• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

"The Rule Of Law"

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,660
Likes
65,522
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
Reclaiming our freedom with Scripture, truth, law, fundamental principles, & comedy!
Click on the RADIO above to Listen Now! Call in to the show at 512-646-1984!

"The Rule Of Law"
Mondays & Thursdays, 8-10 pm CST, Fridays 8 pm - Midnight CST

http://ruleoflawradio.com
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#3
Reclaiming our freedom with Scripture, truth, law, fundamental principles, & comedy!
Click on the RADIO above to Listen Now! Call in to the show at 512-646-1984!

"The Rule Of Law"
Mondays & Thursdays, 8-10 pm CST, Fridays 8 pm - Midnight CST

http://ruleoflawradio.com
Hello Goldhedge,

I just came across this post.

This is everything you need to know about Eddie Craig and Rule Of Law.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Snoop
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,717
Likes
23,445
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#4
THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW By John Hasnas

https://archive.org/stream/THEMYTHO...OF THE RULE OF LAW by John Hasnas-47_djvu.txt


JOHN HASNAS – THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW

Georgetown professor John Hasnas explains that the rule of law is not rock solid, but rather up to political interpretation.


http://thelibertycaucus.com/john-hasnas-myth-rule-law/

The Myth of the Rule of Law: Or, why judge-made and written laws are problematic

https://medium.com/@tompowell/the-m...and-written-laws-are-problematic-4673a7fb7920
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,683
Likes
6,381
Location
right here right now
#5
I have a question, snoopshit. Why do you keep trying to mislead, in fact IMHO, lying and misrepresenting the republic we live in for your total crap public policy non constitutional lawyer crap.

You're totally wrong. Craig and associates are presenting the truth of the reality of dealing with the legal world now a days, and your only clue of this particular reality is how much money you, and all your lying lawyer morons can steal from people. Your lawyer public policy bullshit is the only lies here.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,660
Likes
65,522
Location
Rocky Mountains
#6
CBS 60 Minutes Hidden Camera Records Lawyer Bragging Lawyers Immune from Criminal Prosecution

 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#7
I have a question, snoopshit. Why do you keep trying to mislead, in fact IMHO, lying and misrepresenting the republic we live in for your total crap public policy non constitutional lawyer crap.

You're totally wrong. Craig and associates are presenting the truth of the reality of dealing with the legal world now a days, and your only clue of this particular reality is how much money you, and all your lying lawyer morons can steal from people. Your lawyer public policy bullshit is the only lies here.
Hello arminius,

1. Does this mean that you contend Eddie Craig is really not an imposter and that he actually had a "career in law enforcement" as a "former deputy sheriff" in Nacogdoches County, Texas?

2. Which court case cited in my link did the court get wrong?

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#9
THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW By John Hasnas

https://archive.org/stream/THEMYTHOFTHERULEOFLAWByJohnHasnas47/THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW by John Hasnas-47_djvu.txt


JOHN HASNAS – THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW

Georgetown professor John Hasnas explains that the rule of law is not rock solid, but rather up to political interpretation.


http://thelibertycaucus.com/john-hasnas-myth-rule-law/

The Myth of the Rule of Law: Or, why judge-made and written laws are problematic

https://medium.com/@tompowell/the-m...and-written-laws-are-problematic-4673a7fb7920
Hello BarnacleBob,

I was referring to the radio show entitled, "Rule Of Law" in which amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, explains his amateur legal theories that I debunked in my link above.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,683
Likes
6,381
Location
right here right now
#11
1. Does this mean that you contend Eddie Craig is really not an imposter and that he actually had a "career in law enforcement" as a "former deputy sheriff" in Nacogdoches County, Texas?
The only imposter here is you, scnnoop. Eddie, like me and most of us want a return to constitutional republicanism, and to hell with the public policy democracy that's feeding the likes of you and youse lyers...


2. Which court case cited in my link did the court get wrong?
All of em. It's a totally fake court you espouse. Anyone with any brains can allocute their consent and you morons have no case. Only a constitutional common law court is functional in the republic, not the for profit corporation pretend government dens of iniquity and fake law courts liers like you practice in.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,717
Likes
23,445
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#12
Hello BarnacleBob,

I was referring to the radio show entitled, "Rule Of Law" in which amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, explains his amateur legal theories that I debunked in my link above.

All The Best,

Snoop
The only REAL law that exists is natural law, the jural codes, rules, regulations, statutes, & laws are artificial man made ideological constructs.... I fail to recognize any difference between amateur legal theories & the so called professional legal theories, its all bullshit anyway.... excepting the university educates law students into believing that state licenses create some kind of special & magical understanding of the legislatures fake laws.... Today the so called legal cartel professionals are supported by their own bullshit with the violence of the state....

Only natural law is legitimate, the rest of it is expropriation, extortion, theft, fraud, etc., etc., etc. that supports class warfare. So please dont talk to me about the legal profession being legitimate, it most certainly is not.... as for Eddie Craig & all of the other amateur legal theorists, my only concern is that they cannot in fact see these man-made legislative laws as make believe wishes of the upper ruling classes.... Laws hide the unjust illigitimate use of economic, financial & class warfare. And while we are talking legal theory, the theory of Democracy is also a fraud on its very face....
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#13
The only REAL law that exists is natural law, the jural codes, rules, regulations, statutes, & laws are artificial man made ideological constructs.... I fail to recognize any difference between amateur legal theories & the so called professional legal theories, its all bullshit anyway.... excepting the university educates law students into believing that state licenses create some kind of special & magical understanding of the legislatures fake laws.... Today the so called legal cartel professionals are supported by their own bullshit with the violence of the state....

Only natural law is legitimate, the rest of it is expropriation, extortion, theft, fraud, etc., etc., etc. that supports class warfare. So please dont talk to me about the legal profession being legitimate, it most certainly is not.... as for Eddie Craig & all of the other amateur legal theorists, my only concern is that they cannot in fact see these man-made legislative laws as make believe wishes of the upper ruling classes.... Laws hide the unjust illigitimate use of economic, financial & class warfare. And while we are talking legal theory, the theory of Democracy is also a fraud on its very face....
Hello BarnacleBob,

Did you know that every law, every statute and every court decision in existence was written and made into law by people that "We the People" put into power, directly or indirectly, through the election process?

If it is wrong for "We the People" to pick our own lawmakers, then who should pick our lawmakers? Dictators? Royalty? Military Leaders? Foreigners?

If it is wrong for "We the People" to pick our own lawmakers through the election process, what other process should be used? Lottery?

Did you know that the requirement of all licenses (driver's, pilot's, doctor's, lawyer's, realtor's, dentist's, building contractor's, electrical contractor's, etc.) is the direct result of public outcry demanding protection from those who are too incompetent to engage in an a potentially dangerous activity?

Did you know that if a law is unjust, then "We the People" have the power to elect representatives to change or repeal that unjust law?

Does it serve the public good for Eddie Craig to falsely tell the public that they do not need a driver's license to drive a car unless they are engaged in commerce? If so, how?

Texas has two different sets of speed limits, one for large commercial vehicles (which is slower) and one for ordinary passenger cars (which is faster). Does it serve the public good for Eddie Craig to falsely tell the public that Texas only has a single speed limit and that it applies solely to commercial vehicles and that there is no speed limit applicable to passenger cars? If so, how?

Does it serve the public good for Eddie Craig to impersonate a "former deputy sheriff" when peddling these false claims? If so, how?

All The Best,

Snoop
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,660
Likes
65,522
Location
Rocky Mountains
#14
What Virgo Triad has to say about Eddie Craig.
I attempted to listen to that voice for about 5 minutes... YOWSER! Screechy. I hope that isn't you snoopy...?
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,683
Likes
6,381
Location
right here right now
#15
Ya know, snooper, it's really hard to believe how clueless you are of true reality.

You project your COLOR OF LAW fantasy, and try to tell us that's all there is and by golly, we better understand, errr stand-under your particular brand of attempted people control for financial renumeration. It's not about real law, it's about controlling people for financial renumeration, period.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,214
Likes
11,576
#16
Hello BarnacleBob,

Did you know that every law, every statute and every court decision in existence was written and made into law by people that "We the People" put into power, directly or indirectly, through the election process?

True. It would help the country greatly if any of those people elected has actually read the constitution. Any law they write should have to pass constitutional muster or not be passed. Instead we the people have to spend life savings to get laws changed or take them to the SC where they may or may not hear a case.

If it is wrong for "We the People" to pick our own lawmakers, then who should pick our lawmakers? Dictators? Royalty? Military Leaders? Foreigners?
The constitution spelled out who should have the right to vote

If it is wrong for "We the People" to pick our own lawmakers through the election process, what other process should be used? Lottery?

Did you know that the requirement of all licenses (driver's, pilot's, doctor's, lawyer's, realtor's, dentist's, building contractor's, electrical contractor's, etc.) is the direct result of public outcry demanding protection from those who are too incompetent to engage in an a potentially dangerous activity?
Pilots I can understand. The rest is simply the conversion of a right into a privilege so the government can tax or license that privilege. As an example, restaurants have to get Gov inspections. Gov announces they will be coming for an inspection. Restaurant cleans up their act. The day after inspection is business as usual and if someone gets sick do people sue the gov for not protecting them? No they sue the restaurant so why bother with the license and permits and inspections for the restaurant. As for other contractors. Those that are good will rise to the top. Those who do shitty work will fall to the wayside or be sued out of existence or word of moth will put them out of business..
Public outcry should not be the standard by which Gov rights laws. If public outcry was the standard then Hillary would be swinging from a lamppost.


Did you know that if a law is unjust, then "We the People" have the power to elect representatives to change or repeal that unjust law?
If it's an unconstitutional law then it can be changed in court

Does it serve the public good for Eddie Craig to falsely tell the public that they do not need a driver's license to drive a car unless they are engaged in commerce? If so, how?
It allows people to be free and retain their money. Does taking 200 dollars from someone going over the speed limit make roads safer? Where is the crime in going over the speed limit? Was someone harmed by this person driving fast? Was someone put at risk by it? If so than a charge of reckless driving would be in order and the person, after a trial should have a fine imposed on him by a jury of his peers.

Texas has two different sets of speed limits, one for large commercial vehicles (which is slower) and one for ordinary passenger cars (which is faster). Does it serve the public good for Eddie Craig to falsely tell the public that Texas only has a single speed limit and that it applies solely to commercial vehicles and that there is no speed limit applicable to passenger cars? If so, how?

Does it serve the public good for Eddie Craig to impersonate a "former deputy sheriff" when peddling these false claims? If so, how?

All The Best,

Snoop
The problem with the rule of law(Other than the laws seldom being constitutional) is that the gov always oversteps its bounds and once they do there is no reeling them back in. And that leads us to today. A great example is the income tax. Its been written in such a manner that no one can understand it without spending 1000's of hours researching it. Once they do they realize the income ta doesn't apply to at least 95% of Americans living and working in the US. The fact that the government has consistently refused to answer question on it and continued to write in more and more complexity is evidence that the Governments ability to write laws should be greatly curtailed.

 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,717
Likes
23,445
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#17
"We The People" was written to fool the multitudes, was & has been a fraud before the ink dried on the parchment.... "We the People" were a secret group that were secretly assembled to over throw the organic "Articles of Confederation" & write a Constitution using the Masonic "Andersons Book of Constitutions, 1723.

As for the licensing schemes, they are mostly the products of special commercial interests shifting the burdens of taxation from themselves onto the general public. For instance Commercial Vehicles bore the brunt of licensing & regulation taxes, so they started a propaghanda campaign citing the need to expand the jurisdiction & police powers of the state to personal property when traveling upon the publicly funded roads. The result was to highly reduce the annual taxes paid by commercial vehicles by shifting the burden amongst both commercial & noncommercial vehicles. The scheme was/is a statist wet dream, as it provided .govs of every type (federal, state, county & municiple) with obscene revenues derived from the entorcement of the regulatory scam. Secondly it expanded the powers of the Judiciary & created new revenue streams for the lawyering classes. Nowadays the scheme has created third party parasites dressed as driving schools, DUI schools, Private Probation Services, Auto Safety Inspections, etc., etc., etc..

The same scams have been repeatedly used to shift the burden of taxation & the inherent costs of regulation away from commerce & onto the backs of the general population.... "The common good & general welfare" clause has been used & employed as the tool to deveive the people under the disguise of public safety ad nauseum.... The 16th Amendment was initially promoted as a tax directed at only the wealthy, which was a lie as before the ink was dried on the amendment, commerce & the money power using bribary & corruption shifted the burden of taxation from themselves onto the entire working classes resulting in a much lower tax liability for themselves....

The initial invention of the internal combustion engine was powered by ethyl alcohol which was derived & produced by & thru agricultural activities. Big Oil wanted oil derivatives (gas & diesel) as the major source of energy to power common ground transortation.... Their answer was to use & employ the law perverted to outlaw the production & use of all alcohol products.... They as a special interest group funded the "Temperance" movement and funded the lobbying to prohibit the production of alcohol in the united States via the eighteenth (18th) amendment 1919.... It was the excuse of "Prohibition" that led to law enforcement agencies, etc. et al to seek legislation against various firearms & firearms accessories with the NFA 1934... it wasnt public outcry, it was LEO's being killed on the job enforcing UNENFORCEABLE prohibition laws.... Once Prohibition was rescinded (21st Amendment 1933), LEO deaths on the job collapsed & only returned when the War on Drugs was erected. The statist & socialist of the period of course used the publicity from high statistics of LEO deaths to politically pass the unconstitutional NFA of 1934....

In almost every instance of passing unconstitutional laws & public policy, the public has been aroused to support this nonsense by the use of fraud, misrepresentation, propaghanda & lies. Recently the Patriot Acts, Homeland Security, Airport pat downs & screenings, etc. have been advertised as fighting the "War on Terror," in reality, the economic & financial burden of security was shifted away from the airports & airlines where it inherently belongs and placed squarely upon the average taxpayer.... The "Terrorist behind every blade of grass" never materialized, but the be WOT meme has been a tremendous bonus for many, many special interests all sucking off the teet of the federal .gov & taxpayers.....

Its not the general populace that demands these laws & regulations, its the special interests & statists looking to grow their power & authority at the expense of individual & national liberty.... as has been disclosed, they pay protesters to act out scenes before a complacent media then employ lobbyists to lobby for special legislations..... All of this is very provable when one researches political & economic histories....
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#18
The only imposter here is you, scnnoop. Eddie, like me and most of us want a return to constitutional republicanism, and to hell with the public policy democracy that's feeding the likes of you and youse lyers…

All of em. It's a totally fake court you espouse. Anyone with any brains can allocute their consent and you morons have no case. Only a constitutional common law court is functional in the republic, not the for profit corporation pretend government dens of iniquity and fake law courts liers like you practice in.
Hello Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: The only imposter here is you, scnnoop.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Eddie Craig is not a "former deputy sheriff" and never had a "career in law enforcement". The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "deputy sheriff" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" for a period of "TWO WEEKS" in 1992 at which point he was "FIRED, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE". That makes Eddie Craig the imposter. Not me.

How does it benefit the public for Eddie Craig to intentionally lie to them and defraud them about his "career experience"?

YOUR COMMENT: Eddie, like me and most of us want a return to constitutional republicanism.

MY RESPONSE: There is no need to "return" to a constitutional republic. We are a constitutional republic. Indeed, that is precisely why Eddie Craig hates our government so much. He hates our constitutional republican form of government.

YOUR COMMENT: And to hell with the public policy democracy that's feeding the likes of you and youse lyers...

MY RESPONSE: We are not a democracy (public policy or otherwise). In a democracy, citizens themselves make the law. In a republic, citizens elect REPRESENTATIVES who make the law. Because we have elected REPRESENTATIVES who make the law, we are a republic.

YOUR COMMENT: All of em. It's a totally fake court you espouse.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. All of the court decisions above are the law. Every decision above was written by a judge that "We the People" put into office directly or indirectly through the election process. If it is wrong for "We the People" to pick our own judges directly or indirectly through the election process, then how should the judges be picked? Lottery? Drawing straws? Something else?

I realize that you wish real courts were fake, but the reality is they are not. Your calling real courts "fake" will not make that so. They will still be real regardless of what you call them.

YOUR COMMENT: Anyone with any brains can allocute (withhold?) their consent and you morons have no case.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. This misunderstanding above (to the effect that INDIVIDUAL consent is required) is the result of amateur legal theorists' inability to distinguish between SINGULAR TERMS and PLURAL TERMS. In the phrase, the "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" the term, "GOVERNED," IS A PLURAL TERM AND REFERS TO THE CONSENT OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. The ADDITIONAL consent of the INDIVIDUAL to arrest, prosecute or punish IS NOT REQUIRED. Likewise, in the phrase, "We the People", the word, "We" IS A PLURAL TERM AND REFERS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. The ADDITIONAL consent of the INDIVIDUAL to arrest, prosecute or punish IS NOT REQUIRED. Finally, in the phrase, "We the People", the word, "People" IS A PLURAL TERM AND REFERS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE AS A WHOLE AS REFLECTED THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS. The ADDITIONAL consent of the INDIVIDUAL to arrest, prosecute and punish IS NOT REQUIRED.

YOUR COMMENT: Only a constitutional common law court is functional in the republic,

MY RESPONSE: All courts in the United States are constitutional (either federal or state). All courts in the United States use common law and are therefore common law courts. And, the United States is a republic because we elect our own governmental representatives.

This misunderstanding above (to the effect our courts are not governed by common law) is the result of amateur legal theorists not knowing what "common law" actually is. Common law is simply case law, judge made law (as opposed to statutes which are made by our elected legislatures). This means that every single decision in my Eddie Craig link that you falsely claim is fake and invalid IS COMMON LAW. And, common law is very alive and well in the legal system today as the cases in my Eddie Craig link demonstrate. But, amateur legal theorists do no know enough to realize this. They are being lied to in order to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

YOUR COMMENT: not the for profit corporation pretend government dens of iniquity and fake law courts liers like you practice in.

MY RESPONSE: Our government is not a private, for-profit corporation. Likewise, none of the three branches of our government is a private, for-profit corporation. I have posted dozens of court decisions (the common law) on this website refuting this amateur legal theory.

You are consumed with hatred and contempt because you are misinformed and mistaken. The more you know that is actually true, the less you will be consumed by hatred and contempt.

Regards,

Snoop.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#19
The problem with the rule of law(Other than the laws seldom being constitutional) is that the gov always oversteps its bounds and once they do there is no reeling them back in. And that leads us to today. A great example is the income tax. Its been written in such a manner that no one can understand it without spending 1000's of hours researching it. Once they do they realize the income ta doesn't apply to at least 95% of Americans living and working in the US. The fact that the government has consistently refused to answer question on it and continued to write in more and more complexity is evidence that the Governments ability to write laws should be greatly curtailed.

Hello Cigarlover,

I can show you where to get simple, easy to understand info about income taxes.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,683
Likes
6,381
Location
right here right now
#20
My contempt is for people like you, and the profession you espouse, who take constant advantage of other people, by lying about the world around them and pretending to be what you are not, for two reasons, first to create an income source, and second to foster confusion about the real law, so that people believe your bastardization and utilization of COLORed LAW is something they are obligated to.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,717
Likes
23,445
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#21
Like Prossessor of Law @ Georgetown John Hasnas reveals in the video, all Judges are selected & placed into position based upon their statist ideology & programming to support the so called laws & continuity of .gov .... I once argued in camera with a circuit court judge that the county had assessed me for a property tax that I was constitutionally immune from.... he said that my argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against me anyway, and if I did not agree or like his ruling I could appeal his decision..... So there is no need to try to tell me about the law, what it is & how it was created. I spent over 10 years investigating the drivers license scam.... thats what it is, a scam, a con job, an unconstitutional use of the states police power to raise revenue at the city, county & state levels & shift the burden of taxation from the commercial class of vehicles & operators onto the private traveling classes disguised as highway safety.... Oh and theres much more to the scam, as the banks & finance companies have used the state titling scheme in a shared owner/operator scam to streamline the lawful repossession of vehicles in payment default. A scam that can only operate by removing the vehicle out of the class of private property & into the domain of a hybrid class of individual/state property where the state possesses a compelling interest & ownership in the property.... How many people would voluntarilly sign away the MSO then apply for a state title & register their automobiles, hence voluntarilly giving the state a shared ownership in their automobile. Furthermore, how many would sign away the highest claim on their automobile (MSO) so the state could issue a state title that would be used as collateral in their state bond scheme???

The drivers licensing, registration & title/MSO scam has been and is nothing more than a revenue & collateral producing scheme, an illegitimate unconstitutional scheme that is fraudulently misrepresented as a safety scheme....
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#22
I attempted to listen to that voice for about 5 minutes... YOWSER! Screechy. I hope that isn't you snoopy...?
Goldhedge,

HAHAHAHA! No, I am not Virgo Triad. But, she does a really good job explaining Eddie Craig's legal mistakes and the truth about the law (for people who do not like to read). Her followers love her.

Listen, on a different subject, I just got a GoFundMe account under my pen name. Do you guys have a GoFundMe account to which I can send a donation? How does one go about becoming a Midas Supporter? Is that the highest there is?

Snoop
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,214
Likes
11,576
#23
Hello Cigarlover,

I can show you where to get simple, easy to understand info about income taxes.

All The Best,

Snoop
Thank but I am all set. I actually put the time in and did the research myself. Close to 2000 hrs. This is before "Income tax, shattering the myths" was available by the above author. I also spoke with and was a big supporter of Tommy Cryer who successfully argued his case and beat the IRS with a jury of his peers. He was a good lawyer. Shame he passed away so young.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#24
My contempt is for people like you, and the profession you espouse, who take constant advantage of other people, by lying about the world around them and pretending to be what you are not, for two reasons, first to create an income source, and second to foster confusion about the real law, so that people believe your bastardization and utilization of COLORed LAW is something they are obligated to.
Hello Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: My contempt is for people like you,

MY RESPONSE: I know that, but I think you will agree, I have tried to help you anyway. Perhaps if you knew more about me before I went to school and what I had to go through to become a lawyer, you would not hate me so badly.

YOUR COMMENT: and the profession you espouse,

MY RESPONSE: I know that, but the more truth you learn about the law and the profession, the less you will hate it.

YOUR COMMENT: who take constant advantage of other people,

MY RESPONSE: Funny, my clients do not seem to think so. I am not a prosecutor. I am not a state's attorney. I work for ordinary people. I sue powerful corporations for them and I only receive a fraction of what I recover for my clients. In effect, I am a collection agent for poor people.

YOUR COMMENT: by lying about the world around them

MY RESPONSE: Not so. I destroy the lies of others.

YOUR COMMENT: and pretending to be what you are not, and pretending to be what you are not, for two reasons, first to create an income source,

MY RESPONSE: I do not pretend to be a lawyer. I am a lawyer. I do not pretend to be an expert in the law. I am an expert in the law. I do not pretend to have a doctor's degree in the law. I do have a doctor's degree in the law. I did not pretend to pass the three-day bar exam in two states to get my law licenses. I did pass the three-day bar exam in two states to get my law licenses. If now I earn more than those who were too lazy to work as hard as I have worked and who chose not to sacrifice what I have sacrificed to get where I am, then so be it. Pretending had nothing to do with it. I earned the career that I enjoy because I was willing to work harder and sacrifice more to get it.

YOUR COMMENT: and second to foster confusion about the real law,

MY RESPONSE: Like all things believed by amateur legal theorists, this belief is also exactly backwards and opposite to the truth. If I really wanted to foster confusion about the real law, I would validate all of your amateur legal theories. But, I do not. I want to raise your legal I.Q., not lower it. So, I explain the truth about the real law to those people who need it most, people like you. And, I post proof of that truth. I even put up with all the childish, petty, little insults and attacks while doing so. I do what I do without payment. And, I do it all to help people like you. That does not reflect poorly on my character. That reflects favorably on my character.

YOUR COMMENT: so that people believe your bastardization and utilization of COLORed LAW is something they are obligated to.

MY RESPONSE: I do not bastardize the real law. I teach it as it actually is. And, the law is not "colored". Nor are the courts "colored." The term, "color of law", refers to the INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR of a person doing something they are not legally authorized to do. Example: When Rod Class pretends to be a "private attorney general" and pretends to represent someone in state court under the rationale that he is legally authorized to do so under "Title 42 U.S.C. 1988", he is acting under "color of law". The law itself (Title 42 U.S.C. 1988) is not under "color of law". The law is perfectly valid. The court itself not under "color of law". The court is perfectly valid. It is only Rod Class' INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR in claiming to be acting under a valid law in a valid courtroom that is under "color of law" because he is not so authorized.


Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#25
Thank but I am all set. I actually put the time in and did the research myself. Close to 2000 hrs. This is before "Income tax, shattering the myths" was available by the above author. I also spoke with and was a big supporter of Tommy Cryer who successfully argued his case and beat the IRS with a jury of his peers. He was a good lawyer. Shame he passed away so young.
OK Cigarlover,

Even if you yourself know everything there is to know about federal income tax and the IRS, others on this thread might benefit from those links.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,677
Likes
2,401
#26
The income tax is another one of those illusions in the matrix in that nearly every time it's debated that debate is entirely a symptoms' only debate.

The entire truth is actually that the entire thing isn't even supposed to be there at all. Church organizations, from the most tiny to the largest, have all proven that taxes aren't even required. If you have a good idea (or even not so good) you can simply pass around the hat and it will get funded.

It goes beyond even that. In the original constitution, income taxes aren't even legal. But of course, as a past leader, 2 prior to the current leader, already told us: "it's just a damn piece of paper" and can be ignored whenever they see fit.

It's not a "rule of law" thing, it who's ruling and making/interpreting the laws who are the problem.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#27
Like Prossessor of Law @ Georgetown John Hasnas reveals in the video, all Judges are selected & placed into position based upon their statist ideology & programming to support the so called laws & continuity of .gov .... I once argued in camera with a circuit court judge that the county had assessed me for a property tax that I was constitutionally immune from.... he said that my argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against me anyway, and if I did not agree or like his ruling I could appeal his decision..... So there is no need to try to tell me about the law, what it is & how it was created. I spent over 10 years investigating the drivers license scam.... thats what it is, a scam, a con job, an unconstitutional use of the states police power to raise revenue at the city, county & state levels & shift the burden of taxation from the commercial class of vehicles & operators onto the private traveling classes disguised as highway safety.... Oh and theres much more to the scam, as the banks & finance companies have used the state titling scheme in a shared owner/operator scam to streamline the lawful repossession of vehicles in payment default. A scam that can only operate by removing the vehicle out of the class of private property & into the domain of a hybrid class of individual/state property where the state possesses a compelling interest & ownership in the property.... How many people would voluntarilly sign away the MSO then apply for a state title & register their automobiles, hence voluntarilly giving the state a shared ownership in their automobile. Furthermore, how many would sign away the highest claim on their automobile (MSO) so the state could issue a state title that would be used as collateral in their state bond scheme???

The drivers licensing, registration & title/MSO scam has been and is nothing more than a revenue & collateral producing scheme, an illegitimate unconstitutional scheme that is fraudulently misrepresented as a safety scheme....
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: Like Prossessor of Law @ Georgetown John Hasnas reveals in the video, all Judges are selected & placed into position

MY RESPONSE: Judges are not "selected and placed into position". In the State Court system, JUDGES ARE ELECTED DIRECTLY by "We the People". County Court and District Court JUDGES ARE ELECTED DIRECTLY by "We the People" who reside in the county or district where the judge is to serve. In some states, Supreme Court Justices are appointed by lawmakers ELECTED to make those appointments of Supreme Court Judges. But, even those Supreme Court Justices must often withstand a "retention vote" DIRECTLY IN ELECTIONS by "We the People" to remain in office. In the federal court system, the President is ELECTED to nominate federal judges and Senators are ELECTED to consent (or to withhold consent) in connection to those potential federal judges. Either way, EVERY SINGLE JUDGE in the entire United States is put into office DIRECTLY by the vote of "We the People" (state court) or INDIRECTLY by the vote of "We the People" (federal court). There is no conspiracy in the way judges are placed into office. "We the People" put them there!

YOUR COMMENT: based upon their statist ideology.

MY RESPONSE: The STATE is simply all of the people who reside within state borders COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. STATE judges are among those ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. So, they had better be responsive to the STATE, which is simply all of the people who reside within state borders COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. STATE court judges who are not so responsive can be thrown out of office in the next ELECTION by "We the People". There is no conspiracy in the way STATE judges are placed into office or thrown out of office. "We the People" DO BOTH!

YOUR COMMENT: & programming to support the so called laws & continuity of .gov ....

MY RESPONSE: Yes, Judges are required to support and to follow the law and they are required to swear an oath to the United States Constitution and to the constitution of the state in which they serve. Are you suggesting that judges SHOULD NOT support and follow the law and should not swear an oath the federal and state constitution? Are you kidding me?

YOUR COMMENT: I once argued in camera with a circuit court judge that the county had assessed me for a property tax that I was constitutionally immune from.... he said that my argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against me anyway, and if I did not agree or like his ruling I could appeal his decision.....

MY RESPONSE: I believe every part of this story except the part where you claim you had a constitutional immunity to paying property tax and the part where the judge said your argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against you anyway.

YOUR COMMENT: So there is no need to try to tell me about the law, what it is & how it was created.

MY RESPONSE: All evidence to the contrary.

YOUR COMMENT: I spent over 10 years investigating the drivers license scam.... thats what it is, a scam, a con job, an unconstitutional use of the states police power to raise revenue at the city, county & state levels & shift the burden of taxation from the commercial class of vehicles & operators onto the private traveling classes disguised as highway safety....

MY RESPONSE: I believe that you spent 10 years investigating arguments against driver's licenses. But, I do not believe that you spent 10 years studying the real law on that subject. If you had, you already know the real law in Virgo Triad's video clips above in this thread. And, respectfully, you do not know anything about that. Click on Eddie Craig link and read the common law on this subject.

YOUR COMMENT: Oh and there's much more to the scam, as the banks & finance companies have used the state titling scheme in a shared owner/operator scam to streamline the lawful repossession of vehicles in payment default. A scam that can only operate by removing the vehicle out of the class of private property & into the domain of a hybrid class of individual/state property where the state possesses a compelling interest & ownership in the property....

MY RESPONSE: Don't get me started on banks and finance companies. THEY ARE THIEVES! But, the claim that the state titling system is a scheme to streamline the repossession of vehicles when the owner is late on payments or a scheme to transfer ownership of the vehicle to the state (in whole or part) is simply not true.

There are many reasons for the requirement of titles for vehicles. Without titling and registering vehicles, the public would get screwed. Examples: If you had paid off your vehicle and woke up tomorrow morning to find it had been stolen from your driveway, how would you even prove to police that you even owned a car to have been stolen in the first place? Example: How would you prove to police that a car they found which fit your car's description was really yours and not someone else's? EXAMPLE: What if 5 years after the theft of your car, you found your stolen car in another state in the custody of someone who bought your stolen car from the thieves. How would you prove that only you (and not the thieves) had the right to sell your car? Example: If you were on the road tonight and got rear-ended and hospitalized by a drunk driver who got out of the other car and fled the scene, how would you go about identifying the drunk driver and obtaining the insurance information on that other car to pay your $100,000 hospital bill? Example: What if you were insured by an insurance policy that covered you for your mistakes while driving "any vehicle you own" and you ran a red light and killed a child in the crosswalk and the insurance company refused to cover the accident on the grounds that you could not prove ownership of the vehicle you were driving? What would you do without a title or registration in any of these circumstances? You would be screwed!

YOUR COMMENT: How many people would voluntarily sign away the MSO then apply for a state title & register their automobiles, hence voluntarily giving the state a shared ownership in their automobile. Furthermore, how many would sign away the highest claim on their automobile (MSO) so the state could issue a state title that would be used as collateral in their state bond scheme???

MY RESPONSE: None of the foregoing occurs by titling and registering a motor vehicle. Those are amateur legal theories. And, they are not true.

YOUR COMMENT: The drivers licensing, registration & title/MSO scam has been and is nothing more than a revenue & collateral producing scheme, an illegitimate unconstitutional scheme that is fraudulently misrepresented as a safety scheme....

MY RESPONSE: None of us likes the expense of title and registration. But, roads cost money. Street lights cost money. Law enforcement costs money. Jails for drunk drivers cost money. Testing potential drivers for driver's licensing costs money.

You really need to click on the Eddie Craig links to read the law on whether licenses, registration and the requirement of insurance is constitutional or not. Everything you need to know is there.

And again, there are reasons for titling and registration that do not benefit the state and that instead, benefit ONLY THE OWNER as explained above.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,717
Likes
23,445
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#28
Hello BarnacleBob,

YOUR COMMENT: Like Prossessor of Law @ Georgetown John Hasnas reveals in the video, all Judges are selected & placed into position

MY RESPONSE: Judges are not "selected and placed into position". In the State Court system, JUDGES ARE ELECTED DIRECTLY by "We the People". County Court and District Court JUDGES ARE ELECTED DIRECTLY by "We the People" who reside in the county or district where the judge is to serve. In some states, Supreme Court Justices are appointed by lawmakers ELECTED to make those appointments of Supreme Court Judges. But, even those Supreme Court Justices must often withstand a "retention vote" DIRECTLY IN ELECTIONS by "We the People" to remain in office. In the federal court system, the President is ELECTED to nominate federal judges and Senators are ELECTED to consent (or to withhold consent) in connection to those potential federal judges. Either way, EVERY SINGLE JUDGE in the entire United States is put into office DIRECTLY by the vote of "We the People" (state court) or INDIRECTLY by the vote of "We the People" (federal court). There is no conspiracy in the way judges are placed into office. "We the People" put them there!

YOUR COMMENT: based upon their statist ideology.

MY RESPONSE: The STATE is simply all of the people who reside within state borders COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. STATE judges are among those ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. So, they had better be responsive to the STATE, which is simply all of the people who reside within state borders COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. STATE court judges who are not so responsive can be thrown out of office in the next ELECTION by "We the People". There is no conspiracy in the way STATE judges are placed into office or thrown out of office. "We the People" DO BOTH!

YOUR COMMENT: & programming to support the so called laws & continuity of .gov ....

MY RESPONSE: Yes, Judges are required to support and to follow the law and they are required to swear an oath to the United States Constitution and to the constitution of the state in which they serve. Are you suggesting that judges SHOULD NOT support and follow the law and should not swear an oath the federal and state constitution? Are you kidding me?

YOUR COMMENT: I once argued in camera with a circuit court judge that the county had assessed me for a property tax that I was constitutionally immune from.... he said that my argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against me anyway, and if I did not agree or like his ruling I could appeal his decision.....

MY RESPONSE: I believe every part of this story except the part where you claim you had a constitutional immunity to paying property tax and the part where the judge said your argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against you anyway.

YOUR COMMENT: So there is no need to try to tell me about the law, what it is & how it was created.

MY RESPONSE: All evidence to the contrary.

YOUR COMMENT: I spent over 10 years investigating the drivers license scam.... thats what it is, a scam, a con job, an unconstitutional use of the states police power to raise revenue at the city, county & state levels & shift the burden of taxation from the commercial class of vehicles & operators onto the private traveling classes disguised as highway safety....

MY RESPONSE: I believe that you spent 10 years investigating arguments against driver's licenses. But, I do not believe that you spent 10 years studying the real law on that subject. If you had, you already know the real law in Virgo Triad's video clips above in this thread. And, respectfully, you do not know anything about that. Click on Eddie Craig link and read the common law on this subject.

YOUR COMMENT: Oh and there's much more to the scam, as the banks & finance companies have used the state titling scheme in a shared owner/operator scam to streamline the lawful repossession of vehicles in payment default. A scam that can only operate by removing the vehicle out of the class of private property & into the domain of a hybrid class of individual/state property where the state possesses a compelling interest & ownership in the property....

MY RESPONSE: Don't get me started on banks and finance companies. THEY ARE THIEVES! But, the claim that the state titling system is a scheme to streamline the repossession of vehicles when the owner is late on payments or a scheme to transfer ownership of the vehicle to the state (in whole or part) is simply not true.

There are many reasons for the requirement of titles for vehicles. Without titling and registering vehicles, the public would get screwed. Examples: If you had paid off your vehicle and woke up tomorrow morning to find it had been stolen from your driveway, how would you even prove to police that you even owned a car to have been stolen in the first place? Example: How would you prove to police that a car they found which fit your car's description was really yours and not someone else's? EXAMPLE" What if 5 years after the theft of your car, you found your stolen car in another state in the custody of someone who bought your stolen car from the thieves. How would you prove that only you (and not the thieves) had the right to sell your car? Example: If you were on the road tonight and got rear-ended and hospitalized by a drunk driver who got out of the other car and fled the scene, how would you go about identifying the drunk driver and obtaining the insurance information on that other car to pay your $100,000 hospital bill? Example: What if you were insured by an insurance policy that covered you for your mistakes while driving "any vehicle you own" and you ran a red light and killed a child in the crosswalk and the insurance company refused to cover the accident on the grounds that you could not prove ownership of the vehicle you were driving? What would you do?

YOUR COMMENT: How many people would voluntarily sign away the MSO then apply for a state title & register their automobiles, hence voluntarily giving the state a shared ownership in their automobile. Furthermore, how many would sign away the highest claim on their automobile (MSO) so the state could issue a state title that would be used as collateral in their state bond scheme???

MY RESPONSE: None of the foregoing occurs by titling and registering a motor vehicle. Those are amateur legal theories. And, they are not true.

YOUR COMMENT: The drivers licensing, registration & title/MSO scam has been and is nothing more than a revenue & collateral producing scheme, an illegitimate unconstitutional scheme that is fraudulently misrepresented as a safety scheme....

MY RESPONSE: None of us likes the expense of title and registration. But, roads cost money. Street lights cost money. Law enforcement costs money. Jails for drunk drivers cost money. Testing potential drivers for driver's licensing costs money.

You really need to click on the Eddie Craig links to read the law on whether licenses, registration and the requirement of insurance is constitutional or not. Everything you need to know is there.

And again, there are reasons for titling and registration that do not benefit the state and that instead, benefit ONLY THE OWNER as explained above.

All The Best,

Snoop
Hello Snoop, thank you for your response, unfortunately you have proven that you, like your nemisis Eddie Craig are both amateur legal theorists. You certainly have proven that you dont know the full history of the drivers license scam. I highly recommend investigating the true history of the various licensing & regulatory schemes.... its not what you have been taught.
 

historyrepete

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
1,885
Likes
2,583
Location
driving thru flyover
#29
YOUR COMMENT: I once argued in camera with a circuit court judge that the county had assessed me for a property tax that I was constitutionally immune from.... he said that my argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against me anyway, and if I did not agree or like his ruling I could appeal his decision.....

MY RESPONSE: I believe every part of this story except the part where you claim you had a constitutional immunity to paying property tax and the part where the judge said your argument was absolutely correct, but he was ruling against you anyway.
Hahaha, so you at least believe Bob was in court!
Literally lol
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,123
Likes
35,963
#30
guys, please keep the personal attacks down, and the conversation up,

snoop has been more than gracious as he takes the head shots without whining or complaining, nor coming back at ya guns a blazin'

fwiw, I will stand with BB regarding 'we the people' and what it actually represents,

far as that goes, my research takes an altogether different tact from which snoop represents as reality,

we have guys on this site who have been deeply involved in the battle with the state, and have had their eyes forced wide open regarding 'rule of law'

edit to add:
snoop, the site doesn't take donations except once a year to fund the place for the following year. Otherwise, we don't collect any dough, and no one makes anything off this little corner of the net.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#31
edit to add:
snoop, the site doesn't take donations except once a year to fund the place for the following year. Otherwise, we don't collect any dough, and no one makes anything off this little corner of the net.
Scorpio,

Thanks.

Does the site (or its owners) have a GoFundMe account?

I can donate from there and maintain my anonymity.

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#32
Hello Snoop, thank you for your response, unfortunately you have proven that you, like your nemisis Eddie Craig are both amateur legal theorists. You certainly have proven that you dont know the full history of the drivers license scam. I highly recommend investigating the true history of the various licensing & regulatory schemes.... its not what you have been taught.
Hello BarnacleBob,

Here is a good starting point to learn driver's license law.

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...2&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

The rest is here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,123
Likes
35,963
#33
Now that is funny chit,

BB has been around here for 18 yrs, you want to show up and start preaching to him after being here 10 min??

Seriously?

Might be good to get the lay of the land before you start making reco's to people you don't know and don't know the history of. BB has a real long history associated with that.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,660
Likes
65,522
Location
Rocky Mountains
#34
Scorpio,

Thanks.

Does the site (or its owners) have a GoFundMe account?

I can donate from there and maintain my anonymity.

Snoop
No GoFundMe. As Scorpio says - you get to contribute once a year for about a week and you missed the window by a few months... April I think?

I agree on the personal attacks... we can be civil at least. Everyone has an opinion.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
13,717
Likes
23,445
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#35
Hello BarnacleBob,

Here is a good starting point to learn driver's license law.

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

The rest is here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax
@ Snoop, I agree with you & the court, ALL MOTOR VEHICLES are subject to the states police power, registration scheme & the licensing of Motor Vehicle operators. There is plenty of stare decisis to prove this, going all the way back to Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Motor Vehicles are generally a category & classification of commercial vehicles used in the transportation of cargo, the transportation of passengers or the transportation of passengers & cargo FOR PROFIT... nowadays the general public has been tricked by legal wizards, lackeys & stooges into voluntarily registering their automobiles as motor vehicles which places them squarely in the jurisdiction of the states police power.

Like the above, when researching both the original & current political systems used in the United States, one will quickly realize that "We the People" is a fraud on its very face. Its both a ideology & a meme.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#36
@ Snoop, I agree with you & the court, ALL MOTOR VEHICLES are subject to the states police power, registration scheme & the licensing of Motor Vehicle operators. There is plenty of stare decisis to prove this, going all the way back to Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Motor Vehicles are generally a category & classification of commercial vehicles used in the transportation of cargo, the transportation of passengers or the transportation of passengers & cargo FOR PROFIT... nowadays the general public has been tricked by legal wizards, lackeys & stooges into voluntarily registering their automobiles as motor vehicles which places them squarely in the jurisdiction of the states police power.

Like the above, when researching both the original & current political systems used in the United States, one will quickly realize that "We the People" is a fraud on its very face. Its both a ideology & a meme.
BarnacleBob,

Commerce v. Non-Commerce and the requirement of a driver's license, registration and insurance.

2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued an officer who arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent DANGERS, renders the reasonableness and NECESSITY OF REGULATION apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a town and government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she '[THERE IS NO LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY CODES WHICH DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH [a claim identical to what Eddie Craig also claims].'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested.." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that... HE DID NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE because, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case before using an almost identical argument. In discussing that earlier case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license... six times. After she refused... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams, an amateur legal theorist, filed a claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court conviction for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE... . . [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... ." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL.... . [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]." But, the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Appellant, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS [A WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], was [convicted by a jury]... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE... .[and]... WAS... SENTENCED... TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, [WILLIAMS]... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him][a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him] [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed BOTH convictions. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but the Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS... . [The "Right To Travel" documents]... contained a birth certificate and documents which stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND ... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#37
No GoFundMe. As Scorpio says - you get to contribute once a year for about a week and you missed the window by a few months... April I think?

I agree on the personal attacks... we can be civil at least. Everyone has an opinion.
Goldhedge,

Please consider setting up an account at GoFundMe. It takes only a minute or so.

Thanks,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,683
Likes
6,381
Location
right here right now
#38
Yep, control the finances enough and you can eventually cull the opinions of those you want to be rid of. How many websites and forums whose opinions they want to control have they done this to...

I agree on the personal attacks... we can be civil at least. Everyone has an opinion.
Yep, I agree. For me it's not just a personal issue. I have personally seen all too much theft, from me big time, as well as many other humans, in this system for me to allow a PERSON to come here and tell this group of so much more intelligent and cogent folks what is true law. And to do so for, IMHO, one reason and one reason only, to subjugate us to the bot so called law democraczy wherein creatures such as this are able to create all kinds of bullshit conduct code they call law to profit by it, as well as create a huge amount of public servant vested interest in continuing to steal from, 'the people' through a private corporations pretending to be government.

Anyone who continues to not just proselytize, but try to ram their campaign of vested interest for financing their views private corporation lives as law that we must obey.

Now he's trying to find a way to cleanse views like mine by financing the joint. Sounds to me like more cleansing of the net of any views not officially sanctioned.

Oh, and I'm not attacking the human being in any way, Just the incredible audacity of this thing, and I'm not real sure this is a real human being.

Welcome to the new world, comrads...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#39
Yep, control the finances enough and you can eventually cull the opinions of those you want to be rid of. How many websites and forums whose opinions they want to control have they done this to...



Yep, I agree. For me it's not just a personal issue. I have personally seen all too much theft, from me big time, as well as many other humans, in this system for me to allow a PERSON to come here and tell this group of so much more intelligent and cogent folks what is true law. And to do so for, IMHO, one reason and one reason only, to subjugate us to the bot so called law democraczy wherein creatures such as this are able to create all kinds of bullshit conduct code they call law to profit by it, as well as create a huge amount of public servant vested interest in continuing to steal from, 'the people' through a private corporations pretending to be government.

Anyone who continues to not just proselytize, but try to ram their campaign of vested interest for financing their views private corporation lives as law that we must obey.

Now he's trying to find a way to cleanse views like mine by financing the joint. Sounds to me like more cleansing of the net of any views not officially sanctioned.

Oh, and I'm not attacking the human being in any way, Just the incredible audacity of this thing, and I'm not real sure this is a real human being.

Welcome to the new world, comrads...
Arminius,

You are so consumed with hatred and negativity that you actually believe that the truth is itself some kind of conspiracy. But, it is not. You are a very confused individual. Your value system is exactly backwards. To you, truth is bad and lies are good. To you, right is wrong and wrong is right. To you good is bad and bad is good. That is so messed up.

You hate our republican form of government. You hate that every single law in the history of the United States was actually written and actually made into law by our elected representatives that "We the People" authorized to make our laws (Constitutional delegates, Federal Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen, State Senators, State Representatives, County Commissioners, City Commissioners, State Supreme Court Justices, State District Judges, etc. ). You hate that every single judge in the state court system is put into office by "We the People" through the election process. You hate that every single state attorney in the state court system was is put into office by "We the People" through the election process. You hate that every single public defender in the state court system is put into office by "We the People" through the election process. Finally, you hate that the head of every law enforcement agency in the entire United States is elected by "We the People" (President, Governor, county sheriff, city police chief, etc.).

To "justify" this mindless hatred, you have to pretend that our republican form of government is something that it is not and that it is something diabolical (a private, for-profit corporation, etc.). But, you aren't fooling anybody. I have provided you with dozens of laws which hold that no government or true government of agency is a profit, for-profit corporation. But, you mindlessly reject that truth, because you cannot justify your mindless hatred by admitting to the truth. So, you have to pretend that the lie is the truth and that the truth is the lie. In so going, you engage in nothing short of intentional self delusion and willful ignorance to justify your mindless hatred.

Not only do you hate our republican form of government, you actually hate the truth itself. But, truth does not exploit you or other human beings. Truth does not profit from you or other human beings. Truth does not gain an advantage over you by appearing on the web. The truth is not something diabolical.

Truth is not some kind of tool designed to exploit you or other human beings. Truth is not some kind of tool designed to generate profits for lawyers, elected judges or imaginary corporations. Truth is not some kind of tool designed to benefit lawyers, elected judges or imaginary corporations.

So, why do you mindlessly reject the truth? The answer is because the truth will not justify your mindless hatred of our republican form of government. Only lies will do that. So, you desperately cling to lies because only lies provide justification your mindless hatred and only lies provide validation for your delusional belief system to the effect that the government and all government agencies are private, for-profit corporations.

The entire world of amateur legal theory is a lie designed to validate the mindless hatred of our republican form of government. But, it only works on those with no formal legal education.

Whether you like it or not and whether you admit it or not, your REAL enemies are those charlatans who peddle amateur legal theories, like Eddie Craig and Rod Class, whom you idolize. Whether you like it or not and whether you admit it or not, your REAL friends are people like me, who attempt to help you to see through the lies of those very charlatans, whom you idolize.

Finally, your value system is so confused that actually hate those of us who try to help you and you idolize those who do nothing but tell you lies in an effort to get you to hate our republican form of government. But, you do not have the sense to even realize it. Wake up.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#40
Now that is funny chit,

BB has been around here for 18 yrs, you want to show up and start preaching to him after being here 10 min??

Seriously?

Might be good to get the lay of the land before you start making reco's to people you don't know and don't know the history of. BB has a real long history associated with that.
Hello Scorpio,

Respectfully, the issue is not how long BarnacleBob has been posting comments on this thread or how long I have been posting comments on this thread.

Instead, the issue is whether I am qualified enough to post the real law on this thread.

Does BB have a four-year Bachelor's Degree in Public Administration?

Does BB have a three-year's Doctor's Degree in Law?

Has BB passed the three-day bar exam in two states?

Does BB have 30 years experience practicing law and representing thousand of clients?

Has BB been named a "Lifetime Member" of "Best Lawyers In America" by "Rue Ratings" (a company that rates the legal abilities of lawyers)?

Is BB a member of the "MULTI-Million-Dollar Advocate Forum" (an elite society for lawyers who have won MULTI- million-dollar cases)?

Is BB a member of the "Million Dollar Advocates Forum" (an elite society for lawyers who have won several million-dollar cases)?

So, while I have not posted comments on this thread for as long a period as BarnacleBob has, I am at least as qualified as BarnacleBob is to post the real law on this thread.

BarnacleBob is an outsider to the legal system. I have been an insider of the legal system for more than thirty years. Which one of us is in a better position to know the truth about what actually goes on inside the legal system?

Suffice it to say, I actually know what I am talking about.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited: