Very important link! Bring up every instant/scenerio/FACT as well as LEGITIMATE PROOF and examples in courts of LAW! CANNOT be doubted or discredited. driving.justincredible.me/
Your link is for someone in Canada, not the U.S. so they would have different laws. In the U.S. you have a right to travel, being behind the wheel is a privilege.
Keep in mind what was stringently maintained through the various versions of The Declaration of INDEPENDENCE and still RULES 2 this day... CONTRACT IS EVERYTHING! If U agree 2 ANY terms/contract,U failed 2 discern U were being identified as a COMMERCIAL ENTITY & DEBT INSTRUMENT. Before U think about debating the function of a "court" as intending 2 CORRUPT U as a FREE person N2 a CORPORATE FICTION, try considering DYING 4 YOUR LIBERTY when U resist a COP! IF FORCED,FIGHT 2 KILL & GO 4 THE THROAT
The Sovereign mantra:Living as I was intended 2 at my birth:2 B a free man on the land,flesh & blood,unencumbered,recognizing no authority greater than MY OWN,living 2 infringe on NO 1. NE1 who knows common law,knows it 2 b a truth, but that DOESNT make it REAL to NE1 but the Sovereign. The ONLY rights U 'have' R the 1's U 'accept'.Conversely, the only rights U can 'lose' R the 1's U accepted and R willing 2 relinquish.Arguing Equity in Maritime Courts NEVER works, only 3rd party reps avoid jail
I did this once, spent the night in jail and fought with the court system for a year to be found guilty and forced to pay a fine or go back to jail. they have the enforcers, judges, jails and guns, kinda ridiculous to fight them on the street. We have to attack the legislators that make the laws.
I would also like to add to everyone. You are not going to win this argument on the roadside with a police officer. They are there to enforce penal code and that s it. Take the ticket, and fight it administratively with an affidavit in the courts if you want to argue your rights vs. privileges. Arguing with the police on the roadside will end up with negative results. Most of them don't understand the depth of these things, nor do they care, so protect your well being and play smarter.
One more thing. You do register your washer machine, but it's not enforced to the extreme as a vehicle, or car or whatever you want to call it. You do so by the serial number when you purchase it, in case it gets stolen, it can be tracked. I would also like for someone to show me in the Constitution where it states anything about cars, vehicles, motor vehicles, mechanically operated conveyances etc. From what I understand, it says nothing about that.
Like I said, you would have to look in the State's Constitution to see if it is prohibited, if it is not, it is allowed. For any Federal law on licences it would fall under the interstate commerce clause.
@RetSquid Oh actually I came up with this in my States Constitution, which is interesting.
SECTION 8 IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE OR IMMUNITY PROHIBITED. No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.
This may mean that the state legislation does not have the right to grant a privilege that can be revoked.... hmmm or am I getting it wrong?.... hmmmm
You can't legally drive without those items. Legally you need them.
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
.For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways,either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain.For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state,but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.
@291oz 14th amendment talks about wide variety of clauses. In this case the Right to Travel is as follows:
In Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court held that this clause protects an aspect of the right to travel. Specifically, the Saenz Court said that the Citizenship Clause protects a citizen's right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally.
If you read .."the right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally."
Right to Travel..protected under the 2nd Amendment.Legal and standard definition of a driver and an automobile vary greatly from what we are led to believe.Under our Bills of Rights,no institution or body of government can prevent any free citizen their right to travel as free citizens.Such forms of prevention include: having a license,insurance, registration,etc (imposing fees and form of control ot travel..blah blah blah).No law,whether federal/state, can supercede our natural born rights.
Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.
Every State in th eUnion has laws that say you have to register your vehicle and that you must have a license to operate that vehicle on public roads. No court has ever ruled against this. Your right to travel does not include you behind the wheel.
My point is that you can drive a boat without a license-- which brings up another important point.
Travel is the essence of freedom, and so roads are the means by which land-travel is restricted, but it doesn't work over water for the same reason. Once people go to to air-travel exclusively, there will be no more borders since it'll be impossible to control them, there will be too many people going where they want through the air.
"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.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads"
City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366
I don't see any definition of 'travel' that helps your cause, you can travel when and where you wish. Being in control of a self-propelled vehicle is driving, which is a privilege controlled by the State.
@libertylives2 Your car is not owned by the state. Your car is registered in the state files. If it wasn't registered, someone could just take it and say it's there's leaving you with no means to prove otherwise in the public view or on the record. I have the certificate for my car, and it clearly states I'm the owner. I also have a lien on all my property and it's in the U.C.C. office filed just in case.
@libertylives2 1. The government is involved because legislative law in that society dictates that the government administrate the safety of the public roads and highways. In this case they require that insurance and a license (to prove competency to understand the rules of the road) are ensured with limited liability. 2.You don't have to do anything but if someone steals your vehicle and it's not registered, how do you prove it's yours and get compensated for loss?
@A1nitak Well I don't consent to a government (that kills people everyday) to rule over my life and well-being. After I pay my car off, I will no longer have registration, license or isurance. I think isurance is a good idea and would gladly pay if they would let me without an id.. But that is not the case. I don't care what anything is written down. I am responsible for my actions and have never had a moving violation. Come what may but after my car is mine, I am out of the government.
Then why are you here arguing? You are going to find an excuse for your behavior no matter what others think about it and no matter how dangerous or stupid that behaviour is.
@libertylives2 I respect what you are explaining and believe in, however if you are going to take that angle I would study court procedure and administrative procedure because you will end up there anyway. Also I would have a solid defense or argument pre established and fact in case law to back up your claims so you know you are already in the clear. Other than that, I hope you don't damage anyone without a way to compensate them on the road.
@A1nitak Dear A1, I completely understand what you're saying. Keep in mind that I work from home and rarely travel. I don't 'obey' traffic laws. I just drive my car safely. Which means I happen to drive near or even at the speed limits anyways. I view them as recommendations and use my common sense to navigate. God forbid I ever harm someone, I would give myself to that debt and be responsible. But re:court, I no longer look to my equals for freedom nor will I ever be in any court.
@A1nitak part 2. Unless I actually did harm someone or someones property. I will always be responsible for my actions. I vow to never steal nor harm another. But accidents do happen I'm aware and I honestly would get the isurance if someone would go into a contract with me. But as they say, since freedom is outlawed, only outlaws have it. -Life is full of chances and sometimes may let u down. But I have to trust it and just do the best I can in my life with my principals of equality.
@libertylives2 just keep in mind, if you have no insurance and you are involved in an accident, which is determined to be your fault.....you can have you salary attached, your home/property siezed and all your money taken from you
@inkey2 Dear inkey2 - The way the system is now is very broken and is not built on the foundation of individual liberty. I have no problem with buying insurance however the government has red tape in the way. I think it's a good idea for sure to have insurance but the way things are setup, youd have to be property of some government to do so. But let me tell you, if I ever harm anyone, noone would have to take anything from me. I would give my all and be responsible for those injured.
@RetSquid so you never have to register it again? That's awesome. I can't wait to pay mine off. My plates still say 2008 on them but I don't have registration or isurance so I dont drive. 1.because there is a lein on the car currently until I pay it off. 2 through weird circumstances I've already paid the state over 5 thousand dollars for a violation on registration in two states.. & got hit again driving my girlfriends car when her insurance lapsed. I didnt know. But I'm sick of it
@RetSquid Your mostly right. But an automobile isn't always a motor vehicle as defined by the statute, and that has been upheld in courts. Maybe not every court but traffic court is a scam in general. If you injure anyone and/or their property then you are held responsible. Statutes are supposedly made to protect our rights I don't see how giving me a ticket for going 15 over protected anyone's rights. It actually violates someone's rights. Mine.
An automobile is a motor vehicle, by definition. "Auto-mobile" means self-propelled, a motor vehicle is one that is self propelled. By driving 15 over, you are endangering others lives by your actions. By the time your ideas of common law and repaying someone for damage kick in, someone could be dead, and that CAN'T be repaid.
@RetSquid I travel in an automobile in a safe and orderly manner even if I'm going 15 over. I'm not going to go that fast unless it's safe to do so. You assume that these statutes prevent accidents. I like that there are speed limits and rules of the rd because it gives us guidelines about what is considered safe. But I can govern myself. I don't need the government to make decisions for me I'm very capable of doing that on my own. So no one can prove that I endanger anyone
@jamesfk77 because there is no injury, which is the 4th element of a cause of action in a civil case. And without every element of a cause of action there is no case. I do understand the point your making that people can't just drive the way they want to and all that. It's a matter of responsibility. Lawfully you can't require someone to get a license for something that is a right. Same with guns. lol
If you are driving 15 over, you are a danger to all around you. Society has determined that speed limits are a good thing and that they need to be enforced with fines. If does not matter what you think of your driving...everyone thinks they are great drivers, society says you are not.
@RetSquid So you think people are not intelligent enough to travel safely on the roads so they need the government to tell them what's safe? gov can regulate driving because it's commerce. They trick everyone into thinking by words of art that this applies to them when usually it doesn't. Yes if you agreed to the license contract and didn't reserve your rights in the sig area you absolutely must submit to the policy that is enforced on the hwy. Doesn't mean it's lawful.
@jamesfk77 I just updated my signature to reserve my rights and stated that I'm only complying under protest and duress in regards to reg and license. So now I actually do have the right to travel as was intended. I don't drive. I travel in my automobile.
Yes, there are MANY people who are not intelligent enough to do safe things. Driving is not commerce....if it WAS, the Federal Government could set all speed limits anywhere. But they can't.
The words are simple you must have a license to be behind the wheel of any motorized vehicle on any public road, and that vehicle must be registered and licensed. All of this is required no matter what you sign or what you reserve.
@RetSquid and these unintelligent people still aren't safe even with "laws". lol! And I believe your wrong but you do know the statutes well I'll give you that. You just don't see the bigger picture here. It's about liberty and freedom. Anyhoo, I'm not convinced and I'll still carry my sovereign affidavits around as Identification, and what ever will be will be.
@RetSquid They would be if they weren't referencing my UCC filing which legally and lawfully clarifies that I the flesh and blood man and the account resembling a name similar to mine are not the same "person" and I'm not liable for charges against that account. I wouldn't even be replying if I wasn't bored because I know your minds been made up for you. fyi I follow all of the "laws of the road" most of the time. With the exception of registration, but not for lack of trying.
@jamesfk77 You never needed the UCC-1 filing to maintain your "status" since there are only 2. You are either dead or alive. You can't "claim" anything. let alone sovereignty. It is "re-cognized" by others by your walk. (actions)
Remember the Green Mile.. "Dead man Walking".. Percy use to say it when he was walking the "prisoners" to the jail or to the electric chair.
@gorgeousdzastr ... interesting.... Not sure where your going with this but I'll bite. Probably didn't need it but it helps. I did it mainly for the BC BOE, and to prevent anyone from being able to put a lien on me. Protect the assets of the fictitious entity. Own nothing control everything!
@RetSquid Well you just showed me how stupid you are. That argument fails sometimes. Not in every case. I've seen quite a few where it's worked just fine and the free man was left alone. Don't just spout off stuff without really researching. I'm sure the "straw man" argument fails, maybe more than it succeeds, but only cause people don't know how to use it properly and give the court juridiction unknowingly. lol!
@RetSquid Your kinda missing the point. The strawman is a sidebar. It's not really the issue. You don't have to prove to the courts the strawman argument. They already know about your name and all that. The point is if you have a license and didn't reserve your rights then everything your saying is correct. That person doesn't have the right to drive on the roads. Part of what you agree to when applying for a DL is to drive "for the benifit of the state", therefore waving your
@jamesfk77 right to drive freely on the public rds. yes public which means we own the roads. The government or anyone using the roads for hire are subjects to statutes and most people with DLs are in a since employed w/ the state so they must abide by those statutes too. If you go into the court and present yourself as the director or ceo or Pres of the account that the charges are against then you call the shots. Court is a business model. It operates just like a corporation.
No, totally wrong. You, as an individual, unasssociated with any business, are legally required to have a license before you are allowed the privilege of being behind the wheel of a vehicle on the road. You also must abide by statutes/law/code, just like every single other being in the country you are in. There is no strawman account for you to be a ceo or pres of...the strawman itself does not exist. Any argument based on that will lose, 100% of the time.
That is why people like you will never, EVER, post a single court case where this procedure of yours works. THEN you claim it worked so good that there is no evidence of it happening at all, sometimes because the Courts have to cover up the case to keep some conspiracy alive.
Face it, both you and your car have to have a license to be on the road, no matter who or what you claim to be in court.
@RetSquid I'm sorry but your the one whose wrong traffic court is a scam pure and simple. I used to think like you do until I woke up and did some research and learned about the laws that are hidden from the public to keep them ignorant. You can see plenty of cases recorded on youtube where "freemen" have prevailed in the courts and have got charges dismissed. You sound like you just want to argue and not learn since you already know everything.... Have fun being a slave.
No, there are plenty of videos where people CLAIM to have gotten away without having a driver's license, but no actual proof of that happening. I can post tons of cases where they have not gotten away with it. The laws are not hidden, they are in plain sight, if you like I can post them also.
@RetSquid courts don't put things on the record that they don't want people to see. Beleive what you want I'm not going to change any ones mind and I don't really care to. I said what I wanted to. Maybe someone on here will look into it more and be helped if not? whatever... suit yourself.
No, everything decided by any court anywhere in the U.S. is recorded. Some things are sealed like juvinile cases, but not any traffic court case. What you are claiming is that because you can't find a case to support your claims, there must be some super powerful entity covering things up and only letting some people see what their court case is. You should be able to find a case number no matter WHAT happened. There are no videos or court cases that support your claims.
@RetSquid wasn't referring to rulings but I'm glad you've looked at every case in the US and can tell me without a shadow of a doubt that no sovereign has won a case in court ever. I just remembered a news story that had nothing to do with driving but was the same type of sovereign argument where he actually foreclosed on the bank based on a court ruling. I'm not going to dig that up because it doesn't matter. You won't admit your wrong so it's a waste of my time.
"The appellant asserts that the state...has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion....However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel...remains unimpeded...
Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures."
"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 See my video on Judge tells police to put their property in someones elses name. This issue has been won in many cases already including 2 Supreme Court casses. The Problem is that all of the police, city & county officials are not following the law.
@RetSquid My friend I beg to differ. It has everything to do with the subject and supports your video legally on how we do not & are not required to have a drivers license or tag & not only that it shows how these so called agencies posing as legitimate govt agencies are all private corporations violating our rights & have no authority to do so & can be held accountable both as a business & individually.
And none of what you just said is correct or has any basis in reality. Every State has a law that you and your vehicle must be licensed. Those agencies are legitimate parts of the Government, not private corporations.
Well, the burden is on your to present evidence, so far I have not seen a single case on any video or website that supports your claims OR where your claims have worked in court.
@RetSquid Your right about that, If you don't know your rights you don't have them. I just listened to a guy by the name of Carl Miller. He's got a video or 3. One is called know your constitution, and this guy beautifully blows the doors off of judges for traffic infractions and no he doesn't use any strawman defense, but he knows his constitution backwards and forwards and only uses that and case law to argue his case. You might enjoy it's long but great info.
@jamesfk77 (courts don't put things on the record that they don't want people to see) Ah come on now do your realy believe that. Every court case is documented good or bad
@CTMotorcop The case yes. I wasn't referring to cases. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I know there are cases ruling in favor of the right to travel I've seen them. I don't feel like wasting time trying to look for them now, but if I come across one. I'll paste it up for you and squid. I don't think that'll change your minds though.
Notice that none of these cases have anything to do with driving a car? You can travel and transport your property at will, but you cannot operate the vehicle doing it without a license to do so.
@RetSquid interpretation should always go in favor of the natural man. That's in the constitution. So your saying that I have the right to travel until I get in my car and close the door and after that the constitution is put "on hold" until I'm not behind the wheel? LOL!! good one.
@RetSquid There are several cases posted here that have been used to beat traffic citations. interpretation of the constitution is in favor of the citizen So if I interpret the right to travel as the right to get in my car and go somewhere, and I do, then in court it is interpreted in my favor. How hard is that to understand? And that has been successfully used in court to fight frivolous traffic citations!!
If it has been used successfully, go ahead and post the case citations. I have yet to see any case where a claim of 'right to travel' has proven a "right to operate a motor vehicle."
@RetSquid some of the cases used to dismiss traffic tickets are already on this page.No courts going to say that it's ok to drive without a license, they will however dismiss a case to avoid admitting to the fraud. And because they couldn't produce the proof of guilt. Keep in mind the cases I'm referring to were dismissed before any plea was entered. I'm not sure how that affects how it's recorded or not or the reason stated for dismissal.
@RetSquid Here's one of many "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. This means you have the right to use the highway/streets and the state cannot PERMIT or license you to drive your vehicle.
Maybe if you had anything to back up your claims it would make them more believable. The USC does not control State-issued drivers licenses, that is a power reserved to the States, like California law for example:
CVC 415 (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
CVC 305 A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
"The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'...it is a...'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures." State v. Booher
@CTMotorcop Cool guess I was wrong about you. Sorry. There is a guy that has a couple of youtube videos up named Carl Miller He's studied the constitution and bill of Rights for 25 years and I think you'd appreciate some of what he says about traveling and courts. He is also a veteran, and he respects cops, unlike some people in the freedom movement, and encourages being respectful and courteous w/ traffic stops and such. Check it out.
@jamesfk77 He's had almost every case against him dropped, and drives with no license and reg and is actually flagged because he costs the courts so much money. Cops are told to avoid him. lol! An interesting guy though seriously.
@notaroundme Yeah I wonder how he deals with that in other states. I would just refuse the ticket for cause, invoke UPU and mail that sucker back if it's outside of my state. He still gets tickets obviously but knows how to beat them in court. I wouldn't go to court in a state I'm not from just to defend a traffic ticket.
@jamesfk77 The problem with that is if you get a ticket in the wrong state they will send that ticket to the state where you reside at, then you state will suspend your DL. This guy might be beating tickets in his state, but in florida that piece of paper.....well, he just might as well wipe his ass with it because it's worth nothing here.
@notaroundme He doesn't use any documentation when he gets pulled over that I know of. When I said invoke UPU that's Universal Postal Union. You'd have to put a 3 cent stamp on the ticket when you reject the offer within 72 hrs, and if they send it to his state he should be able to go to his local court to fight it I would guess. You are still innocent until proven guilty in the US right? Or did I miss something? Burden of proof is on the prosecutor cause they are the accuser.
@jamesfk77 That's true, but it's a traffic citation, not a murder investigation. Traffic citaion trials take 2 minutes. If you were speeding, the officer says how he got you speeding and where and what he used and he must be certified. that's all. Your defense of "well I was going with the flow of traffic or I was the only one on the road there for I wasn't a danger to anyone" won't cut it.
@notaroundme True you need to prove lack of jurisdiction and/or conflict of interest. I've heard of calling the radar gun to the stand to testify. lol! Remember the burden of proof is still on the prosecution and here's a secret in every judges retirement plan he get close to $20 for every $40 the court brings in on citations. If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know what is.. LOL! That doesn't comply with Judicial canon 7. yeah baby!
@jamesfk77 So what you are saying is that if it is posted on Youtube, then it must be correct? Show me proof, such as case law then maybe I will believe you.
@CTMotorcop lol I knew someone would say that. No, but when they record the actual court proceeding it's kinda hard to argue with that. By no means am I saying youtube is a reliable source. but every once in a while it isn't fake.
@RetSquid I agree, affidavits are worthless regarding the "status". The only ones that can re-cognize the status of a man is the Secretary of State through the Clerk of Court.
People filing UCC-1's BS are some day .. going to have a bad day.
@gorgeousdzastr I'm sending mine to the sec of state so he/she can rebut it. If not then it's truth in commerce so in that aspect I can agree. I've never heard of one being rebutted as that would be an admission of fraud.
@jamesfk77 Maybe an attempt of fraud against the "NAME" but not fraud if it hasn't occurred yet. The Sec of State is where you get the Apostilles and Certificate of Authorities for the Notaries you intend to use. Anything you send needs to be sent via Notary.
@RetSquid "Driving is not commerce." not true, Driving IS commerce, Traveling is NOT.
The law is specific to "RESIDENTS" Re-siders are required to register. NON residents are NOT under these laws. There is a HUGE difference between resident and non resident
A resident is a US citizen (corp) aka dead fiction, residing in another state. US is a corporation If you are a US citizen laws apply to you. Not the NON resident.
@RetSquid "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
Correct, your right to travel is never denied, your privilege to be behind the wheel of a car is. They are two totally different things, travel is a right, driving is a privilege.
"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.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads."
City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366
@RetSquid There are many cases supporting the right to drive. Shall I list examples. Justice Tolman - Washington Supreme court had a whole write up on the right to drive. registering your vehicle and other "color of law" code is just that Color of law. It's a statute. a statute is not a law. Learn about legalese before you show us how uneducated and brainwashed by the system you are. They mistake your conveyance as a Motor Vehicle. again wrong.
no no no the right is that if you are 16 years old you can get a license, register and insure your self and vehical. if this was the case then a 6 year old could get in a car and drive and no one could stop him. that would not make me feel safe on the roads. fucking stupid assholes.
@ShoulderOfYourGod825 Don't be daft, a 6yold couldn't reach the peddals! i think you are missing the point, If you travel in a car and do not know how to operate the car correctly then you suffer the consequences, Why should you have to be given permission to travel? lets say you are tavelling with your 14yold in a deserted area with no mobile phone, you have a heart attack and need to get to hospital for immediate attention to live, do you let your child get you there or die?
@ShoulderOfYourGod825 yup technically true, anybody can get in a car and drive and its not against the law. im not sure how it would work if it was a kid, but i can say for certain though that if an adult (without liscence) pranged you then you have the right to do something about it since causing harm or loss to you IS against the law.
it is pretty retarded but thats legal language for you
@CTMotorcop yep, and the state of Georgia. you'll happily get arrested, vehicle towed and rack up some heffty fines...and if I'm lucky enough i'll be the one who gets to hear this BS then tell u, your under arrest but it was a nice try
@CTMotorcop You and your DA laughed because you do not understand the American legal system. It just doesn't play that way because you have all the guns
@Tumenihobbies Funny, we seem to enforce the American legal system, Maybe you should take a few course in it since it seems to baffle you. What does a weapon have to do with it anyways ( another idiotic comment)
$5 MILLION REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF CORRUPT MAYOR ROBERT E WALKUP FOR HIS ALLEGED ROLE IN THE CONSPIRACY IN THE KIDNAPPING AND MURDER OF SUKI ON 1/5/2011 IN TUCSON AZ.
PLEASE CALL MAYORS OFFICE AND TELL THEM TO STOP KIDNAPPING AND KILLING DOGS!! 520-791-4201
>>>> 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 Inc.
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 sovereignty and tax protestor videos. Strange, don't you think?
Yes he or she dose go look up on youtube.. know your constitution carl miiler..start at part1 i no its long but it will blow your mind ..Then go buy your copy of the constitution and look up on Google how to prepare a court brief
All so some key points in ...know your constitution- carl miller pert 1 ... is 10mins in it and 104mins allso 111mins allso 114mins allso 119mins allso 123mins allso 125mins theres more but these are some good key points...
bullshit
Huey7703 1 week ago
well i think ill show this to my lawyer and see what he thinks.....
hondaxl250k0 1 week ago
Very important link! Bring up every instant/scenerio/FACT as well as LEGITIMATE PROOF and examples in courts of LAW! CANNOT be doubted or discredited. driving.justincredible.me/
lambertech 1 week ago
@lambertech
Your link is for someone in Canada, not the U.S. so they would have different laws. In the U.S. you have a right to travel, being behind the wheel is a privilege.
RetSquid 1 week ago
Keep in mind what was stringently maintained through the various versions of The Declaration of INDEPENDENCE and still RULES 2 this day... CONTRACT IS EVERYTHING! If U agree 2 ANY terms/contract,U failed 2 discern U were being identified as a COMMERCIAL ENTITY & DEBT INSTRUMENT. Before U think about debating the function of a "court" as intending 2 CORRUPT U as a FREE person N2 a CORPORATE FICTION, try considering DYING 4 YOUR LIBERTY when U resist a COP! IF FORCED,FIGHT 2 KILL & GO 4 THE THROAT
brackatak1 2 weeks ago
@brackatak1 ""GO 4 THE THROAT"" yea right... let us all know how this works out for ya..
oh wait, you'll either be dead or in prison. You are still a slave/citizen if you are fighting for anything. You don't have to FIGHT them.
Damn planet of the apes shits gonna get you and your followers killed.
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
The Sovereign mantra:Living as I was intended 2 at my birth:2 B a free man on the land,flesh & blood,unencumbered,recognizing no authority greater than MY OWN,living 2 infringe on NO 1. NE1 who knows common law,knows it 2 b a truth, but that DOESNT make it REAL to NE1 but the Sovereign. The ONLY rights U 'have' R the 1's U 'accept'.Conversely, the only rights U can 'lose' R the 1's U accepted and R willing 2 relinquish.Arguing Equity in Maritime Courts NEVER works, only 3rd party reps avoid jail
brackatak1 2 weeks ago
I did this once, spent the night in jail and fought with the court system for a year to be found guilty and forced to pay a fine or go back to jail. they have the enforcers, judges, jails and guns, kinda ridiculous to fight them on the street. We have to attack the legislators that make the laws.
ancdev 2 weeks ago
@ancdev You lost when you contracted with the cop. ""fought with the court"" .. if you fought you lost. Your actions speak louder than words bro.
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
I would also like to add to everyone. You are not going to win this argument on the roadside with a police officer. They are there to enforce penal code and that s it. Take the ticket, and fight it administratively with an affidavit in the courts if you want to argue your rights vs. privileges. Arguing with the police on the roadside will end up with negative results. Most of them don't understand the depth of these things, nor do they care, so protect your well being and play smarter.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
One more thing. You do register your washer machine, but it's not enforced to the extreme as a vehicle, or car or whatever you want to call it. You do so by the serial number when you purchase it, in case it gets stolen, it can be tracked. I would also like for someone to show me in the Constitution where it states anything about cars, vehicles, motor vehicles, mechanically operated conveyances etc. From what I understand, it says nothing about that.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak
Check your State Constitution, that's where it would be.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak
Like I said, you would have to look in the State's Constitution to see if it is prohibited, if it is not, it is allowed. For any Federal law on licences it would fall under the interstate commerce clause.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid Oh actually I came up with this in my States Constitution, which is interesting.
SECTION 8 IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE OR IMMUNITY PROHIBITED. No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.
This may mean that the state legislation does not have the right to grant a privilege that can be revoked.... hmmm or am I getting it wrong?.... hmmmm
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak
No, they can't pass a law granting something that cannot be revoked.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid That makes sense.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
You can't legally drive without those items. Legally you need them.
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
.For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways,either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain.For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state,but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
correction. 14th amendment. not the 2nd
291oz 3 weeks ago
@291oz 14th amendment talks about wide variety of clauses. In this case the Right to Travel is as follows:
In Saenz v. Roe, the Supreme Court held that this clause protects an aspect of the right to travel. Specifically, the Saenz Court said that the Citizenship Clause protects a citizen's right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally.
If you read .."the right to resettle in other states and then be treated equally."
Where does it state anything about vehicles?
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
Right to Travel..protected under the 2nd Amendment.Legal and standard definition of a driver and an automobile vary greatly from what we are led to believe.Under our Bills of Rights,no institution or body of government can prevent any free citizen their right to travel as free citizens.Such forms of prevention include: having a license,insurance, registration,etc (imposing fees and form of control ot travel..blah blah blah).No law,whether federal/state, can supercede our natural born rights.
291oz 3 weeks ago
@291oz
You do not have a natual right to drive a car, a car is not natural. You may travel all you wish, you just cannot do it while behind the wheel.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@291oz The right to bear arms? Um, nothing about driving a car.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.
Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed
jamesfk77 3 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
This is the definition in California, as of 1972:
CVC 305 A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Added Ch. 213, Stats. 1971. Effective May 3, 1972.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid That's in violation of the constitution. void. Glad I don't live in CA.. Codes aren't laws.
jamesfk77 3 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
No, it is not a violation. And "Codes" ARE Law. Every State has some version of this law.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Every State in th eUnion has laws that say you have to register your vehicle and that you must have a license to operate that vehicle on public roads. No court has ever ruled against this. Your right to travel does not include you behind the wheel.
RetSquid 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid
Unless it's a boat.
SovereignStatesman 4 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
When was the last time you drove your boat on a public road?
RetSquid 4 weeks ago
@RetSquid
Road? Who said anything about a rod? LOL
The real solution is to just ditch cars and go right to helicopters, we just need one that can be driven like a car. I'm working on it!
SovereignStatesman 4 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
Oh, sorry, I thought you could read.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
Typo, I meant "road."
My point is that you can drive a boat without a license-- which brings up another important point.
Travel is the essence of freedom, and so roads are the means by which land-travel is restricted, but it doesn't work over water for the same reason. Once people go to to air-travel exclusively, there will be no more borders since it'll be impossible to control them, there will be too many people going where they want through the air.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
My point is you can't drive a car on a public road without a licence, and the car has to be licenced also, just like your boat.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
And MY point is that public roads are just a way to control freedom by keeping people from traveling without the state's permission.
And it's spelled LICENSE.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
You can travel all you wish on any road without any permission, but you can't drive without a licence (look up the spelling).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
Yeah that's called constructive deprivation, since you can't really travel without driving.
Qui destruit medium, destruit finem.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
Nope. You can travel in many ways without being the one driving the vehicle. The Supreme Court has upheld these laws since they were first passed.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
So did the Weimar court uphold the Holocaust.
You're an idiot.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman
What are you talking about? The Weimar Republic was gone a full decade before the Holocaust even started!
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid that's exactly right. Are you sure your "driving" though? travel is defined as using automobiles to get from one place to the other also.
jamesfk77 3 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
"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.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads"
City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
I don't see any definition of 'travel' that helps your cause, you can travel when and where you wish. Being in control of a self-propelled vehicle is driving, which is a privilege controlled by the State.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid because your car is owned by the state.
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
@libertylives2 Your car is not owned by the state. Your car is registered in the state files. If it wasn't registered, someone could just take it and say it's there's leaving you with no means to prove otherwise in the public view or on the record. I have the certificate for my car, and it clearly states I'm the owner. I also have a lien on all my property and it's in the U.C.C. office filed just in case.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak If it's your car then 1. why is the government involved in the first place? and 2. why do you have to register it? Respectfully, teli
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
@libertylives2 1. The government is involved because legislative law in that society dictates that the government administrate the safety of the public roads and highways. In this case they require that insurance and a license (to prove competency to understand the rules of the road) are ensured with limited liability. 2.You don't have to do anything but if someone steals your vehicle and it's not registered, how do you prove it's yours and get compensated for loss?
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak Well I don't consent to a government (that kills people everyday) to rule over my life and well-being. After I pay my car off, I will no longer have registration, license or isurance. I think isurance is a good idea and would gladly pay if they would let me without an id.. But that is not the case. I don't care what anything is written down. I am responsible for my actions and have never had a moving violation. Come what may but after my car is mine, I am out of the government.
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@libertylives2
"I don't care what anything is written down."
Then why are you here arguing? You are going to find an excuse for your behavior no matter what others think about it and no matter how dangerous or stupid that behaviour is.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@libertylives2 I respect what you are explaining and believe in, however if you are going to take that angle I would study court procedure and administrative procedure because you will end up there anyway. Also I would have a solid defense or argument pre established and fact in case law to back up your claims so you know you are already in the clear. Other than that, I hope you don't damage anyone without a way to compensate them on the road.
A1nitak 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak Dear A1, I completely understand what you're saying. Keep in mind that I work from home and rarely travel. I don't 'obey' traffic laws. I just drive my car safely. Which means I happen to drive near or even at the speed limits anyways. I view them as recommendations and use my common sense to navigate. God forbid I ever harm someone, I would give myself to that debt and be responsible. But re:court, I no longer look to my equals for freedom nor will I ever be in any court.
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
@A1nitak part 2. Unless I actually did harm someone or someones property. I will always be responsible for my actions. I vow to never steal nor harm another. But accidents do happen I'm aware and I honestly would get the isurance if someone would go into a contract with me. But as they say, since freedom is outlawed, only outlaws have it. -Life is full of chances and sometimes may let u down. But I have to trust it and just do the best I can in my life with my principals of equality.
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
@libertylives2 just keep in mind, if you have no insurance and you are involved in an accident, which is determined to be your fault.....you can have you salary attached, your home/property siezed and all your money taken from you
inkey2 2 weeks ago
@inkey2 Dear inkey2 - The way the system is now is very broken and is not built on the foundation of individual liberty. I have no problem with buying insurance however the government has red tape in the way. I think it's a good idea for sure to have insurance but the way things are setup, youd have to be property of some government to do so. But let me tell you, if I ever harm anyone, noone would have to take anything from me. I would give my all and be responsible for those injured.
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
@libertylives2
Nope, I own my car outright.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid so you never have to register it again? That's awesome. I can't wait to pay mine off. My plates still say 2008 on them but I don't have registration or isurance so I dont drive. 1.because there is a lein on the car currently until I pay it off. 2 through weird circumstances I've already paid the state over 5 thousand dollars for a violation on registration in two states.. & got hit again driving my girlfriends car when her insurance lapsed. I didnt know. But I'm sick of it
libertylives2 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid Your mostly right. But an automobile isn't always a motor vehicle as defined by the statute, and that has been upheld in courts. Maybe not every court but traffic court is a scam in general. If you injure anyone and/or their property then you are held responsible. Statutes are supposedly made to protect our rights I don't see how giving me a ticket for going 15 over protected anyone's rights. It actually violates someone's rights. Mine.
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
An automobile is a motor vehicle, by definition. "Auto-mobile" means self-propelled, a motor vehicle is one that is self propelled. By driving 15 over, you are endangering others lives by your actions. By the time your ideas of common law and repaying someone for damage kick in, someone could be dead, and that CAN'T be repaid.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid I travel in an automobile in a safe and orderly manner even if I'm going 15 over. I'm not going to go that fast unless it's safe to do so. You assume that these statutes prevent accidents. I like that there are speed limits and rules of the rd because it gives us guidelines about what is considered safe. But I can govern myself. I don't need the government to make decisions for me I'm very capable of doing that on my own. So no one can prove that I endanger anyone
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77 because there is no injury, which is the 4th element of a cause of action in a civil case. And without every element of a cause of action there is no case. I do understand the point your making that people can't just drive the way they want to and all that. It's a matter of responsibility. Lawfully you can't require someone to get a license for something that is a right. Same with guns. lol
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
"Lawfully you can't require someone to get a license for something that is a right."
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege and can be licensed by the State as such.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
If you are driving 15 over, you are a danger to all around you. Society has determined that speed limits are a good thing and that they need to be enforced with fines. If does not matter what you think of your driving...everyone thinks they are great drivers, society says you are not.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid So you think people are not intelligent enough to travel safely on the roads so they need the government to tell them what's safe? gov can regulate driving because it's commerce. They trick everyone into thinking by words of art that this applies to them when usually it doesn't. Yes if you agreed to the license contract and didn't reserve your rights in the sig area you absolutely must submit to the policy that is enforced on the hwy. Doesn't mean it's lawful.
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77 I just updated my signature to reserve my rights and stated that I'm only complying under protest and duress in regards to reg and license. So now I actually do have the right to travel as was intended. I don't drive. I travel in my automobile.
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
Yes, there are MANY people who are not intelligent enough to do safe things. Driving is not commerce....if it WAS, the Federal Government could set all speed limits anywhere. But they can't.
The words are simple you must have a license to be behind the wheel of any motorized vehicle on any public road, and that vehicle must be registered and licensed. All of this is required no matter what you sign or what you reserve.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid and these unintelligent people still aren't safe even with "laws". lol! And I believe your wrong but you do know the statutes well I'll give you that. You just don't see the bigger picture here. It's about liberty and freedom. Anyhoo, I'm not convinced and I'll still carry my sovereign affidavits around as Identification, and what ever will be will be.
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
But now those people know what the limits are, so there are some absolute guidelines. And your "sovereign affidavits" are worthless.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid They would be if they weren't referencing my UCC filing which legally and lawfully clarifies that I the flesh and blood man and the account resembling a name similar to mine are not the same "person" and I'm not liable for charges against that account. I wouldn't even be replying if I wasn't bored because I know your minds been made up for you. fyi I follow all of the "laws of the road" most of the time. With the exception of registration, but not for lack of trying.
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77 You never needed the UCC-1 filing to maintain your "status" since there are only 2. You are either dead or alive. You can't "claim" anything. let alone sovereignty. It is "re-cognized" by others by your walk. (actions)
Remember the Green Mile.. "Dead man Walking".. Percy use to say it when he was walking the "prisoners" to the jail or to the electric chair.
Dead men can't walk can they? or can they...?
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
@gorgeousdzastr ... interesting.... Not sure where your going with this but I'll bite. Probably didn't need it but it helps. I did it mainly for the BC BOE, and to prevent anyone from being able to put a lien on me. Protect the assets of the fictitious entity. Own nothing control everything!
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
Your 'strawman' argument fails every single time it is tried in court.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid lies
jonnyhunter 2 weeks ago
@jonnyhunter
Prove it.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid Well you just showed me how stupid you are. That argument fails sometimes. Not in every case. I've seen quite a few where it's worked just fine and the free man was left alone. Don't just spout off stuff without really researching. I'm sure the "straw man" argument fails, maybe more than it succeeds, but only cause people don't know how to use it properly and give the court juridiction unknowingly. lol!
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
If it won, then you should be able to cite the court case.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid Your kinda missing the point. The strawman is a sidebar. It's not really the issue. You don't have to prove to the courts the strawman argument. They already know about your name and all that. The point is if you have a license and didn't reserve your rights then everything your saying is correct. That person doesn't have the right to drive on the roads. Part of what you agree to when applying for a DL is to drive "for the benifit of the state", therefore waving your
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 right to drive freely on the public rds. yes public which means we own the roads. The government or anyone using the roads for hire are subjects to statutes and most people with DLs are in a since employed w/ the state so they must abide by those statutes too. If you go into the court and present yourself as the director or ceo or Pres of the account that the charges are against then you call the shots. Court is a business model. It operates just like a corporation.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
No, totally wrong. You, as an individual, unasssociated with any business, are legally required to have a license before you are allowed the privilege of being behind the wheel of a vehicle on the road. You also must abide by statutes/law/code, just like every single other being in the country you are in. There is no strawman account for you to be a ceo or pres of...the strawman itself does not exist. Any argument based on that will lose, 100% of the time.
RetSquid 1 week ago
That is why people like you will never, EVER, post a single court case where this procedure of yours works. THEN you claim it worked so good that there is no evidence of it happening at all, sometimes because the Courts have to cover up the case to keep some conspiracy alive.
Face it, both you and your car have to have a license to be on the road, no matter who or what you claim to be in court.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid I'm sorry but your the one whose wrong traffic court is a scam pure and simple. I used to think like you do until I woke up and did some research and learned about the laws that are hidden from the public to keep them ignorant. You can see plenty of cases recorded on youtube where "freemen" have prevailed in the courts and have got charges dismissed. You sound like you just want to argue and not learn since you already know everything.... Have fun being a slave.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
No, there are plenty of videos where people CLAIM to have gotten away without having a driver's license, but no actual proof of that happening. I can post tons of cases where they have not gotten away with it. The laws are not hidden, they are in plain sight, if you like I can post them also.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid courts don't put things on the record that they don't want people to see. Beleive what you want I'm not going to change any ones mind and I don't really care to. I said what I wanted to. Maybe someone on here will look into it more and be helped if not? whatever... suit yourself.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
No, everything decided by any court anywhere in the U.S. is recorded. Some things are sealed like juvinile cases, but not any traffic court case. What you are claiming is that because you can't find a case to support your claims, there must be some super powerful entity covering things up and only letting some people see what their court case is. You should be able to find a case number no matter WHAT happened. There are no videos or court cases that support your claims.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid wasn't referring to rulings but I'm glad you've looked at every case in the US and can tell me without a shadow of a doubt that no sovereign has won a case in court ever. I just remembered a news story that had nothing to do with driving but was the same type of sovereign argument where he actually foreclosed on the bank based on a court ruling. I'm not going to dig that up because it doesn't matter. You won't admit your wrong so it's a waste of my time.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 oh I found a few cases "The right of the citizen to travel upon the
public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common law right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson
v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, at 489.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon
the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the
highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter
purpose, no person has a vested right to use the
highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which
the (state) may grant or withhold at its
discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
"The appellant asserts that the state...has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion....However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel...remains unimpeded...
RetSquid 1 week ago
Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures."
State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953
RetSquid 1 week ago
"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 1 week ago
@RetSquid within the limitations of the constitution!! There is more to that I just came across an almost identical ruling earlier today
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
I'm still waiting for a single court case that supports your views.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid See my video on Judge tells police to put their property in someones elses name. This issue has been won in many cases already including 2 Supreme Court casses. The Problem is that all of the police, city & county officials are not following the law.
WulfBand 1 week ago
@WulfBand
Your post has nothing to do with this subject.
RetSquid 6 days ago
@RetSquid My friend I beg to differ. It has everything to do with the subject and supports your video legally on how we do not & are not required to have a drivers license or tag & not only that it shows how these so called agencies posing as legitimate govt agencies are all private corporations violating our rights & have no authority to do so & can be held accountable both as a business & individually.
WulfBand 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WulfBand
And none of what you just said is correct or has any basis in reality. Every State has a law that you and your vehicle must be licensed. Those agencies are legitimate parts of the Government, not private corporations.
RetSquid 1 day ago
@jamesfk77
Well, the burden is on your to present evidence, so far I have not seen a single case on any video or website that supports your claims OR where your claims have worked in court.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid Your right about that, If you don't know your rights you don't have them. I just listened to a guy by the name of Carl Miller. He's got a video or 3. One is called know your constitution, and this guy beautifully blows the doors off of judges for traffic infractions and no he doesn't use any strawman defense, but he knows his constitution backwards and forwards and only uses that and case law to argue his case. You might enjoy it's long but great info.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 (courts don't put things on the record that they don't want people to see) Ah come on now do your realy believe that. Every court case is documented good or bad
CTMotorcop 1 week ago
@CTMotorcop The case yes. I wasn't referring to cases. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I know there are cases ruling in favor of the right to travel I've seen them. I don't feel like wasting time trying to look for them now, but if I come across one. I'll paste it up for you and squid. I don't think that'll change your minds though.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 Every police officer should keep the following U.S.
--court ruling discussed earlier -- in mind before
--issuing citations concerning licensing, registration,
and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, 489. And as we have seen, traveling freely, going
about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a
most basic right.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
Notice that none of these cases have anything to do with driving a car? You can travel and transport your property at will, but you cannot operate the vehicle doing it without a license to do so.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid interpretation should always go in favor of the natural man. That's in the constitution. So your saying that I have the right to travel until I get in my car and close the door and after that the constitution is put "on hold" until I'm not behind the wheel? LOL!! good one.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77
Driving a car is not natural. The laws prohibiting you from driving have never been unconstitutional.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid Really? It came naturally to me!
ocgsx 5 days ago
@ocgsx
Really? But he thinks he was born with the car.
RetSquid 5 days ago
@RetSquid Yes! Really!
ocgsx 5 days ago
@RetSquid travel is a natural right by whatever means is common ie a car. But ok your right. lol! Are you a fed?
jamesfk77 5 days ago
@jamesfk77
You can travel by a car, you just can't be the one behind the wheel. How hard is that to understand?
Are you a cop trying to bump up your income by confusing people about the ;law so you can give more tickets?
How about you post a single case that clearly says you don't need a license to drive a car?
RetSquid 5 days ago
@RetSquid There are several cases posted here that have been used to beat traffic citations. interpretation of the constitution is in favor of the citizen So if I interpret the right to travel as the right to get in my car and go somewhere, and I do, then in court it is interpreted in my favor. How hard is that to understand? And that has been successfully used in court to fight frivolous traffic citations!!
jamesfk77 4 days ago
@jamesfk77
If it has been used successfully, go ahead and post the case citations. I have yet to see any case where a claim of 'right to travel' has proven a "right to operate a motor vehicle."
RetSquid 4 days ago
@RetSquid some of the cases used to dismiss traffic tickets are already on this page.No courts going to say that it's ok to drive without a license, they will however dismiss a case to avoid admitting to the fraud. And because they couldn't produce the proof of guilt. Keep in mind the cases I'm referring to were dismissed before any plea was entered. I'm not sure how that affects how it's recorded or not or the reason stated for dismissal.
jamesfk77 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jamesfk77
So you don't have any cases where it worked, but you know that there are some, they are just being magically hidden from view?
Just post one single case, just one....
RetSquid 4 days ago
@RetSquid Here's one of many "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. This means you have the right to use the highway/streets and the state cannot PERMIT or license you to drive your vehicle.
dedicatedkiller11b 4 days ago
@dedicatedkiller11b
You have a right to travel, you do not have a right to operate the vehicle you are taveling in.
RetSquid 4 days ago
@RetSquid You still don't get it. It is fraud, plain and simple.
A Driver is one who is paid to control a "motor vehicle".
A Motor Vehicle is a commercial vehicle.
These are all legal definitions found in the U.S. Codes and Statutes.
The courts use only the legal definitions.
Every State Constitution is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and Codes.
Arguing with you is pointless, you are incapable of comprehending anything contrary to your programmed beliefs.
Snowblindinfinity 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snowblindinfinity
Maybe if you had anything to back up your claims it would make them more believable. The USC does not control State-issued drivers licenses, that is a power reserved to the States, like California law for example:
CVC 415 (a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.
CVC 305 A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
RetSquid 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'...it is a...'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures." State v. Booher
RetSquid 4 days ago
@jamesfk77 No it will change my mind honestly. I would be very open minded to this Thank you
CTMotorcop 1 week ago
@CTMotorcop Cool guess I was wrong about you. Sorry. There is a guy that has a couple of youtube videos up named Carl Miller He's studied the constitution and bill of Rights for 25 years and I think you'd appreciate some of what he says about traveling and courts. He is also a veteran, and he respects cops, unlike some people in the freedom movement, and encourages being respectful and courteous w/ traffic stops and such. Check it out.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 He's had almost every case against him dropped, and drives with no license and reg and is actually flagged because he costs the courts so much money. Cops are told to avoid him. lol! An interesting guy though seriously.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 I hope he drives through Florida. That won't work here.
notaroundme 1 week ago
@notaroundme Yeah I wonder how he deals with that in other states. I would just refuse the ticket for cause, invoke UPU and mail that sucker back if it's outside of my state. He still gets tickets obviously but knows how to beat them in court. I wouldn't go to court in a state I'm not from just to defend a traffic ticket.
jamesfk77 5 days ago
@jamesfk77 The problem with that is if you get a ticket in the wrong state they will send that ticket to the state where you reside at, then you state will suspend your DL. This guy might be beating tickets in his state, but in florida that piece of paper.....well, he just might as well wipe his ass with it because it's worth nothing here.
notaroundme 4 days ago
@notaroundme He doesn't use any documentation when he gets pulled over that I know of. When I said invoke UPU that's Universal Postal Union. You'd have to put a 3 cent stamp on the ticket when you reject the offer within 72 hrs, and if they send it to his state he should be able to go to his local court to fight it I would guess. You are still innocent until proven guilty in the US right? Or did I miss something? Burden of proof is on the prosecutor cause they are the accuser.
jamesfk77 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jamesfk77
"invoke UPU"
Which will have zero effect on anything a court would do to you.
RetSquid 4 days ago
@jamesfk77 That's true, but it's a traffic citation, not a murder investigation. Traffic citaion trials take 2 minutes. If you were speeding, the officer says how he got you speeding and where and what he used and he must be certified. that's all. Your defense of "well I was going with the flow of traffic or I was the only one on the road there for I wasn't a danger to anyone" won't cut it.
notaroundme 3 days ago
@notaroundme True you need to prove lack of jurisdiction and/or conflict of interest. I've heard of calling the radar gun to the stand to testify. lol! Remember the burden of proof is still on the prosecution and here's a secret in every judges retirement plan he get close to $20 for every $40 the court brings in on citations. If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know what is.. LOL! That doesn't comply with Judicial canon 7. yeah baby!
jamesfk77 3 days ago
@jamesfk77 That's very interesting. I haven't heard of that, but nevertheless very interesting.
notaroundme 2 days ago
@jamesfk77
Now where did you get the idea that a judges retirement fund depends on court costs?
RetSquid 2 days ago
@jamesfk77 Thanks I will check it out
CTMotorcop 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 So what you are saying is that if it is posted on Youtube, then it must be correct? Show me proof, such as case law then maybe I will believe you.
CTMotorcop 1 week ago
@CTMotorcop lol I knew someone would say that. No, but when they record the actual court proceeding it's kinda hard to argue with that. By no means am I saying youtube is a reliable source. but every once in a while it isn't fake.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
Comment removed
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid I agree, affidavits are worthless regarding the "status". The only ones that can re-cognize the status of a man is the Secretary of State through the Clerk of Court.
People filing UCC-1's BS are some day .. going to have a bad day.
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
@gorgeousdzastr I'm sending mine to the sec of state so he/she can rebut it. If not then it's truth in commerce so in that aspect I can agree. I've never heard of one being rebutted as that would be an admission of fraud.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
@jamesfk77 Maybe an attempt of fraud against the "NAME" but not fraud if it hasn't occurred yet. The Sec of State is where you get the Apostilles and Certificate of Authorities for the Notaries you intend to use. Anything you send needs to be sent via Notary.
gorgeousdzastr 1 week ago
@gorgeousdzastr Everything's notarized already. Still have to get Apostatized though.
jamesfk77 1 week ago
Comment removed
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid "Driving is not commerce." not true, Driving IS commerce, Traveling is NOT.
The law is specific to "RESIDENTS" Re-siders are required to register. NON residents are NOT under these laws. There is a HUGE difference between resident and non resident
A resident is a US citizen (corp) aka dead fiction, residing in another state. US is a corporation If you are a US citizen laws apply to you. Not the NON resident.
residents = temporary
non residents = domiciled (permanent)
gorgeousdzastr 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
jamesfk77 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
Correct, your right to travel is never denied, your privilege to be behind the wheel of a car is. They are two totally different things, travel is a right, driving is a privilege.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@jamesfk77
"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.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads."
City of Bismarck v. Stuart (No.Dak 1996) 546 NW2d 366
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid There are many cases supporting the right to drive. Shall I list examples. Justice Tolman - Washington Supreme court had a whole write up on the right to drive. registering your vehicle and other "color of law" code is just that Color of law. It's a statute. a statute is not a law. Learn about legalese before you show us how uneducated and brainwashed by the system you are. They mistake your conveyance as a Motor Vehicle. again wrong.
jamesfk77 3 weeks ago
no no no the right is that if you are 16 years old you can get a license, register and insure your self and vehical. if this was the case then a 6 year old could get in a car and drive and no one could stop him. that would not make me feel safe on the roads. fucking stupid assholes.
im in the retarded part of youtube again.
ShoulderOfYourGod825 1 month ago
@ShoulderOfYourGod825 Don't be daft, a 6yold couldn't reach the peddals! i think you are missing the point, If you travel in a car and do not know how to operate the car correctly then you suffer the consequences, Why should you have to be given permission to travel? lets say you are tavelling with your 14yold in a deserted area with no mobile phone, you have a heart attack and need to get to hospital for immediate attention to live, do you let your child get you there or die?
wazzzzzzzzzzza 1 month ago
@ShoulderOfYourGod825 yup technically true, anybody can get in a car and drive and its not against the law. im not sure how it would work if it was a kid, but i can say for certain though that if an adult (without liscence) pranged you then you have the right to do something about it since causing harm or loss to you IS against the law.
it is pretty retarded but thats legal language for you
ragerpez 1 month ago
I challenge you to come to the State of Connecticut and lets see who will wim.
CTMotorcop 1 month ago
@CTMotorcop yep, and the state of Georgia. you'll happily get arrested, vehicle towed and rack up some heffty fines...and if I'm lucky enough i'll be the one who gets to hear this BS then tell u, your under arrest but it was a nice try
jph090880 1 month ago
@jph090880 Where do these people come up with this garbage? I do find it funny and so does our D.A. We laughed so hard
CTMotorcop 1 month ago
@CTMotorcop You and your DA laughed because you do not understand the American legal system. It just doesn't play that way because you have all the guns
Tumenihobbies 1 month ago
@Tumenihobbies Funny, we seem to enforce the American legal system, Maybe you should take a few course in it since it seems to baffle you. What does a weapon have to do with it anyways ( another idiotic comment)
CTMotorcop 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
$5 MILLION REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF CORRUPT MAYOR ROBERT E WALKUP FOR HIS ALLEGED ROLE IN THE CONSPIRACY IN THE KIDNAPPING AND MURDER OF SUKI ON 1/5/2011 IN TUCSON AZ.
PLEASE CALL MAYORS OFFICE AND TELL THEM TO STOP KIDNAPPING AND KILLING DOGS!! 520-791-4201
EMAIL; MAYOR1@TUCSONAZ.GOV
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
pimakilledsuki 1 month ago
i like sausage egg and chips with a spam fritter
jaguar420g 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> 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 Inc.
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 sovereignty and tax protestor videos. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes he or she dose go look up on youtube.. know your constitution carl miiler..start at part1 i no its long but it will blow your mind ..Then go buy your copy of the constitution and look up on Google how to prepare a court brief
elybackwodcommenman 1 month ago
All so some key points in ...know your constitution- carl miller pert 1 ... is 10mins in it and 104mins allso 111mins allso 114mins allso 119mins allso 123mins allso 125mins theres more but these are some good key points...
elybackwodcommenman 1 month ago
Comment removed
elybackwodcommenman 1 month ago
Curious... can you not walk on a highway? "Travel" does not necessarily entail driving a vehicle.
ZeddZul 1 month ago
Travel is legal, but operating a vehicle that is not registered/yadda yadda is not.
Think of it like this: Is it illegal to be high? No. But it IS illegal to possess marijuana.
Dexi 2 months ago
@Dexi You dont have a clue about what your talking about and clearly dont know your law.
SuperJKE123 1 month ago
Comment removed
elybackwodcommenman 1 month ago