• "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

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#41
Dear Goldhedge,

Thank you so much for your comments. I will try to respond to them individually below.

Yes there is. You have to select the post with lines and then you click the upper left 'eraser looking' icon. I think that's how it's done.
RESPONSE: Thank you so very much for your help.

It happens about once a year. Scorpio will post a message to the board and you get your chance.
RESPONSE: Please be sure that you or Scorpio email me at that time to remind me. I do not want to miss it. Perhaps you and Scorpio can add a "donate" button at some point so that supporters can donate at will. Just a thought.

Colorado
RESPONSE: Thanks so much. Here you go. 27) "Driver" means every person, including a minor driver under the age of twenty-one years, who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. Go here first. https://law.justia.com/codes/colora...inistrative/article-1/part-1/section-42-1-102. Then, scroll down to definition number 27.

and while you are at it also post where the State has jurisdiction over me.
RESPONSE: The "STATE" is simply all of the people of Colorado COLLECTIVELY (not individually) speaking with a SINGLE VOICE through their ELECTED representatives. The people of Colorado and their agencies and branches of government have jurisdiction over ALL PERSONS AND THINGS within the borders of Colorado over which the states have not delegated to the FEDERAL government jurisdiction over such matters in the United States Constitution. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. If more is needed, let me know. This very subject is expertly explained in "THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" above. You really should read it. It will help you enormously.

Also how does the state obtain jurisdiction over me if I refuse?
RESPONSE: No event occurs to give the state jurisdiction over you. So, the state does not do anything to obtain jurisdiction over you. Likewise, nothing you do or do not do can put you beyond the jurisdiction of the state. THE STATE ALREADY HAS JURISDICTION OVER YOU BEFORE YOU COMMIT A CRIME OR A TRAFFIC INFRACTION SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE. Nothing else is required for the state (the people of Colorado COLLECTIVELY) to have jurisdiction over you. Your INDIVIDUAL "CONSENT" to the laws, the courts or to the state's jurisdiction is NOT REQUIRED. The "CONSENT" required comes from the people of Colorado COLLECTIVELY, NOT FROM YOU INDIVIDUALLY. This very subject is expertly explained in "THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" above. You really should read it. It will help you enormously.

also post the law/ruling that overturned Yick Wo v Hopkins.
RESPONSE: To my knowledge, Yick Wo v. Hopkins has not been overturned. It is a small part of a greater body of law which holds that the people (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY are sovereign and that the INDIVIDUAL is not sovereign. See below.

1). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NIETHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

2). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15454740030846246018&q=+"U.S.+v.+Crawford"+"is+not+a+sovereign"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A... SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Defendant... IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]... ." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

3). Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE UNTIED STATES AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES ARE "SOVEREIGN"). In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

4). Chisolm v. Georgia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1448810606414351612&q="states+are+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "EVERY STATE IN THE UNION in every instance where ITS SOVEREIGNTY has NOT been delegated to THE UNITED STATES, [IS]... COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN, AS THE UNITED STATES ARE [SOVEREIGN] IN RESPECT TO THE POWERS SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]. THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]: EACH STATE IN THE UNION IS SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS RESERVED. " (at the 14th paragraph at about 15% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

5). Parker v. Brown, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6941459492107844075&q="states+are+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Under the Constitution, THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN, SAVE ONLY [means "EXCEPT"] AS CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY [under Article 3, Section 8] SUBTRACT FROM THEIR AUTHORITY [their SOVEREIGNTY]." (at the 16th paragraph at about 30% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

6). Feldman v. Gardner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5056434096924289910&q="state+is+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (HOLDING THAT THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Inherent in our system of government is the concept of DUAL [meaning FEDERAL and STATE] SOVEREIGNTY; EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN, except to the extent that ITS SOVEREIGNTY is curtailed by the [United States] Constitution or validly restricted by Congress [as set forth in Article 3, Section 8]." (at the 1st paragraph in "Section B" at about 25% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

7). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q="Dred+Scott+v.+Sandford"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that the terms "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" refer ONLY to "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT and NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. He wrote, "The words 'people [a PLURAL term] of the United States' and 'citizens' [a PLURAL term] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe THE POLITICAL BODY [a SINGULAR term] who, according to our republican institutions, FORM THE SOVEREIGN [MEANING FORM THE GOVERNMENT], and who [COLLECTIVELY] hold the power and conduct the Government THROUGH THEIR [A PLURAL TERM] [ELECTED] REPRESENTATIVES [meaning the SOVEREIGNTY of "We the People" is exercised COLLECTIVELY through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not INDIVIDUALLY], They [a PLURAL term] are what we familiarly call the "SOVEREIGN PEOPLE [a PLURAL term]," and every [INDIVIDUAL] citizen is ONE of this [SOVEREIGN GROUP OF] PEOPLE [a PLURAL term], and a constituent member of this SOVEREIGNTY [the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY]." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

8). Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12271616043948019184&q="not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS [drawing a stark contrast between an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN]." (in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS rights when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL.

(COMMENT CONTINUED)
Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own ELECTED government ACTUALLY OPPOSE THE VERY "SOVEREIGN" AND THE VERY "SOVEREIGNTY" THAT THEY CLAIM TO SUPPORT. This means that Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own ELECTED government ARE ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of the "SOVEREIGN" and ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of "SOVEREIGNTY", not their supporters. But, they do not know enough to even realize this. This is why many such amateur legal theorists (like Rod Class) find themselves on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST (because they actually oppose the "SOVEREIGN" and because they actually oppose "SOVEREIGNTY").

This fundamental mistake (the mistaken belief that the INDIVIDUAL is "SOVEREIGN" and that the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" IS NOT "SOVEREIGN") reflects that the terms, "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" are perhaps the single most misused and misunderstood terms in all of amateur legal theory.

BACKGROUND: Originally in politics, a "SOVEREIGN" was a SINGLE "MONARCH" (King or Queen) GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE who GOVERNED a nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the nation state. Originally, the RIGHT of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN his/her own nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE was that MONARCH's right of "SOVEREIGNTY".

Then and now, a "SOVEREIGN" meant/means a "GOVERNMENT" OF ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state. Then and now, "SOVEREIGNTY," meant/means that GOVERNMENT’S RIGHT TO GOVERN ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

THE STATES: But, here in the United States, we rejected the notion of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state. Here in our country, we adopted a republican form of government whereby "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) GOVERNED our own states and all of the INDIVIDUALS in our own state COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTED representatives of our own STATE.

So, here in our country, THE STATE ITSELF, which consists of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) became "SOVEREIGN" (which still means THE GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). This means that in our country THE STATE ITSELF legally stands in the shoes of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear. So, in our country, THE STATE ITSELF GOVERNS the STATE and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state (instead of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear). But, the right, power and authority of THE STATE ITSELF as a "SOVEREIGN" and the right, power and authority of the MONARCH of yesteryear as a "SOVEREIGN" ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. In our country, a "SOVEREIGN" IS STILL A "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE, but a "SOVEREIGN" is no longer a SINGLE MONARCH.

DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN":
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sovereign

THE BOTTOM LINE: Thus, In our country, the term, "SOVEREIGN" is a term THAT ONLY APPLIES TO A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY (AS A WHOLE) AND NOT TO A SINGLE "CITIZEN", INDIVIDUAL OR PERSON INDIVIDUALLY. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

Here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE. So, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). As a result, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL does not GOVERN the STATE or any of the INDIVIDUALS in the state.

THE UNITED STATES: The United States ITSELF is also a SOVEREIGN nation state consisting of a union of MEMBER SOVEREIGN STATES. So, here in the United States, THE STATES and the United States are both "SOVEREIGN" GOVERNMENTAL HEADS OF STATE (WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AS DIFFERENTIATED BY SUBJECT MATTER IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION).

This means that here in the United States, THE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES OCCUPY THE SAME EXACT LEGAL POSITION (AND HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHT, POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GOVERN THE STATE AND ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE) AS DID THE SINGLE MONARCH OF YESTERYEAR, except that the powers of the United States (as distinguished from the individual STATES) are limited to those powers expressly delegated to it BY THE STATES in the United States Constitution (a tiny list of subjects), whereas the powers of the individual STATES (as distinguished from the United States) have no such limitation.

Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; delegated to it BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd TO LAST paragraph of this case).

(COMMENT CONTINUED)
Here in the United States, "We the People" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" COLLECTIVELY (NOT INDIVIDUALLY) through our VOTES. ---Thomas Jefferson (see below). Thus, "We (a PLURAL term) the People (also a PLURAL term)" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" (COLLECTIVELY, not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTIONS.

Jenkins v. Williamson-Butler, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459141824775540924&q="Jenkins+v.+Williamson-Butler"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The court quoted Thomas Jefferson and wrote, "IT IS BY THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] THAT THE PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] EXERCISE THEIR [also a PLURAL term] SOVEREIGNTY [AND NOT BY ANY OTHER MEANS]. ---Thomas Jefferson." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 60% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF "THE GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL ACTING OUTSIDE THE GOVERMENT CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

But, as INDIVIDUALS, none of us are “SOVEREIGN” (which still means the GOVERNMENT of a state) and as INDIVIDUALS, none of us can exercise any "SOVEREIGNTY" (which still means the right to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state). In our country, we no longer recognize a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (or “MONARCH”) as “SOVEREIGN”. In our country, no single INDIVIDUAL is the GOVERNMENT OF A STATE. This is why, in our country, no INDIVIDUAL can be "SOVEREIGN" (WHICH STILL MEANS A GOVERNMENT OF A STATE).

Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The court held, "First, she [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [such as the Queen Of England]. She [the plaintiff] is neither [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

APPLICATION: This is why every amateur legal theorist who claims to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) ALWAYS LOSES on that issue with ALL law enforcement officers and with ALL courts. This is why ALL law enforcement officers and ALL courts ALWAYS treat such amateur legal theorists as the mere INDIVIDUALS that they really are. Amateur legal theorists who claim to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) to law enforcement officers and in court do nothing but demonstrate their IGNORANCE of the law and their IGNORANCE of history--- AND THEY ALWAYS LOSE!

WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you do not like the laws, the ELECTED legislators, the ELECTED executive officers or the ELECTED judges or the ELECTED prosecutors, then do something about it. VOTE OR RUN FOR OFFICE. Pretending to be an INDIVIDUAL, GOVERNMENT OF A STATE (a “SOVEREIGN” MONARCH) has never, and will never work for you as a “defense” to the application of any law, the jurisdiction of any law enforcement officer or court or to the consequences any arrest, charge or conviction.

CONCLUSION: IN OUR COUNTRY, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" (OR OTHERWISE "SOVEREIGN"). HERE, AND ELSEWHERE, ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN".

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,186
Likes
13,110
Location
South Floriduh
#42
Hello Unca Walt,

It is the REAL law itself on the subject of driver's licenses and sovereignty.

In my defense, I did not write a single word of the REAL law itself. I only pulled it up and provided links to it to make it easy to verify.

Look Unca Walt, I am well aware that THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system is NOT POPULAR with amateur legal theorists, is NOT WELCOMED by amateur legal theorists and that it is INCONSISTENT with the belief system of amateur legal theorists.

But, none of that will make THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system false. THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW and the legal system WILL STILL BE THE TRUTH. It does not matter that THE TRUTH is UNPOPULAR. ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS IS THAT IT IS THE TRUTH.

I may never be popular among amateur legal theorists for revealing THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW to them, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing I am providing THE TRUTH about the REAL LAW to those who need it most.

All The Best,

Snoop
I repeat: What is this shit. Just look at the frothing fucking manifesto comprising Posts 17 and 18. Half of it in capitals, screaming and spluttering.

The other half interminable minutiae filling your bagpipes with Wheatena.

Everyone uses emphasis at times... myself most ricky-tick included. But just LOOK <<== jab intended at your stuff at a glance before reading. Somebody has a defective CAPITALIZATION key...

Just sayin'.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#43
Go to the post and click edit. Highlight the stuff with the lines through it. In the header at the top of the post you'll see an S with a line through it. It's the 5th icon from the left. Click it and the lines should disappear.

Here's what you're looking for:

Dear Searcher,

Thank you very much for the tutorial on how to edit out cross-out lines. You taught me exactly what I needed to do to fix the problem.

You are a scholar and a gentleman.

Bets Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,243
Location
Rocky Mountains
#44
Your argument is with Sovereignty.

You can still beat the traffic courts.

"Driving" is a commercial activity.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#45
Hello Michael59,

Thank you very much for your comments and for your perspective. I will try to respond to your comments individually below.

Have you not read case law?
RESPONSE: Yes. And, I have quoted it and provided links to it above to help those of you who do not have access to the REAL law.

The sovereign is the people [YOU ARE CORRECT! "People" is a "PLURAL" term.].
RESPONSE: Yes. You are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT!!! I AGREE 100%!

"we [A PLURAL TERM] the people {ALSO A PLURAL TERM]"

HOW THIS MISUNDERSTANDING CAME ABOUT:
Amateur legal theorists are unable to distinguish between PLURAL terms and SINGULAR terms. This inability results in much of their confusion about the law. In a republican form of government, such as ours, "WE" (a PLURAL term) the "PEOPLE" (also a PLURAL term) exercise our power and control over our own government COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY). But, as INDIVIDUALS, we exercise no such power or control. In a republican form of government, such as ours, the authority of a government depends on the COLLECTIVE (not INDIVIDUAL) "consent" of the "governed" (also a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY. But, as INDIVIDUALS, our "consent" to our government (contractual or otherwise), to its jurisdiction or to our laws IS NOT REQUIRED.

7TH GRADE CIVICS:
Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.

Regardless, EVERY single person in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

THE MISTAKE:
The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute). Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted (ex: "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN", etc.) reflects a basic misunderstanding of the following simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory). Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW MAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY)
that empowers our ELECTED state LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY)
that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” TO THE LAW COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights). In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL). This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.

FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAW MAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court). In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES. This desire to overthrow our ELECTED republican form of government and the will of the majority of "We the People " COLLECTIVELY, along with his long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and his MULTIPLE weapons-related FELONIES are the reasons that Rod Class, has been placed on the United States "TERRORIST WATCH LIST".

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,243
Location
Rocky Mountains
#46
Listen Goldhedge, if you will tell me your state, I will provide you with the REAL legal definition of the term, "DRIVER" or "OPERATOR" for the purpose of driver's license law of your state. But, that definition will not apply to other states or to other statutes.
Colorado

Further, if you ever have a legal question, need legal research done or need a copy of a particular law, feel free to ask. I am always happy to help.
Because you are a lawyer...? You sound like a lawyer.

While you are at it also post where the State has jurisdiction over me.

Also how does the state obtain jurisdiction over me if I refuse?


Blacks P.398

Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 2.23.01 PM.png


Bouvier's 1856
Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 2.24.08 PM.png
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#47
Hello TRYNEIN,

Thank you very much for your inquires. I will respond below.


Do you have a copy of this 'REAL LAW' that are talking about??
RESPONSE: Yes. I have gone to he trouble of providing BOTH quotes and LINKS to the REAL law above. Please CLICK on the BLUE links above. Thanks.

Any statutes to back you[r] claims?
RESPONSE: Yes. If the subject is governed by a statute, I have posted quotes and links to that statute above (like I did with respect to the definition of "driver" for purposes of the Colorado driver's license law above in my dialogue with Goldhedge). On the other hand, if the subject is governed by case law (also called COMMON LAW) I have posted quotes and links to that case law above. Please CLICK on the BLUE links above. Thanks.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#48
If you’re not a sovereign then what are you? A legal fiction?

Do you declare what you are or does a governing body do that?
Goldhedge,

I spent an hour responding to this comment. I thought I postied it properly. But it is not here.

Any chance of us finding that comment now?

Thanks,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#49
Goldhedge,

Thank you for your comments and your thoughts. I will respond to them individually below.

Your argument is with Sovereignty.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. I have no problem with sovereignty. The REAL law (to which I have provided you with links above) simply says that sovereignty is a term that only applies to "We the People" (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY and not to a person (a SINGULAR term) INDIVIDUALLY.

You can still beat the traffic courts.
RESPONSE: Yes. But, only if you are FACTUALLY INNOCENT of the charge, but NOT by pretending that STATE traffic laws are limited to driver's engaged in commerce (which limitation only applies to FEDERAL traffic laws, not STATE traffic laws). You would already know this if you actually bothered to read my comment above on this subject. But, you are still in the dark. Please do yourself a favor and spend 10 minutes educating yourself on the REAL law. Read the comment on "commerce" above.

"Driving" is a commercial activity.
RESPONSE: That is exactly what the amateurs below said. And, they all LOST.

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 '[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 convictions 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 that 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 ... I 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.

Goldhedge, Can you see a pattern among these cases?

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

viking

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,462
Likes
1,387
#50
One has the right to travel freely. In a private conveyance, no state authorization required.

Using terms like "drive" puts you in the privilege category, which can be regulated, as it deals in commerce.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#51
I repeat: What is this shit. Just look at the frothing fucking manifesto comprising Posts 17 and 18. Half of it in capitals, screaming and spluttering.

The other half interminable minutiae filling your bagpipes with Wheatena.

Everyone uses emphasis at times... myself most ricky-tick included. But just LOOK <<== jab intended at your stuff at a glance before reading. Somebody has a defective CAPITALIZATION key...

Just sayin'.
Unca Walt,

Thank you for your comments and your criticism.

Your point is justified and well taken.


But, the truth is I did not write my comments for people of your caliber (or those of other goldismoney2.com members for that mater).

My intended readers are the most uneducated most illiterate people in our society (not people like the members of this website who are writing on this thread and who do not need emphasis to comprehend the point of a sentence or paragraph).

The reason that my intended readers are he most uneducated and illiterate of society is that I originally wrote this material to rebut the delusional amateur legal theories of Rod Class (who himself barely got through high school and who himself is functionally illiterate). His followers were even less educated and even less literate than he was (and that is saying a lot). They were being taken on a very long ride.

So, I originally wrote this material for the uneducated, illiterate followers of Rod Class and I used capital letters for every important word in my text. By important word, I mean a word that had to be read and understood in order to comprehend the meaning of the sentence or the point I was trying to make.

Again, I apologize to you and all other Goldismoney2.com members for my excessive use of capitalization for emphasis.

That emphasis was not for the benefit of Goldismoney2.com members, who I most certainly do not regard as uneducated and illiterate.

I apologize.


Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,380
Likes
32,085
Location
third cove on the right
#52
Hello TRYNEIN,

Thank you very much for your inquires.



RESPONSE: Yes. If the subject is governed by a statute, I have posted quotes and links to that statute above (like I did with respect to the definition of "driver" for purposes of the Colorado driver's license law above in my dialogue with Goldhedge). On the other hand, if the subject is governed by case law (also called COMMON LAW) I have posted quotes and links to that case law above. Please CLICK on the BLUE links above. Thanks.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop

All I see is a wall of text, and I don't have time to sort through all of the crap you're posting...so I'll make this easy on you and we'll see if you can stand under it.


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

Now pay attention... there is a rule of logic that ALL laws follow and the courts have confirmed it.

The CREATED never trumps the CREATOR


Now, since 'We the people' created the States

The States created the Federal Government (USofA)

The Federal Government created the UNITED STATES.Inc (US citizen)

The US Government created the 14th amendment citizen (US citizen)



Now read that until you realize that we the people are the masters and the government is the servant

Here is the courts decision on who is the master:

The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)


Now seeing how I'm the master, why should I give a f==k what my servant has to say...he only has authority over a US citizen who he created.


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


“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”
Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)


SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969. Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#53
One has the right to travel freely. In a private conveyance, no state authorization required.
Using terms like "drive" puts you in the privilege category, which can be regulated, as it deals in commerce.
Hello Viking,

Thank you very much for your comments and your perspective. I will try to respond to you comments individually below.

One has the right to travel freely.
RESPONSE: Agreed, but the REAL "right to travel freely" has nothing to do driving a motor vehicle. See the REAL law below.

1). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7830792318853896035&q="jones+v.+Helms"+"U.S."+1981&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

2). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q="Saenz+v.+Roe"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.
The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

3). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q="State+v.+Sullivan"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME THING AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

4). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q="Miller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

5). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10451209462604692152&q="North+Carolina+ex+rel"+Kasler&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

6). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [like every other amateur legal theorist] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

7). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=483036688545450484&q="966+A.2d+919"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

8). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q="John+Doe+No.+1"+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

9). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9780294138406294886&q="Acevedo+v.+New+York+State"++"right+to+drive"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

10. 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.

11. 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 ... I 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.

In a private conveyance, no state authorization required.
RESPONSE: The REAL law disagrees with you the "private conveyance" issue. See the REAL law on this subject below.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. (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 that 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.

Using terms like "drive" puts you in the privilege category, which can be regulated, as it deals in COMMERCE.
RESPONSE: The REAL law disagrees with you on this "commerce can be regulated, but non-commerce cannot be regulated". See the REAL law below.


1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&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).

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, 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 convictions 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 that 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 ... I 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.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,243
Location
Rocky Mountains
#55
Any chance of us finding that comment now?
Click on your icon up in the right corner. See mine below?

Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 7.47.09 PM.png


Click on it and select "your content".

If you posted a comment it will show up there.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#56
Me B out of here. Take the gumbyment shit and trounce that POS


nothing better than shit in the morning. take me for zampls… got me my bacon frying took it off and while I was feeding chickens the f'n stupid dog out stupid'ed me, Plate that it was draining off of was clean.

talk about cool creek shit.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#57
Hello Michael59,

Thank you very much for your comments and for your perspective. I will try to respond to your comments individually below.

Have you not read case law?
RESPONSE: Yes. And, I have quoted it and provided links to it above to help those of you who do not have access to the REAL law.

The sovereign is the people [YOU ARE CORRECT! "People" is a "PLURAL" term.].
RESPONSE: Yes. You are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT!!! I AGREE 100%!

"we [A PLURAL TERM] the people {ALSO A PLURAL TERM]"

HOW THIS MISUNDERSTANDING CAME ABOUT:
Amateur legal theorists are unable to distinguish between PLURAL terms and SINGULAR terms. This inability results in much of their confusion about the law. In a republican form of government, such as ours, "WE" (a PLURAL term) the "PEOPLE" (also a PLURAL term) exercise our power and control over our own government COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY). But, as INDIVIDUALS, we exercise no such power or control. In a republican form of government, such as ours, the authority of a government depends on the COLLECTIVE (not INDIVIDUAL) "consent" of the "governed" (also a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY. But, as INDIVIDUALS, our "consent" to our government (contractual or otherwise), to its jurisdiction or to our laws IS NOT REQUIRED.

7TH GRADE CIVICS:
Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.

Regardless, EVERY single person in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

THE MISTAKE:
The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute).
Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted (ex: "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN", etc.) reflects a basic misunderstanding of the following simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory). Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW MAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” TO THE LAW COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights). In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL). This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.

FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAW MAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court). In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES. This desire to overthrow our ELECTED republican form of government and the will of the majority of "We the People " COLLECTIVELY, along with his long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and his MULTIPLE weapons-related FELONIES are the reasons that Rod Class, has been placed on the United States "TERRORIST WATCH LIST".

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop
this man is not going to read all that crap, You rather are or you are not. You want to be a thing that has made a compact with a nother thing then you can drive that thing homes long as you are getting paid for it! other than that thens U my friend are pulling your britches down for those who are not worthy.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,186
Likes
13,110
Location
South Floriduh
#58
Want to see a beautifully complete visual print version of a guy quitting drinking... and then going back to it?

(*snork*)

(*snicker snork snuck*)

Well, our snoop tried to put down the ALL CAPS bottle. Promised, even. :Build: :don't know:

Do this on Post #53 -- Start at the top, and scroll down faster than you can read... just observing the RISE OF THE KILLER CAPITALS... along with the "Post #52" New style of frothing and shouting in-fucking-terminably!! <-- don't forget the punctuation. !
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,243
Location
Rocky Mountains
#59
Never answered any of my questions...

Just machinegun posts the laws the government uses to control the citizens of it's corporation.

He lives the 'legal' life vs 'lawful' life. Law isn't that complicated.


Common Law vs Statutes
Living by the Rule of Law
by Roger Hayes

Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.

In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.

Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days… most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite – some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.

The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.

Statutes
– All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

– A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

– The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

– There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

– Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

– Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

– Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.

– The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.

– The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.

– A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.

– Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

– If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.

– It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts.

Statutes are not laws.
– If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.

– Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.

– Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.

– Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

– Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.

– Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.

– We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

– We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.

Law
– Law refers to common law.
– Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
– Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
– Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
– Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
– Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
– Laws are used to keep the peace.
– Without law we have anarchy.
– The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
– Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
– Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
– Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
– Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.

Courts, Judges And Juries
– If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
– Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.

– Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.

– Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).

– The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.

– A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)

– If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.

– A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.

– The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.

– Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.

– Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.

– Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.

– Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.

– Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.

– If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.

The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

– Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.

– Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’

– The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.

– In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.

– The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.

– In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).

– You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
– If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.

Consent
– Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes… by withholding their consent – the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.

– A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.

– The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes… all of their statutes… including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.

– This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.

Government
– Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

– Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.

KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#60
Good Afternoon Goldhedge,

I have been unable to locate in the thread above a number of comments/questions from other members and my replies/answers to those comments/questions.

For some reason, many of these missing comments/questions and replies/answers now appear only under the "Alert" button. But, they are no longer visible in the thread above to which I was contributing.

I am happy to respond directly to every comment/question put to me (including all of yours, which I have not yet gotten to). I am also happy to provide links to the REAL law itself in support of every one of my response/answers. But, if my responses to comments are not going to be visible, then there may be little point in my going to all that effort.

What are your thoughts on this?

Have a great weekend,

Snoop
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,186
Likes
13,110
Location
South Floriduh
#61
He be tryin'...

Just a slip and a sip...

"...links to the REAL law itself ..." :beer:

Now if we can make some progress on post length by easing off the currently wide-open throttle of periphrasis, prolixity, turgid verbosity, tautology, pleonasm, and repetitive redundancy***, we might have some much more interested folks.

***Would that be redundundant?

But it ain't anything crucial.

Jeez. The very last of my weed. :troll:
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#62
He be tryin'...

Just a slip and a sip...

"...links to the REAL law itself ..." :beer:

Now if we can make some progress on post length by easing off the currently wide-open throttle of periphrasis, prolixity, turgid verbosity, tautology, pleonasm, and repetitive redundancy***, we might have some much more interested folks.

***Would that be redundundant?

But it ain't anything crucial.

Jeez. The very last of my weed. :troll:
Uncle? Ur a f'n BUTT cuz now I got to look up them there words. I'm not even sure them thar words ar human.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#63
He be tryin'...

Just a slip and a sip...

"...links to the REAL law itself ..." :beer:

Now if we can make some progress on post length by easing off the currently wide-open throttle of periphrasis, prolixity, turgid verbosity, tautology, pleonasm, and repetitive redundancy***, we might have some much more interested folks.

***Would that be redundundant?

But it ain't anything crucial.

Jeez. The very last of my weed. :troll:
I gets it! went to the google decoder ring for one of them. Two highlighted on ther own and the rest I already knew. Seems I know some kling-off.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#64
Good Afternoon Goldhedge,

I have been unable to locate in the thread above a number of comments/questions from other members and my replies/answers to those comments/questions.

For some reason, many of these missing comments/questions and replies/answers now appear only under the "Alert" button. But, they are no longer visible in the thread above to which I was contributing.

I am happy to respond directly to every comment/question put to me (including all of yours, which I have not yet gotten to). I am also happy to provide links to the REAL law itself in support of every one of my response/answers. But, if my responses to comments are not going to be visible, then there may be little point in my going to all that effort.

What are your thoughts on this?

Have a great weekend,

Snoop
Well I can dam sure still read them. Look you little poop there are a few things you need to know.

ONE: and this is a big one! All government works off of a BOND. This bond is what drives usury/inflation.
TWO: the reason traffic tickets keep rising is to cover this BOND.
THREE: Only knowing them two things then you should understand that those you think should govern you persay in traffic law are actually feeding off of you.

So there BUCKWHEAT you going to not bend over for them any more? Stand up pull up your britches and get with what is lawful.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#65
NOTICE: ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR REWARD FOR LOCATING THE QUOTED LANGUAGE BELOW IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE TO WHICH TRYEIN ATTRIBUTES THAT QUOTE!

THIS IS WHAT TRYNEIN CLAIMS:

All I see is a wall of text, and I don't have time to sort through all of the crap you're posting...ke this easy on you and we'll see if you can stand under it.

1). The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)

2). People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”

3). SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969. Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
TRYNEIN,

Thank you so much for your comment. I sincerely mean it.

You and our other colleagues on this thread have make a mockery of my use of the term, "REAL law" in my comments and replies.

Until you posted the comment quoted above, I had no idea how I would be able to communicate to you and our colleagues on this thread the difference between REAL law and FAKE law.

Then, you posted these FAKE quotes from REAL cases above (making them "FAKE law").

REWARD!
I hereby offer any member of goldismoney2.com $1,000.00 (in any form you wish) for a "cut and paste" of the quoted language from the language of the following cases to which TRYNIEN attributes those quotes and to which I have provided links below.


1). This link is to the actual case of "Clearfield Trust v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) (QUOTED BY TRYNEIN ABOVE)." Click on it.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...d+trust+co+v+united+states&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
I offer $1,000.00 to the first person who "cuts and pastes" (to a reply on this thread) the following quoted language from the actual language of the case to which TRYNIEN attributes that quote and to which this link above is provided.
QUOTE FROM TRYNEIN:

"The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates." Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943).
UNQUOTE.
I also offer $500.00 to the first person who "cuts and pastes" (to a reply on this thread) exactly three sentences of this case that could be interpreted as meaning the same thing as the quoted language above which TRYNEIN attributes to this case.


2). This link is to the actual case of "People v. Horton, 14 Cal. App 3rd 667 (Cal. App. 1971) (QUOTED BY TRYNEIN ABOVE). Click on it.
People v. Horton, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? =14369018876842461431&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
I offer $1,000.00 to the first person who "cuts and pastes" (to a reply on this thread) the following quoted language from the actual language of the case to which TRYNIEN attributes that quote and to which this link is provided.
QUOTE FROM TRYNEIN:
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”
UNQUOTE.
I also offer $500.00 to the first person who "cuts and pastes" (to a reply on this thread) exactly three sentences of this case that could be interpreted as meaning the same thing as the quoted language above which TRYNEIN attributes to this case.


3). This link is to the actual case of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969) (QUOTED BY TRYNEIN ABOVE). Click on it.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6690948768913204766&q="Shapiro+v.+Thompson"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60
I offer $1,000.00 to the first person who "cuts and pastes" (to a reply on this thread) the following quoted language from the actual language of the case to which TRYNIEN attributes that quote and to which this link is provided.
QUOTE FROM TRYNEIN:
"Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
UNQUOTE.
I also offer $500.00 to the first person who "cuts and pastes" (to a reply on this thread) exactly three sentences of this case that could be interpreted as meaning the same thing as the quoted language above which TRYNEIN attributes to this case.


I wish all my colleagues good luck on this intellectual challenge.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#66
Get over it. You know YOU, yes you did! Already posted back in that "Judge Dale" thread that you wanted reply's in peoples own words......AND, here you are doing the copy and paste.

look bud you want to be a fisher of men? Then watch out watch you catch.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,837
Likes
34,869
Location
Qmerica
#67
I repeat: What is this shit. Just look at the frothing fucking manifesto comprising Posts 17 and 18. Half of it in capitals, screaming and spluttering.

The other half interminable minutiae filling your bagpipes with Wheatena.

Everyone uses emphasis at times... myself most ricky-tick included. But just LOOK <<== jab intended at your stuff at a glance before reading. Somebody has a defective CAPITALIZATION key...

Just sayin'.
Want to see a beautifully complete visual print version of a guy quitting drinking... and then going back to it?

(*snork*)

(*snicker snork snuck*)

Well, our snoop tried to put down the ALL CAPS bottle. Promised, even. :Build::don't know:

Do this on Post #53 -- Start at the top, and scroll down faster than you can read... just observing the RISE OF THE KILLER CAPITALS... along with the "Post #52" New style of frothing and shouting in-fucking-terminably!! <-- don't forget the punctuation. !
Gawd luv yer bones Unca Walt! :dduck::banana::beer::chef::D:p:rotf:
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,837
Likes
34,869
Location
Qmerica
#68
Good Afternoon Goldhedge,

I have been unable to locate in the thread above a number of comments/questions from other members and my replies/answers to those comments/questions.

For some reason, many of these missing comments/questions and replies/answers now appear only under the "Alert" button. But, they are no longer visible in the thread above to which I was contributing.

I am happy to respond directly to every comment/question put to me (including all of yours, which I have not yet gotten to). I am also happy to provide links to the REAL law itself in support of every one of my response/answers. But, if my responses to comments are not going to be visible, then there may be little point in my going to all that effort.

What are your thoughts on this?

Have a great weekend,

Snoop
Greeting Mr. Snoop sir,

Please allow me to pixelate some simplicity to be graciously read for your consideration.

Who defines me? How do I define myself?

Definitions matter. Am I traveling as a human being or driving as a person?

Thank you for your consideration and fair tidings to you and your CAPS key,

Mister
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,186
Likes
13,110
Location
South Floriduh
#69
newmisty --

You drove the pore bastage back to the bottle, no error.

Yeah, you mentioned the CAPS key.

But under your pressure and michael59's he went...

CAPS

then bold.

THEN CAPS AND BOLD.

THEN CAPS, BOLD... AND BACK TO HIS EXCLAMATION POINTS!!

THEN CAPS AND BOLD AND UNDERLINED.

THEN CAPS AND BOLD AND ITALICS.

Then concatenated multicolors (going red as he got more excited and took another pull on his bottle).

[Interrupt for my pal michael59 -- "concatenated" means "interconnected" <<-- just in case... ] :beer:


THEN, When HE LOST IT Completely IN TOTAL Keyboard DRUNKENNESS, HE WENT to Weird Capitalizations mixed In with ITALICS AND BOLD.

Ultimately He put Them all Together in CAPS, MULTICOLOR CONCATINATIONS, and finally, LARGE RED LETTERS IN BOLD AND BLACK.

We started With! THIS:

Snoopsez:

So, I originally wrote this material for the uneducated, illiterate followers of Rod Class and I used capital letters for every important word in my text. By important word, I mean a word that had to be read and understood in order to comprehend the meaning of the sentence or the point I was trying to make.

Again, I apologize to you and all other Goldismoney2.com members for my excessive use of capitalization for emphasis.

That emphasis was not for the benefit of Goldismoney2.com members, who I most certainly do not regard as uneducated and illiterate.

I apologize.

Best Regards,

Snoop

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

Snoop then has the misplaced hubris and cognitive dissonance to post this howler:

"I wish all my colleagues good luck on this intellectual challenge."

Finally, in disconcertion and litter,

We came Full CIRCLE AND BACK to This once Again!

To follow the not-well-hidden logic of his thinking, it it quite apparent that the whole fucking lot of us here have again been relegated to the status of Neanderthals by His Worship. After all, he stated and re-stated the [sole] reason for screaming and frothing was:

"...uneducated, illiterate followers of Rod Class " <<=== And who the hell is Rod Class?

:oriental::lashing::spamani:

The "intellectual challenge" to stop frothing seems to be well beyond snoop's mental grasp. Can you just imagine him with a bullhorn?
 
Last edited:

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,400
Likes
27,304
Location
ORYGUN
#70
Definitions matter. Am I traveling as a human being or driving as a person?
misty, we are all "traveling as a human being" & blessed by 9 black robed elites. The issue is taxation. The states want $$$$$$$$$$$$$ & if you buck the system, it will "buck you".
Who the hell are these elitists that proclaim we must pay them their taxes to receive their "permission", for a slip of paper, to privately travel, earn an income (biz. lic.) or put food on our table (fishing/hunting lic.) we certainly are no longer a free society !!
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,639
Likes
6,304
Location
right here right now
#71
After all, he stated and re-stated the [sole] reason for screaming and frothing was:

"...uneducated, illiterate followers of Rod Class " <<=== And who the hell is Rod Class?
Snoopshit, and those morons whom he writes for must be terribly afraid of Rod Class and what Rod is doing in the court system to come out and regurgitate all his vile screamings of FAKE unenacted STATUTORY LAW in an obvious attempt to influence us to discredit Class and what he is doing to try to clean up the out of control court system. Won't work. We here who have studied true duly enacted law know what total bullshit you propagate, and whose incomes you want to continue to prop up with these lies, so know this. All that screaming crap you post is ignored, and you are not only wasting our time, you are only showing us what a true imbecile you are
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,186
Likes
13,110
Location
South Floriduh
#72
Waal, sheeet, armin.

<< goddamn' bullets everywhere >>

I scrolled up to re-read Snoop's last post...

Couldn't read it:

pie plate hole.jpg
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,639
Likes
6,304
Location
right here right now
#74
Oh, you want us to argue with you. Ahhh, no.

Truth is argument is all you understand and is the lynchpin to your huge bucket of manure you liers capitolize on to make income/funding streams.

Why do we want argument?

This article might help expose the reality:

https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/investigating-argument/

Investigating Argument

According to the A.D. 1992 edition of O’Connor’s Texas Rules Civil Trial, Texas courts recognized kinds of hearings: 1) evidentiary; and 2) argument. Neither kind of hearing was favored over the other. However, according to the A.D. 2005 edition of O’Connor’s same book, those two kinds of hearings are still recognized, but “evidentiary hearings are [now] disfavored”.

In other words, the modern court system prefers to reach decisions based on argument hearings wherein litigants advance premises (beliefs) rather than evidentiary hearings where litigants introduce facts (objective truths) into the record. As a result, someone skilled in the art of argument (like an attorney) could theoretically win in a hearing even when the facts (truth) were against him. More, it appears that the courts prefer that hearings be decided by argument rather than by factual evidence (truth).


Note that this preference for argument rather than evidence applies to pre-trial “hearings” rather than actual trials. However, the typical trial is not merely preceded but often decided by those pretrial hearings/arguments that are conducted outside the presence of a jury. It’s not only possible, but common for a case to be won or lost based on various pretrial argument hearings that took place prior to the trial and without the opportunity to present factual evidence to the jury.

For example, during a pretrial hearing, a plaintiff or prosecutor might submit a “motion in limine” wherein that litigant would argue that the defendant should not be entitled to introduce certain evidence at trial. If the court grants this “motion” submitted at a pretrial, argument hearing, the defendant may be precluded from introducing evidence at the later trial which he deems crucial to his defense. As a result, the defendant could ultimately find himself found guilty at trial based on pretrial arguments rather than the introduction of factual evidence at the trial, itself. I.e., by means of pretrial argument, a defendant can be stripped of his opportunity to present exculpatory evidence at the trial itself. Based on a pretrial argument that the jury could not hear or know of, a defendant can be made to look like an idiot before the jury at trial since he seemingly has no little or no evidence to present in his defense.

For all practical purposes, the actual trial can be effectively “fixed” by means of pretrial arguments.

Note that the jury is commonly referred to as a trial’s “fact-finder”. Juries determine facts but not arguments. Arguments, silly rabbit, are for judges. Thus, the court’s recent switch towards favoring argument hearings over evidentiary hearings suggests an attempt the court to distance the judicial process from the jury.

Note also that within the courts, the words “motion” and “argument” are essentially synonymous. I.e., whenever an attorney makes a “motion,” he makes an “argument”. Every motion is an argument.

Once you begin to see that all motions are “arguments,” and that virtually all pretrial “motion hearings” are “argument hearings,” you can begin to understand how awful and important the concept of argument is to the modern judicial system. Again, by skillful use of pretrial motions (arguments), the outcome of the later trial can be determined. Those who are unable to argue effectively are more likely to lose—often based on pretrial arguments rather than facts (evidence). Conversely, those able to understand the concept of argument may find themselves better equipped to defend themselves at trial.

In fact, once you begin to think about it, you’ll realize that all of the “charges,” “accusations,” “claims,” “informations,” and “indictments” found our current courts are essentially nothing more than arguments. Given that realization, it’s hard to Ignore the importance of learning to understand the process of “argument”.

Argument in Spiritual Warfare

The apostle Paul touched on the concept of “argument” in his discussion of “spiritual warfare” at 2 Corinthians 3-6(NKJV of the MacArthur Study Bible):

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty in God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and being ready to punish all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” [Emphasis added]

Fascinating. At least part of spiritual warfare involves the “casting down” of arguments that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God (truth). I might “argue” that the “knowledge of God” corresponds to the truthful facts introduced into evidence at an evidentiary hearing.

The MacArthur Study Bible also offers some “study notes” on the previous verses, including:

“our warfare. The motif of Christian life as warfare is a common one in the NT (cf. 2 Cor 6:7; Eph 6:10-18; 1 Tim. 1-18; 2 Tim. 2:3-4; 4:7) . . . . The formidable spiritual strongholds manned by the forces of hell can be demolished only by spiritual weapons wielded by godly believers—singularly the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17), since only the truth of God’s Word can defeat Satanic falsehoods. This is the true spiritual warfare. Believers are not instructed in the NT to assault demons or Satan (see note on Jude 9), but to assault error with the truth. That is our battle (cf. John 17:17; Heb. 4:12).”

“arguments. Thoughts, ideas, speculations, reasonings, philosophies, and false religions of the ideological forts in which men barricade themselves against God and the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 3:20).”

If it were true that arguments consist of those “ideological forts” (“thoughts, ideas, speculations, reasonings, philosophies, and false religions”) in which “men barricade themselves against God and the Gospel,” it might follow that the principle means of defense against a false argument might be a skillful use of God’s Word and the Bible. I.e., our most skillful defense against an attorney’s skillful argument might be a verse from the Bible by means of which we might “assault” his “error” (false premise) of one’s argument with the “truth”.

The average person might suppose the previous paragraph is nothing but “holy roller” nonsense. Any fool can see that you can’t defeat legal arguments with biblical scriptures, right?

Maybe not. In fact, what is an argument except an attempt to persuade a listener (a judge or jury) that a certain conclusion (guilty or not guilty) is true based on a certain set of “premises”? Thus, an argument relies on premises as evidence rather than facts. And what are “premises” if not a series of “beliefs“?

The essential difference between the evidentiary hearings and the argument hearings is that evidentiary hearings focus on the admission of facts as evidence on which a conclusion can be based while argument hearings seek to reach a conclusion based on the admission of premises as evidence. Well, if the “premises” of an argument on nothing more than a series of “beliefs,” why couldn’t my spiritual beliefs (as found in the Bible) defeat the secular beliefs advanced by some attorney as a premise for an argument?

[An argument based on beliefs is ultimately based on each “arguer’s” FAITH in his beliefs/premises. Thus, most argument is a kind of religious or “holy” war between two competing systems of beliefs or FAITHS. . . .]

See my point? Because arguments are primarily based on “premises” (beliefs) rather than facts, the proper defense to argument is not to argue a different set of facts, but rather a different set of beliefs. Given the 1st Amendment’s protection of my spiritual beliefs, how can an argument based on ungodly “beliefs” overcome my argument based on spiritual “beliefs”?

Incidentally, if you look up the word “belief” in Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Ed. A.D. 1951), you’ll see that “belief” is defined as “a conclusion arrived at from external sources after winning probability,” and “conviction of the mind, arising not from actual perception or knowledge, but by way of inference welcome evidence received or information derived from others.” More, “knowledge is an assurance of a factual proposition founded on perception by the senses, or intuition; while “belief” is an assurance game by evidence, and from other persons.”

Thus, all “belief” is hearsay.

In so far as the premises in an argument are statements of “belief,” that argument is built on hearsay which, unlike facts, is inadmissible at trial. Thus, the arguments/motions at pretrial hearings present an opportunity to use inadmissible hearsay to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence at the later trial.

Get that? By skillful use of argument, the outcome of a trial can ultimately be determined based inadmissible hearsay rather than admissible facts.

That’s scary. But if you’ve been around our courts, you know or suspect that it happens all the time.

In any case, I might “argue” that in today’s courts, the “truth of God’s Word” includes the relevant, objective facts (truth) that could be introduced into evidence. Conversely, I might “argue” that “Satanic falsehoods” could include those skillful “arguments” based on false “reasonings” and “false religions” (premises and beliefs) that contradict or confuse the facts (truth) of a particular controversy and tend towards a false conclusion (verdict).

As peripheral support of this argument, I might note that the word “attorney” is derived from the medieval word “attorn” which meant “to twist”. If it could be said that modern attorneys “twist” the truth in court, that “twisting” process would most usually be achieved by means of argument.

You might also recall that today’s courts are described as an “adversarial” system. Coincidentally, one of the definitions for Satan is “adversary”. Make of that what you will.

Another “coincidental” definition for Satan is “false accuser”. In so far as modern courtroom “accusations” are essentially arguments, then Satan might be defined as “one who advances a false argument”. In a sense, then a “false accuser” is a “false arguer”. You might say that a “false accuser” is one who argues for a series of premises/beliefs which he does not truly embrace. A “false arguer” might also be called a “debater”. Again, you can make of the relationship between Satan and false arguments whatever you will.

“Plausible Deniability and Evasion of the Burden of Proof”

In A.D. 1996, Douglas Walton, a Canadian professor of philosophy, wrote the article “Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof” (http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers in pdf/96deniality.pdf).

That article’s fundamental theme is that various kinds of argument can be used to create ambiguity. Ambiguity then gives rise to plausible deniability for the purpose of entering mere premises (beliefs) instead of factual evidence into a record and thereby evading the “burden of proof”.

In other words, by skillful use of argument, an advocate (perhaps an attorney) might present certain premises (beliefs—and even false beliefs—but not facts) as grounds for an argument used to persuade a listener (perhaps a judge or jury) that a certain conclusion (verdict) was valid. Based on such argument, a particular conclusion (verdict) might not only be adopted as valid without supporting facts in evidence, but also even when the conclusion was patently false.

The Canadian professor who authored the “Plausible Deniability” article did not suggest that his insights on argument had application to the American judicial system.

I, however, do.

In fact, I read the original article with a sense of excitement since it seems to describe and explain what may be part of the fundamental nature of modern American judicial system: reliance on argument (including beliefs and propositions) rather than factual evidence to win lawsuits. If so, the original article offers an indirect but potentially profound insight into how our “judicial” system functions, and by implication, how we might control that system to our advantage.

The following is most of the text of the original article plus all of my usual color-highlighting and my various “stream of consciousness” comments in [bold, bracketed blue]. Operating on the hypothesis that the there’s a high degree of similarity between “argument” and “notice,” I’ve also inserted a series of questions (“Q.”) concerning argument that might be included in an inquiry in response to a notice.

Dr. Walton begins:

“This article examines the normative structure of certain distinctive types of arguments that use techniques of plausible deniablility to evade fulfillment of legitimate requirements of burden of proof. Understanding how such techniques are used in everyday argumentation is shown to be crucial to gaining insight into how informal fallacies work as effective tactics of deception when two parties reason together. The techniques use an indirect form of putting forward a proposition that a target respondent (or audience) is meant to accept, while building in a defense to shield off the need to respond to any request to justify (or give evidence to support) the proposition queried by the respondent.”

That which is “reasonable” is “arguable”. When two parties “reason together,” they essentially “argue”. Arguments of the sort described by Dr. Walton use deception to “evade the burden of proof”. More, such argument/deception is intended to “shield off” any “query” (questions) by the respondent to ask that an adversary justify or prove his fundamental propositions with evidence.

I’m currently fixated upon the use of questions to defeat notices, jurisdiction, etc.. I’ve advanced my notions on questions in other articles on this blog which can be found by simply entering “notice” in the blog’s search engine. This article suggests how the courts and gov-co prosecutors might use deceptive argument to defeat most inquiries (questions).

By implication, this article 1) supports my belief in the power of questions and 2) suggests that the only defense to insightful questions may be plausible deniability based on deception. Deception, however, is a form of fraud and typically evidence of criminal activity. Thus, insofar as our judicial system relies on deception to subject us its jurisdiction and decrees, that system is “arguably” a criminal enterprise.

Dr. Walton’s article describes plausible deniability, the evasion of a need for evidence and underlying deceptive argument within a “sanitized” context of private debate. On the surface, that description seems “intellectual” and interesting, but harmless. However, in the real world, arguments based on deceit and devoid of evidence can be critically dangerous because they are routinely relied by gov-co prosecutors and politicians as devices to grab power and rob or betray the public. Political arguments based on deception and plausible deniability but unsupported by evidence can be properly described as “propaganda”.

I don’t know who invented propaganda, but that technology was significantly advanced by the Nazis under the name of the “big lie”. Today, the “big lie” probably won’t work (evidence is too readily available on the internet). But where the “big lie” now fails, the “big argument” (backed by deception and plausible deniability) can succeed.

Dr. Walton continues:

“Jamieson (1992, p. 84) cites a technique of “veiled attack” used in recent political campaigns where a “double message” buries a “taboo” proposition in a socially acceptable surface (coded) text of discourse. The goal is to achieve “plausible deniability,” as illustrated by the following case (Jamieson, 1992, p. 84):

“Case 1: As Congress struggled to unravel the Reagan administration’s arms for hostages deal known as Iran-Contra, a new exculpatory phrase entered the American political lexicon. Vice Admiral John Poindexter described the concept in his testimony to the congressional committee studying Iran-Contra. “I made a deliberate decision not to ask the President,” said Poindexter, “so that I could insulate him from the decision and provide some future deniability for the President if it ever leaked out.” When veiled attack succeeds, it accomplishes its end without endangering its creator. It is plausibly deniable.”

First, note that Admiral Poindexter “made a deliberate decision not to ask the President”. Again, we see evidence of the power of questions. If the Admiral had asked the President, the Admiral would’ve forced the President to answer and thereby create evidence of the President’s knowledge and complicity. So long as there are no answers, there’s no evidence, and the President can “plausibly deny” his knowledge of or complicity in the deceit/fraud/crime.

Note also that there’s no pretense that the President was not knowledgeable or complicit in the particular fraud. The President knew and Poindexter knew the President knew, but so long as Poindexter did not ask any questions, he protected the President from the danger of creating evidence of his knowledge.

Point: In a political system built on argument rather than evidence, how do you create evidence (and therefore personal liability for the respondent)?

A: By means of QUESTIONS.

Why? Because answers create evidence of personal knowledge and thus personal intent—especially when the answers are under oath. Intent is the essence of every criminal act. If you want to create evidence of your adversary’s culpability, start by asking questions.

This isn’t news. Most of what prosecutors and attorneys do in court is to ask questions. The object of those questions is either to establish evidence of a defendant’s guilt or evidence that a witness is not credible.

Second, the previous “Case 1” suggests that a person (like Admiral Poindexter) or institution (the courts, for example) that you trust to protect you or your rights could launch a “veiled attack” (a “quiet war”?) against you (or even all Americans) based on deception. This veiled attack could be hidden behind a wall of “plausible deniability”. Thus, under the guise of argument based on deceitful premises (rather than facts), you might be stripped of your property and rights and left without remedy against those who betrayed and robbed you. I.e., so long as they can hide behind “plausible deniability” they can’t be charged with a crime. Their “offense” was, at worst, an unfortunate accident.

For example, under the guise of strengthening our domestic economy, your gov-co might send your jobs and industrial capacities overseas—knowing full well that the real effect would be to weaken or perhaps even collapse our domestic economy while strengthening foreign economies.

Alternatively, our gov-co might argue that in the name of “public safety” (a false premise) it’s entitled to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. This deprivation would be based on deceptive arguments such as our physical safety is more important than our God-given, unalienable Rights, or that the gov-co is here to “help us”. Such deceptive arguments could be shown to be based on false premises (not facts) by presenting the evidence (facts) of increased crime, violence, political oppression and even genocide that inevitably follow whenever governments seize the people’s firearms. But if the issue were decided by argument and deception, there might be no “burden of proof,” no allowance for “evidence”—and thus, under the deceit of plausible deniability, liberty could be lost and the nation might be destroyed.

The antidote to such destruction is to never give the bastards the benefit of the doubt. I don’t give a damn what their good intentions (premises) may have been. If the evidence (not argument) reveals the resulting programs don’t work as anticipated, cancel those programs, fire those who devised the programs, do not be persuaded to invest even more money into a program that any fool can see doesn’t work—or worse, achieves a result opposite to that which was allegedly sought.

Government involvement in American education comes to mind. The more state and federal money we devote to education, the worse our children are educated. Don’t screw with the bastards. Don’t believe their arguments based on seemingly noble premises. Believe only the evidence (facts). If existing system of American education is failing, then the existing system must be terminated and then replaced with another system that might work. If the resulting facts show the second system also doesn’t work, terminate that one, too, and devise a third system. Learn to make your decisions based on evidence of facts rather than the beguiling premises of argument.

And how do you create such evidence that an argument is based on false premises and therefore deceptive? By asking questions about the premises (rather than facts) on which the argument is built. We can defeat deceptive arguments and plausible deniability with questions—provided that we ask those questions early, repeatedly and under an authority that compels our adversary to answer.

Dr. Walton continues:

“This factor of plausible deniability is very important in helping us to understand how the major informal fallacies actually work as credible tactics of deception in everyday argumentation. Our focus in this paper is on normative and structural questions, particularly, in judging how arguments that use the strategy indicated in Case 1 evade or defeat reasonable, and appropriate requirements of burden of proof.”

By “informal fallacies,” I suspect Dr. Walton may be describing the false premises (beliefs rather than facts) that underlie deceptive arguments. These “informal fallacies” could include courtroom presumptions like the belief that a defendant acted “in this state” rather than “within The State,” or was a “person” or “citizen” rather than a man. If these presumptions/premises are not expressly refuted, the arguments based on them can be accepted as a sufficient basis for conclusions (like “Guilty, as charged!”) that are factually false.

The traditional “burden of proof” in court—especially in criminal prosecutions—imposes a “burden” upon a plaintiff or prosecutor to introduce sufficient facts into evidence to convince the judge and/or jury that the defendant is guilty. But—Dr. Walton implies that by means of false premises and deceptive argument, it might be possible to evade the burden of (factual) proof. If that were true in our courts, then a man might be convicted of a crime based on false premises and deceptive argument rather than by introducing sufficient facts into evidence.

Dr. Walton continues:

“Case 2: In 1964, the Democrats and Republicans demonstrated that they understood television’s power to use visual association to evoke audience inferences [premises]. The Democrats juxtaposed a child plucking the petals from a daisy with the explosion of a bomb as Lyndon Johnson extolled the value of loving one another. A young girl is picking daisies in a field. “Four, five, six, seven,” she says. An announcer’s voice (actually the voice used to count down the space launches at Cape Canaveral) begins an ominous count. “Ten, nine, eight . . .” At zero the camera has closed on the child’s eye. A nuclear bomb explodes. Lyndon Johnson’s voice is heard: “These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God’s children can live. Or to go into the darkness. We must either love each other. Or we must die.” Until the tag line appears, that ad has no explicit partisan content. “Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.”

“This argument was an ad hominem attack on Goldwater (as well as being a use of appeal to fear) that suggested that Goldwater was an untrustworthy person [false premise], even an unstable person, who lacked good judgment skills [false premise]. The conclusion suggested was that Goldwater was not a suitable candidate for president. But as Jamieson shows in her analysis of the ad, the ad is based on suggestions cued by images juxtaposed with ominous warnings. No explicit ad hominem argument is verbalized, in a way that makes definite assertions that would carry with them a burden of proof. One may wonder why ad hominem arguments of this type are so effective.”

In other words, if the Democrats had verbalized “definite assertions,” they could be called upon to produce sufficient factual evidence to support those “definite assertions”. However, since the assertions (allegations) were implied rather than stated, the Dem’s were able to avoid the obligation to prove their “argument”.

Could a similar procedure be used in our current court system to 1) avoid the burden of proof; and 2) winning convictions with argument and premises rather than factual evidence?

Y’ damn right it can.

Dr. Walton continues:

“. . . these arguments are frequently put forward as suggestions, in the sense that the speaker is only seeking some sort of provisional or tentative acceptance of the conclusion by the hearer. For example, in the “guilt by association” subtype of ad hominem argument, a [opponent’s] claim is refuted by arguing that the claimant is associated with some discredited group, and therefore cannot be trusted to tell the truth (Toulmin et al., 1979, p. 173). But traditional logic, of the deductive and inductive sort usually emphasized, has not been very useful in helping us to understand these suggestions and tentatively offered ways of proposing an argument that are so common in popular speech (Walton, 1992, chapter 5).

“To attempt to remedy this traditionally neglected area, and to give some theoretical basis for coming to understand and evaluate the kinds of arguments associated with fallacies, Hamblin (1970, pp. 256-257) defined the concept of argument as an exchange of moves between a speaker and a hearer in the framework of a dialogue (dialectical system) [argument?]. As a participant makes moves in a dialogue, propositions are inserted into or deleted from her commitment set, defined by Hamblin (p. 257) as a set of propositions that operates approximately as if it corresponds to the persona or beliefs of an arguer.”

The “arguer” who takes on a “persona” would argue on behalf of, or as if he was that other person/persona. Thus, an attorney could argue on behalf of a defendant, or the man “Adask” might argue on behalf of the “persona” “ADASK”. (It strikes me as remotely possible that only a living man could enter objective evidence, while a “persona”/person might only be able to introduce subjective “arguements”.) The additional reference to “beliefs” suggests that the “arguer” can argue based on either 1) the “beliefs” of whatever “persona” he represents; or 2) on the basis of his (the “arguer’s”) actual, personal “beliefs”.

But note that both the “commitment set” of the “persona” and the “commitment set” of the actual “arguer” correspond to either entity’s set of “beliefs”. Then, note that all “belief” is hearsay based on someone else’s information rather than direct, personal knowledge. Why did you believe in Santa Claus? Because your mommy told you he existed. Belief is always based on some indirect or second-hand information. Only knowledge is based on direct, first-hand personal perception. I know what I have personally seen. I believe what I have read. All “belief” is, by definition, hearsay.

Therefore, both “commitment sets” (of the “persona” or the “arguer”) would be based on belief (hearsay) rather than evidence.

In a criminal setting, if a prosecutor’s “commitment set of propositions” was based on “beliefs” acquired from other persons, all of those “beliefs” might be attacked as hearsay. If the actual parties responsible for causing these “beliefs” were not produced in court, the defendant might be able to argue that he was denied his right to confront is accusers.

Even in a civil case, if a plaintiff’s “commitment set of propositions” can be accurately discerned, each proposition (premise) can probably be attacked as hearsay (belief) rather than fact.

Argument need not include “evidence”. That’s why our courts recognize both “argument” and “evidentiary” hearings—you can have argument without evidence. Argument appears to be primarily a contest of personal “beliefs” and “propositions”—premises rather than facts.
We might reasonably ask why the current legal system is devoted moreso to argument than to evidence. One answer may be that the modern system of “this state” (rather than “The State” created by a State constitutions and as a member of the perpetual Union) may not be able to produce evidence of its existence. The territorial/fictional “state” routinely referred to a “this state” (see Texas Penal Code section 1.04) may exist only as a belief, as an argument, as a deception, as a false premise, as a lie—but not as an entity that can be shown to exist by evidence.

“The State of Texas” exists because there is an instrument (“The Constitution of The State of Texas”) that provides evidence of the creation and existence of “The State”. But what evidence shows the creation and existence of “this state” (Texas Penal Code 1.04)? According to the letter attributed to Senator Tom Harkins (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/sen-harkins-letter-edited/ ), “this state” is an implied charitable trust. If this trust is merely “implied” then, by definition, there can be no express document that might be presented as evidence to prove the existence of “this state”.

Makes me laugh. With the right set of questions, you might be able to compel the bastards that operate and populate “this state” to either admit that “this state” doesn’t actually exist or drop the case against you.

Insofar as we are currently ensnared in a legal system based on argument moreso than evidence, what is the legal alternative to “argument”? What is the proper name for a litigative process that dismisses mere “belief” and resulting “argument” as insufficient? Due course of LAW?

Does all law require EVIDENCE (FACTS)? Can equity or administrative process rely (in at least some instances) exclusively on ARGUMENT (premises/beliefs)?

If it were true that “ADASK” signifies a fictional entity other than the man “Adask,” insofar as “ADASK” could never testify, whenever “Adask” or an attorney represented “ADASK,” they might only “argue” in “ADASK’s” persona based on “ADASK’s” purported “beliefs” or based on the personal beliefs of the arguer, himself.

Dah-yam!

Dr. Walton continues:

“In everyday argumentation, propositions are often brought forward as suggestions or provisional hypotheses, rather than as outright assertions. In many instances of argumentation, especially in practical deliberations, the evidence for or against a particular proposition may be insufficient to categorically deny or assert it as true.”

Thus, in the absence of sufficient evidence (facts), a litigant might naturally seek to win in an “argument hearing” rather than “evidentiary hearing”.

The requirement that evidence be considered both “for” and “against” the argument/ notice/proposition suggests that the argument “recipient” would assume at least part of the burden of “disproof”. I.e., in an argument system, the “burden of proof” is not exclusively on the plaintiff (arguer). As declared in Dr. Walton’s next paragraph, if the plaintiff could provide any evidence to support his argument, the defendant would have produce overwhelming evidence that the argument was false. Thus, in argument, the burden of proof/disproof would be at least shared by both plaintiff and defendant. The defendant would be denied the presumption of innocence and compelled to somehow prove he was “not guilty”.

Now, get this:

“However, if, at any particular point in a dialogue [argument], there is no overwhelming evidence against the proposition, and there is some small weight of evidence put forward in favor of it, a speaker may propose the proposition as a suggestion, and the hearer [judge? The party conducting the “hearing”?] may provisionally accept it on that basis.”

For example, let’s suppose that a “notice” is nothing but an argument based on the “beliefs” (propositions) of the person who drafts the notice/argument or the “persona” (say “ADASK” or the “IRS”) he represents. If there were even “some small weight of evidence” for his argument, but no “overwhelming evidence against” that argument/propositions, then the hearer (judge?) “may” exercise his discretion to “provisionally accept” the arguer’s argument/ propositions/beliefs.

Insofar as the “arguer” (plaintiff/prosecutor?) drafting the notice/argument need only “some small weight of evidence” to support his argument while the person (defendant?) disputing the argument must produce “overwhelming evidence against,” then the burden of proof would not merely be shared by the plaintiff and defendant, but be primarily shifted from the plaintiff/prosecutor to the “defendant”. Thus, by means of argument, it might be possible to reverse the burden of proof.

This sounds a lot like the modern courtroom process: The defendant is guilty not only until proven innocent—but proven innocent by “overwhelming” evidence.

Could it be that our modern courts have shifted the burden of proof to defendants by virtue of relying on argument rather than evidence?

Dr. Walton again:

“When suggestions are put forward, they are accepted tentatively rather than wholeheartedly (in Hamblin’s sense). This means they are accepted provisionally, i.e. they are accepted as presumptions holding at that point, and for some subsequent points in the dialogue, but they may later be given up or rejected.”

When we “accept” a document or notice without question, do we implicitly “accept” the propositions within that documents as valid “presumptions”? Should questions in response to notice be expressly inquire as to the “propositions” and “premises” on which the notice (argument???) is based?

Can a notice be construed as a mere “argument”?? That possibility makes some sense—especially in a world of “notice pleading” in a legal system where evidentiary hearings are now “disfavored” and argument hearings are predominate.

Dr. Walton:

“There are two importantly different types of acceptance or commitment in argumentation that need to be distinguished. One is the type of acceptance that carries with it an obligation to defend the proposition accepted.”

Note that “acceptance” = “commitment”. To “accept a proposition” is apparently to accept the conclusion proposed by the argument.

Also, this “obligation to defend the proposition” would presumably include the obligation to produce evidence to support the proposition.

Dr. Walton:

“The other [type of acceptance] is mere acceptance for the sake of argument, without implying that one personally believes the proposition, in the sense implying that one is willing, or obliged to justify its acceptance [with evidence], when challenged by a critical questioner.”

This second “acceptance” (for the mere “sake of argument”) is apparently unsupported by “personal belief” or the obligation to produce evidence to prove the “argument”. “Belief” is only hearsay rather than first-hand knowledge. An argument without “personal belief” would not even be supported by 3rd party witnesses. Without “personal belief,” there would presumably be no prima facie evidence let alone probable cause. (Could a “notice” sometimes be such an argument?)

Given that many governmental affidavits begin with “on information and belief” (hearsay), the gov-co may have an obligation to prove their “propositions,” but they implicitly admit by their “information and belief” affidavit that they have no direct, persona knowledge of the propositions (facts or law alleged?) in their affidavits. Insofar as they act “on information and belief” at least part of their suit is unsupported by actual evidence.

Insofar as an argument’s propositions can be challenged by a “critical questioner,” I’m reminded of the elements common to “arguments” and “notices”. Arguments must address “critical questioners”. Notices create the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions).

Again, I’m left to wonder if a “notice” is essentially an argument.

What evidence does a notice provide? Any? I don’t recall ever seeing a notice that included evidence. A notice will advance propositions and premises like “you are required to file,” or “you owe this amount”—but virtually never offer any evidence in support of those propositions/premises. This suggests the following question might be appropriate as a possible response (under right of inquiry) to a notice:

Q. Do you have any evidence that can be entered under oath to support the veracity of each of the propositions in your notice?

What evidence is admissible in court without some living man or woman to swear to the truthfulness and materiality of that evidence? So far as I know, none.

So, when the IRS claims you owe, say, $5,000—who is prepared to swear in court to the veracity of that debt? Who, in the IRS, has direct, personal knowledge of that alleged debt? If no one has direct personal knowledge, they would seem to have no evidence. If there were no evidence, then the primary purpose for an administrative hearing or tax court would be to hear mere arguments as to whether a particular person did or did not owe taxes.

How many “taxpayers” have demanded “show me the law that makes me liable”? Has the IRS ever shown that law? Maybe there is no law. Maybe there’s only a set of propositions laying the foundation for an argument.

Consistent with Dr. Walton’s description of argument, most notices could also be described as expressions of mere “beliefs” (hearsay, which is normally inadmissible as evidence). In other instances, some notices might contain references to business records which appeared to be evidence. But, so far as I know, without sworn supporting testimony, business records are, themselves, nothing but hearsay and technically inadmissible. After all, who entered the data that comprised the business record? The original data entry clerk may be unknown or no longer employed by the business maintaining the record. More, there could be a dozen different clerks that had entered data into the business records/files over the years. If you can find the one clerk who entered all the data into a business record, can that clerk testify to the accuracy of the data? Can the clerk even recall the specific data entry? And then, who validated that data? Who is prepared to swear under oath that he has first-hand knowledge that the data in a particular business record is true, complete and correct?

I’ll bet the answer is Virtually No One.

This suggests that most business records are essentially only matters of belief—propositions and arguments of sorts, but not facts that can be readily testified to in a court of law.

If so, then our entire business-based economy would unable to easily defend itself or prove it’s values if called to do so in a court of law. This might explain why the courts “disfavor” evidentiary hearings and prefer argument hearings. For businesses (especially big businesses), producing verifiable, admissible evidence may be extremely difficult but producing mere argument should be a snap.

Is a notice merely a list of some of propositions essential to an argument? If a “notice” is not even sworn “on information and belief,” does that imply that it is merely “for the sake of argument” and without the obligation of proof or producing evidence?

If a modern “notice” were nothing more than an “argument” without an obligation of producing proof or evidence, then there would be no “burden of proof” on the person initiating such argument/notice. The notice, by itself, might become the facts and law of the case. In fact, that’s pretty much what happens with traffic tickets. The only question would be whether the person for whom the notice was intended had actually “received” the notice. Once the recipient was shown to have “received” the notice without asking questions, the argument might be deemed won by the sender.

If notice were merely an argument, then the burden of proof would be shifted from the person who initiates the argument/notice to the person who “accepts” that argument/notice. According to Dr. Walton’s article, the recipient (defendant) would have to produce “overwhelming evidence against” the plaintiff’s propositions/beliefs (as supported by a “small” amount of evidence) to prevent the “hearer” (judge?) from accepting the propositions/beliefs presented by the “plaintiff” as true.

Damn. This sounds just like courts of equity and implied trust relationships. If you are ensnared as a defendant in the alleged web of an implied trust relationship, what evidence can actually exist that the trust relationship even exists, let alone that you voluntarily agreed to act as a fiduciary in that implied trust relationship? Given that an implied trust relationship is unsupported by tangible evidence (like a trust indenture or the defendant’s express, voluntary agreement to act as fiduciary for the plaintiff), what can support the plaintiff’s allegations besides argument?

Judging from Dr. Walton’s text, if a plaintiff produced just a “small weight of evidence” in support of (not to “prove”; merely to “support”) his argument that an implied trust relationship exists between the plaintiff-beneficiary and the defendant-fiduciary, the defendant will have to produce “overwhelming evidence” to disprove that implied trust relationship. More, the plaintiff would apparently have to produce the “small weight of evidence” only if the defendant expressly challenges the existence of the implied trust relationship and/or his role as fiduciary therein. If the defendant failed to expressly challenge the plaintiff’s fundamental propositions/premises, the plaintiff’s argument (case) could theoretically prevail without the support of any evidence whatsoever.

Clearly, if you enter into such argument, the burden of proof would be on a defendant rather than a plaintiff. In argument, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent—and proven innocent “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

How do we enter an “argument”? Perhaps by giving an “answer” or better yet, a “denial”. This notion exactly parallels some of my previous conjecture concerning notice. I.e., if—in response to receiving a notice—you do nothing, you’ll be deemed to have received “sufficient” notice and (under procedural due process) be moved on to the “opportunity to be heard”—the hearing where the “impartial judge” will find you guilty about 95% of the time. On the other hand, if you respond positively to the notice by making any statement whatsoever (i.e., making an ANSWER or DENIAL) you will be deemed to have had “sufficient notice” and, again, be compelled to go to the “hearing” where the “hearer” (“impartial judge”) will find you guilty 95% of the time.

So far, I can see only one defense to notice and procedural due process: ask questions in response to the original notice.

Can the modern term “notice” be understood to mean “Notice of Argument” or “Offer to Argue”? Is the notice and Invitation to Argue? If you accept that “invitation/offer/notice,” have you “contracted” to be bound by the rules of argument?

Insofar as “notice” and “argument” are similar or perhaps almost synonymous, the way out of both may be to ask questions:

Q. Does your notice constitute evidence of the existence of a “controversy” [as found at Article 3.2.1 of The Constitution of the United States or perhaps “issue” or something other than a mere argument that would absolutely get me into a court of LAW or at least a court of The State.] between you and I? [I suspect that an “argument” may differ fundamentally from a “controversy”. I suspect that an “argument” might be settled by an administrative tribunal, while a “controversy” must be settled by a judicial court. If the gov-co admits “controversy” we can claim right to a judicial court. If they deny “controversy,” I might not be obligated to appear for a mere “argument”.]

Q.: Do you understand that Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd Edition) defines the word “Hearing” in part as “The hearing of the arguments of the counsel for the parties upon the pleadings . . . .”?

Q.: Do you intend this matter to be settled at law, in equity or by administrative process?

Q: Is your notice intended to alert me to the existence of a purported argument between you and I?

Q: Do you understand that I have not yet consented to enter into an argument with you in relationship to the matters referenced in your Notice to “ALFRED ADASK” dated April 1st, A.D. 2008?

Q: Does your notice constitute an invitation to me to enter into an argument?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, would the person deciding this argument reach his decision based on mere beliefs?

Q. Do you have direct, verifiable, personal knowledge of the truth of all of the propositions that have been advanced in support of your argument?

Q. Does anyone have direct, verifiable, personal knowledge of the truth of all of the propositions that have been advanced in support of your argument?

Q. Do you have direct, verifiable, personal knowledge of the truth of all of the beliefs that have been advanced in support of your argument?

Q. Do you understand that Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., defines the word “belief” as merely a form of hearsay wherein information is provided by a third party?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, would admissible evidence be required to be entered into the record of this process before the person deciding this argument could reach his decision?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, would there be a burden of proof imposed on either side?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, who would bear the primary burden of proof? You ___ or Me ___?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, would you have to prove your case “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, would you have to prove your case “by a preponderance of the evidence”?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, would you presume that I had to have waived my right to substantive due process?

Q. If I consent to enter into the process of argument with you, do you know if the purported “judge” will presume that I have waived my right to substantive due process?

I’m exploring the previous questions not for the purpose of “gumming up the works” with endless stream of questions (which might still be a valid and effective strategy) but to explore the various manifestations of questions that might flow from “argument”. By exploring all these questions, I hope to sharpen my own understanding of the possible implications of “argument”.

Ideally, I’d like to boil these down to just a handful of questions that were so “tight” that they’d intimidate the plaintiff into dropping his “argument”.

But, in general, the previous questions focus on the imposition of the “burden of proof” on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Insofar as the burden is shifted onto the defendant, the defendant is probably denied “substantive due process” or “due course of law” and given only “procedural [argument??] due process”. More, when the burden of proof is on the defendant, we might have evidence of an INQUISITION rather than a trial at law. These possibilities can be explored by questions. If the questions are so bizarre as to be irrelevant, fine. If not—they should at least inhibit the other side.

If argument is based primarily on beliefs, propositions and hearsay (rather than evidence), then the opponent’s “beliefs” must be directly attacked as false on the one hand. But such attack may not succeed since only a “small weight of evidence” in support of those beliefs may be sufficient to still win the plaintiff’s “argument”.

But the fundamental and larger question is this:

Insofar as argument is based on belief (premises) rather than verifiable evidence, and shifts the “burden of disproof” onto the defendant, what process obligates or even presumes that a defendant has consented to participate in an “argument” rather than a “controversy”? By what process, conduct or capacity is a man presumed to have waived his right to be tried in a controversy by a judicial court and agreed (or found obligated) to proceed under the disability of “argument” and the defendant’s correlative “burden of disproof”?

I don’t yet have answers to the previous questions. But I will. Like any decent bloodhound, my prey’s scent is in the wind and I’m howling happily off after it.

I’d bet that (assuming my hypothesis concerning argument is roughly correct) the only way to ensnare a defendant in the argument process is by means of his consent. That “consent” (actually assent) would be implied from 1) the defendant’s failure to expressly object; 2) the defendant’s voluntary appearance at court; 3) the defendant’s express denial of the plaintiff’s allegations; etc.


I am increasingly suspicious that the legal system has evolved into a pro-plaintiff process for resolving arguments rather than a pro-defendant process for resolving controversies. If so, that evolution has been achieved by some subtle deception rather than public knowledge and actual agreement. What are the means by which they induce us to enter into conduct sufficient for them to presume that we have voluntarily consented to subject ourselves to the process of argument rather than controversy?

How do I challenge those means? How do identify (and then stop) such conduct or possible resulting presumptions?

By what means and language can I expressly declare that I do not consent to enter into the process of argument?

Incidentally, Black’s 7th offers almost a full page to provide several definitions of the word “case”. However, definition #4 is “An argument”. I won’t say that all “cases” are “arguments,” but clearly some “cases” could be.

For defendant to prevail in argument, it appears (so far) that he must have “overwhelming evidence against” each of the plaintiff’s “beliefs”/“propositions”.

If I were seeking to defeat one man’s beliefs, where could I find “overwhelming evidence” that those beliefs were false? Bible? Maxims of Law?

If the plaintiff has only secular beliefs to support his argument, I could probably smash them with my own religious beliefs as supported by my Bible—especially if my “beliefs” are verified (sworn) while the gov-co can only provide unverified statements of “belief”. I “believe” that the Bible could provide the “overwhelming evidence” required to defeat any entity’s secular beliefs—or at least render me exempt from liability to argument based on such secular beliefs.

Maybe that’s the door out of argument. If a plaintiff or prosecutor’s case were in argument and based on beliefs, if his beliefs contradicted my own religious beliefs, any attempt to subject me to his beliefs might be challenged as a violation of my freedom of religion and/or an attempt by gov-co to establish a “state” religion.

I can’t yet prove it or even articulate the insight more clearly, but I have a very strong hunch that the way to avoid being subjected to gov-co’s system of beliefs is by asserting under oath your own contrary system of religious beliefs. This defense would not be simply based on my set of beliefs (propositions) being different from theirs, but rather that my and their sets of beliefs are mutually exclusive and anathema to each other. I.e, my defense might be that I don’t merely deny my adversary’s system of beliefs, but rather that I am prevented by my Protestant faith from even considering his beliefs/argument as potentially valid.

I’ve already been sued for $25,000 per day by the Texas Attorney General in a case where gov-co argued that I was a mere “animal”. I refuted their argument with my own sworn affidavits of spiritual evidence (Genesis 1:26-28 and the “Declaration of Independence”) which declare 1) that I am a man made in our Father YHWH’s image and given dominion over the animals; and 2) that I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. After six years of investigation and expending roughly $500,000, gov-co dropped the case.

In the end, gov-co cannot argue that I’m anything less than a man. They may “believe” that by virtue of my SSN or DL or bank account, credit card or use of legal tender that I have “accepted” the status of one who is disabled and less than a “man,” but if I respond to each of their propositions/premises with a verified (sworn) evidence that declares myself to be a “man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” can their belief system successfully confront or overcome my own? I don’t think so.

In the final analysis, it appears to me that an argument is ultimately a kind of private wager to which both sides agree to be bound. You argue your case (propositions); I argue against your case (propositions); we agree to let the “honorable judge Smith” decide who wins our subjective argument.

Overwhelming evidence may be required to prove a negative!

If I’m right that an argument requires a preliminary (and probably private) agreement to argue and be bound by the decision of the “hearer” of the argument, then there are some “arguments” that, as a man made in our Father YHWH’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, I am precluded from entering into. For example, suppose gov-co wants to argue with me based on the proposition that I’m an animal rather than a man (as seen in gov-co’s drug laws), I can’t possibly agree to that proposition without violating my faith in the God of the Bible and my standing as a man under the “Declaration of Independence”. These two spiritual documents should be sufficient authority to either exempt me from such arguments or to shatter the propositions on which such argument is based.

Similarly, I’ve heard that Maxims of Law can send the gov-co packing. Insofar as that’s true, I’ll bet that a proper introduction of my “Maxims of Law” can defeat your secular “beliefs” almost any day.

Q. When your notice alleges that I owe the IRS $10,000, is that allegation deemed to be a fact you can support with evidence and personal knowledge?

Q. When your notice alleges that I owe the IRS $10,000, is that allegation deemed to be a fact that you can prove with factual evidence that’s admissible in a court of law or is that allegation an express of your mere belief?

Dr. Walton:

“The second type of acceptance [“for the sake of argument”] is hypothetical, in that the proposition is being accepted as an assumption or hypothesis, in order to see where it leads, or to carry the argument further along. But this type of provisional acceptance is different from the type of commitment to a proposition that implies that one is willing or obliged to justify it if challenged.”

Unless a proposition is challenged, there is no need for evidence to “justify” a proposition advanced “for the sake of argument”.

What kind of act would manifest a “commitment” to a “proposition” that would demonstrate one’s willingness or obligation to justify (prove?) that “proposition”? An affidavit? If they send you a notice with affidavit, does that manifest their “commitment” to justfy/prove their propositions?

On the other hand, if they send you an unsworn (or even unsigned) notice, are they merely advising you of some “propositions”/ “beliefs” which they offer as “suggestions” but have no “commitment” to prove? Is an unsigned or unverified notice a proposition advanced for the mere “sake of argument” and thus without need for supporting evidence?

Q. Do you have a commitment to justify and/or prove the propositions and/or beliefs you’ve presented in your Notice?

Dr. Walton:

“The key difference between these two types of acceptance lies in the requirement of burden of proof. Assertion has a burden of proof [by admissible facts introduced into evidence?], while assumption does not.”

Questions for gov-co:

Q. Do you assert that I owe $5,000?

Q. Do you assume that I owe $5,000?

Dr. Walton:

“However, there is a third type of speech act mid way between the two called presumption, that has only a negative or indirect burden of proof. If I ask you to presume that a proposition, A, is true; it is not necessary for me to meet the burden of proving A if you question the acceptance of A. But if, then, or at any later point in the conversation, you (the hearer) come up with good evidence against A, or reason [argument] not to accept A, then I (the speaker) have to either agree to give up A as a presumption, or fulfill the burden of successfully countering your evidence against A. A presumption then, is half way between an assertion and an assumption.”

Perhaps so. But the “burden of proof” is always on the party disputing the presumption. The presumption is “presumed” to be true without evidence—unless the opposing party can first produce evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is not on the person who makes the presumption, but on the person who denies it. That’s exactly contrary to the fundamental common law notion that the plaintiff has the burden of proof and a criminal defendant has a correlative right to offer no evidence of his innocence. Insofar as presumptions apply in criminal (or more likely penal matters), the defendant is essentially denied the presumption of innocence.

Thus, the presumptions that are relied on by the current system to achieve convictions and findings of guilt, are all ultimately in contradiction to the fundamental presumption of innocence that at least attaches to those charged with a crime and probably attaches to those charged penally and/or civilly.

This suggests that one of the most vulnerable “chinks” in the system’s defenses may be their reliance on presumptions that deny the great and primary presumption of innocence. This might even explain why they won’t allow most defendants to plead “Innocent” but only plead “Guilty,” “Not Guilty” or “No Contest”. If you plead “guilty,” you’re guilty. If you plead “not guilty” you’re probably guilty because you can’t prove a negative statement. If you plead “no contest,” you will once again be found “guilty” because you’ve agreed that you won’t even try to squirm off the hook. The three current pleas are the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with a revolver that has six shells in the cylinder.

I suspect that there may be an inherent and politically powerful conflict between any presumption (and the propositions/beliefs that create presumptions) and the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence. If a defendant were able to assert his right to the presumption of innocence, any presumptions to the contrary might have to be discarded. In fact, if a defendant needed “overwhelming evidence against” a proposition/belief that was, or supported, a presumption against the defendant, the “presumption of innocence” might be just the “big gun” to achieve that result.

Therefore, some of my first questions in response their Notice/Argument might be:

Q. Do you understand that I am entitled to be presumed innocent of all alleged charges?

Q. Do you understand that I am entitled to plead “innocent” if asked to “plead” by the person who hears and decides this matter?

Dr. Walton:
“This type of presumptive inference pattern often plays an important role in the argumentum ad ignorantiam. In the following case, a couple are talking about two thousand dollars of their savings and investment money. Should they put it into their savings account, or in some other fund?

“Case 3: Helen : It might just as well go into our savings account. Bob: Well, sure if you think so.

“Helen: I don’t see that there’s any reason why it shouldn’t.

“Helen argues from the negative premise, “I don’t see that there’s any reason why it shouldn’t,” by use of the argumentum ad ignorantiam to the positive conclusion (on balance of considerations), “It might just as well go into our savings account.” Bob makes no objection, so she goes ahead to justify her presumptive conclusion to go ahead with her proposed (provisional) course of action. Since there is no evidence, or good reason [argument] known [“known” on the record], to show that the proposition is false, the presumptively based conclusion that it is true can be drawn.”

The previous “argumentum ad ignorantiam” works precisely because Bob is “ignorant” and therefore unable to advance any evidence of argument to refute Helen’s “negative premise”. Both parties seemingly agree that they don’t know why they should not proceed to do as Helen suggests, so they do, in fact, so proceed.

Dr. Walton:

“One often notices in the study of fallacies how plausible deniability is preserved by ambiguity [failure to precisely define], and other deceptive or confusing techniques that enable an arguer to keep the back door open, should one’s argument be directly confronted or challenged. A good example is the ad baculum argument, a form of sophistical technique that typically takes the form of an indirect speech act, e.g. “I would stop advocating that policy if I were you, because the last person who persisted in advocating it wound up on the bottom of the river in a cement coating.” When confronted with having made a threat, the ad baculum arguer replies: “That wasn’t a threat. I was only giving you some good advice—this is a dangerous city!” Here the use of the indirect speech act leaves the fallacy committer a back door open for plausible deniability. Threats tend to be highly contextual, and it has proved to be a legal problem to pin them down with evidence in specific cases.

“In this type of ad baculum case, the ambiguity or shift is pragmatic in nature. It is a shift from a warning to a threat. The speech act overtly, or on the surface of the dialogue exchange, has the form of a warning—a species of argument from consequences used to give advice.”

What is a Notice if not a “warning” (or even a “threat” in the “form” of a “warning”)? Thus, we see more evidence that a Notice can be construed as a “warning” which, in turn, fits the general description of a “Notice”. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If warning = notice and warning = argument, then Notice = argument—exactly as I’d suspected.

“However, under the surface, in context, both speaker and hearer would recognize this utterance as a threat. The distinction between a speech act’s surface form and subsurface form can be illustrated by the classic case of an indirect speech act “Can you pass the salt?” On the surface a yes-no question, this speech- act, under the surface, functions as a request to pass the salt.”

More possible questions in response to a notice:

Q. Do you understand that a notice is a warning?

Q. Do you understand that a warning is a species of argument?

Q. Do you understand that if A = B, and B = C, that A = C?

Q. Does your notice constitute an argument?

Q. Does your notice constitute an ad baculum argument?

Q. Does your notice constitute a threat?

I’m about 99% certain that gov-co would never admit that their notices were threats. I’m about 85% certain that they wouldn’t even admit that their notices were arguments or invitations to argue. If I were right, asking those kinds of questions might put gov-co in a difficult position. If they must answer and can’t lie, they may prefer to drop a case than deal with such questions.

So if we expressly ask if their notices are threats and arguments and they expressly deny it, then they would seemingly have waived their chance to try us under circumstances where the burden of proof was on us, the defendants, to prove we were “not guilty” (a logical impossibility). If there is no argument (and perhaps no alternative presumptions), then there might not be any basis for avoiding the presumption of our innocence.

I.e., if you can make gov-co deny the existence of an argument, you might be able to make them admit you’re entitled to the presumption of innocence—perhaps even at a court of law. Once that happens, they’re screwed.

Strip ‘em of their argument, strip ‘em of their beliefs, reduce ‘em to the condition of persons who can only win their case based on a preponderance of the evidence (facts rather than beliefs) or even “beyond reasonable doubt” (ambiguity), and they may have a very difficult time securing a conviction.

“In other cases, of an even more common and pervasive type in the world of fallacies, a proposition is brought forward on the basis of reported say so [hearsay; belief]—for example, in the form of gossip or rumor—yet there is an implication that the speaker who brings it forward is using it to make an allegation. Ad hominem arguments often trade for their plausibility and effectiveness on this technique. The core of the technique lies in its leaving a mark—”Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”—while deflecting off any requirements of burden of proof. Again, the fallacy of “guilt by association” is a familiar example.

“One important technique of deflection of burden of proof, attribution to a secondary source [the “secondary source” may constitute hearsay], has the following general form as a speech act: I (the speaker) am bringing forward proposition A into the dialogue, and my basis is that someone else (i.e. someone other than the speaker) asserted that A is true. [Expert opinion!] The clever thing about this form of speech act is the ambiguity of `bringing forward.’ Is the speaker asserting that A is true, thus incurring a burden of proof to justify A if challenged? Or is the speaker merely reporting that someone else asserted A, in which case she (the speaker) has no burden of proof to support A if challenged? Is the speaker asserting A or merely reporting the assertion of A by someone he heard? On the latter interpretation, there is no burden of proof for the speaker.”

We know that you must accept the burden of proof for your “assertions”. But what is an allegation? Does an “allegation” equate to an “assertion” or are they two different species of “statements”? Is it possible that there’s no burden of proof for an “allegation”? Could some or even all allegations be mere “argument”?

“The technique of attribution to a secondary source [hearsay and/or expert opinion] is often combined with another clever technique that can be used to definitely remove the burden of proof. This takes the form of denial of personal commitment by the speaker with respect to a proposition, at the same time the assertion of that proposition is attributed to another speaker who was heard to have said it. This technique, which could be called attribution combined with denial of commitment, takes the following form of speech act: I (the speaker) heard someone else assert proposition A is true, but I am not personally committed to A.

“A stronger form of the same technique is to replace the second clause with a denial (a negative assertion) of the form, `I (`the speaker) deny that A is true.’ Such techniques of attribution are not fallacious or sophistical in themselves, but can be combined with other techniques to produce sophistical arguments.”

The words “fallacy” and “fallacious” keep appearing in this text and appear fundamental to defeating propositions, beliefs and arguments. We can probably stop any argument against us with a thorough grasp of “fallacy”. The words “fallacy” and “fallacious” need thorough study and comprehension.

If we are in an argument hearing, we should strive to effectively challenge all of the adversary’s propositions and arguments as “fallacious”.

“A perfect illustration of how the technique works was given (in an ironic form) by Andy Rooney on Sixty Minutes ( March 24, 1991). Rooney was commenting in reply to an allegation by Senator Alan Simpson that a CNN reporter was a “sympathizer” of Saddam Hussein, because the reporter had continued to report from Baghdad all during the Gulf War. Simpson subsequently apologized to the reporter, on the grounds that his allegation could not be proved. Rooney commented that, in the same spirit, he would like to apologize to Simpson.

“Case 4: Senator Simpson did go to Baghdad to see Hussein last April 13th and at that time, he comforted Hussein for things being written about him in our newspapers by saying that American reporters were “pampered and haughty.” That’s why I’ve been calling Senator Simpson “Saddam Hussein’s friend.” Well, now I feel sort of bad about it. I shouldn’t have done that. Senator Simpson says that The Wall Street Journal has suggested he’s a racist, too. I certainly wouldn’t suggest he’s a racist because I simply don’t know. I’ve heard rumors that, if he could, he’d repeal the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press. I’ve heard rumors that he’s one of our dumbest senators. It would be unfair of me to repeat those rumors because I’m not sure they’re true. I’ve never even met him. Neither, can I prove that Senator Simpson is a friend of Saddam Hussein. It is not certain that they’re friends and, unless the facts prove otherwise, I apologize to him for having said they are friends. I hope you take this apology in the spirit in which it’s intended, Senator—unless you can prove otherwise.

“This ironic apology illustrates perfectly the use of the technique of deflection of burden of proof by passing on reports, allegations, or rumors attributed to a third party who is not named. The technique is to disavow that one is personally asserting the proposition in question—or even to state overtly that one personally does not accept this proposition as true—thus removing the requirement of burden of proof. Yet, at the same time, the proposition is brought forward as an allegation that has been made (by somebody else). So it has a tendency to stick.

“Part of this technique is use of innuendo or suggesting that a proposition may be true without explicitly claiming that it is true (in the sense requiring a burden of proof ), where the suggestion implicates the proposition as true to the hearer or audience. As case 4 above indicates, sometimes denial, or explicitly claiming the opposite of the designated proposition, is the method of suggesting by innuendo that the proposition is (or may be) true. A classic case is the story of the ship’s captain who had made many entries of the proposition, “The first mate was drunk today.” in the logbook. To get revenge, the first mate wrote in the logbook, “The captain was sober today.” The making of this statement as a single entry in the logbook implies by innuendo that the captain was normally not sober, i.e. drunk.”

The relationship of innuendo to implication brings to mind the implied charitable trust of “this state” and Implied trust relationships. Does gov-co routinely use some variety of “innuendo” to imply the existence of these relationships? Based on the presumed existence of unenforceable “implied” (unstated) trust relationships, the court can construe constructive trust relationships—which are enforceable. How does the court come to perceive or “get wind” of the unexpressed but “implied” trust relationships? Is innuendo the means by which court exercises its discretion to “recognize” an “implied” trust relationship?

If so, what is the mechanism to defeat innuendo?

“Innuendo typically works by exploiting normal expectations and routines as the basis of a warrant licensing an inference from one proposition to another. The warrant, which is often non explicit, associates two events, and postulates one as a premise. The principle of how it works is summed up in the expression, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” That is, the respondent is meant to draw the implicature that if smoke is cited by a proponent in a given case, then by the warrant [normal expectations and routines as a statement of PROBABILITY—but not absolute fact.] above, so must fire (likely) be present. If somebody made the allegation that smoke is present, then it may be true also that fire is present. As shown in section one above, this principle is based on a type of argumentation associated with the traditional argumentum ad ignorantiam. If there is no evidence that fire is not present, then given smoke, it is best to call the fire department.”

OK—this process of “innuendo” is based on 1) probabilities and even 2) degrees of risk.

In terms of probability, the idea behind innuendo (If there’s smoke there MAY be fire), is that even if we don’t see one event (fire) we can presume that event may be taking place based on other observations of characteristics (smoke) that are usually associated with the first event.

But, by definition, the second event (smoke) is not the first event (fire). The second event is only evidence that might imply the existence of the first event. Smoke is primarily an annoyance—perhaps even a “warning”/notice/argument—but fire is a killer. Smoke as warning/notice/argument should merely put us on inquiry. If we smell smoke, we “inquire”—we investigate—as to whether there is actually a fire.

Thus, innuendo could be attacked for failure to investigate. As a defendant in a court room, I might suddenly scream that I smell smoke, the building must be on fire, and we must all run for our lives from the court house. Do you suppose that the judge, prosecutor and jury will all instantly flee from the building based on my claim to smell smoke? Probably not. What they’ll each probably do is consciously sniff the air to see if they, too, smell smoke. Then each will ask the person next to them “Do you smell smoke? I don’t smell smoke—do you?” They will investigate to learn if others besides myself also smell smoke. Why? Because smelling smoke is a subjective process. Everyone has occasionally “smelled smoke” when no one else did and even when there was no smoke.

In terms of degree of risk, if you smell smoke while you’re swimming the middle of lake, that’s not much cause for alarm because 1) there’s nothing you can do; and 2) you are not personally threatened with being burned. On the other hand, if you smell faint smoke while you’re lying in bed at 3 AM, that is cause for alarm since you could die in a house fire and by acting promptly you might be able to find and extinguish the unseen fire. You might also smell lots of smoke in the afternoon on July 4th and pay no attention whatsoever since everyone is probably grilling hamburgers and hotdogs on a charcoal grill. Different degrees of risk implicate different responses to the same proposition (“smoke”). Innuendo might be powerful at 3 AM, less powerful in the middle of a lake, and completely ignored on the 4th of July.

Again, if no one bother to investigate the first “event”/proposition/notice/warning/“smoke,” then we can infer that no one is taking that first event very seriously. If the people who allege the “smoke” don’t investigate, they discredit their own allegation and argument.

If an innuendo is a notice/warning/argument/proposition/belief that raising the specter of danger, then anyone hearing the innuendo who failed to investigate would fail to perform his “due diligence” and be guilty of imprudent behavior.

In my colloidal silver case, the prosecution alleged that Ben & I were members of the Republic of Texas movement and thus implied that we posed a danger to the judge, lawyers, court house and community. That was innuendo that was 1) false; and 2) intended to discredit us.

But if the prosecution really believed the ROT was dangerous, did the prosecutor and judge move their wives and families into some out-of-state witness protection program? No. Did they warn jurors that their spouses, parent and children might be attacked by the dreaded ROT? No. Thus, if the prosecutor that alleged ROT wouldn’t protect himself and his family from the vengeance of the “dangerous” ROT, how serious could he be in believing we posed any threat of violence?

“ANONYMOUS SOURCES

“One fairly straightforward method of deflecting burden of proof is the use of anonymous sources. According to (Levine, 1994, p. A21), reporters and writers used to follow the practice of naming the persons they quoted as sources, but this accepted practice began to change in the late fifties. As an example of the new practice, Levine (p. A321) cites the case of a controversial book, On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, in which the author, Stevie Cameron, alleges many details of corruption and questionable political deal making attributed to the former Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney.

“Case 5: Ms. Cameron offers no documented evidence to back up her accusation, saying only that her information comes from some “well-placed sources in Montreal.” In fact, a lot of the information in her book is from anonymous sources: “well-placed businessmen,” “a knowledgeable source” and “intimate friends.” She claims that many of these people are members of the Conservative Party: senators, fund-raisers, campaign managers. “Most of them cannot be named,” she writes in the book’s preface, “but they know I am grateful.” From a journalistic perspective, the allegation that a fund was set up is clearly more significant than the fact that the sources of the accusation remain nameless. But why have Ms. Cameron’s sources refused to identify themselves? Is Brian Mulroney a threat to them? If so, how reliable are they? What biases do they hold toward him? What axes do they have to grind? And what deals, if any, did Ms. Cameron have to make with them to use their comments but not their names?

“The critical problem with the book, according to Levine, is that readers do not get the answers to the above questions, and can only guess at them. Thus, the only evidence available to the reader, to judge whether the allegations are supported or not, is the credibility of the journalist. Yet we know all too well from the rising practices of tabloid journalism, under pressure to compete by getting the most exciting and newsworthy stories, journalists are increasingly printing stories that come from questionable sources, who are sometimes even paid for volunteering information.

. . . .

“In the following case (Stein, 1992), eight unidentified women accused U.S. Senator Brock Adams of sexual harassment, causing him to drop his re-election campaign. The story appeared in the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligences, as summarized by (Stein, 1992, p. 10):

“Case 6: According to the Times, the eight women spoke out on condition that their names not be published. Seven, it was reported, signed statements acknowledging they could be required to testify in court should Adams sue the Times. Their allegations range from “aggressive sexual harassment to rape and include stories of Adams plying women with a mixture of drugs and alcohol,” said the story by staff reporters Susan Gilmore, Eric Nalder and Eric Pryne, and Times city editor David Boardman. “Obviously, it would have been better to have published the names of the women but this was the only chance we had.” Fancher told E & P, “We’ve been chasing this story for three-and-a-half years in an effort to be responsive to the people.”

According to Stein (p. 10), Adams is said to have replied: “This is the saddest day of my life. I have never harmed anyone.” By going ahead with the story, based on anonymous sources only, the newspapers, in effect, reversed the burden of proof. Adams would have to go to court if he wished to argue that he was not guilty of the allegations.”

Virtually all of these arguments reverse the burden of proof. In our modern court system, it surely seems that you are guilty until proven innocent. Today, the burden of proof seems almost always on the defendant rather than the plaintiff/prosecutor. Insofar as that’s true, it appears that our courts now prefer to function based on argument rather than evidence.

But, again, if the object of sophisticated arguments is the reverse the burden of proof, then the primary defense against such arguments will be found in our right to the presumption of innocence (at least in criminal trials) and our ability (as defendants) to demand that right. If we can make ‘em admit that we’re entitled to the presumption of innocence or that the burden of proof is initially and primarily on the plaintiff/prosecutor, we can create evidence to shield us against their fallacious propositions and arguments without proof.

We need to study the “burden of proof” and the “presumption of innocence”.

Q. Is the burden of proof in this matter 1) beyond a reasonable doubt ___; 2) preponderance of the evidence ___; 3) other ___?

Q. Is the burden of proof on the prosecutor/plaintiff in this matter?

Q. Is the burden of proof on the defendant in this matter?

“One of the worst known abuses of anonymous sources reporting was the Janet Cooke case where reporter Cooke of the Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for a moving story about a child drug addict. When it was found out that the child did not exist, Cooke resigned from the Post and gave up the prize. Despite cases like this, and the rising tide of tabloid journalism, Blankenburg (1992, p. 17) argues that anonymous journalism is “integral to news gathering in a variety of settings and vital in some circumstances.” The description of the techniques of anonymous journalism given in (Blankenburg, 1992, pp. 11-12) indicates how common this practice currently is:

“The extent of anonymous attribution is substantial. In Time and Newsweek, about 80 percent of international stories were found to contain anonymous attribution. Another study found anonymous quotes in 33 percent of stories in a variety of newspapers.

“Anonymous attribution takes many shapes. Consider the possible combinations of the nouns “source,” “aide,” “observer,” “official” and “expert” with the modifiers “usually reliable,” “well-known,” “diplomatic” and “knowledgeable.” Sometimes identity is muffled by the passive voice: “It was learned today that . . . .”

“As Blankenburg puts it (p. 17), “Prohibitions fail because anonymity works.” This remark indicates how deeply entrenched anonymous attribution currently is in the media.”

“The use of anonymous sources is very dangerous, if conjoined with the tactic of innuendo exemplified in case 4. A proponent who wants to use innuendo against a respondent can report to the media (or anyone who will spread the rumor) that he has heard that proposition A is true, according to an anonymous source, where proposition A states that the respondent is a bad person (or says something unfavorable about the respondent). The proponent can even state that he himself does not believe that A is true, and if questioned would deny that A is true. But if the name of the accuser is not available to the third-party target audience of the innuendo, they can neither verify nor refute the claim made by the accuser that A is justified as an assertion. In effect the proponent has a license to spread gossip.”

We see something similar to a journalists use of “anonymous sources” in many (probably most) “governmental” affidavits that are “sworn to” by some governmental employee “based on information and belief”.

“Information and belief” are not direct personal knowledge. “Information and belief” are personal beliefs (propositions for arguments) based on reports from third parties (hearsay). So, when a police “officer,” bureaucrat or prosecutor makes some “affidavit” based on “information and belief,” they’re not making (swearing to) an affidavit of FACTS which they have personally observed. Instead, they are seemingly “testifying” to hearsay and personal beliefs rather than FACTS.

People are paying fines, losing property, going to prison—and sometimes even being executed—based on governmental employees’ “information and belief”—which is typically nothing more than an expression of personal belief, of propositions (not facts) on which arguments (rather than evidence) are based. So don’t suppose that mastering the concept of argument is esoteric or somehow relevant as only an intellectual exercise. Today, our courts turn on argument. Our political system turns on argument. Those who master argument can at least hope to cope with the current system. Those who are ignorant or argument can expect to be railroaded almost every time they confront the alleged “authorities”.

When charged with a crime, we have the right to face our “accusers”. I’ll bet part of the reason most “criminal matters” are now charged as “penal” (civil) offenses is to evade the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence and also to “face his accusers”.

Q. In the process of determining the validity of your claim against me, do you agree that will I have the right to face every person who make accusations against me? (The object of this question is to deprive the plaintiff of any presumed right to rely anonymous sources or innuendo arguments.)

I have a hunch that an attorney’s reliance on innuendo or other devices to evade the burden of proof might be construed as “barratry”. Perhaps a question could be drafted that used the language of barratry (or perhaps some violation of the attorney’s code of ethics) that could be used in conjunction with “innuendo” to indicate that any attorney who relied on innuendo would violate his code of ethics or the law on barratry:

Q. Do you understand that shifting the burden of proof from you to me would constitute [insert definition of “barratry” or some violation of the code of ethics]?

“IMPLICATURE AND INNUENDO

“Another method of evading the burden of proof is to have your respondent draw an unstated presumptive conclusion by Gricean implicature. In Gricean implicature (Grice, 1975, p. 67), participants in a conversational exchange (talk exchange) [pre-trial hearing?] recognize a common purpose or at least a “mutually accepted direction” which enables one participant to draw out an unstated or non explicitly stated conclusion from something said by the other. For example, suppose Professor Black is writing a letter of reference for a student, White, who has applied for an opening in a graduate school, and has asked Black to write a letter on his behalf. Black’s whole letter, in its entirety, reads as follows:

“Case 7:White is always punctual for class, is very attentive as a listener, and has pleasant manners. His spelling is very good.

“Here, Black has not said anything negative, at least explicitly. But it is what he does not say that is significant. Normally, in a letter of reference of this sort, one would expect praise of the student’s outstanding qualities of originality, excellent scholarship, promise for a bright future in the field, and so forth. Since Black mentions none of this, the reader wonders why, and draws the implicature that White is not a good candidate. The implicature is drawn because both parties (the reader and the writer) are aware of the purpose and normal expectations of the kind of talk exchange represented by a letter of recommendation for graduate school.”

I have a hunch that “implicature” may describe the mechanism whereby it’s presumed that the defendant is entering the court with the same “purposes” and “expectations” as the prosecution. If both sides have the same purposes and/or expectations, then various unstated but implied propositions can be advanced. I.e., “implicature” appears to be based on an unstated but presumed agreement between the parties (such as administering a particular trust relationship or perhaps agreeing that “STATE OF TEXAS” actually exists). But if the two sides have expressly different purposes, there may not be any implied agreement as to purpose or expectation and gov-co may therefore be precluded from advancing any implied propositions of “implicature”.

Q. What is your purpose of your proposed pre-trial hearing?

Q. What are your expectations for your proposed pre-trial hearing?

Q. Do you understand that my purposes for attending the proposed pre-trial hearing are to discover: 1) if you agree that I am a man made in our Father YHWH’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights; 2) if you agree that all of my conduct in relation to this matter was and is intentional; 3) if you understand that all of my conduct in relation to this matter took place on the soil within the boundaries of The State of Texas—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; 4) if you understand that I am a beneficiary of the Constitution of The State of Texas; 5) if you understand that I am acting AT ARM’S LENGTH at all times and places relative to the matter at hand; 6) etc. etc.. [My object in declaring my various purposes for attending a meeting, entering into discussion or even argument is to establish that my purposes (and “expectations”) are different from theirs. Insofar as we have different purposes/expectations, we cannot engage in “implicature”.]

Q. Do you understand that the entire process to resolve this matter will take place under the authority of The Constitution of The States of Texas?

“The use of implicature in case 7 is the basis of an innuendo. Because of normal conversational expectations about how a letter of reference is used as a type of communication, the reader draws a conclusion on the basis of what has not been stated in the letter. Again it is based on the principle of inference exemplified by the expression, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Since no mention is made by the writer of the important characteristics of a good candidate, the reader is suggested to operate on the presumption that the person cited in the letter may not be a good candidate. In making selections for graduate school entrants, the reader is being cautioned to have reservations about this particular candidate.

“From our point of view here, the tricky thing about implicature is that in many cases, like the one above, the conclusion of the inference has not been stated explicitly by the proponent. Here if he is questioned later, he has left open a route for plausible deniability. And it is difficult for anyone to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, or very definitely, that he has made a negative evaluation, or said—something negative about White.

“Apparently this sort of case has become a subject of controversy in recent years because there have been lawsuits by students to the effect that referees have prejudiced their chances by making remarks taken to be unfair or unwarranted by the student, once he has seen the letter. Thus if a referee finds herself in the position of having to write something, she may opt for a defensive strategy of avoiding saying anything that could be overtly construed as negative.

“The interesting thing about this type of case, from our point of view, is that it functions as a convenient device for evading burden of proof. It is possible to put forward a proposition without explicitly asserting it, in a talk exchange, by omitting to say it. Given the purpose and direction of the type of conversation, however, the respondent will read off the proposition as one the proponent is committed to, and means to advocate as something the respondent should accept (on the say so of the proponent) as well. But since the proposition in question has not been explicitly asserted by the proponent, he can later deny that he was committed to it, or that he was advocating it to the respondent. And there is no “black letter” textual evidence of assertion to back up any claim to the contrary.”

The previous text implies that one of a defendant’s objectives would be to find or create “black letter” textual evidence of the prosecutor’s/plaintiff’s assertions that were otherwise implied and prejudicial.

“The danger here is that implicature serves as the basis for innuendo. And innuendo has frequently been recognized in logic textbooks as either a fallacy or a source of sophistical argument. Damer (1980, p. 19) defines argument by innuendo as “directing one’s listeners to a particular, usually derogatory, conclusion, by a skillful choice of words, or careful arrangement of sentences, which implicitly suggest, but do not assert” a conclusion. Michalos (1970, p. 100), in a similar vein, defines the fallacy of creating doubts, as the spreading of false rumors designed to make people suspicious.”

I’m not sure what the “fallacy of creating doubts” is, but again, we see evidence that an effective allegation of “fallacy” may be enough to stop many determinations by the court or jury.

“Innuendo works as a device to shield off burden of proof by creating a presumption, by bringing forward an allegation based on no evidence but someone’s say so [“information and belief”], thus suggesting by implicature that since someone made the allegation there may be something in it (given that there is also no presently available evidence [facts] against it). Innuendo is not inherently fallacious but the dangers in it have been made clear above. The chief danger is the shielding off of the obligation to fulfill requirements of burden of proof by the devices cited above.”

Good point. Just because someone advances a conclusion based on innuendo (“information and belief” without evidence?) doesn’t mean that the conclusion is necessary false. Sometimes, there’s smoke but no fire—but sometimes there is.

Again, the fundamental issue is not simply the argument, but the fallacious conclusion. We have to be able to identify and prove as many fallacies as possible.

“CONCLUDING REMARKS

“The traditional concept of an argument centrally emphasized in both logic and speech communication is the kind of case where a speaker puts forward a set of premises to support a conclusion and (a) the speaker is committed to the conclusion, and to the premises, as propositions she accepts, and (b) the speaker has the goal of getting the respondent (audience) to accept the conclusion, by means of using the premises [not facts] as evidence.”

In other words, the object of argument is to substitute various premises for facts, and then argue that under these premises (like patriotism, duty to country, obligation to government, public safety, etc.) rather than facts in order to cause a certain conclusion (like finding someone guilty of an alleged offense) be adopted. The argument’s premises (beliefs) become a substitute for evidence (facts).

“In this central paradigm of what an argument is, the speaker is asserting the conclusion; and is offering the premises in fulfillment of the burden of backing up or justifying the conclusion (burden of proof).

“However, as we have seen, many of the subtle arguments associated with the traditional informal fallacies do not correspond to this central paradigm.

“Because these subtle arguments deviate from traditional argument does not, in itself, mean that these subtle arguments are fallacious. But seeing exactly how the deviations work has turned out to be very informative in helping us to understand how these fallacies involve deceptive tricks of persuasion that are commonly used in everyday argumentation.”

Deception can be a form of fraud. Deceptive arguments in a court could conceivably be construed as an attempt to “defraud the court”.

“Burden of proof is generally a reasonable requirement of an assertion made in a dialogue (conversation, talk exchange) where the purpose is to prove a proposition, or resolve a conflict of opinions by bringing evidence (or proof of some designated kind) to bear. However, when the argument does not take the form of an explicit assertion, but instead uses one or more of the techniques analyzed above, a deflecting shield to evade burden of proof is built in. It is a kind of anticipatory safeguard against possible critical questioning or demands for supporting evidence.

“Many problems remain to be resolved on the issue of whether innuendo is a distinct fallacy in its own right, and on the issue of whether the rumor that is the basis of the innuendo has to be false for a fallacy to be committed (in a given case). Our tentative assumption, based on the cases studied in this paper is that innuendo is not, in itself, fallacious. However, what we have seen is that several of the major fallacies depend for their plausibility as tactics of persuasion on innuendo, and are closely associated as fallacies with the use of techniques of innuendo to evade proper requirements of burden of proof.”

This has been a particularly long-winded and difficult article to both present and to understand. Nevertheless, my point is simple: We are beset by a judicial (and even political) system that is increasingly and even primarily based on argument rather than evidence. If you don’t understand the elements of argument, you won’t recognize when you are being railroaded by means of argument but without evidence.

On the other hand, if you begin to understand the elements of argument, you’ll be able to see and effectively challenge most of the system’s arguments. Once you can stop their arguments, they’ll have rely on evidence (facts) to which gov-co employees are often unable to testify. If they can’t introduce argument and they have no one to testify to any factual evidence, they may not be able to proceed against you.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,243
Location
Rocky Mountains
#75

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,243
Location
Rocky Mountains
#76
Snoop most likely agrees that Federal Reserve Money is money. S/he probably could post a law that states it - heck - a whole page of codes and statues even...

But here's a conundrum... The federal reserve note is... a note. A note is a sign of debt.

How does one payoff/retire a debt with a debt?



 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#77
Note also that within the courts, the words “motion” and “argument” are essentially synonymous. I.e., whenever an attorney makes a “motion,” he makes an “argument”. Every motion is an argument.
Sorry I jumped the rails on this one. "I wish to move the court." very important words when in an oral argument which is later backed up by a written motion which should have been already written.

now I am going to scroll back up and read all that stufff
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#78
copied all that stuff and printed.

have a friend that is getting hosed by these/them fuckers

He is now entertaining selling the property to the city

I told him they would low ball and then take what they fined him off of the top

fucking dammit: some ppl only see what it could cost and not what they can win.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
#79
Artimus said, "Oh, you want us to argue with you. Ahhh, no. Truth is argument is all you understand and is the lynchpin to your huge bucket of manure you liers capitolize on to make income/funding streams. Why do we want argument?"


Good Afternoon Arminius,

Thank you for your comments.

But respectfully, this is not so.

What I receive in response to my providing the truth here is argument.

But, I do not want argument..

Likewise, I do not want subject changes and dodges to the truth that I provide here either.

But, along with argument, that is what I actually receive in response to the truth that I provide here.

The title of this thread is "U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads".

That is the single subject to which my original two comments were directed (no dodging, no change of subject}.

That is why the real law that I originally quoted and provided links to here was directly on that particular legal point (no dodging, no
change of subject}.

I took this hoax ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads") straight on and I provided cut-and-paste quotes and links to the real law itself on this very legal subject (no dodging, no change of subject}.

But, not a single person on this thread bothered to read the quotes of the real law or click on the links to the real law that I provided in rebuttal to this hoax ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads").

Not a single person on this thread responded to the real law actually contained in my original comments with links to the real law that was on point in rebuttal.

Instead, with two exceptions explained below, all I received was argument, dodges and changes of subject.

Below is what I actually received in 'response" to my rebuttal of the hoax which is the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads").

1. a comment about a hat;

2. a question about whether a driver's license is required when not engaged in commerce, the very first question I answered in first few words of my original post above and my answer contained the actual quotes and the actual links to the real law on that very legal subject. But, this poster did not bother to read it and is therefore still completely in the dark about this subject.

3. a legally erroneous answer to that same question (about "driver's licenses" and "commerce") which answer, not surprisingly, did not contain a single link to the real law in support (because the real law refutes above that erroneous answer);

4. a comment about "sovereignty", not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads") with a quote and a link to the real law on that different subject of "sovereignty";

5. a definition of "driver" in an irrelevant dictionary which does not apply in any case and which has no force of law in any jurisdiction;

6. a comment about a DHS checkpoint, not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

7. a definition of "driver" in an irrelevant dictionary which does not apply in any case and which has no force of law in any jurisdiction;

8. a definition of "driver" in an irrelevant dictionary which does not apply in any case and which has no force of law in any jurisdiction;

7. a comment about shit;

8. a comment about shit;

9. a comment about being pulled over for faulty tail lights, not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads") ;

10. a comment about homemade license plates, not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

11. an essay beginning with a rhetorical question about, "What is law?", not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

12. a comment about "sovereignty", not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads") ;

13. a rhetorical question about what a person is if they are not "sovereign", not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

14. a comment about retardation;

15. a comment about Biblical ethics;

16. a comment containing the phrase, "no shit Sherlock";

17. questions about how the people of the state collectively (in the form of the state government) obtain jurisdiction over persons within their
own state borders;

18. TRYNEIN's request for a copy of real law, which I had already quoted and already provided links to in my two original posts on the very subject of this very thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

19. a comment to the effect that all governments are corporations, not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads"). ;

20. TRYNEIN's request for statutes in support of a legal subject which is governed largely by case law (called the "common law"), both of which I had already provided in my original comments ;

21. a comment about legal dictionaries, not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

22. a comment about definitions in legal dictionaries, not about the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads");

23. a claim in support of the "right to travel" hoax (which "right" legal amateurs confuse with the non-existent "right" to drive a motor vehicle without a license) and which hoax I had already debunked and provided quotes and links to the real law in my original posts (which this commenter did not bother to read).

24. TRYNEIN's fake quotes from real cases on other legal subjects (I realize that TRYNEIN did not write these fake quotes, Instead, he only got duped by them);

25. a comment about POS;

26. a cut-and-paste article written by amateur legal theorist, Roger Hayes describing an imaginary legal system and which article does not contain any quotes or links to the real law in support;

27. a complaint about the length of posts (no doubt referring to the article directly above and to some of my posts);

28. an admission about having to look up words found in comments to find their meaning;

29. a claim mischaracterizing my comment in an old "Judge DALE Hoax" thread wherein I actually said I would rather read the member's/poster's own words rather than read a cut-and-paste article reflecting the words of someone else. I myself personally wrote every single word in all of my comments (except when I was quoting the real law itself in support). So, unlike the person to which I wrote that comment on the old "Judge DALE Hoax" thread, my own cut-and-paste comments consist entirely of my own words, not the words of someone else.

30. a rhetorical question asking, "Am I traveling as a human or driving as a person?" (as if there is any legal difference) reflecting that the poster has not read the real law quoted above and to which real law I provided links in my original posts above.

31. a complaint about the very-large, brightly-colored letters in my "reward" post (not realizing that the one and only reason my "reward" post contains very-large, brightly-colored letters is that I cut-and-pasted them from an earlier post that I received from another member). Translation: Those were not my words or letters.

The fact that this particular poster only complains about bold text, very-large letters and brightly-colored letters if and only if they happen to appear in my posts (rather than in the posts of other members) speaks volumes about the sincerity of this poster's complaints in that regard. This particular poster obviously cannot find fault in the legal accuracy of the content of my comments (or he would have done so). So, he has instead become pathologically transfixed on something infinitely more important to him than the mere legal accuracy of the content of my comments, the type of the letter used.

To paraphrase something I often say, it does not matter whether the truth appears in bold letters, all that really matters is that it is the truth.
Let's keep our eye on the ball. This is the ball, "U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads". Let's focus on that, not on the type of letters used.

FACT: The one and only place to find the truth about the law is in the real law itself, not in the claims of amateur legal theorists. Disputes about the true status of the law can only be resolved by reading the real law itself (of the type I have quoted and provided links to above).

Note that other than myself, only two people on this entire thread that have provided links to the real law in support of their positions, Goldhedge and TRYNEIN. Goldhedge provided a single link to the real law itself on the subject of "sovereignty". (I have provided a long list of links to the real law in response). TRYNEIN posted three links to the real law, but the quotes that he attributed to that real law were fake.

My hat is off to Goldhedge and TRYNEIN for at least knowing that it takes real law to win a legal debate. Anything else cannot be used as a substitute for real law in a legal debate. Anything else is a complete waste of time and a "dodge" or "change of subject".

To repeat, I do not want argument. That is pointless and a waste of time and energy for all involved. I only posted the truth about the law here to expose the hoax which is the subject of this thread ("U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Roads"). I did this conclusively in my first two comments. If you will actually read the real law in those two comments, you will know everything you need to know about the real law on this particular subject.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited: