
Who is the only person made liable for paying the federal income tax? Cite the section of code.
What is the difference between the source of eggs and eggs?
Are pennies legal tender?
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
1. Nearly Anyone.
2. Every Individual. Title 26, Section1.
3. Both are chickens in different forms.
4. Yes.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid Just out of curiosity, are you a lawyer or member of the law enforcement community? If not, how did you become so well versed in legal arguments?
paranoidpatriot 3 weeks ago
@paranoidpatriot
Neither, I just got tired of seeing some people post all of these lies trying to confuse other people and potentially getting them in trouble or in prison.
How? By lots of research and reading...examining all the bogus arguments and reading lots of cases, also due to "THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ, Created by Daniel B. Evans". What a GREAT source of information.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).
Where did you get these outlandish claims from?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Here is what SCOTUS really says:
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. *Congress already had the power to tax all incomes.*"
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
Back to the derived source again.
BTW replace your "levy" with "lay".
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on eggs, ‘from whatever source derived’
That is not a tax on chickens or other source of eggs.
Wages maybe a source of income but they are not income in and of themselves.
Earnings are not income.
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Freedom1man
"replace your "levy" with "lay"."
Talk to SCOTUS, it's their quote.
"Wages maybe a source of income but they are not income in and of themselves. Earnings are not income. "
Wrong on both counts. Go read the cases again
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
As for the claim by the IRS that, if the Form is not provided, the payor is to impose backup withholding of 31%, we must examine the form. On the form you will see that the person executing this form is stating that the number provided by them as theirs is correct, under "penalty of perjury". This is what the form requires, yet the statute regarding backup withholding for payee certification failure (that is, failure to certify that
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
your TIN/EIN/SSN is correct), 26 U.S.C. § 3406(e)(1), plainly states that the number can only be required, by the Secretary, to be provided under penalty of perjury in regards to "interest, dividends, patronage dividends, and amount subject to broker reporting."
Freedom1man 3 weeks ago
@Freedom1man
Did you have a point? This has nothing to do with the tax being imposed on that person, just a fine point on withholding a portion of that tax by his/her employer.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Back of my license says Operator License so where does that leave your stupid fuckass argument?
If you are behind the wheel YOU ARE DRIVING, not "travelling" and just because Black's Law Dictionary defines driver in a commercial sense doesn't mean it takes prededent over the general definition of the term driver that the state uses when issuing licenses to drive.
Goddammit you people are stupid.
Blahblobify 1 month ago
@Blahblobify "Back of my license...": It seems this already went over your head. If you have a license, you are a commercial vehicle operator. If you do not have a license and your vehicle is not registered, it is not a motor vehicle, it is an automobile and you are not an operator, you are a traveler.
tiggxtreme 1 month ago
@tiggxtreme
What's going over your head is if you are behind the wheel of a car you are FUCKING DRIVING IT.
Blahblobify 1 month ago
@Blahblobify Irrelevant. Unless your state law says otherwise, your car is not a motor vehicle unless it is registered for commercial use, so you are not driving a motor vehicle and do not have to adhere to laws that only apply to motor vehicles. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, but you seem hellbent on infuriating yourself and looking like an angry fool instead of offering a proper argument.
tiggxtreme 1 month ago
@tiggxtreme
haha a car is not a motor vehicle you people are insane.
it's got a motor and it's a vehicle now fuck off and die asshole
Blahblobify 1 month ago
be allowed to vote or breed. Claiming rights that aren't provided by the basic founding ideals of the country you reside in just make you look ignorant. Again though, if you disagree and think you should have a right, that you are not guarunteed by the current foundational system of your country, that's something to approach politically. That's why we have amendments to our constitution and a bill of rights. They didn't think of everything all in one document, and times change.
hzuiel 1 month ago
that speed limits are stupid and they don't save lives. If enough people all had the same opinion, then they could petition the government to change the laws, and eliminate strict speed limits, and maybe change it to be something else, or only having speed limits in certain areas, but not all roads. That's where it gets interesting. If you go to politicians and say "i have a right to break the law! the constitution says it!" then they will write you off as another ignorant person who shouldn't
hzuiel 1 month ago
Does any of this make sense to all of you or am i being too boring and logical? This really isn't such a difficult concept. Now where it gets interesting is when you understand the basic of where we cross over from our rights, to your opinion of the regulations the government has in place, then we can all have a nice debate and learn something. As an example, you have to understand that you do not have a "right" to drive 150 miles per hour on the road. However you have a right to the opinion
hzuiel 1 month ago
the right to drive, just because you have the right to travel. What right to travel means is that you as a person, have the right to be free, and go about this country freely. So if you want to ask a friend to drive you to the bus station, take a bus to the air port, fly on an air plane to another state, and pay a taxi driver to drive you to a national tourist attraction so you can take photos, you have every right to freely do that activity and travel within this nation.
hzuiel 1 month ago
Now as far as right to travel goes, it is exactly what it says. A sovereign citizen has the right to travel. It doesn't say that you can travel any way you like. If you built your own home made plane and flew it in circles around an airport where you were endangering other planes, would that be okay because you have the right to travel? No. If you are incapable of operating a motor vehicle and do not know the rules of the road, and therefore do not have a driver license, then you do not have
hzuiel 1 month ago
to help ensure safety on those public roads, for which they are responsible. As part of this they require vehicles which will be used on public roads be registered with the bureau of motor vehicles, and for you to carry insurance so that if an accident occurs on those public roads, those who suffer physical injury and property loss may be properly compensated. These are simply their stipulations, to use the roads, over which they have jurisdiction because it is government owned, but public.
hzuiel 1 month ago
I don't understand why this is such a overly complicated issue. Roads are public, but they are property of the government. The government owns the land, is responsible for maintenance of the road, and managing anything that passes under the road like utilities, sewer, phone lines, water pipes, etc. In order to drive on their roads, they legally require you to obtain a driver license in order to prove that you know the rules for those roads, and are capable of skillfully operating a motor vehicle
hzuiel 1 month ago
all those you quoted where regulations set forth by those agencies which are company rules. When you carry that license you are by contract agreeing to abide by those acts and statutes. Which means your acting as a person (which means trust of the corporation) eg: Government employee. Which makes you by contract obligated to go by their laws. You stated the fraud however, because the government is not paying you for a service. Your not performing a service of government. NO CONTRACT
Gryphyn3 1 month ago
Correction in my first comment driving is ONLY commercial it means you are getting paid behind the wheel. I accidently said making a profit or not. sorry.
scottsaz22 1 month ago
So now you reply to the judge ...your honor I wasn't driving I was traveling, and I wasn't operating I was moving about the common way<<<<that's what you say, and your honor I don't own a vehicle it is my recreational automobile, so If YOU the COURTS or the police and prove that I was making a profit behind the wheel I gladly accept these charges. The courts know they can't prove so he'll dismiss the case. Worked for me 3 out of 3 times.
scottsaz22 1 month ago
you guys don't understand how this works there are 3 words you cannot use in the court room they are Driving or Driver, Operator, and Vehicle, so listen beautiful ppl who don't understand law.. Driving is commercial it means your getting paid behind the wheel whether making a profit or not. Operating is ANOTHER commercial word like that man is operating the crane that means he's getting paid to do so. Vehicle is a commercial vehicle if you don't use it commercially then its an recreational auto.
scottsaz22 1 month ago
to all the stockholm syndrome sufferers commenting on this video......the guy is reading the words on the licence, finding out there definitions and it says driving is commerce. yet you are all saying he has to have a licence to travel. do any of you slaves know what commerce means? to be granted a licence to do something, the thing you want to do must in essence already be a fundamentally lawful act. this is all just too complex for the sheeple to fathom of course. pathetic.
tvlicenceevader666 1 month ago
These "right to travel" douchebags are pretending to be too stupid to understand the simplest shit.
It's a Driver License. You need one to operate a motor vehicle.
"Driving versus travelling"....?? You are playing silly semantic games in order to fuck with courts over NOTHING and feel important
Blahblobify 1 month ago
It's simple really, either you "operate" a "motor vehicle" for profit, or you travel for your own private needs in your private vehicle.
loveunderlaw 1 month ago
@loveunderlaw
Putting quotation marks around words doesn't change their meaning. If you are operating a motor vehicle YOU ARE DRIVING and you need a goddamn license to do that you stupid fuck shit.
Blahblobify 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blahblobify Putting quotation marks around words doesn't change their meaning. If you are operating a motor vehicle YOU ARE DRIVING and you need a goddamn license to do that you stupid fuck shit.
loveunderlaw 1 month ago
@Bayouvoodoo1 Instead of raping cats all day, maybe you should get out once in a while LOL:)
loveunderlaw 1 month ago
@Blahblobify Yes, believe the man who has no understanding of U.S. law like most, and uses insults to defend his position.
Fosellar 1 month ago
Contract law should be taught in school.
Alxjeffs 1 month ago 6
No such thing as a Drivers License. its a Driver License. And its illegal.
adam3176 1 month ago 3
@adam3176
Wrong.
California Vehicle Code Section 455. "Original driver's license" means the first driver's license issued a person under this code.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Good video and accurate. Although looking up and reading from your own state's statutes and definitions would also be a good idea in order to teach these brainwashed posters on here the truth. BTW, you will find that your state does not require you to transfer a title unless you want to register it. And no requirement to register it, nor to have plates unless registered.
KEWLIDO 1 month ago
Thanks. Keep researching and informing.
CNN911Fakes 1 month ago
lol aka "im a wigger" aka "wigger supreme" aka"pussy with a hat" aka "i cant read out loud worth a fuck wigger" lol
Matador13th 1 month ago
@Matador13th very constructive criticism.
paranoidpatriot 1 month ago
@paranoidpatriot lol not really jus talking shit. im sorry but i fucking hate fake ass white boys lol trying to be something they're not. In the word of George Carlin "you will never be as cool as black guys to stick with your fagity polka" paraphrasing of course.
Matador13th 1 month ago
@Matador13th its cool, i know dudes who wear tight pants, cowboy hats and drive big trucks, but have never herded cattle or cleaned horse shit. as youngsters, we all mimic what our friends and heros do and how they dress and act. then, later, we grow into ourselves. it's kinda just part of growing up. but i wonder how often u judge people of other pre-made identities. or do u just make fun of the ones that allow u to be racist? "that's how black people act, not white people" is what u sound like
paranoidpatriot 1 month ago
aka ignorance, aka "don't want to live with any rules", aka "I fucked up somewhere down the line", aka "I think I know the law".
cochranexyz 1 month ago
@cochranexyz aka "is rather successful" aka "has two businesses" aka "doesn't violate other peoples rights" aka "gets most of his cases dismissed"
paranoidpatriot 1 month ago
@paranoidpatriot I forgot to add arrogant.
cochranexyz 1 month ago
@cochranexyz Facts are facts. You can run your mouth and sling insults all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
paranoidpatriot 1 month ago
@paranoidpatriot "Gets most of his cases dismissed"--what were you doing to land in court? Under the impression no laws apply to you?
cochranexyz 1 month ago
@cochranexyz The judges are the ones that say the laws don't apply to me. But if the cops knew it, they would stop writing tickets and collecting money. And to be clear, the laws don't apply to anyone. I have had more than just my own cases thrown out on this premise. The whole thing is a scam. If you want to keep playing along and giving up your freedom and money to this crooked system, go right ahead. But why get angry and insult those of us who got wise to the scam and want out?
paranoidpatriot 1 month ago
@paranoidpatriot LOL. The chips on your shoulder must weigh a ton. You should move to a country where they have no laws, then. See how you like it there.
cochranexyz 1 month ago
@cochranexyz No chips. I just don't like being lied to or manipulated. I like to be free rather than oppressed. I thought that's this country was all about. Why would I want to leave? Maybe it is you who should leave.
paranoidpatriot 1 month ago
@paranoidpatriot LOL. Done arguing with you.
cochranexyz 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignBeing 1 month ago
Excellent Video!!!!
BIGTHREEZ1 1 month ago
U right P one does not need a License to travel to and fro on his activities and I have challenged that many times and I live in the state of New Jersey,I was told to keep quiet with this info in court by the judge,after everyone was out the courtroom they waited till I was last and I told the judge it is my God given right I don't need a license to drive I don't drive with me and my family for profit and can go and will go as I please,the judge told me he gona dismiss my ticket don't come back
MrSiddique1971 1 month ago
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the government and/or the central banking cartel, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He only trolls strawman and tax protestor videos. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 2 months ago
Go here it has the full and whole argument as a properly used successful legal brief It has had sucess in 3 States also has a precaution of what not to do or say...
us law books dot com Driver Licensing vs right to travel
suprememindwrestler 2 months ago
1:39 "driver means any person" look up word "person"
cdimmm 2 months ago
Here is the link to the U.S. TITLES he mentioned in the videos for those interested in seeing it for themselves. It can't get any clearer or plainer. (remove the spaces)
htt p://ww w.law.cornell.ed u/uscode/usc_sec_18_00000031----000-.html
And another with more courts cases in support of this
htt p://ww w.w3f.co m/patriots/totravel.html
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
That's Federal law, it has nothing to do with licensing a private non-commercial vehicle like you car, that is covered in State law, like I have posted.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Yes it does, via Maritime law and the Commerce clause of the Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. They have used this as the excuse to regulate everything claiming that ALL things, including your car is a "commercial vehicle" falls under commerce and under their jurisdiction. Unless your driving a Taxi,etc, private cars are not commerce.
WITNESS920 2 months ago
@WITNESS920
Private cars are not commercial and the Federal Government does not regulate the licensing of them, so Federal law does not apply. State law applies and say the both you and your car must be licensed.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid The states are following the Federal mandates to do so. NO LAW, RULES, CODE or anything else operating under color or pretense of law can be passed that supersedes the Constitution which is the Supreme law of the land. To force you to have to get a license to operate any mode of travel on the roads is to limit your freedom of travel and is against the rights protected by the Constitution which are to LIMIT government intervention in the peoples lives.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Sorry, you do not have a Constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle (car) on a public road. You are free to travel as you wish, just not behind the wheel. The Supreme Court has supported the State's rights to be able to regulate this.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid If you are "free to travel as you wish" but can't use a horse, cart or car to do it, then you are not "FREE to travel as you wish" save for walking or taking a bike, both of which greatly limit your freedom of mobility. Just because corrupt courts and judges side with the common Maritime argument that because the roads are used for commerce + travel means that all who travel on them for ANY reason be licensed doesn't make it so. Many lawyers have said otherwise.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Sorry, no court will buy your argument, so it is legal failure. Driving/operating a motor vehicle is NOT a right, it never has been.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid As I said, just because the lower courts are no longer buying the argument does not invalidate the argument or the truth of it. You are making your judgments based on whether or not it works and to what degree. In a police state you still have courts, elections, voting and an Appearance of "democracy", but it's an illusion, a scam as you are always found guilty if they want fines, to throw you in jail or to kill you. Same thing that's going on now.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
No court, all the way to the Supreme Court, agrees with your arguments.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid They why are there so many Supreme court cases that state the opposite!? The need to "show your papers, your papers please" is one of the hallmarks of a police state and it starts with needing the "kings permission" to do anything. This permission is encapsulated in ALL the BS licenses they require you to have to do Anything, including using a vehicle that you purchase, maintain and own on roads built by your own tax dollars. They're already setitng up TS checkpoints on roads
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@RetSquid You have given up MANY rights throughout the years by "signing" up for things: Social Security, Drivers License, Fishing License, Hunting License, Building Permits, Property Taxes, Identification Cards, Business License, Selective Service, Library Cards, Medicare, Financial Aid, Public School, Marriage License, Voter Registration, Jury Registration, and so on. NONE OF WHICH are mandatory!!!!!
ALL of these items are adhesion contracts, that have far reaching implications..
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77 without you knowing it. Some people will say "ignore these contracts" and work around them, I say begin terminating them for lack of understanding and intent, because once terminated, the contract is void....working around them keeps the contracts in force, and keeps you subject to the terms therein.
If you don't understand how these are all unrevealed contracts you're FORCED to get under "penalty of (so called) law" then you'll never understand why they're all wrong.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Show me ANY SCOTUS case that says States cannot require a driver's/operator's license to use a vehicle on public roads.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid ANY contract not entered into knowingly, consciously and willfully AND without duress is invalid. Even todays courts acknowledge that about any legal contract you sign. By forcing you to get these licenses in order to do any of those things, you are entering into a contract with the system and are now enslaved by the terms of the contract. But you're not told that it's a legally binding contract and you're led to believe you're signing of your own free will, but you're not.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Sorry, the courts ALL say you are wrong.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid As I said..have fun with the system that you SO obviously love and enjoy. You are obviously one of those people that are SO inured so Hopelessly dependent on the system, that you fight to protect it....Enjoy.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Enjoy living the lie, just don't lie on here about it.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Thus you are being deceived into giving up rights that you already have, but are being told that you don't have and need to get permission to fish, hunt, drive, get married, etc. Once you sign the contract, now they have you. This is why these things are not taught in schools anymore, so everyone can be far more easily controlled and manipulated by the system. All part of the dumbing down of America, to lock you into extremely narrow thinking so you can't see the whole truth.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
You never had a right to drive, not ever.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid It has Everything to do with it, because unless you understand HOW things got to this point, you'll never understand the scam or how the wool has been SO pulled over your eyes, which you obviously don't get at all. The government tells you that you don't have a right to travel on their roads Because of Maritime law, unrevealed contracts and the regulation of commerce. That is the argument they use to claim their right of enforcement in all of this. You can't separate them.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
No, roads have nothing to do with Maritime law, that deals ONLY with waterways.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid No it does not. ALL the roads are considered waterways. That is why you send a package and pay for "shipping", that's why a truck back into a loading 'dock'. That's why you have lanes of travel aka shipping lanes, that's why the grassy part between the roads (waterways) is often called an "island" and it's illegal to travel on it, because a ship (your car) physically can't go on land. It's why truck drivers hand over a "bill of lading" for a delivery, which is something a ...
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
You REALLY need a dictionary and learn some etyomology.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Captain hands carries the "bill of lading" with him after he gets his goods to deliver. But on land it's called a "Way bill" per Bouviers Law Dictionary. The truck driver (captain) backs into the bay, then up to the dock, etc. Just as when you're born you're born out of water, after you first traveled down the "birth canal", delivered by the "Doc", in the delivery room because your mother now delivered another product for the government to own.That's why she gave "birth, just
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Stop posting this crap, and you REALLY need to stop listening to Jordy. dock/doc[tor] you really think they are related?
sorry, i just have to laugh and call it for what it is, abject stupidity.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid As has been said....most of the world LOVES the slavery and living in ignorance. ALL LAW is based on words, definitions and specific meanings, that's WHY you have law dictionaries. I've read many books on this as had Maxwell who is a researcher into these things. The correlations are self evident save fro those who WILLINGLY seek to remain blind and dumbed down, so be it. I've told you two books to read to learn more about these things, but I'm sure it won't matter at all.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@RetSquid I've spoken to several lawyers about this in the past three years, all of whom acknowledged it all, yet most people have NO CLUE about any of it, nor do they want to. Then there are those whose minds are put into a box SO small that their minds are psychologically incapable of grasping the scope of the lies.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
You need to find lawyers that actually know the law, the ones you talked to are morons. Ask them from case citations for a case where SCOTUS overruled the State's right to license anyone using a motor vehicle on roads, just one single case. Then I will conceed and never post on this subject again.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid as a ship that pulls into a port is sent to a Berth and given a "berth certificate" etc. On and on it goes with the maritime terms and maritime laws applying to the land as the sea. This started back in 1852 and was essentially completed in 1933 when the U.S was officially declared to be bankrupt and owned by it's creditors, the bank of England. It's all money which is why money is kept in a "bank" aka river bank and why it's also called "liquidity", water, commerce, maritime
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
I'll tear apart your pitiful word-play later.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Read "They own it all, including you by means of Toxic currency" and "The Creature from Jekyl Island" to begin to understand these things and how it all ties into together with commerce, maritime law, contract, products, movement of goods, the roadways, licensing and control, which is what it's ALL about... control.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@RetSquid Just like they passed the NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act which now allows for the government to indefinitely detain and imprison ANYONE that they claim is a "terrorist", which can mean just disagreeing w anything the government says.Obama is the one that Wanted it to pertain to Americans put into the bill!
h ttp://ww w.forbes.co m/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Off topic, nothing to do with licenses or cars.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid
LAW AND GOVERNMENT DRIVERS LICENSE FRAUD PT.1/16
/watch?v=4jXvw4AdhRQ&feature=related
Constitutional lawyers, Supreme court cases and historians know it's a fraud. Limits on travel, along with British troops busting into homes, arresting people without due process, illegal searches and other violations of the Magna Carta were some of the main "straws the broke the camels back" and started the first shot of the Revolutionary War. Read history.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Oh, pA-lease, that moron who thinks he a moor? He's a liar from the very start of the video.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Yea..well it works.
/watch?v=uIuAg5AaVqc&feature=related
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Bogus link, check them before posting.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Works fine for me. It's only a partial link. You have to paste it into the browser and possibly remove the extra / after the youtube dot kom then hit enter.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Here is the internal YouTube link: \/uIuAg5AaVqc
He's a babbleing idiot and it has nothing to do with driving or travel.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid to be fair, retsqid is legally right on a few things he brings up, i made this video a while back and it was more speculation than experience, probably irresponsible of me. :( i have seen since then that judges rarely buy these arguments, but that doesn't mean they are any less sound, but it does mean they are not always effective. the truth is though, there are NO FACTS to prove any of the these "laws" apply to anyone, and i have seen that position get a lot of cases tossed out. :)
paranoidpatriot 2 months ago
@paranoidpatriot If you judge the "correctness" of a law by what all the corrupt judges, lawyers and DA's say, then you are at their mercy and might as well give up and enjoy living in the coming police state. Just because some of the lower courts have decided to side with the maritime/commercial contract laws, tell you that you must have a license to travel on roads built by tax money because the FEDS want to conclude that it's ALL commerce doesn't make it so.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
The Federal government has nothing to do with licensing your private, non-commercial vehicle/car. It has nothing to do with commerce, just the State's inherent right to regulate motor vehicles. It has nothing to do with travel, which is still unrestricted, you just can't be the one driving, THAT is not 'travel'.
RetSquid 2 months ago
But the law traffic courts in many states, including mine don't care. They just ignore it all, move on with the facts of the case even when I Constitutionally argued about Jurisdiction and find you guilty no matter what. You can only be fined if it's a criminal case, which they'll admit it's not. They do NOT obey their own rules and laws which is the very definition OF corruption and a kangaroo court. It will still work in many states, it all depends on where you live. Good stuff!
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
allowed to control interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, this is how they GOT YA. They've tricked everyone via these illegal contracts into becoming a corporation and in this way, to be once again made a SLAVE!! Not so much physically, but in terms of your job, driving, marriage, fishing licenses and so much more. When you get a ticket, they're suing you for "breach of contract" and extracting a fine from you. But it's done under admiralty/maritime law which is illegal by itself.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
As you correctly mentioned, the "strawman" or fake man for those who are new to this. If you look on your drivers license, credit cards, debit cards, SS card, Bank statements and anything else legal, you'll notice that your name is always in ALL CAPS. To use it seems irrelevant, but under the law that means that YOU are a Corporation and via this MASSIVE legal deception, you are now BOUND to the same Commercial/Contractual laws as any corporation is. Since the Federal Government is...
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77 [tax evader complained of]"his name being in capital letters in a prior order issued by this Court and then ... makes an incorrect reference to this form of using all capital letters as being proper only in reference to corporate entities. This is an incorrect statement of the law and ... is illustrative of [his] continued harassing and frivolous behavior."
US v. M.L. Lindsay (10th Cir 7/1/99) _F3d_, 99 USTC para 50648, 84 AFTR2d 5102;
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid i don't think the strawman argument was even raised.
paranoidpatriot 2 months ago
@paranoidpatriot
18 hours ago by Gungfuman77
RetSquid 2 months ago
By forcing people to get a drivers license, which IS an unrevealed contract, they are in violation of the common law and UCC 1-308. You are being forced to comply with ANY license you get and thus this is illegal as it's a form of slavery. This is where the 14th amendment comes into play again where by only giving everyone "privileges and immunities" instead of rights, it superseded the "right to travel" already granted under the Constitution and has brought Everyone back into Corporate slavery!
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Here is the Common Law for you: "No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that ... every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operator's license...."
-City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366
RetSquid 2 months ago
Comment removed
JediWitness2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 2 > § 31> 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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. ...
10)Used for commercial purposes.— The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other...
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@RetSquid undertaking intended for profit.
Supreme Court rulings;
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege (unless you accept that you are a 14th amendment slave), but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived" Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago 169NE 221.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Correct, but you are not "traveling" when you are the one in control of the vehicle, you are driving.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Not according to the definition of driving, which is "...Driver" means one Employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon or other vehicle"
Bouviers Law Dictionary 6th Ed. That's why you have a bus/taxi/truck driver. They have tricked the American people into thinking that when controlling their carriage (car) they're "driving". That is a strictly commercial term for one who is employed to operate a motor vehicle and doesn't not otherwise apply. Just as the minute you..
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
Yes, in the 1800s there were no cars so the only 'drivers' there were those you listed. The law today is about "motor vehicle operators" and you are the operator when you are behind the wheel.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid The Thompson vs. Smith 154 SE 579 case clearly mentioned automobiles, not just horse drawn carriages. There are many other cases that also support this as well. Just as there are those you can support to the contrary, but the latter are corrupt judgments and cases that are in violation of the intent and purpose of the Constitution. ALL licenses are getting the permission of the feudal lord. Back in Feudal times you needed the lords permission to travel, own a house, to fish..
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
"The issuance and revocation of such [driving] permits by a city is merely a means of exercising the police power of the State delegated to the city to regulate the use of the public highways in the interest of the public safety and welfare."
Thompson, 154 S.E. at 583.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Right, note the KEYWORD here at the end "Safety". It's All about supposed safety..why?? Because police are now tools of the insurance companies who are almost all owned by the banks, especially the illegal central bank- The FED. The more they get you to buckle up, slow down, don't recklessly drive, the less injuries & less payouts from insurance co's, thus the higher their profits. Again, it all goes back to maritime /commerce law and it's all about profits, but it's illegal.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
I'm leaving now, your midnless/lawless bableing is pointless, the law, the courts, EVERYONE says you are wrong, legally you don't have anything to back you up outside of your own imagination and twisted definitions.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid "An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law." (*Keith Brooks v. State*, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W.2d 317)
We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law." (*Claude D. Campbell v. State*, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W.2d 401.)
paranoidpatriot 2 months ago
@paranoidpatriot
Good thing it's REALLY called an "operator's licnese", huh? You have to have an operators license a/k/a/ "driver's license" to use your car/vehicle/automobile on a public road.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid "There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense." ( *W. Lee Hassell v. The State*, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W.2d 400)
"The court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a "driver's license." (*Frank John Callas v. State*, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W.2d 360.)
paranoidpatriot 2 months ago
@paranoidpatriot
Now, can you show any of these cases in their entirety? From an actual legal source like Nexus/Lexus or OpenJurist?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid It's only because you only have a few pieces, which is exactly what they want, that you don't understand my speech. I've quoted many Supreme Court Cases that uphold what I'm saying and could do so with many more too. You don't understand about commerce, the true legal terms and contract law which is what the drivers license is, thi sis why you and so many others are so confused..it's by design. See this then email the lawyer- /watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=jILkxbK_lzk
Peace
Gungfuman77 2 months ago
@Gungfuman77
The link doesn't work.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Just click it in the "Video Response" section above, same video. If you mean the other links, remove the spaces and they should work.
WITNESS920 2 months ago
@RetSquid Just because one man in a black dress says something, doesn't make it true, otherwise there would be no such thing as appellant courts.
paranoidpatriot 2 months ago
@paranoidpatriot
But when ALL of the legislatures and ALL of those 'men in black' sys what the law means...THAT is what the law means.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid own a business, live in a certain town, etc This is why the founding fathers made everyone a free sovereign which until that time only kings were free sovereigns. In that is automatically included the right to do or go anywhere you wish by any means. They could have limited you even before cars, to travel only by foot, horse, donkey, carriage, boat, but it made no different how you traveled. Any such restriction is akin to an arrest which is against the Constitution.
Gungfuman77 2 months ago