• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Poll: Drivers Licensing ?

Does Driver Licensing Violate the U.N. Treaty on Human Rights?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
Once again travel was at one time a right until the people let the various Governments enact regulatory laws based upon the old "public safety" ruse.

Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. However, this was not always the case. When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual's "right to travel" by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. With the passage of time, however, automobile regulators generally prevailed in legislative halls and courtrooms. Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. This paper analyzes this change in common law and suggests that even if most Americans are unaware of it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.
Roots, Roger, The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950 (July 2005). Oklahoma City University Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 245, 2005. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1772042

From the cited Maryland case "
Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 233 U. S. 648, and cases cited.

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves..

The word 'Driving' has a different meaning in the language of law...it is colourable language for colourable law..

Section 51 refuses to acknowledge that fact and he using those terms to make his case, despite the fact that I posted about it in post #110 which he has completely ignored




Once again rights were changed into privileges via the old public safety scam that has created the over regulated mess we are in today.

As for our rights, they HAVE NOT and CAN NOT be changed or taken away by anyone.

They can only be relinquished by we the people if we so chose to do so, period!!!

Now, have the people become too ignorant to know their rights...oh yea

More importantly, the people have no clue how to protect their rights...They have been bullied by these out of control courts to the point of being scared of them but as we have seen with this election, some of the people are fed up and looking for leaders and answers on how to fight this government.


..................................


When you do what a color of law statute says,
you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract,
and ignorance of the law is not an excuse
 
Last edited:

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
...and I've been telling you the exact same thing everyone here has been telling you for page after page, but rather than respond to what others say, you just keep regurgitating the same lieyer trickery. We all know what the fascist black dress wearing lieyers have said. I said this way back at post #92, but here you are again regurgitating the same nonsense and pretending like everyone else has a reading comprehension problem.


He is intentional refusing to admit that the courts and lieyers use colourful language for the sole purpose of muddying the waters.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
Holy cow BB posted this way back on the first page of this thread, and it's still being ignored by our "educated" friend.
That said you better look up the legal & statutory definition of "motor vehicle". A motor vehicle is any vehicle used in the transportation of passengers or cargo or passengers & cargo for PROFIT & HIRE... A motor vehicle is used in COMMERCE, commerce is a PRIVILEGE, travel is not.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
That's not what the courts have ruled for more than a hundred years, but feel free to believe whatever misguided interpretation you may have.

You are still full of chit and have no clue what you are talking about.

Here is a case where the courts specifically states that traveling is a protected right that CAN NOT be infringed, but I'm sure you will come up with some sort of bullch-t excuse....or just ignore it!!!

Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969.


AND, then there is this one...Note that they are both from 1969


Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322:
“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).




''An unconstitutional statute, though having the form of law, is in reality, no law and imposed no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power on anyone and justifies no actions performed under it.”
American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 256.

............................................





NOW post 1 case where your Municipal court has jurisdiction over the people...

More importantly..Show me in the constitution where the Government has the authority to force 'we the people' to do anything that is not commerce related...
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
this is why Hendrick lost:
The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker — prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other States under the plain terms of § 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 161; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415, 423; Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 295, 296; Missouri, *622 Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 648, and cases cited
Notice: Hedrick had already complied so he had accepted to be ruled over already.

And, here is why Kane lost:
The following facts were stipulated: Kane had been duly licensed as a driver under the laws of both New York and New Jersey. He had registered his car in New York but not in New Jersey. He had not filed with the Secretary of State of New Jersey the prescribed instrument appointing that official his attorney upon whom process might be served. When arrested he was on his way from New York to Pennsylvania. The aggregate rece....
Kane also had complied but had not followed the letter of the law of new jerky.

So how is this licensing a privilege again? Did Kane and Hendrick have the privilege to pay the costs or was it a right to pay the costs? Notice the first quote uses the words "Only those whose rights are directly affected..." What the sitting crows are saying is, is that Hendrick had already given up his "RIGHTS" for a privilege. Then there is Kane wo did the same but just flat blew it on his new jerky registration so he to by giving up his right for a privilege had no rights, at all.

I am tired of ready crazy talk there area 51/50, now read your own case cites.....and comprehend your words.....before you piss me off again and I get another post pulled.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
Holy cow BB posted this way back on the first page of this thread, and it's still being ignored by our "educated" friend.

He also conveniently ignored this post of mine (#110) in regards to 'PERSONS'


Let's take a look at our criminal governments definition of this word 'PERSON'


U.S. CodeTitle 1Chapter 1 § 1

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”



A
nd if we re-arrange the words in order to make it easier to read....(especially for some on this board)

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals....unless the context indicates otherwise
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
As for our rights, they HAVE NOT and CAN NOT be changed or taken away by anyone.

They can only be relinquished by we the people if we so chose to do so, period!!!

Now, have the people become too ignorant to know their rights...oh yea
The word 'Driving' has a different meaning in the language of law...it is colourable language for colourable law..

Section 51 refuses to acknowledge that fact and he using those terms to make his case, despite the fact that I posted about it in post #110 which he has completely ignored







As for our rights, they HAVE NOT and CAN NOT be changed or taken away by anyone.

They can only be relinquished by we the people if we so chose to do so, period!!!

Now, have the people become too ignorant to know their rights...oh yea

More importantly, the people have no clue how to protect their rights...They have been bullied by these out of control courts to the point of being scared of them but as we have seen with this election, some of the people are fed up and looking for leaders and answers on how to fight this government.


..................................


When you do what a color of law statute says,
you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract,
and ignorance of the law is not an excuse

Do you have a drivers licence, my friend?

If you do, why do you continue to renew something you feel so strongly against?
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
Holy cow BB posted this way back on the first page of this thread, and it's still being ignored by our "educated" friend.
What's the term for driving a vehicle when you're not engaged in commerce?

And do no traffic laws apply to drivers who aren't engaged in commerce?
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
You are still full of chit and have no clue what you are talking about.

Here is a case where the courts specifically states that traveling is a protected right that CAN NOT be infringed, but I'm sure you will come up with some sort of bullch-t excuse....or just ignore it!!!

Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969.


AND, then there is this one...Note that they are both from 1969


Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322:
“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).




''An unconstitutional statute, though having the form of law, is in reality, no law and imposed no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power on anyone and justifies no actions performed under it.”
American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 256.

............................................





NOW post 1 case where your Municipal court has jurisdiction over the people...

More importantly..Show me in the constitution where the Government has the authority to force 'we the people' to do anything that is not commerce related...

You have to read the cases, my friend. Because you're embarrassing yourself with these completely unrelated matters you've cited.

Shapiro v Thompson concerns a single mother trying to collect welfare immediately after moving.

Staub v Baxley concerns a woman who was trying to organize a union and claiming freedom of speech.

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham concerns a black reverend who was arrested for organizing a civil rights march.

That's the best you can manage to support your argument? Maybe next time you'll try citing Roe v Wade? Or maybe cite the OJ Simpson case?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Driving means you are engaged in commerce.
second question is "Drivers" are engaged in commerce otherwise they would not be driving.

Use the kings words and use of application of all the words apply.

Like I posted a while ago: There is in one of those case law (though I could be wrong as it might be a statute) that TRYNINE posted a duel application of federal law which stipulates that a "driver" is not driving on his return trip if he is not actively driving on his return trip. It actually uses some funky wording to get around the word "driver."

You can just scan every thing, as in speed read, and when you come across something that does not make sense just give it a look as that is most likely it.
There was another thread about a year ago on this same subject and it popped up when some one listed it, that is how I found it; though I had crossed it before it was at that time I paid attention to the wording.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
Do you have a drivers licence, my friend?

If you do, why do you continue to renew something you feel so strongly against?

AND, like usual you deflect the conversation rather than answer questions that are asked of you or to refute undeniable proof of traveling being a right.

It's obvious that all you do is to try and discourage others from understanding that 'We The People' have greater authority and power over the governments limited powers.

..........................................................................................................................

Now show us some more those superb deflective skills that you use so well and answer this question

What is the difference between 'driving' and 'Driving'?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Colorable" means
"That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth."
Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.


If something is "color of law" then it is NOT law, it only looks like law.
If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel,
you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are
"prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States".


"prima facia" means
"At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it;
so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably;
a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary."

State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
You have to read the cases, my friend. Because you're embarrassing yourself with these completely unrelated matters you've cited.

Shapiro v Thompson concerns a single mother trying to collect welfare immediately after moving.

LOL...I knew you'd be stupid enough to pull this load of crap out of your pants again because you just think you are smarter than everyone else.

You obviously only read the first couple of sentences, because if you had kept reading and you would have found these quotes farther down in the decision.

No, you found just enough info to try and discourage others from understand that they have greater authority over the governments limited powers over we the people


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shapiro v. Thompson
394 U.S. 618 (1969)


"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. [Footnote 8] It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757-758 (166):

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."

". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is

390 U. S. 570, 390 U. S. 581 (1968).

----------------------


[Footnote 8]

In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F.Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3230) (C.C.E.D.Pa. 1825), Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 75 U. S. 180 (1869), and Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 430 (1871), the right to travel interstate was grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. See also Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 79 (1873); Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 211 U. S. 97 (1908). In Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160, 314 U. S. 181, 314 U. S. 183-185 (1941) (DOUGLAS and Jackson, JJ., concurring), and Twining v. New Jersey, supra, reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 (1868). In Edwards v. California, supra, and the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849), a Commerce Clause approach was employed.

See also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 357 U. S. 125 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 378 U. S. 505-506 (1964); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 381 U. S. 14 (1965), where the freedom of Americans to travel outside the country was grounded upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

---------------------------


[Footnote 2/2]

The constitutional right of interstate travel was fully recognized long before adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. See the statement of Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 48 U. S. 492:

"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States, and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."



https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/618/case.html


------------------------------------------------------------------

I do enjoy the fact that I get to keep posting more info to educate the mass' though
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,491
Likes
20,535
Location
ORYGUN
Someone here PLEASE explain why/how a piece of paper, issued by the government (with a fee), will prevent ANY misuse of any
device, business or activity !!!

A D/L will not prevent drunk driving, nor any other kind of driving (good, bad or indifferent), only personal responsibility will do that.
A short list of licenses:
Fishing* (these *4 lic's are required to obtain food for your table - WTF)
Crabbing*
Hunting*
Mushroom gathering*
Boating
Parking
Gun (why not bow & arrow or slingshot?)
to own
to carry
to buy
to sell
to transfer to a family member
Business, a very long list
Employment in a trade, another long list BUT NO lic. req'd for politicians nor government officials (they do the most harm !!!)
Speaking
Demonstrating
Auto Reg.
Bicycle Reg. but not operation (why not pogo stick & roller skates ??)
Dog, but not a cat, nor my Macaw Parrot, nor a horse
Federal, draconian, control of our nations food production by laws & permits
Here is an extensive list of Michigan licenses http://www.michigan.gov/statelicensesearch/0,4671,7-180-24786---,00.html

A license is no more, nor no less, than an arbitrary control, by government, of a RIGHT.

Here is a death sentence for NOT taking a license.

scourged for no license.jpg
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
The DL & Reg. scam is really very easy to figure out... Can the state legally, lawfully & constitutionally FORCE a natural person into accepting a contract or an agreement? The answer is a resounding NO! Can the state legally, lawfully & constitutionally force a natural person to accept a contract or agreement to keep them safe from injury or property damage? Again the answer is NO! Can the state legally & constitutionally lay a tax & regulate on the public sidewalks for walking, pushing a baby stroller, using a motorized wheelchair or riding a bicycle? The answer is NO! Using a PUBLIC sidewalk requires the observance of common courtesies & rules, no different than steering an automobile on a public road.... the sidewalk & the roads are both public conveyances constructed with tax funds for ordinary use by the general public. The use of public conveyances, sidewalk or road for commerce & profit is a privilege.

Are their common law rules & laws against walking down a public sidewalk drunk? YES! Are their common law rules against walking & running dangerously & recklessly down a public sidewalk? YES! Are there civil & criminal remedies & penalties for personal injury & property damages when using a public sidewalk? YES there are! Do tricycles, bicycles, skateboards & motorized & manual wheelchairs, etc. pose a danger to pedestrians using a public sidewalk? Possibly if they are not used & operated with due care & without consideration for pedestrians!

The reality is that the state found a new source of unconstitutional income and complete new industries have grown up around the taxing & regulatory scheme. New industries that enrich the state....
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
What is the difference between 'driving' and 'Driving'?

Driving a vehicle means driving a vehicle, my friend - - regardless of whether you're driving for business, pleasure or play.

You seem to be trying to get "colourful" and "muddy the water" by insisting driving that's not commerce related is not driving - - unfortunately you just can't think of another term to describe it.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
The DL & Reg. scam is really very easy to figure out... Can the state legally, lawfully & constitutionally FORCE a natural person into accepting a contract or an agreement? The answer is a resounding NO! Can the state legally, lawfully & constitutionally force a natural person to accept a contract or agreement to keep them safe from injury or property damage? Again the answer is NO! Can the state legally & constitutionally lay a tax & regulate on the public sidewalks for walking, pushing a baby stroller, using a motorized wheelchair or riding a bicycle? The answer is NO! Using a PUBLIC sidewalk requires the observance of common courtesies & rules, no different than steering an automobile on a public road.... the sidewalk & the roads are both public conveyances constructed with tax funds for ordinary use by the general public. The use of public conveyances, sidewalk or road for commerce & profit is a privilege.

Are their common law rules & laws against walking down a public sidewalk drunk? YES! Are their common law rules against walking & running dangerously & recklessly down a public sidewalk? YES! Are there civil & criminal remedies & penalties for personal injury & property damages when using a public sidewalk? YES there are! Do tricycles, bicycles, skateboards & motorized & manual wheelchairs, etc. pose a danger to pedestrians using a public sidewalk? Possibly if they are not used & operated with due care & without consideration for pedestrians!

The reality is that the state found a new source of unconstitutional income and complete new industries have grown up around the taxing & regulatory scheme. New industries that enrich the state....

Do you have a drivers licence, my friend?
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
Someone here PLEASE explain why/how a piece of paper, issued by the government (with a fee), will prevent ANY misuse of any
device, business or activity !!!

A D/L will not prevent drunk driving, nor any other kind of driving (good, bad or indifferent), only personal responsibility will do that.
A short list of licenses:
Fishing* (these *4 lic's are required to obtain food for your table - WTF)
Crabbing*
Hunting*
Mushroom gathering*
Boating
Parking
Gun (why not bow & arrow or slingshot?)
to own
to carry
to buy
to sell
to transfer to a family member
Business, a very long list
Employment in a trade, another long list BUT NO lic. req'd for politicians nor government officials (they do the most harm !!!)
Speaking
Demonstrating
Auto Reg.
Bicycle Reg. but not operation (why not pogo stick & roller skates ??)
Dog, but not a cat, nor my Macaw Parrot, nor a horse
Federal, draconian, control of our nations food production by laws & permits
Here is an extensive list of Michigan licenses http://www.michigan.gov/statelicensesearch/0,4671,7-180-24786---,00.html

A license is no more, nor no less, than an arbitrary control, by government, of a RIGHT.

Here is a death sentence for NOT taking a license.

View attachment 91235

The article you referenced pretty much sums it up - - driving a motorized vehicle is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a right.

Not a single court in America for more than a century has ruled the requirement of a drivers licence is unconstitutional. Pretty certain that won't happen in the next hundred years either.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
lol Why would lieyers, whether wearing stupid looking black dresses or otherwise want this scam to end? It's making them a bundle. Imagine how many less lieyers we'd need if we simply legalized the Constitution.

Look how many misguided sheeple defend their own enslavement by spouting off memes about compliance to impaired contracts without even knowing what they're saying. "Driving is a privilege, not a right!". I wonder what percentage of people that say that even have a clue what it is they're saying...bet it's a very low number.

Probably it's about the same as those who understand what they're saying when they denounce the citizens united decision on the grounds that "corporations are not people!". ZOMG people have been duped in too many ways to count by forked tongue lieyers.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,491
Likes
20,535
Location
ORYGUN
The article you referenced pretty much sums it up - - driving a motorized vehicle is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a right.
Driving, yes, travelling NO.

Try again with quote from me:
Someone here PLEASE explain why/how a piece of paper, issued by the government (with a fee), will prevent ANY misuse of any device, business or activity !!!
Lieyers & courts lie, cheat & steal on a daily basis. I have DIRECT experience with them.
They created a brother that I don't have & a photo claim of my son that does not exist, by their records.
No court system will rule against their false laws, NO MATTER WHAT.
The thing you must understand is: a lieyer is an officer of the court & owes his/her/it's allegiance to the court - NOT TO YOU.
You suck hind teat !
And that is an irrefutable fact !!
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
lol Why would lieyers, whether wearing stupid looking black dresses or otherwise want this scam to end? It's making them a bundle. Imagine how many less lieyers we'd need if we simply legalized the Constitution.

Look how many misguided sheeple defend their own enslavement by spouting off memes about compliance to impaired contracts without even knowing what they're saying. "Driving is a privilege, not a right!". I wonder what percentage of people that say that even have a clue what it is they're saying...bet it's a very low number.

Probably it's about the same as those who understand what they're saying when they denounce the citizens united decision on the grounds that "corporations are not people!". ZOMG people have been duped in too many ways to count by forked tongue lieyers.
If you feel so strongly about it, why aren't you leading by example and driving without a licence?
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,491
Likes
20,535
Location
ORYGUN
If you feel so strongly about it, why aren't you leading by example and driving without a licence?
Not directed to me, but I can answer it.
Most all of us have a D/L BECAUSE it is made easier to comply than to resist.
We have more important things to do in life, than spend $$$$ & time, in a court of fools.
A D/L does not make you a better or worse traveler, with or without it ! It's that simple.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
If you feel so strongly about it, why aren't you leading by example and driving without a licence?
I wouldn't even consider driving without a license. That's a crime ya know.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
Not directed to me, but I can answer it.
Most all of us have a D/L BECAUSE it is made easier to comply than to resist.
We have more important things to do in life, than spend $$$$ & time, in a court of fools.
A D/L does not make you a better or worse traveler, with or without it ! It's that simple.
I can respect that answer. Essentially, you agree to play by the rules even though you don't necessarily agree with them.

Then again, you've also acknowledged that driving is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a right.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
I wouldn't even consider driving without a license. That's a crime ya know.
Yet you continue to insist driving is a "right" and that requirements of being licences to drive are unconstitutional.

You seem very confused about the subject.
 

stonedywankanobe

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
2,051
Likes
3,854
Late to this thread but I will say this.

At age 17 I was pulled over in my 64 impala in rout to have it painted. Was fined for no inspection and no proof of insurance and no tags.

Never paid them a penny and subsequently a warrent was issued for my arrest and my dl was suspended.

That was 22 years ago and I've been driving on a suspended license ever since. Now have a total of 3 driving on suspenders and don't give 2 shits about being "legal".

Never paid a penny on any of their fines. Probably have a warrent right meow.

Don't care, fuck those guys.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,617
Yet you continue to insist driving is a "right" and that requirements of being licences to drive are unconstitutional.

You seem very confused about the subject.
You seem to be confused about who's confused. I never said driving was a right, but you do seem to enjoy misquoting people...so carry on. I'd challenge you to quote me saying what you say I said, but I know you cannot and will not.

Driving is someone engaged in commerce. I have said that over and over, just as others have said in this thread numerous times, but you just ignore it and continue displaying your own ignorance on this subject.
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
As for our rights, they HAVE NOT and CAN NOT be changed or taken away by anyone.

They can only be relinquished by we the people if we so chose to do so, period!!!

If you go on a drunken bender and crash your vehicle, your PRIVILEGE of driving will be revoked.

Doesn't matter if you were on your route delivering newspapers and "engaged in commerce" or if you were on your way to the beach and "travelling".

Are you going to try and insist pisstanks can't have their "right" to drive revoked?
 

Area51

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,117
Likes
754
You seem to be confused about who's confused. I never said driving was a right, but you do seem to enjoy misquoting people...so carry on. I'd challenge you to quote me saying what you say I said, but I know you cannot and will not.

Driving is someone engaged in commerce. I have said that over and over, just as others have said in this thread numerous times, but you just ignore it and continue displaying your own ignorance on this subject.
What - - in your mind - - constitutes not being "engaged in commerce"?
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,491
Likes
20,535
Location
ORYGUN
Then again, you've also acknowledged that driving is a PRIVILEGE and is NOT a right.
Driving (legal def.) is a privilege. Private travel for personal reasons, is a right, be it by private vehicle or horseback or foot.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
So one day there I was driving my buggy down the road. I was texting and driving, I was talking on my phone and driving and dammit if I weren't sucking down suds and driving with out my lap belt or shoulder strap of which there was none.

And, guess what? I still got my ass runded over by that horse and buggy, yep it happens. Man oh man there were beer cans all over the road, picked them up, caught a ride and got ahead of the horse who had no driver and no license. And, I need to pay for the privilege? Not a chance.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Do you have a drivers licence, my friend?
Nope, havent had a DL since I voluntarilly returned it to the DHSMV explaining that the prior application & issuance of the D.L. in year 2003 was entered in error & by mistake. I further informed them that I as a natural person would no longer consent or answer to the named secured party & creditor for the Nom Deguerre commercial corpora ficta (ALL CAPS NAME) on record.

I have been arrested twice, never convicted of no DL, etc.... The colorable prosecution in the past played all kinds of games attempting to erode my confidence & force a capitulation. Sitting in court all day, then when my case is called, reschedule the hearing to dismiss, etc... over & over & over. Needless to say some jurisdictions will play dirty seeking a capitulation. If you dont have a lot of free time to play the game, dont play it! At least until your entered into the system as immune. Nowadays I travel whereever & whenever I want to, but do try to limit my risks of detainment & arrest, as it can be a long process to be exonerated of the colorable ad hoc "charges".

I learned about the DL / Reg. scam around 1997 very innocently while visiting a friend. His uncle came to town from Texas & I noticed his RV was missing a lic. plate. I informed the fella that his plate was missing. First he chuckled then broke out into laughter. I inquired as to what was so funny? He then informed me that traveling on the roads is a constitutional right, that DL & reg. etc. only applied to commercial vehicles & to VOLUNTEERS. My eyes glazed over in disbelief. He then told me to research the subject at the local law library which can usually be found at the local court house. I would travel to the court house 3 times a month for 2-4 hours at a time researching cases... As I was researching the traveling w/o DL etc. I was involved with a civil case seeking remedy as one of three plaintiffs when I befriended the defendants lawyer. After the case we became friends. I would visit him for an hour each Thursday afternoon. This fella was 70-+ yrs old & had served time as a state circuit judge. He wouldnt tell me much, it was up to me to research & ask the right questions, he would answer with "your hot", or "your cold" or "your close." I really learned a lot about how the state .gov really worked from him... he was a really good man but he is now deceased. Needless to say my research & interpretation of these DHSMV statute law was defacto verified.

Of note, a statute is NOT a law, it is evidence of law, but its not law! All laws begin as a written bill presented in the applicable body of the legislature (house or senate) that is then voted upon as a Yea or Nay by the house & senate. If the bill passes both houses it is sent to the governor or president for signature. Once the bill is signed, it then becomes law. The specific objects, subjects & intent of the legislature is contained in the contents & language of the bill. The bill will include the enacting clause "BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF XXX."

If you look at the bottom of every statute there will be reference letters & numbers that direct the reader to the legislative history of the statute. The references indicate the bills that have been revised that are supposedly attached to the statute. It is most important that if you are charged with violating a statute, you must research the history & legislative intent (the subject and/or object) of the bills all the way back to the original bill. For instance an original bill may read that every wrecker driver (the subject of regulation) must by licensed (the intent of the regulation) to operate a wrecker (the object) in commerce (the subject). After the bill & associated statute is revised several times it may read that "all drivers must be licensed to drive." If you dont read the original bill you would not be cognizant or aware that "all drivers must be licensed" that operate wreckers in commerce!

When I began reading & researching the bills & their original intent compared to the alterations of the language of the statutes it was a rude awakening for me.

The statutes are a scam... for instance in the Florida Constitution Art. III, sec. 6 states:

Laws.Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A3S06

Every state constitution will contain written verbiage very similar to Art III, sec 6 of the Fl Constitution. Every time a new bill is enacted or revised the entire Florida Statutory scheme per the Fl constitution commands the legislature to revise the entire body of statututes.

No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. [ibid]

The legislature would spend an entire year or two revising the statutes if they followed the forms & solemnities prescribed by the Fl constitution. Thus they create the illusion of constitutionality by enacting a law to enact all of the revised statutes in one bill once per year. They created an enacting statute to enact a statute to nullify the constitutional requirements.

No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only

The reason for this constitutional promulgation is to prevent the legislature from defrauding the public in the first instance!

Of course none of this nonsense is constitutional, it pure metaphysical flim-flam played by lawyers & legislators, and every state plays this nonsense. Under these circumstances its very easy to observe that the statutes cannot possibly be valid law, they're more illusion for the jurally ignorant.

Poor ole Joe Six-Pack stumbles into the courts charged with violating "driving with a suspended license" and he doesnt even realize the statute is constitutionally invalid & secondly he wasnt operating a tow truck!

Court cases & case law can be very deceiving. Poor ole Joe above never challenges the validity of the statute or references the intent, subject & object of the original bill. Since he doesnt object to the court must rule against him, or he argues in error on the wrong subject, and he wonders why he losr the case.

I personally know 5 other folks that dont possess D.L.'s as well. We are prolly the most alert & responsible travelers using the public roads as we are fully responsible for ourselves, our property and the property of others.

As I have said, its a whole other experience when traveling w/o insurance. One must be constantly alert protecting ones property w/o the insurance safety net.

I observe people that carry auto insurance as some of the worst & most inattentive irresponsible offenders on the road. If they crash its no problem to them, insurance picks up the claim. If the get sued, insurance picks up the claim, etc., etc., etc.. Insurance, D.L., & registration creates a false sense of security while eleminating personal responsibility & financial risk.

After 14 yrs w/o a D.L., my opinion is that the scam has NOT increased public highway safety one iota, on the contrary it has performed quite the opposite effect. This of course means the insurance companies & state will continue to milk the public ad infinitum & the general public dont even possess a clue that they are being financially exploited everytime they "drive" in their "commercial" motor vehicle.

The public roads have always existed from antiquity until today whether they were used by soldiers or peasants on foot, oxen, mule & horse drawn carts, wagons & stagecoaches or the modern automobile... roads & travel existed prior to the formation of .gov itself. SIMPLY stated the state discovered a new source of revenue & duped a trusting law abiding public into accepting their pronouncements.... Its quite a scheme conning the public to voluntarily accept a licensing & registration scam.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
constitutional promulgation
there it is. promulgated . to put into usage. here in the orie-gone bounds it is the "council of court procedures" that proffers up to the PERSON what is to be voted on. And, when they are done it can be said that they voted to control themselves. Because here inside the bounds of Oregon men who make social compacts are different from those of us who do not. I know; crazy.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Oh sorry to say:

prom·ul·gate
[ˈpräməlˌɡāt]
VERB
promulgated (past tense) · promulgated (past participle)
  1. promote or make widely known (an idea or cause):
    "these objectives have to be promulgated within the organization"
    synonyms: make known · make public · publicize · spread · communicate · propagate · disseminate · broadcast · promote · preach · bruit abroad
    • put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation:
      "in January 1852, the new constitution was promulgated"
      synonyms: put into effect · enact · implement · enforce
    TAKE notice of ...within the organization. Are you in this organization and have you accepted benefits? remember "January 1852" is just corporate thinking until passed on vote by the people. If'n it is not in the charter then it is PRIVET law aka STATUTE law.
Oh...look at me....I have my very own lil ken and Barbie dolls all dressed up so nice. Yeah it is that simple.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
Nope, havent had a DL since I voluntarilly returned it to the DHSMV explaining that the prior application & issuance of the D.L. in year 2003 was entered in error & by mistake. I further informed them that I as a natural person would no longer consent or answer to the named secured party & creditor for the Nom Deguerre commercial corpora ficta (ALL CAPS NAME) on record.

I have been arrested twice, never convicted of no DL, etc.... The colorable prosecution in the past played all kinds of games attempting to erode my confidence & force a capitulation. Sitting in court all day, then when my case is called, reschedule the hearing to dismiss, etc... over & over & over. Needless to say some jurisdictions will play dirty seeking a capitulation. If you dont have a lot of free time to play the game, dont play it! At least until your entered into the system as immune. Nowadays I travel whereever & whenever I want to, but do try to limit my risks of detainment & arrest, as it can be a long process to be exonerated of the colorable ad hoc "charges".

I learned about the DL / Reg. scam around 1997 very innocently while visiting a friend. His uncle came to town from Texas & I noticed his RV was missing a lic. plate. I informed the fella that his plate was missing. First he chuckled then broke out into laughter. I inquired as to what was so funny? He then informed me that traveling on the roads is a constitutional right, that DL & reg. etc. only applied to commercial vehicles & to VOLUNTEERS. My eyes glazed over in disbelief. He then told me to research the subject at the local law library which can usually be found at the local court house. I would travel to the court house 3 times a month for 2-4 hours at a time researching cases... As I was researching the traveling w/o DL etc. I was involved with a civil case seeking remedy as one of three plaintiffs when I befriended the defendants lawyer. After the case we became friends. I would visit him for an hour each Thursday afternoon. This fella was 70-+ yrs old & had served time as a state circuit judge. He wouldnt tell me much, it was up to me to research & ask the right questions, he would answer with "your hot", or "your cold" or "your close." I really learned a lot about how the state .gov really worked from him... he was a really good man but he is now deceased. Needless to say my research & interpretation of these DHSMV statute law was defacto verified.

Of note, a statute is NOT a law, it is evidence of law, but its not law! All laws begin as a written bill presented in the applicable body of the legislature (house or senate) that is then voted upon as a Yea or Nay by the house & senate. If the bill passes both houses it is sent to the governor or president for signature. Once the bill is signed, it then becomes law. The specific objects, subjects & intent of the legislature is contained in the contents & language of the bill. The bill will include the enacting clause "BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF XXX."

If you look at the bottom of every statute there will be reference letters & numbers that direct the reader to the legislative history of the statute. The references indicate the bills that have been revised that are supposedly attached to the statute. It is most important that if you are charged with violating a statute, you must research the history & legislative intent (the subject and/or object) of the bills all the way back to the original bill. For instance an original bill may read that every wrecker driver (the subject of regulation) must by licensed (the intent of the regulation) to operate a wrecker (the object) in commerce (the subject). After the bill & associated statute is revised several times it may read that "all drivers must be licensed to drive." If you dont read the original bill you would not be cognizant or aware that "all drivers must be licensed" that operate wreckers in commerce!

When I began reading & researching the bills & their original intent compared to the alterations of the language of the statutes it was a rude awakening for me.

The statutes are a scam... for instance in the Florida Constitution Art. III, sec. 6 states:

Laws.Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A3S06

Every state constitution will contain written verbiage very similar to Art III, sec 6 of the Fl Constitution. Every time a new bill is enacted or revised the entire Florida Statutory scheme per the Fl constitution commands the legislature to revise the entire body of statututes.

No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. [ibid]

The legislature would spend an entire year or two revising the statutes if they followed the forms & solemnities prescribed by the Fl constitution. Thus they create the illusion of constitutionality by enacting a law to enact all of the revised statutes in one bill once per year. They created an enacting statute to enact a statute to nullify the constitutional requirements.

No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only

The reason for this constitutional promulgation is to prevent the legislature from defrauding the public in the first instance!

Of course none of this nonsense is constitutional, it pure metaphysical flim-flam played by lawyers & legislators, and every state plays this nonsense. Under these circumstances its very easy to observe that the statutes cannot possibly be valid law, they're more illusion for the jurally ignorant.

Poor ole Joe Six-Pack stumbles into the courts charged with violating "driving with a suspended license" and he doesnt even realize the statute is constitutionally invalid & secondly he wasnt operating a tow truck!

Court cases & case law can be very deceiving. Poor ole Joe above never challenges the validity of the statute or references the intent, subject & object of the original bill. Since he doesnt object to the court must rule against him, or he argues in error on the wrong subject, and he wonders why he losr the case.

I personally know 5 other folks that dont possess D.L.'s as well. We are prolly the most alert & responsible travelers using the public roads as we are fully responsible for ourselves, our property and the property of others.

As I have said, its a whole other experience when traveling w/o insurance. One must be constantly alert protecting ones property w/o the insurance safety net.

I observe people that carry auto insurance as some of the worst & most inattentive irresponsible offenders on the road. If they crash its no problem to them, insurance picks up the claim. If the get sued, insurance picks up the claim, etc., etc., etc.. Insurance, D.L., & registration creates a false sense of security while eleminating personal responsibility & financial risk.

After 14 yrs w/o a D.L., my opinion is that the scam has NOT increased public highway safety one iota, on the contrary it has performed quite the opposite effect. This of course means the insurance companies & state will continue to milk the public ad infinitum & the general public dont even possess a clue that they are being financially exploited everytime they "drive" in their "commercial" motor vehicle.

The public roads have always existed from antiquity until today whether they were used by soldiers or peasants on foot, oxen, mule & horse drawn carts, wagons & stagecoaches or the modern automobile... roads & travel existed prior to the formation of .gov itself. SIMPLY stated the state discovered a new source of revenue & duped a trusting law abiding public into accepting their pronouncements.... Its quite a scheme conning the public to voluntarily accept a licensing & registration scam.


Here is the condensed version:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442


"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law ”,
[Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261 ]


"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process …"
[ Rodriques v. Ray Donavan ] (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)


"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present
date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not
in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act
Judicially, but merely ministerially".

Thomson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.

 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Here is the condensed version:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442


"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law ”,
[Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261 ]


"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process …"
[ Rodriques v. Ray Donavan ] (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)


"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present
date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not
in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act
Judicially, but merely ministerially".

Thomson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
MINISTERIAL
That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judidial; as the sheriff is a ministerial officer bound to obey the judicial commands of the court. When an officer acts in both a judicial and ministerial capacity, he may be compelled to perform ministerial acts in a particular way; but when he acts in a judicial capacity, he can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. (my emphasis added)

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m114.htm

It was explained to me that the statutory scheme was enacted to avoid the risks posed to both plaintiff & defendent in a common law court. The justification for the enactment of the ministerial administration of the statutory code scheme was to protect minorities from a prejudiced majority & judges alike. The judges hands are fairly bound by the dictates of the legislature which determines the rules of civil & criminal procedure, & such things as minimum & maximum sentencing guidelines. These justifications are the stated altruistic reasons for the statutory scheme.

The real fact of the matter is that the statutes are employed to keep revenues pouring into the states treasure chest, the lawyering class has no objection to the scam as the deception & fraud unjustly enriches this class of predators.

It should be of great interest that banking & credit play a major role in the "commercial" motor vehicle scam. If an automobile is personal property & a bank loaned credit for its purchase & the buyer terminated remitting payments, the lender would be forced into a common law civil suit seeking remedy to repossess the borrowers collateral. When the collateral is defined as commercial, the legislature possesses the full plenary authority to make ALL of the rules & regs concerning the property. Personal property is immune from commercial statutes... Once the automobile is registered as commercial property it is subject to the states authority to regulate commercial financial activities.

If the borrower defaults on his commercial financial agreement, the remedies available to the creditor of the registered commercial collateral are codified in the statutory scheme. For instance in the event of default the creditor can immediately repossess the collateral per the statutory rules & regs. Whereas if the collateral was personal not commercial property, the creditor wouldbe required to file a civil action seeking remedy to gain absolute legal possession of the collateral. A very expensive & time consuming civil remedy that could include a jury trial requiring months if not years to settle.

Automobiles experience very high rates of depreciation, thus time is of the essence to the lender to gain legal possession & title & resell the collateral to limit financial losses. For instance a debtor terminated payments & moves into default on a vehicle that is currently valued @ $30k. The bank sues in civil court and is awarded remedy 16 months later. The debtor has been freely riding around for 16 months w/o remitting payments to the creditor while the case is pending.... Meanwhile the debtor knowing he will lose the case stops all maintenance & proper care of the collateral & racks up excess miles on the vehicle. By the time the creditor is civilly awarded the legal title & possession of the collateral, the vehicle is now only valued at $12k, representing an $18+k loss to the creditor.

Under the current commercial statutory financial code of most states, the creditor can instantly repossess the commercially registered collateral upon agreement default taking full possession. The creditor is then required to send a 10 day letter demanding full payment. If the debtor fails to remit full payment, the debtor loses all claims & legal rights to the collateral. After 10 days the creditor can legally sell or dispose of the collateral as he sees fit.

Imagine how congested the civil courts would become if every automobile loan repossession was required a civil suit before the creditor could legally & lawfully regain possession & legal title to the collateral!

This is just another considerable aspect of the state "commercial" title & registration scheme. Once the vehicle is registered with a state title, the state in its dictatorial commerce jurisdiction can enact & promulgate any rules it deems fit or necessary regarding the use of such property on public conveyances. COMMERCE as every court in the land recognizes IS A PRIVILEGE!

It now becomes axiomatic that there are complete & powerful special interest industries constructed & built around FULLY EXPLOITING the general public by & thru the State title, registration & DL scams... The state benefits thru monetary enforcement, the insurance companies, creditors & lawyering classes are all mercillously feeding & getting fat at trough! They have ALL set up commercial rules & regulations to enrich & benefit themselves..... For example invasive seat belt laws limit personal injuries in accidents which limits medical claims for the insurance companies increasing their profits.. oh but wait it gets even better... The state, municipal & county pension plans are major institutional investorsin the insurance companies... the state benefits financially from both ends of the scheme!
 
Last edited:

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
MINISTERIAL
That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judidial; as the sheriff is a ministerial officer bound to obey the judicial commands of the court. When an officer acts in both a judicial and ministerial capacity, he may be compelled to perform ministerial acts in a particular way; but when he acts in a judicial capacity, he can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. (my emphasis added)

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m114.htm

It was explained to me that the statutory scheme was enacted to avoid the risks posed to both plaintiff & defendent in a common law court. The justification for the enactment of the ministerial administration of the statutory code scheme was to protect minorities from a prejudiced majority & judges alike. The judges hands are fairly bound by the dictates of the legislature which determines the rules of civil & criminal procedure, & such things as minimum & maximum sentencing guidelines. These justifications are the stated altruistic reasons for the statutory scheme.

The real fact of the matter is that the statutes are employed to keep revenues pouring into the states treasure chest, the lawyering class has no objection to the scam as the deception & fraud unjustly enriches this class of predators.

It should be of great interest that banking & credit play a major role in the "commercial" motor vehicle scam. If an automobile is personal property & a bank loaned credit for its purchase & the buyer terminated remitting payments, the lender would be forced into a common law civil suit seeking remedy to repossess the borrowers collateral. When the collateral is defined as commercial, the legislature possesses the full plenary authority to make ALL of the rules & regs concerning the property. Personal property is immune from commercial statutes... Once the automobile is registered as commercial property it is subject to the states authority to regulate commercial financial activities.

If the borrower defaults on his commercial financial agreement, the remedies available to the creditor of the registered commercial collateral are codified in the statutory scheme. For instance in the event of default the creditor can immediately repossess the collateral per the statutory rules & regs. Whereas if the collateral was personal not commercial property, the creditor wouldbe required to file a civil action seeking remedy to gain absolute legal possession of the collateral. A very expensive & time consuming civil remedy that could include a jury trial requiring months if not years to settle.

Automobiles experience very high rates of depreciation, thus time is of the essence to the lender to gain legal possession & title & resell the collateral to limit financial losses. For instance a debtor terminated payments & moves into default on a vehicle that is currently valued @ $30k. The bank sues in civil court and is awarded remedy 16 months later. The debtor has been freely riding around for 16 months w/o remitting payments to the creditor while the case is pending.... Meanwhile the debtor knowing he will lose the case stops all maintenance & proper care of the collateral & racks up excess miles on the vehicle. By the time the creditor is civilly awarded the legal title & possession of the collateral, the vehicle is now only valued at $12k, representing an $18+k loss to the creditor.

Under the current commercial statutory financial code of most states, the creditor can instantly repossess the commercially registered collateral upon agreement default taking full possession. The creditor is then required to send a 10 day letter demanding full payment. If the debtor fails to remit full payment, the debtor loses all claims & legal rights to the collateral. After 10 days the creditor can legally sell or dispose of the collateral as he sees fit.

Imagine how congested the civil courts would become if every automobile loan repossession was required a civil suit before the creditor could legally & lawfully regain possession & legal title to the collateral!

This is just another considerable aspect of the state "commercial" title & registration scheme. Once the vehicle is registered with a state title, the state in its dictatorial commerce jurisdiction can enact & promulgate any rules it deems fit or necessary regarding the use of such property on public conveyances. COMMERCE as every court in the land recognizes IS A PRIVILEGE!

It now becomes axiomatic that there are complete & powerful special interest industries constructed & built around FULLY EXPLOITING the general public by & thru the State title, registration & DL scams... The state benefits thru monetary enforcement, the insurance companies, creditors & lawyering classes are all mercillously feeding & getting fat at trough! They have ALL set up commercial rules & regulations to enrich & benefit themselves..... For example invasive seat belt laws limit personal injuries in accidents which limits medical claims for the insurance companies increasing their profits.. oh but wait it gets even better... The state, municipal & county pension plans are major institutional investorsin the insurance companies... the state benefits financially from both ends of the scheme!

COLOURABLE LAW FOR using COLOURABLE MONEY
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
COLOURABLE LAW FOR using COLOURABLE MONEY
Both (supra) are merely just the tip of the iceberg representing the full exploitation of a jurally ignorant public using every angle of a 360° circle. And these evil greedy gremlins have the nerve to call it a free economy with liberty & justice for all!
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
Both (supra) are merely just the tip of the iceberg representing the full exploitation of a jurally ignorant public using every angle of a 360° circle. And these evil greedy gremlins have the nerve to call it a free economy with liberty & justice for all!

:2 thumbs up:
 

LetterG

Outsider
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Messages
17
Likes
18
Location
Not Sure
https://out.reddit.com/t3_3grr6d?ur...ra-0dZxyK602BZT49fRIDGq8WQt0&app_name=mweb2xI haven't been on here in a while, looks like you all have a good conversation going.. I see some good in just about every-single- post that has been made. I didnt hear anyone mention personal accountability. We live in a world that is imperfect and I think we all know it's impossible to please everyone. Most things are about money and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I've had one ticket my entire life and it would have been a lot cheaper for me to have done the right thing, rather than doing it the wrong way. The system said I had to pay 157$ to be "legal" but I chose to take a chance and it cost me 1,400$. Maybe I'm different but I can't blame anyone but myself for that one. We can complain all we want and of course I don't agree with all the laws and how the court actually works. Who does? I know judges, lawyers, and police officers and not one of them agree with everything that actually takes place in a courtroom. Not one of them and we text or talk on a regular basis. I think it's much easier to find out what we are supposed to be doing and do it.. Its cheaper, if you work or have a job, it will save a lot of time and heartaches. I personally want every person passing through my community to be identified if something is going on, that he or she is catching the eye of a LEO.. I've been in 19 countries, 21 counting US territories and I have never had the issues that I hear about. Maybe I was doing the right thing or smart enough to be responsible and not get caught if i was so called, "Breaking the Law." The problem I see with some of the comments is all the waisted time talking about what we think and not how it actually is. If we are not careful our kids and grandkids will follow that example and they to, will become a part of the poverty food chain. That's simply what it leads to. The African American race has been conquered by fatherless homes that don't teach their children responsibility and accountability in no shape or form. That starts with Father's that turn to crime and do things that keep them from obtaining suitable employment that has benefits, for them and their kids. Their children are forced to the local Health Department for medical treatment and their parents providing them with direction and an education is a fairy tail. They grow up and slave in a job that no one else is going to do and has zero respect for, with ZERO benefits. From the age of 18 and I'm still fairly a young man, i did a lot of things I didnt want to do because my hope was one day to have kids. My sons college is paid for and He to, can hopefully give himself a chance at being prosperous in life. Not working a job, because it doesn't require a background check. I think if we really care, that's what we will really focus on. We all know it's the truth. If my son sits around talking about, "how it should be" instead of how it really is and educating himself on that, he's going to get passed up in life and always depend on someone else that has done the right thing. It may not be what he considers the right thing, but it is what it is.. I personally want better for my child and i sure hope he doesn't choose to waste his life on something he nor any of us are going to change. If he does, he will always be dependent on someone has done the right thing or actually cared enough to do what we all are expected to do. I renewed my DL's sometime back; that 26$ is a lot cheaper to me than 500$ in fines and court cost. I guess we all have to decide what type of life we want and Go with it. Good or bad... We just can't get upset when we choose the guys path in this link and people are laughing. Choices people. We all have them, just be willing to deal with the reaction because there is always an outcome. We may get away with things for a while but eventually we answer to it. I wouldn't trade lives with people like this guy for a third retirement. JMO

https://out.reddit.com/t3_3grr6d?ur...5ra-0dZxyK602BZT49fRIDGq8WQt0&app_name=mweb2x