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

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
So, yeah so ur going to lv this....ahaha....drats. IDK if I posted this here or there but, but I was traveling to burns to pick up a horse trailer and the reds and blues popped up behind me.

First words out of my mouth were "Why did you arrest me?" I got arrested for a license plate light; two days later I got a letter from the mall cop's employer saying charges had been dropped due to internal error. wtf is internal error?

don't answer....
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,064
Location
Rocky Mountains
So, yeah so ur going to lv this....ahaha....drats. IDK if I posted this here or there but, but I was traveling to burns to pick up a horse trailer and the reds and blues popped up behind me.

First words out of my mouth were "Why did you arrest me?" I got arrested for a license plate light; two days later I got a letter from the mall cop's employer saying charges had been dropped due to internal error. wtf is internal error?

don't answer....
What did the conversation go like?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Why did you arrest me?
quizzical look
You arrested my freedom of movement.
I need to see your drivers license.
That ain't happening.

Then there was the I stopped you for no plate light and a plethora of other stupid questions.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Hello Goldhedge,

The emphasized portion of your photo above is non-law (an amateur legal theory). Some buffoon just made it up. The author is very likely mentally ill. That seems to be a common thread among authors of such amateur legal theories.

On a different subject, this is my new stuff. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...spiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation). It is one page ONE of a Google search under the search term, "Deborah Tavares".

With Respect,

Snoop
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,727
Likes
3,813
Hello Goldhedge,

The emphasized portion of your photo above is non-law (an amateur legal theory). Some buffoon just made it up. The author is very likely mentally ill. That seems to be a common thread among authors of such amateur legal theories.

On a different subject, this is my new stuff. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...spiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation). It is one page ONE of a Google search under the search term, "Deborah Tavares".

With Respect,

Snoop
I live in the state of Arizona.

When I go to “traffic court” the plaintiff is THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Who is that? Is that a legal fiction? Is it a person? A geographic location?

Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Hello Goldhedge,

The emphasized portion of your photo above is non-law (an amateur legal theory). Some buffoon just made it up. The author is very likely mentally ill. That seems to be a common thread among authors of such amateur legal theories.

On a different subject, this is my new stuff. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...spiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation). It is one page ONE of a Google search under the search term, "Deborah Tavares".

With Respect,

Snoop
ur busted stoop just flat plain busted. non law? keep stroking it bud cuz you need ur kind of release....just hopeful u'll keep that splooge away from me.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,064
Location
Rocky Mountains
Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step...
JP - He's not gonna engage you in a discussion... his manner is a monologue with no debate.

You can post logic all you like but he's a slippery lawyer type. You can even post law that works and he ignores it.

You can't confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up...

We should hold a trial right here. Let's say the legalities of a lawful defense?

A ticket is issued and we'll let Snoop be the judge... we'll defend ourselves and he gets to preside...?
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,297
Location
right here right now
[QUOTE="snoop4truth, post: 1675754, member: 18115". Some buffoon just made it up. [/QUOTE]

Just like you and every other lawyer, engage in (and created) a system (public policy democracy), put in place over the true constitutional republic, that does nothing but enrich lawyers with lawyer created corporate law in all too many cases, where no harm was done to anyone, except to a non constitutional corporate statute that was only created for the enrichment of fucking lawyers.

The only buffoon here, is you snoopshit...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
I live in the state of Arizona.

When I go to “traffic court” the plaintiff is THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Who is that? Is that a legal fiction? Is it a person? A geographic location?

Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step...
Hello Juristic Person,

I apologize for the delay.

I just found this today.

YOUR COMMENT: When I go to “traffic court” the plaintiff is THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Who is that? Is that a legal fiction? Is it a person? A geographic location?

MY RESPONSE: The term, "STATE", state has different meanings depending on the context. In the context of a plaintiff in an Arizona traffic case, the term, "STATE", means "ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ARIZONA, COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES". Indeed, in some jurisdictions, the plaintiff in traffic and criminal cases is simply "THE PEOPLE" (who reside within the borders of the jurisdiction, collectively, speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives).

YOUR COMMENT: Help me understand...and then let’s take the next step

MY RESPONSE: Fine. I am always happy to help. Please write me at snoop4truth@gmail.com to notify me when it is time for me to respond. That way, I will respond immediately.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
JP - He's not gonna engage you in a discussion... his manner is a monologue with no debate.

You can post logic all you like but he's a slippery lawyer type. You can even post law that works and he ignores it.

You can't confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up...

We should hold a trial right here. Let's say the legalities of a lawful defense?

A ticket is issued and we'll let Snoop be the judge... we'll defend ourselves and he gets to preside...?
Hello Goldhedge,

YOUR COMMENT: He's not gonna engage you in a discussion... his manner is a monologue with no debate. You can post logic all you like but he's a slippery lawyer type. You can even post law that works and he ignores it. You can't confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up... We should hold a trial right here. Let's say the legalities of a lawful defense? A ticket is issued and we'll let Snoop be the judge... we'll defend ourselves and he gets to preside...?

MY RESPONSE:

I do not check into this site as often as I used to.

We weren't making much real progress as a group.

And, some members seemed more concerned with hating than actually learning the law.

Regardless, I do not intentionally avoid a genuine discussion about the law.

It's just that I am unaware that such a discussion is going on.

Please write to me at snoop4truth@gmail.com to let me know when you'd like to discuss the law and the legal system.

I am always happy to help those with a real interest in the law.

But, I do not have time for the other stuff that goes on here.

I hope you understand.

With Much Respect,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,297
Location
right here right now
But, I do not have time for the other stuff that goes on here.

I hope you understand.
I understand that you are running away like the the whipped dog that you are. Good, cuz it's all too obvious to any intelligent observer/reader that you cannot defend your position of adversarial fabrications, except with more prevarications...

And you want us to notify you that we are talking about you or to you. :laughing:

no sir...
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,064
Location
Rocky Mountains
Now you guys, Snoop has 'other' proclivities.

Just let him respond as requested...
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,727
Likes
3,813
MY RESPONSE: The term, "STATE", state has different meanings depending on the context. In the context of a plaintiff in an Arizona traffic case, the term, "STATE", means "ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ARIZONA, COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES". Indeed, in some jurisdictions, the plaintiff in traffic and criminal cases is simply "THE PEOPLE" (who reside within the borders of the jurisdiction, collectively, speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives).
I asked you to define in my example “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” who is identified as the Plaintiff.

You gave me your definition for “STATE”. “STATE” is not the Plaintiff.

That would be like somebody asking me to define identify the Defendant, named “JURISTIC PERSON” and only providing the definition of the word “Juristic” in that given context. It’s not the same thing.

When I am fighting a civil traffic case in their color of law court they call “traffic court”, do “all the people who live within the state of Arizona” need to show up or just one of their elected representatives? I have a right to face my accuser, correct? Who exactly is “STATE OF ARIZONA” (the plaintiff) or its representation in that case? I have nevertheless see an elected official show up in the court room as the Plaintiff in a traffic case. And as a person who loves within the state of Arizona, how can I represent both parties?

Please help me understand....
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,202
Likes
6,392
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
It's the men who have formed a social compact that is the STATE, not me and not you as it is a them.

I have a motion to dismiss I am handing out today for a dws and a nobrainer insurance thing...seems the insurance documentation was on the girls phone...hey, how was I to know? It wasn't on my phone...I sure miss the days of paper; I mean whats going to happen in a few years ppl going to be whipping their butts with their phones? sorry, flippen wondering mind.
So there I was perusing through miles of statutes about what the state can and cannot do and then I found my out in a case; an appealed case. So then I had to redo the motion to dismiss. Drats I had been working on that thing since 3:30am and it was then 9am...… so finished the new one by 12:30 pm and of course every one is on lunch break and then I found at 1am I was not on the docket, so I called the issuing department. and here is what I found out>

This is a bit of dirty pool but it is tactical none the less. You get a ticket and then the police sargent has to ok them then the next day they are snail mailed to the court. This burns up 3 to 4 days and it encroaches on the time that you or I have to get this motion in front of a judge; and you have to know the name of the justice of the particular court for the order to work right because if you don't you are swept up into their jurisdiction and then it is a up hill battle.

What I found out about all the statutes is the legislators have it pretty well sewed up with all their incidental laws that they patch up their quilt with. What I don't get is the probable cause without the warrant. A cop is in the executive branch of the gumbyment so how can he find probable cause when that is used to get the warrant from a justice? Yet I get pulled over because I din't breach the peace nor did I commit a felony; hell I din't even get in a wreck. Yes the cop pulled in behind me because I was the new car in town; FUCK talk about predatory policing! I only went into town to get some gas because I was on empty and I got stalked by roger-ram-jet; only they don't see it that way.

So here is how I am getting out of this poop storm: First words out of the cops mouth were "You are being recorded."; "Why did you arrest me?"; "My computer told me this car has no insurance."; and it goes on and on and he leaves and leaves a paper with me and all this is on his body camera which is available to me under discovery. Thing of it is I could have been a murder-er or anything like it or less that is but what that computer designates as information does not rise to probable cause as it is the one operating it that MUST do something to get stopped; or there must be a warrant associated with the car for the stop to rise up to probable cause; as they see it.

You know I still have not found the reasoning how the power (if you will,) how the power of the courts got transferred into the power of the executive and vice versa? To me that is the real question.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
I asked you to define in my example “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” who is identified as the Plaintiff.

You gave me your definition for “STATE”. “STATE” is not the Plaintiff.

That would be like somebody asking me to define identify the Defendant, named “JURISTIC PERSON” and only providing the definition of the word “Juristic” in that given context. It’s not the same thing.

When I am fighting a civil traffic case in their color of law court they call “traffic court”, do “all the people who live within the state of Arizona” need to show up or just one of their elected representatives? I have a right to face my accuser, correct? Who exactly is “STATE OF ARIZONA” (the plaintiff) or its representation in that case? I have nevertheless see an elected official show up in the court room as the Plaintiff in a traffic case. And as a person who loves within the state of Arizona, how can I represent both parties?

Please help me understand....
Hello Juristic Person,

YOUR COMMENT: I asked you to define in my example “THE STATE OF ARIZONA” who is identified as the Plaintiff. You gave me your definition for “STATE”. “STATE” is not the Plaintiff. That would be like somebody asking me to define identify the Defendant, named “JURISTIC PERSON” and only providing the definition of the word “Juristic” in that given context. It’s not the same thing.

MY RESPONSE: In the context of a plaintiff in an Arizona traffic case, the term, "STATE OF ARIZONA", means "ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ARIZONA, COLLECTIVELY, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES".

YOUR COMMENT: When I am fighting a civil traffic case in their color of law court they call “traffic court”

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, you are using the term "color of law" incorrectly. In the real legal system, the phrase, "color of law" does not refer to the law or to a court. In the real legal system the phrase, "color of law", REFERS ONLY TO A PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT, BEHAVIOR OR ACTIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law).

YOUR COMMENT: do “all the people who live within the state of Arizona” need to show up or just one of their elected representatives?

MY RESPONSE: I think you already know that all of the people who live within the borders of Arizona do not need to show up at every Arizona traffic court case. THE STATE OF ARIZONA IS REPRESENTED IN TRAFFIC COURT BY AN ATTORNEY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY IN ARIZONA WHERE THE TRAFFIC COURT SITS. THAT IS WHY THIS ATTORNEY IS CALLED THE "STATE'S ATTORNEY" (BECAUSE HE/SHE WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT "THE STATE" IN SUCH CASES).

YOUR COMMENT: I have a right to face my accuser, correct?

MY RESPONSE: Yes. YOUR ACCUSER IS THE LAW ENFORCMENT OFFICER who issued you the ticket. Your accuser must actually show up at traffic court in person so as to allow you to confront him/her OR THE JUDGE WILL DISMISS THE STATE'S CASE AGAINST YOU. Your accuser is employed by the ELECTED governor (Highway Patrol & State Police) or the ELECTED sheriff (Sheriff's Office) or the ELECTED city police chief (Police Department). So, the head of every law enforcement agency in our country is ELECTED by "We the People" to enforce the laws passed by lawmakers that "We the People" ELECT to make our laws. Your accuser (the officer) is permitted, but not required, to bring additional witnesses to support the accusations against you. And, you also have the right to confront those people as well. Not only that, but you can bring YOUR OWN WITNESSES to traffic court to rebut the claims of your accusers.

YOUR COMMENT: Who exactly is “STATE OF ARIZONA” (the plaintiff) or its representation in that case?

MY RESPONSE: The actual Plaintiff in a traffic case in Arizona is the "STATE OF ARIZONA" (which is all of the people who reside within the borders of Arizona, collectively, speaking with a single voice through their ELECED representatives.).

YOUR COMMENT: I have nevertheless see an elected official show up in the court room as the Plaintiff in a traffic case.

MY RESPONSE: Yes, you have. You simply do not realize it. THE TRAFFIC JUDGE WAS ACTUALLY ELECTED by the people who live in the county or city in Arizona where the traffic offense allegedly occurred. THE "STATE'S ATTORNEY" WAS ELECTED by the people who live in the county in Arizona where the traffic offense allegedly occurred. If you had a public defender (like for a DUI charge), THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS ELECTED by the people who live in the county in Arizona where the court house sits. Even the court room bailiff at you traffic hearing was employed by the ELECTED sheriff who was ELECTED by the people of the county in Arizona where the court house sits. Finally, every single law enforced in every civilian court in the country (including Arizona) was written by people who "We the People" ELECT to write our laws.

YOUR COMMENT: And as a person who lives within the state of Arizona, how can I represent both parties?

MY RESPONSE: You can't "REPRESENT" both sides. You are not an attorney. So, you can only "REPRESENT" yourself. The "STATE OF ARIZONA" (meaning all of the people who reside within the borders of Arizona, collectively, speaking with a single voice, through their ELECTED representatives) IS ALREADY REPRESENTED BY THE "STATE'S ATTORNEY". Indeed, this is precisely where the name "STATE'S ATTORNEY" comes from (that attorney was ELECTED to represent "THE STATE" in such cases and is therefore called the "STATE'S ATTORNEY").

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,727
Likes
3,813
Snoop -

You mentioned the STATES “Attorney” multiple times.

If an attorney representing the STATE OF ARIZONA does not “appear” for a civil traffic court “hearing”, then doesn’t that put the Plaintiff in default for non-appearance?

If no attorney is present, who represents the plaintiff in court?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Snoop -

You mentioned the STATES “Attorney” multiple times.

If an attorney representing the STATE OF ARIZONA does not “appear” for a civil traffic court “hearing”, then doesn’t that put the Plaintiff in default for non-appearance?

If no attorney is present, who represents the plaintiff in court?
Snoop4truth is some sort of A.I. program.

Greeting Snoop4truth!

I have a question for you.

Cna yuo pelsae tlel me who is yuor hnadelr? I wnat to konw who is cnotorlling yuor porgarm....

Tnahk you!

MY RESPONSE: JuristicPerson, There are people on this thread for whom I can justify the investment of my time to help. By posting the foregoing, you have proven to me that you are simply not among them.

I Wish You The Best,

Snoop
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,727
Likes
3,813
Snoop4truth is some sort of A.I. program.

Greeting Snoop4truth!

I have a question for you.

Cna yuo pelsae tlel me who is yuor hnadelr? I wnat to konw who is cnotorlling yuor porgarm....

Tnahk you!

MY RESPONSE: JuristicPerson, There are people on this thread for whom I can justify the investment of my time to help. By posting the foregoing, you have proven to me that you are simply not among them.

I Wish You The Best,

Snoop
Typical response of somebody who does not know how to answer the question. It’s unfortunate but expected so don’t feel bad. Right about there is where most judges get stumped.

Hey look!!! I found a back door!

I accept your default....without prejudice.

Have a good one, snoop dog.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,297
Location
right here right now
MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, you are using the term "color of law" incorrectly. In the real legal system, the phrase, "color of law" does not refer to the law or to a court. In the real legal system the phrase, "color of law", REFERS ONLY TO A PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT, BEHAVIOR OR ACTIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law).

What total horseshit. And anyone who believes this is a total moron without a clue of reality.

So it's us the people using coloring crayons to color law the way we want to. Kinda dismisses all the perfidy of your profession, doesn't it.

This answer is just too ignorant to be real, exacty what I'd expect from a brainless programmed bot
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,869
Likes
63,064
Location
Rocky Mountains
Snoop4truth is some sort of A.I. program.

Greeting Snoop4truth!

I have a question for you.

Cna yuo pelsae tlel me who is yuor hnadelr? I wnat to konw who is cnotorlling yuor porgarm....

Tnahk you!

MY RESPONSE: JuristicPerson, There are people on this thread for whom I can justify the investment of my time to help. By posting the foregoing, you have proven to me that you are simply not among them.

I Wish You The Best,

Snoop
I'm thinking Snoopy met his match here at GIM2...

He posts tons of crap in just one post that nobody, NOBODY will wade through and he believes he, his 'version' of 'the law' is the only correct one.

LOL debating Snoopy reminds me of playing chess with a pigeon....
“Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then shits all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”

We're all dumber for the experience!

If anything is to come of Snoopy's diatribe it's that we can all learn from the word vomit he spewed.

DON'T FOLLOW HIS ADVICE... and I use the term 'advice' loosely.

The law is supposed to be simple and it is once you understand the word game they play. Lawyers love to obfuscate and confuse the public with all their mumbo jumbo. The law is their game. It can be defeated using Common Law principles. It just takes ferreting out the reality, and time to figure it out. Most folks don't have the inclination, nor the time to bother with it. They pay the fine because it's easier than fighting.

Just as the DA will 'plea deal' to get a conviction, err a 'notch on his belt', a 'win' at your expense. Even if you are innocent. They aren't 'for' the law as much as they are for screwing people over!

That is not 'the law', that is extortion.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,637
Likes
6,297
Location
right here right now
Yah, go run away. wimp

You have no clue what real law is.

All you can do is spout your professions LEGAL but unlawful to the constitution public policy democracy, which was created by the likes of youse lawyer thieves as a way to fund youse lawyers to destroy the true constitutional republic of this nation through extortion.

Do you understand treason?

You are beyond pathetic.