• "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
208
Likes
12
Goldhedge,

I am trying the find the speeding case (above) that you claim was "dismissed" on the basis of a "motion to dismiss" which was based entirely on amateur legal theories.

The "Motion To Dismiss" (above) to which you provided a link was purportedly written and filed by "Paul Staples' and purportedly filed in Milwaukee County. Wisconsin in 2004.

According to public record, the author of this "Motion To Dismiss" is likely to be "Paul David Staples" or "Paul D. Staples" of Rock County, Wisconsin who was born on 02-08-1969. (see below)

According to public record, Paul Staples has a long criminal and traffic history,

But, according to public record, he received no speeding ticket in 2004, much less a speeding ticket in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

Please help me locate the court order that you claim dismissed the case.

This would, of course, prove that you and Paul Staples are telling the truth about the dismissal and the reasons for the same.

Click on the first link below and key in "Paul Staples" and "02-08-1969".

Then, determine the appropriate case number and provide it to me.

I will do the rest.

Thanks.

To search for Paul Staples' case, click here.

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseSearchResults.html

(Note the absence of a speeding ticket in 2004, much less a speeding ticket in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. )

THIS MEANS THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS ABOVE IS ENTIRELY FAKE! IT NEVER GOT ANY CASE DISMISSED AT ANY TIME.

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2014TW000315&countyNo=53&index=0 (2014 Tax Warrant (likely child support))

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2013CF000263&countyNo=53&index=0&mode=details (2013 Manufacture/Delivery Oxycodone, Manufacture/Delivery Narcotics, Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia, several counts bail jumping)

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2012CF002728&countyNo=53&index=0&mode=details (2012 Battery, Disorderly Conduct/Dangerous Weapon/Handgun)

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2006CM001884&countyNo=53&index=0&mode=details (2006 Disorderly Conduct)

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2002CT000092&countyNo=28&index=0&mode=details (2002 Drriving While Itoxicated)

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2000CT000778&countyNo=53&index=0&mode=details (2000 Causing Accident And Injury While Intoxicated)

You post a lot of cut and paste garbage from charlatans like Eddie Craig and Paul Staples.


WHY NOT SIMPLY USE THE TOOLS I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU AND POST REAL LAW INSTEAD THE CLAIMS OF AMATEURS AND CHARLATANS?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
Goldhedge,

ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG AND THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX:

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

1). https://thefreethoughtproject.com/de...n-stop-script/ (in the TITLE of this fraudulent article).

2). http://freeinfreedom.com/2013/04/15/...t-you-to-know/ (in the TITLE of this fraudulent article).

3).http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/08/26/ff34/ (in the FIRST SENTENCE of this fraudulent article).

4. https://www.lawfulpath.com/index.php...pProcedure.php (in the SECOND SECTION containing the BLUE "Info Wars Nightly News" link).

5). http://randeastwood.com/pulled-over-...f-your-rights/ (in the SECOND PARAGRAPH).

6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMi...UTSbytYpXY8X6A (See the TITLE).

7). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004 (See the DESCRIPTION section BELOW THE TITLE.).

8). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZ14PFb7AQ (click on "SHOW MORE" for "Eddie Craig's background")

THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig claims that he is a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF”. But, this is not so.


THE TRUTH:
The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas, for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”. That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")! It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" for during which he claims he became an “EXPERT” on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes.



Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any "valuable inside knowledge" of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig's "EXPERIENCE" in his "CAREER" as a "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" and "DEPUTY SHERIFF".). He is a complete FRAUD and CHARLATAN.


OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What's more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some "expert".


HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST EDDIE CRAIG FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW:
ADVISING people what to say or do in the presence of law enforcement officers, judges and/or prosecutors (offering or providing "SCRIPTS", "TEMPLATES", oral "ADVICE") may constitute the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW in Texas. To file a COMPLAINT against Eddie Craig in Texas in connection with this illegal behavior, click here. http://www.txuplc.org/.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,582
Likes
6,241
Location
right here right now
The only illegal behavior here, and I might add moronic behavior, is from you, s4shit.

Since it's pretty obvious that you'll never grow up, and lies are the only way anyone else will believe your poor little stick, how much are they paying you to continue your lie-fest?

It's unbelievable how fricking stupid you are.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
I'll bet all the states have similar 'rules' of the road....

Texas Trans Code 201.904
"The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses)."
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
According to public record, Paul Staples has a long criminal and traffic history,

But, according to public record, he received no speeding ticket in 2004, much less a speeding ticket in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

Please help me locate the court order that you claim dismissed the case.
I realize you don't quite understand this, but the case wasn't just 'dismissed' but never recorded.

i.e., if there was a record of it, it would be evidence of fraud by the court. They don't allow that to ever happen.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
How to win your case by citing the rule of judicial admissions and abuse of discretion when opposing counsel fails to respond in writing to your verified pleadings in a court case and the judge refuses to dismiss the case.


When our governing officials act to dismiss the right of due process and defraud us of honest justice in accordance with the law as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore constitutional and legal duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers. Respondent refuses to allow ResHis/Her individual rights to be undermined and treaded upon in this manner, especially by those whose sworn duty it is to protect Respondent in their free exercise and enjoyment thereof.

“A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. See Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 1991) (trial court abused discretion by misinterpreting Code of Judicial Conduct); NCNB Texas National Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.1989) (trial court abused discretion by failing to apply proper legal standard to motion to disqualify counsel); Eanes ISD v. Logue, 712 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1986) (trial court abused discretion by erroneously finding constitutional violation).” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)

A. Standard of Review

An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss a claim under section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for an abuse of discretion. See Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (discussing former article 4590i); Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Tex.2001) (discussing former article 4590i). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding rules or principles. See Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P., 189 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (discussing section 74.351) (citing see Garcia v. Martinez, 988 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.1999)). When reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992)). A trial court does not abuse its discretion merely because it decides a discretionary matter differently than an appellate court would under similar circumstances. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing see Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 *445 (Tex.1985)). However, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion. See id.” Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.

Respondent demands that the court take judicial notice that the Prosecution in the instant matter have failed or refused to respond and address any of the written pleadings Respondent has filed with this court. When opposing counsel fails to respond to written pleadings containing points and argument of law as submitted by the other party, then those points and arguments become conclusively established judicial admissions of fact requiring no further presentation of facts or evidence in support, and opposing counsel may not attempt to later argue that those facts are incorrect or inadmissible:

"Assertions of fact, not pled in the alternative, in the live pleadings of a party are regarded as formal judicial admissions. Any fact admitted is conclusively established in the case without the introduction of the pleadings or presentation of other evidence." Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex.1983) citing Kirk v. Head, 137 Tex. 44, 152 S.W.2d 726 (1941); 1A R. Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 1144 (Texas Practice 3d ed. 1980).

"A judicial admission is a formal waiver of proof that dispenses with the production of evidence on an issue. Lee v. Lee, 43 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). A judicially admitted fact is established as a matter of law, and the admitting party may not dispute it or introduce evidence contrary to it. Id.; Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, writ dism'd). This rule is based on the public policy that it would be absurd and manifestly unjust to permit a party to recover after he has sworn himself out of court by a clear and unequivocal statement. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carr, 242 S.W.2d 224, 229 (Tex.Civ. App.-San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd); Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641; Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d at 374. Five conditions must have occurred for a party's admission to be conclusive against him: (1) the declaration relied upon must have been made in the course of a judicial proceeding; (2) the declaration was contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of recovery or defense asserted by the party; (3) the statement was deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; (4) giving conclusive effect to the declaration would not run contrary to public policy; and (5) the declaration related to a fact upon which a judgment for the opposing party was based. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 242 S.W.2d at 229; Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641-42." Peck v. Peck, 172 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied);
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
I realize you don't quite understand this, but the case wasn't just 'dismissed' but never recorded.

i.e., if there was a record of it, it would evidence fraud by the court. They don't allow that to ever happen.
Goldhedge,

1. YOUR COMMENT: the case wasn't just 'dismissed' but never recorded.

RESPONSE:
a). How in hell do you know that the case was never recorded? Got facts?


b). If the case was never recorded, then how in hell do you know that the case was ever dismissed? Got facts? Got a copy of the judge's Dismissal that was never recorded?

c). Did the police also destroy the CARBON COPY of the original, hand-written, sequentially-numbered speeding ticket they issued to Paul Staples?

d). Did the prosecutor also destroy all of his/her OWN FILES, including his/her OWN COPIES of the Motion To Dismiss and the judge's Dismissal of the case?

2. YOUR COMMENT: it would be evidence of fraud by the court.

RESPONSE:
a). What kind of fraud can a judge commit BY ACTUALLY "DISMISSING" THE STATE'S CASE against Paul Staples?


b). If the judge was really committing fraud, WOULDN'T THE JUDGE HAVE "DENIED" THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND TAKEN THE STATE'S SIDE against Paul Staples (instead of THE JUDGE GRANTNG THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND TAKING PAUL STAPLES' SIDE AGAINST THE STATE)?

CONCLUSION:
Nobody is really fooled by the "never recorded" or by the "fraud by the court" story.


The reality is that the Motion To Dismiss to which you provided a link is nothing by pure, non-law, amateur, legal-gibberish, non-sense which cannot result in a dismissal of any case. (Only REAL law can do that.).

So, even if the subject Motion To Dismiss was ever filed, and it was not, it NEVER resulted in a dismissal of any case, any where, at any time.

That is the truth.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
How to win your case by citing the rule of judicial admissions and abuse of discretion when opposing counsel fails to respond in writing to your verified pleadings in a court case and the judge refuses to dismiss the case.


When our governing officials act to dismiss the right of due process and defraud us of honest justice in accordance with the law as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore constitutional and legal duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers. Respondent refuses to allow ResHis/Her individual rights to be undermined and treaded upon in this manner, especially by those whose sworn duty it is to protect Respondent in their free exercise and enjoyment thereof.

“A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. See Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 1991) (trial court abused discretion by misinterpreting Code of Judicial Conduct); NCNB Texas National Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.1989) (trial court abused discretion by failing to apply proper legal standard to motion to disqualify counsel); Eanes ISD v. Logue, 712 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1986) (trial court abused discretion by erroneously finding constitutional violation).” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)

A. Standard of Review

An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss a claim under section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for an abuse of discretion. See Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (discussing former article 4590i); Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Tex.2001) (discussing former article 4590i). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding rules or principles. See Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P., 189 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (discussing section 74.351) (citing see Garcia v. Martinez, 988 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.1999)). When reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992)). A trial court does not abuse its discretion merely because it decides a discretionary matter differently than an appellate court would under similar circumstances. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing see Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 *445 (Tex.1985)). However, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion. See id.” Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.

Respondent demands that the court take judicial notice that the Prosecution in the instant matter have failed or refused to respond and address any of the written pleadings Respondent has filed with this court. When opposing counsel fails to respond to written pleadings containing points and argument of law as submitted by the other party, then those points and arguments become conclusively established judicial admissions of fact requiring no further presentation of facts or evidence in support, and opposing counsel may not attempt to later argue that those facts are incorrect or inadmissible:

"Assertions of fact, not pled in the alternative, in the live pleadings of a party are regarded as formal judicial admissions. Any fact admitted is conclusively established in the case without the introduction of the pleadings or presentation of other evidence." Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex.1983) citing Kirk v. Head, 137 Tex. 44, 152 S.W.2d 726 (1941); 1A R. Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 1144 (Texas Practice 3d ed. 1980).

"A judicial admission is a formal waiver of proof that dispenses with the production of evidence on an issue. Lee v. Lee, 43 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). A judicially admitted fact is established as a matter of law, and the admitting party may not dispute it or introduce evidence contrary to it. Id.; Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, writ dism'd). This rule is based on the public policy that it would be absurd and manifestly unjust to permit a party to recover after he has sworn himself out of court by a clear and unequivocal statement. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carr, 242 S.W.2d 224, 229 (Tex.Civ. App.-San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd); Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641; Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d at 374. Five conditions must have occurred for a party's admission to be conclusive against him: (1) the declaration relied upon must have been made in the course of a judicial proceeding; (2) the declaration was contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of recovery or defense asserted by the party; (3) the statement was deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; (4) giving conclusive effect to the declaration would not run contrary to public policy; and (5) the declaration related to a fact upon which a judgment for the opposing party was based. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 242 S.W.2d at 229; Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641-42." Peck v. Peck, 172 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied);
Goldhedge,

You now know the truth about Eddie Craig. You now know he is a charlatan and a fraud. You now know he was NEVER a "deputy sheriff". You now know he has deliberately and intentionally lied to you and the rest of the American people. Despite knowing all of this, you continue to post his amateur garbage on this thread. Why? Does the term, "Stockholm Syndrome", mean anything to you?


Why not post a case you find using the tools that I have provided to you?
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
Service of Process
Admiralty

Jurisdiction: Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is part of the judicial power conferred upon the courts of the United States by the Constitution which provides "[t]he judicial power shall extend . . . to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" (Article III, Section 2). Subject to specific statutes, the authority of a district court is generally limited to the geographical limits of the district, including the territorial waters bordering the district (a distance of approximately 3 miles offshore Band approximately 9 miles on the Gulf coast of Florida and Texas). However, bodies of water that are wholly located within a single state and are not navigable nor used in interstate or foreign commerce would not be included in the admiralty jurisdiction. In short, admiralty in rem jurisdiction of the federal court and the USMS authority to arrest vessels is limited to vessels and/or cargo physically within the territorial jurisdictional authority of the district.

U.S. Marshal's Authority The USMS becomes involved in admiralty matters by carrying out orders of the federal courts (28 USC 566) as well as mandates found in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

Types of Maritime Actions: There are three types of maritime actions: in rem, quasi in rem and in personam.

Proceedings In Rem: In rem actions are brought to enforce any maritime lien, which is a right against a particular vessel, her engines, boilers, appurtenances, furnishings, fittings, etc., her bunkers, or cargo involved directly in the incident. The action could have stemmed from a ship mortgage, repairs, the supplying of necessaries, crew wages, collision liability, loss of or damage to cargo, bodily injury, salvage, wrongful death, or in accordance with authority granted under an applicable statute including some types of forfeiture actions. Execution of a Warrant of Arrest of the vessel or cargo in admiralty cases is necessary to acquire jurisdiction in an in rem action. An in rem suit in an admiralty action must be started in the district where the vessel or cargo or tangible property is located [Supplemental Rule C(2)(c) and E(3)(a)]. However, if the vessel or cargo or tangible property cannot be found or located therein, then the complaint may be filed in any district of the United States and the allegation made that it is expected within the district within the pendency of the action. The court will not acquire admiralty jurisdiction until the vessel or cargo or tangible property is actually arrested within that district or dependent on the facts,the parties otherwise agree to jurisdiction.

Quasi In Rem: The Writ of Maritime Attachment (sometimes referred to as the Writ of Foreign Attachment) and/or Garnishment is used to acquire personal jurisdiction, to the extent of the value of the property seized, over a defendant not found in the district (not being physically present therein for purposes of service as opposed to doing business in the district) and also acts as security for any judgment that might be obtained in the action. This section should be followed for the protection, maintenance, and upkeep of that property. When process in rem or of maritime attachment or garnishment has been issued, the vessel may be seized only in the district issuing the process [Supplemental Rule E(3)(a)]. Unless otherwise authorized by statute, a U.S. Marshal may not arrest, attach, or garnish property outside the territorial jurisdiction of his or her district [Supplemental Rule E(3)(a)].

In Personam: In personam actions are proceedings against a person or persons (e.g., the owner or owners of a vessel). An action in personam is used to secure a judgment against the person rather than against the vessel or other property involved in the incident. Often an action will be brought both in personam and in rem.

GENERAL Procedures: Upon authorization of the court or the clerk, the clerk will issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action or will issue a Writ of Maritime Attachment or Garnishment and deliver it to the U.S. Marshal for service. There are basic procedures that should be reviewed and followed in order to achieve the arrest, attachment, or garnishment.

Although the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims authorize persons or organizations other than the U.S. Marshal to be named by the court to execute the warrant of arrest, or writ of attachment or garnishment, seizure of a vessel and tangible property on a vessel remain exclusively the task of the U.S. Marshals Service.

Seizure of other tangible or intangible property can now properly be undertaken by other persons or organizations if named by the court in the warrant of arrest, writ of attachment, or garnishment. In addition, many districts have local rules pertaining to admiralty procedures and these must be followed where applicable. You are advised to contact the appropriate local U.S. Marshals office for guidance.

Note: The information related to the service of court process that is contained on this web site is general information and not intended to be an exhaustive or definitive explanation or depiction of Federal rules of procedures for the service of process. Readers are directed to the Federal Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure; personal legal counsel; the United States Code, Titles 18 and 28; their local U.S. Attorney's Office and District Court for specific, authoritative guidance.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/process/...MtBSxQUFfLaiAsQjjzNjhPix4-c_NmPwhTint4zGrfXPg
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
I'll bet all the states have similar 'rules' of the road....

Texas Trans Code 201.904
"The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses)."
Goldhedge,

You are correct. For safety reasons, every state requires such vehicles TO GO SLOWER THAN ORDINARY FAMILY VEHICLES. So, for safety reasons, every state has a SECOND speed limit for such vehicles (WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO ORDINARY FAMILY VEHICLES).

Do you think that it is a good idea that an 80,000 pound, fully-loaded semi tractor trailer go slower on the highways (around sharp curves and up and down steep mountain grades, over snow and rain covered roads, through busy intersections and through school zones) than a 2,000 family car?

Do you think that it is a good idea that buses loaded with 80 school kids or 80 passengers go slower on the highways (around sharp curves, up and down steep mountain grades, over snow and rain covered roads, through busy intersections and through school zones) than a 2,000 family car?

How is this a scandal?

Did you mistakenly believe that states ONLY HAD ONE SPEED LIMIT and that it only applied to such vehicles (so that those of us with family vehicles could lawfully drive at 120 miles per hour without breaking the law)?

That's hilarious!

I love it.
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
You missed the obvious COMMERCIAL reference.

Texas Trans Code 201.904​
"The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses)."​

I am not for hire and I'm not making a profit travelling, therefore, not subject to the commercial rules of the road. All the rules of the road are 'commercial'. Does that argue one shouldn't follow the commercial rules of the road? No. Only a fool would endanger themselves and others by disregarding sensible rules. One doesn't need a driver's license to do that!


Also, for a crime to have been committed there needs to be an injured party. No injury, no crime.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,032
Likes
6,281
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
You missed the obvious COMMERCIAL reference.

Texas Trans Code 201.904​
"The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses)."​

I am not for hire and I'm not making a profit travelling, therefore, not subject to the commercial rules of the road. All the rules of the road are 'commercial'. Does that argue one shouldn't follow the commercial rules of the road? No. Only a fool would endanger themselves and others by disregarding sensible rules. One doesn't need a driver's license to do that!


Also, for a crime to have been committed there needs to be an injured party. No injury, no crime.
Goldhedge,

1. YOUR COMMENT: You missed the obvious COMMERCIAL reference. Texas Trans Code 201.904."The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses)."​
RESPONSE: Not so. I did not miss the COMMERCIAL reference. This is what I said.
"For safety reasons, every state requires "SUCH VEHICLES" TO GO SLOWER THAN ORDINARY FAMILY VEHICLES. So, for safety reasons, every state has a SECOND speed limit for "SUCH VEHCILES" (WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO ORDINARY FAMILY VEHICLES).
The term "SUCH VEHCILES" specifically refers to and includes "COMMERCIAL motor vehicles" and "motor vehicles engaged IN THE BUSINESS of transporting passengers for compensation FOR HIRE"
And, just so that you know, "an 80,000 pound, FULLY LOADED semi tractor trailer" IS A "COMMERCIAL motor vehicle".
Likewise a BUS LOADED WITH ... 80 PASSENGERS IS A vehicle engaged IN THE BUSINESS of transporting PASSENGERS for COMPENSATION or HIRE (BUSES).
Any questions?
2. YOUR COMMENT: I am not for hire and I'm not making a profit travelling, therefore, not subject to the commercial rules of the road.
RESPONSE: Correct. Statutes that apply only to COMMERCIAL VEHICLES DO NOT APPLY TO NON-COMMERCIAL vehicles. For example, "every state has a SECOND speed limit FOR "SUCH VEHICLES" (WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO ORDINARY FAMILY VEHICLES).
All the rules of the road are 'commercial'.
RESPONSE: NOT SO. THERE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES OF THE ROAD (COUNT THEM, 2 DIFFERENT TYPES). One set of rules apply to commercial vehicles. THE OTHER SET OF RULES APPLY TO NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. The fact that one set of rules applies only to one type of vehicles DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHER SET OF RULES DO NOT APPLY TO THE OTHER TYPE OF VEHICLES.
3. Does that argue one shouldn't follow the commercial rules of the road? No.
RESPONSE: ONLY THOSE WHO DRIVE COMMERCIAL VEHCILES SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD THAT APPLY ONLY TO COMMERCIAL VEHCILES. ONLY THOSE WHO DRIVE NON-COMMMERCAIL VEHCILES SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD THAT APPLY ONLY TO NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.
4. YOUR COMMENT: Only a fool would endanger themselves and others by disregarding sensible rules.
RESPONSE: Agreed. But, you are not the party who determines what these sensible rules are. THE LAWMAKERS ELECTED BY "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE THE ONES THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" HAVE EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHAT A SENSIBLE RULE IS. THOSE SENSIBLE RULES ARE CALLED "STATUTES".
5. One doesn't need a driver's license to do that!
RESPONSE: Agreed. One ONLY needs a driver's license TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE (not to determine what is sensible and what is not a sensible rule). FEDERAL law requires those engaged in interstate commerce to have a driver's license. STATE law requires those NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE. EITHER WAY, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.
Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,582
Likes
6,241
Location
right here right now
EITHER WAY, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.
Again total bullshit. It is a unconstitutional forcing, pertpetuated by greedy morons who use so called law as their personal cash registers. And only a greedy moron would try to tell anyone that they MUST REGISTER.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
Again total bullshit. It is a unconstitutional forcing, perpetuated by greedy morons who use so called law as their personal cash registers. And only a greedy moron would try to tell anyone that they MUST REGISTER.
Hello Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: Again total bullshit. It is a unconstitutional forcing, perpetuated by greedy morons who use so called law as their personal cash registers. And only a greedy moron would try to tell anyone that they MUST REGISTER

RESPONSE: Below is what the greedy morons on the Supreme Court Of The United States said about this very subject over a century ago. CLICK HERE, AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE 8TH PARAGRAPH AT ABOUT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.

In this case, a motorist claimed it was unconstitutional for the state to require him to register his motor vehicle. But, the Supreme Court Of The United States held otherwise and wrote,

"[A] STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES — those moving IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE as well as others [NOT MOVING IN ITERSTATE COMMERCE]. And to this end it [The State] MAY REQUIRE THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH MOTOR VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVER'S, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines — a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment] and [is] essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens... ."

These words are the SUPREME LAW in every state in the United States. So, if you find any law that you interpret as prohibiting the states from requiring REGISTRATION "OF ALL MOTOR VEHCILES", and DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR DRIVERS OF " ALL MOTOR VEHCILES", then you have interpreted that case wrong.

WHAT PART OF "ALL MOTOR VEHICLES" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF "MAY REQUIRE THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH ["ALL"] MOTOR VEHICLES" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF "MAY REQUIRE... THE LICENSING OF THEIR ["ALL MOTOR VEHICLES'"] DRIVERS" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

WHAT PART OF "THIS is but an exercise of the POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?


Any questions?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
You missed the obvious COMMERCIAL reference.

Texas Trans Code 201.904​
"The department shall erect and maintain on the highways and roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, and motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses)."​

I am not for hire and I'm not making a profit travelling, therefore, not subject to the commercial rules of the road. All the rules of the road are 'commercial'. Does that argue one shouldn't follow the commercial rules of the road? No. Only a fool would endanger themselves and others by disregarding sensible rules. One doesn't need a driver's license to do that!


Also, for a crime to have been committed there needs to be an injured party. No injury, no crime.
Goldhedge,

YOUR COMMENT: I am not for hire and I'm not making a profit travelling, therefore, not subject to the commercial rules of the road. All the rules of the road are 'commercial'. Does that argue one shouldn't follow the commercial rules of the road? No. Only a fool would endanger themselves and others by disregarding sensible rules. One doesn't need a driver's license to do that!

RESPONSE: The amateurs below said exactly what you just said above. See how it turned out for them below.

The black words at the top of every case (below) are what the amateur said. The red words in every case below is what the court said in response.

COMMERCE:

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 '[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. [The word,] '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.

THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

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.). 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".

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.

This is the real law (not some garbage written by a delusional, amateur charlatan like Rod Class, Eddie Craig or Karl Lentz).

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
That's correct. I do not stand under any of your lies and bullshit.
Arminius,

I apologize.


WHAT PART OF "ALL MOTOR VEHICLES" DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

WHAT PART OF "MAY REQUIRE THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH ["ALL"] MOTOR VEHICLES" DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?


WHAT PART OF "MAY REQUIRE... THE LICENSING OF THEIR ["ALL MOTOR VEHICLES'"] DRIVERS" DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

WHAT PART OF "THIS is but an exercise of the POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]" DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?


Any questions?
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,086
Likes
30,225
Location
third cove on the right
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
BIG question: "Do you understand charter law, yet?"

Oh and tell me all about the degrees of arrest plz.
Michael59,

YOUR COMMENT: "Do you understand charter law, yet?"
RESPONSE: It depends on how you define "charter law". Which charters do you include in your definition of charter law?

YOUR COMMENT: Oh and tell me all about the degrees of arrest.
RESPONSE: None. There are no different degrees of an arrest. Either you are legally arrested or you are not. But, your calling all STOPS and all DETENTIONS an "ARREST" will not make it so.

The Difference Between A Stop, A Detention And An Arrest
The differences between a detention and an arrest are important because your rights change drastically from one to the other. In a detention, the police only need reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone. Reasonable suspicion means that there were objectively reasonable circumstances to suspect that the detained individual was involved in, or was about to be involved in a crime.

Common Reasons for Detention
In a typical detention scenario, law enforcement officers will temporarily stop a person in a public place without transporting the person to another location, for the purpose of (1) requiring the person to justify his presence and activity in the location and (2) to identify himself. For example, if the police see a man loitering or otherwise acting suspicious around an area of town that is known for drug sales, they may detain him for further questioning. If while detaining him, the police have reasonable suspicion that he may be dangerous, the stop may be accompanied by a “patdown” search for weapons. This does not mean that the police can immediately reach into pockets or search a bag without permission. However, if the police feel a “bulge” that they believe could be a weapon, they may reach in to grab it in order to protect themselves.

Other legal methods of searching during a detention include using a metal detector, a drug-sniffing dog, or a computer search to determine if the individual has any outstanding warrants for their arrest. A detention stop enables law enforcement officers, with minimal upset to public tranquility and intrusion into personal rights, to determine whether they should arrest a suspect, investigate further, or take no action because their initial suspicion proved groundless. Further, because the intrusion into personal rights is minimal in a detention, the police do not have to inform an individual of their rights or give Miranda warnings.

When Detention Leads to Arrest
To arrest an individual, law enforcement officers need probable cause. An arrest is characterized by the idea that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the actions of the law enforcement officers. This usually means that the officers take the individual into custody. Custody can mean a number of things. An individual may be taken into custody by driving them back to the police station. However, courts have also held custody to mean any situation in which an individual reasonably believes that they will not be able to leave within a short period of time. A law enforcement officer has probable cause to make an arrest when there are objective circumstances that lead a reasonable officer to believe that there is a high probability or substantial chance that the individual has been involved in, or will be involved in, criminal activity.

Once an arrest has occurred, before any questions are asked, law enforcement officers must provide Miranda warnings to the suspect. Miranda warnings advise a suspect of his rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney provided by the state if unable to afford one. If no questions are asked, other than questions to determine basic biographical information such as name and address, the warnings need not be given. Following an arrest, law enforcement will have more leeway to search an individual or their surroundings than they do during a detention. This is because the level of suspicion has risen from reasonable suspicion to probable cause and the individual has been advised of their rights.

Incident to an arrest, the police have the right to search any area that, through inference, they believe may hold evidence of criminal activity. For example, when the police make a traffic stop and see drugs on the floor of the car, they will have probable cause to arrest an individual. Following this arrest, the police may search the person, including reaching into his pockets or bag. Further, if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, a search is authorized in any area of the vehicle in which the evidence may be found. The right to search an individual and their surroundings is limited, however, even after an arrest. For example, after arresting an individual following a traffic stop and searching their car, the police do not have the automatic right to then go to the individual’s home or place of employment and search those areas. If the police want to search these places, they must obtain a warrant.

Understanding Your Rights During Detention or Arrest
As a law enforcement officer’s level of suspicion rises, a detention and an arrest can often happen consecutively. Because a detention can turn into an arrest rather quickly, an individual may not know what their rights are at different stages of the detention and arrest. Further, police will often make an individual feel as though they cannot say no to a search, even when they can. If law enforcement makes an illegal search during a detention which leads to an arrest, or if there is a search incident to arrest when the arrest was made without probable cause, the fruits of these illegal searches can be suppressed at trial. If you have recently been arrested and or searched, you should discuss your case with a criminal attorney to make sure your rights are

I hope this helps.

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
Goldhedge,

TWO DIFFERENT FLAGS
1, Got an ACTUAL CASE that says we have two entirely different flags, one for peace and one for war, and that the standard American flag is a flag of war?

2. Got an actual FEDERAL STATUTE or RULE or MILITARY REGULATION or EXECUTIVE ORDER that says we have two entirely different flags, one for peace and one for war, and that the standard American flag is a flag of war?

SIGNIFICANCE OF TWO DIFFERENT FLAGS?
3. Got an ACTUAL CASE that explains what difference this would make in terms of the laws and the justice system of "We the People" ?

4. Got an actual FEDERAL STATUTE that explains what difference this would make in terms of the laws and the justice system of "We the People" ?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,032
Likes
6,281
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
YOUR COMMENT: "Do you understand charter law, yet?"
RESPONSE: It depends on how you define "charter law". Which charters do you include in your definition of charter law?
YOU are a DUFFUS. yep that's as far as I made it. you wants again missed the boat as you were stepping off the dock.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
YOU are a DUFFUS. yep that's as far as I made it. you wants again missed the boat as you were stepping off the dock.
Michael59,

That's OK. I did not really expect you to be capable of defining your own term or naming the alleged charters you contend govern us all.

The truth is simply this. Statewide and nationwide, THERE ARE THREE (AND ONLY THREE) TYPES OF LAW.

1. Constitutional law which is written by Constitutional delegates;
2. Statutes which are written by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" to write our statutes;
3, Case law which is written by appellate judges ELECTED by "We the People" to write our case law (or case law which is written by appellate judges appointed by those ELECTED by "We the People" to make such appointments).


Statewide and nationwide, NOTHING ELSE HAS THE FORCE OF LAW.

The United States Constitution supplanted the old Articles Of Confederation which supplanted the Magna Carta. So, to the extent the old Articles Of Confederation and the Magna Carta were "charters", they no longer apply and, therefore, no longer govern anything in the United States.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,032
Likes
6,281
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Look you either understand or you do not and yes it is that simple. You chose to call yourself a man in a previous post but you argue like a woman. The thing of it is, is when confronted with an old case law ie. something that was defined while our GGGfuckinggrandadies were casting sperm you yourself want to wonder around in a circle looking for your tail insinuating that some one else is devoid of thinking.

Like I keep saying I quit at your half truths....

You know I am going to go out on a limb here and if you are actually a man then YOU are the reason Women cannot back up their cars........SORRY everones…..shit I just had 2
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
View attachment 116860

and then lawyers were invented.... to take it all away

Goldhedge,

1. and then lawyers were invented.... to take it all away
RESPONSE: The Constitution was written by lawyers. That's right. Thirty three of the fifty five delegates who actually wrote the words of the Constitution were lawyers. Judge Napolitano (above) was also a lawyer before becoming a judge. We love the Constitution.

You are demonizing the wrong people. You should be demonizing the charlatans who have lied to you about the law.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
I think I know why: Because all charters/constitutions are void of law merchant or merchant law. Think about it because it makes sense. Now as far as the save the trees, save the veterans and all that other puwakey crap they have piled on in them it would seem to not be true statement anymore.

I am still puzzling out my statement but I stand by the fact that common law is a charter and code and statutes are law merchant. I know every one likes to think that common law is of old and yes it is BUT it has been polluted with merchant law; sad. So it therefore follows that all statues/code/rules/policy ectera…….and on are delved in law merchant or equity.
Michael59,

YOUR COMMENT: I am still puzzling out my statement but I stand by the fact that COMMON LAW IS A CHARTER
RESPONSE: How can "COMMON LAW BE A CHARTER" when COMMON LAW is simply case law (NEW and old)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/common-law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

YOUR COMMENT: and code and statutes are law merchant.
RESPONSE: In the real legal system, statutes are simply laws passed lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People". In the real legal system, codes are all of the current statutes of a jurisdiction organized by category so that all of the current statutes on the same subject are organized together (to make researching a particular subject easier).


In the real legal system, the real merchant law is not evil. This is because in the real legal system, real merchant law has no application to people, to criminal law, to traffic law or fines, etc. Instead, in the real legal system, real merchant law IS CONFINED to the sale and transfer of real merchandise between merchants.

YOUR COMMENT: I know every one likes to think that common law is of old and yes it is BUT it has been polluted with merchant law; sad.
RESPONSE: IF YOU ARE NOT A MERCHANT BUYING AND SELLING MERCHANDISE, WHY ARE YOU SO CONCERNED
ABOUT POLLUTION OF AN AREA OF THE COMMON LAW THAT CAN NEVER POSSIBLY APPLY TO YOU (IN THE REAL WORLD)?



DO YOU PITY THE MERCHANTS?
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,032
Likes
6,281
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: I am still puzzling out my statement but I stand by the fact that COMMON LAW IS A CHARTER
RESPONSE: How can "COMMON LAW BE A CHARTER" when COMMON LAW is simply case law (NEW and old)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/common-law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

YOUR COMMENT: and code and statutes are law merchant.
RESPONSE: In the real legal system, statutes are simply laws passed lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People". In the real legal system, codes are all of the current statutes of a jurisdiction organized by category so that all of the current statutes on the same subject are organized together (to make researching a particular subject easier).


In the real legal system, the real merchant law is not evil. This is because in the real legal system, real merchant law has no application to people, to criminal law, to traffic law or fines, etc. Instead, in the real legal system, real merchant law IS CONFINED to the sale and transfer of real merchandise between merchants.

YOUR COMMENT: I know every one likes to think that common law is of old and yes it is BUT it has been polluted with merchant law; sad.
RESPONSE: IF YOU ARE NOT A MERCHANT BUYING AND SELLING MERCHANDISE, WHY ARE YOU SO CONCERNED
ABOUT POLLUTION OF AN AREA OF THE COMMON LAW THAT CAN NEVER POSSIBLE APPLY TO YOU?



DO YOU PITY THE MERCHANTS?
IDK what ur smoking but I think it is interfering with your meds there s4t. You know I am kind of concerned about your mental spatial relationship you exhibited in quoting me and replying to Arminius.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,582
Likes
6,241
Location
right here right now
Truth is he doesn't have a clue of any of what he is spewing forth on here.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,565
Likes
34,426
Location
Qmerica
Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: I am still puzzling out my statement but I stand by the fact that COMMON LAW IS A CHARTER
RESPONSE: How can "COMMON LAW BE A CHARTER" when COMMON LAW is simply case law (NEW and old)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/common-law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

YOUR COMMENT: and code and statutes are law merchant.
RESPONSE: In the real legal system, statutes are simply laws passed lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People". In the real legal system, codes are all of the current statutes of a jurisdiction organized by category so that all of the current statutes on the same subject are organized together (to make researching a particular subject easier).


In the real legal system, the real merchant law is not evil. This is because in the real legal system, real merchant law has no application to people, to criminal law, to traffic law or fines, etc. Instead, in the real legal system, real merchant law IS CONFINED to the sale and transfer of real merchandise between merchants.

YOUR COMMENT: I know every one likes to think that common law is of old and yes it is BUT it has been polluted with merchant law; sad.
RESPONSE: IF YOU ARE NOT A MERCHANT BUYING AND SELLING MERCHANDISE, WHY ARE YOU SO CONCERNED
ABOUT POLLUTION OF AN AREA OF THE COMMON LAW THAT CAN NEVER POSSIBLE APPLY TO YOU?



DO YOU PITY THE MERCHANTS?
You're a real tool.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
Truth is he doesn't have a clue of any of what he is spewing forth on here.
Arminius,

I am the first to admit I do not know everything about amateur legal theory.

It varies depending on who is making it up at the time.

I am only an expert in the real law that is actually used by courts, governments and the entire rest of the world except by amateur

legal theorists.

I realize that the real law is inconsistent with amateur legal theory.

And, what I spew forth is the actual real law itself.

Even if I didn't have a clue, the appellate judges who write the decisions to which I have provided you with links do have a clue.

My information about the law comes directly from them.

I do not mindlessly parrot the claims of amateur legal theorists.

That is not the law.

Instead, I quote the real law and I provide actual links to my source in the real law for those amateurs who doubt me.

In the real world, it is amateur legal theorists who do not have a clue.

Just ask Rod Class, Karl Lentz and Eddie Craig, none of whom have won a case in their entire lives.


Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,582
Likes
6,241
Location
right here right now
The only thing you provide here is legal moronism. None of what you vomit is real law, it's all made up crap used by legal morons like yourself to provide yourself a good living on the backs of the population. A parasite is all you, and your fellow shysters are.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
208
Likes
12
United States Corporate Statutes vs Laws of the Land:

Internal Corporate Restrictive Firearms Statutes as found in U.S. Codes and State Statutes are enacted for Gov’t employees to abide by while they are on the clock so they cannot over power, with Arms, the American People while performing their jobs as ‘public servants’. Statutes are enacted to help run gov’t more efficiently and to keep restrictions on Gov’t employees, not the average American. Because of collective ignorance of the Law; the public fool system, and the gov’t owned media, they have used THEIR OWN internal statutes that are ONLY MEANT FOR THEM to control the rest of us and keep us equipped with less firepower than they themselves have available to secretly and overtly overthrow the American People without a single shot fired.

They add restrictive firearms statutes to THEIR CODES on a daily basis because they have hoodwinked us into believing the internal rules of their corporation, for their own employees that Obama is the CEO of, apply to you an I. We keep abiding by THEIR INTERNAL STATUTES because we’ve never been taught the difference, and it is working out very well in their favor to say the least. Since we keep abiding by THEIR Restrictive Firearms Statutes (only meant for gov’t employees), they keep adding more, more, and more, until eventually they will be the only one’s with guns while you and I are left with nothing more than sticks and stones.

Basically, they’ve pulled the ole switcheroo on us. They are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to them.

This is how they are controlling society instead of SERVING SOCIETY, but the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man.

First allow me to pose a common sense question:

Can anyone point me to the actual footnote or statute under the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution that states I must pay $200.00 for a Tax Stamp in order to own or possess an Automatic Weapon or Silencer, or any other weapon or accessory I wish to own? Or the footnote under Article II pointing me to US Codes stating I must obtain a concealed carry permit from the STATE prior to exercising my already inherent Right of bearing my firearm, either concealed or openly?

I’m having a hard time finding ANY reference to US Codes in the Constitution, which just happens to be, still to this day, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that restricts Government employees, and from what I’ve read in Marbury vs Madison, it looks like the Supreme Court (Gov’t employees Supreme Court) has ruled that any secondary law (which would be a statute, code, rule, regulation, such as those found in US Codes or State statutes) that comes into direct conflict with the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, is to be ignored with impunity.

Here, read it for yourself:

Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

Am I reading that wrong?

What would be considered secondary laws that are in direct conflict with the Law of the Land? Could it be those restrictive firearms codes and statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes? Silly things like ‘you must obtain a class III weapons permit…’, or ‘you must obtain a concealed carry permit…’, or ‘you must pay $200.00 for a tax stamp…’?

Do US Codes supersede the Constitutions Supreme Authority? Are the US Codes actually the REAL law of the land, and the Constitution is just a silly Document that should be ignored?

If so, were the US Codes written PRIOR to the Constitution? And if so, can someone please send me the Congressional Record of that? Do US Codes and State statutes Supersede the LAW OF THE LAND? Can someone please refer me to that case law or the footnote in the Constitution stating so?

For some strange reason I cannot find ANY footnotes or Amendments in the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that points me to US Codes or State Statutes to validate the Law known as Article II ~ Scratches head in confusion.

If someone can help me find the actual footnote under the 2nd Amendment that points me to the US Codes stating I must purchase a $200.00 Tax Stamp to exercise the Rights that Document protects, it would be greatly appreciated.

Go ahead, I’ll wait (watching clock and drumming fingers on desk).

While some of you are searching for that (here’s a tip: It does not exist), the others who already know the answer feel free to continue with the learning curriculum.

Are you ready? Here we go!

Do you know your American History? Are you sure? I hope you’ll take the time to personally verify the information below; you’re about to take the Red pill.

Are you aware that you have NOT had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die (without a return date) in 1861. D.C. basically sat dormant for ten years and the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme. In 1871 they inhabited those halls of congress in D.C. and incorporated that ten square mile radius and they named their newfound shitty little corporation the ‘UNITED STATES’, which is NOT the same as the ‘united States of America’ in an attempt to hoodwink/fool the People into believing they once again had a legitimately seated gov’t body (see District of Columbia Act of 1871).

American History

‘UNITED STATES’ that is masquerading as your legitimate gov’t body on American soil and the con continues to this day.

Yes, the UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation operating under the International Organization Immunities Act (UN) since 1945.

The UNITED STATES is not the same as the ‘united States of America’.

All your so-called ‘elected officials’ must expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office.

Proof: Oath of office makes all elected officials foreign agents

And be sure to listen to the audio of Rod Class explaining this to you at the bottom of that post to help you better understand what has actually happened.

That corporation has its own set of rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ (US Codes Title 1 – Title 54) that only apply to internal employees of that corporation who are being compensated to abide by the ‘you may not possess 30 round magazines’, or ‘you may not possess an automatic weapon without a tax stamp’, or ‘you must obtain a concealed carry license’, statutes.

See their internal statutes here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

Employees of that corporation must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes while they are on the clock receiving pay, because they are being compensated, as they have signed into an employment contract to hold that gov’t job, unlike most of us who are NOT being compensated.

Statutes are NOT laws, they are internal rules for INTERNAL employees of that corporation, just as BURGER KING or XEROX has their own internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations that only apply to their internal employees while they are on the clock and being compensated to abide by them, so does the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

Now you know why Title 26 of THEIR CODE reads like this,

‘INTERNAL Revenue Code’ …. Those taxing statutes are only enforceable on their own INTERNAL EMPLOYEES who have signed into an employment contract to hold their government jobs, and do not apply to the average American who is not a gov’t employee. That is why the Income Tax is also voluntary for anyone who wishes to participate. They cannot force NON gov’t employees to file, but if you wish to voluntarily file and pay, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you from donating to their corporation.

You must remember that America is a Common Law Nation, and you must also remember that Slavery and Involuntary Servitude are against the law on American soil (see Amendment XIII), and no man may compel performance from another man without fairly and justly compensating that man.

What would constitute performance in the context of this writing?

Answer: Forcing another man/woman to abide by internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations of a corporation he/she does NOT work for.

They have hoodwinked the majority of the country into believing their internal rules/codes/statutes/regulations (which are not laws) apply to EVERYONE on this landmass, but they do not. They only apply to employees of that corporation who are being compensated to abide by them while they are on the clock fulfilling their part of the employment contract. If you are a local/state/federal employee, then you are not allowed to possess certain weapons without a tax stamp, and you must obtain a concealed carry permit, or you may not possess 30 round magazine, etc. …… While you are on the clock and receiving pay, only!

If you work for BURGER KING or XEROX, you are required to abide by that corporation’s internal rules/regulations/statutes while you are on the clock, but when you clock out at 5PM you are no longer contractually obligated to abide by those internal rules until you clock back in to work the next morning at 7AM.

Those of us who are NOT local/state/federal employees are not contractually bound by those internal corporate statutes, as we are not receiving a gov’t paycheck on the 1st and 15th like all other gov’t employees who are being compensated to abide by that corporation’s internal statutes.

Yes, the UNITED STATES is a Federal Corporation, they even tell you this in their own codes.

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

If they are not paying you to abide by those ridiculous firearms rules/codes/statutes/regulations (which are NOT laws), then they simply do not apply to you, as slavery and involuntary servitude are against the law on American soil (see Amendment XIII).

So, what is gov’t doing to us?

Because you have in your possession a Certificate of Live Birth; a Driver’s License, and a Social Security No., (all of which are gov’t issued ID’s), this corporation likes to run wild with their presumptions that YOU are one of their own internal employees who are contractually obligated to abide by their internal rules/codes/statutes/regulations, but they are forgetting to tell you one thing:

If they expect any kind of performance out of you other than merely possessing those ID’s, they are lawfully required to compensate you, just as they are compensating all other local/state/federal employees who are being compensated to abide by that corporations own internal statutes, which are NOT laws.

They aren’t compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, therefore those internal statutes do NOT apply to you, period! But if you’re willing to play along and wilfully abide by those statutes without compensation, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you. This is how they control the majority of society, because most of us don’t know the difference between internal statutes and actual laws.

Keep calling something like a code or a statute a ‘Law’, and before you know it everyone starts believing they actually ARE laws.

They make BILLIONS, possibly TRILLIONS of dollars every year off unsuspecting Americans who don’t know the law; who don’t know their Rights by presuming you into a quasi-employment position within their shitty little corporation, and they are conveniently forgetting to send you your check on the 1st and 15th.

So, how do we protect our Rights from gov’t agents/agencies that insist on Interfering with your Right to own/possess any firearm you choose, which would include fully automatic weapons or an F-16 without any type of license or extortion fee tax stamp?

First we have to learn the difference between a ‘criminal complaint’ and an actual claim.

Here’s what happens:

Some gov’t goon/agency gets word that you possess and automatic weapon without a tax stamp (extortion fee) and they send out their goons to kick down your door and arrest you in the dark of night. The D.A. then files a ‘criminal complaint’ against you for possession of that/those weapons without the proper tax stamps/permission and attempts to throw you in a cage for 10 years and wreck your life/family/finances, etc.

You must realize that he is only COMPLAINING about your possession (hence the criminal complaint), because he has no actual claim. He’s hoping like hell that you do not know the law and you or your attorney file any kind of paperwork back into his silly complaint, such as an affidavit; a rebuttal; a counterclaim, etc., which now creates joinder. Now that you’ve acknowledged his silly complaint as anything legitimate, he now takes his complaint and runs with like an actual claim and the STATE now becomes the injured party ….. Cool little con they have there, eh?

He had no lawful case (claim) until you started playing attorney and filing paperwork back into his silly complaint, which ultimately legitimizes the toothless piece of paper known as a ‘criminal complaint’ and gives it legs.

As free men/women on American soil we do NOT answer silly complaints. If we answered every single complaint someone made against us on a daily basis, we’d never get anything done. But we do answer to verifiable claims made by another man/woman who claims to be an injured party; or claims we have harmed them or their private property, and if we have done them harm, we try to compensate them for our trespasses.

The D.A. cannot be an injured party because your possession of an automatic weapon without a tax stamp did not harm HIM or his personal property, therefore he is bringing controversy where there is no controversy; he’s attempting to unjustly enrich himself and the almighty STATE by hoodwinking you with a silly complaint that has zero force or effect in actual law.

When the D.A. files a criminal complaint against you, it reads like this:

STATE OF TEXAS vs John P. Doe [Illegal possession of class III weapon]

What he is doing is filing a complaint on behalf of some entity that goes by the name ‘STATE OF TEXAS’, but on American soil you have the Right to confront your accuser and attempt to compensate him for any harm you may have caused (see Article VI) – Can this entity known as the ‘STATE OF TEXAS’ take the stand and point you out across the room and say,

‘That man right over there harmed me and my personal property by possessing that automatic weapon and I require compensation for the trespass!’ ?

Answer: No, it cannot.

Basically the prosecutor has himself an imaginary friend he’s hoping you don’t call to the stand to verify you’ve caused him harm, injury, or loss.

The Plaintiff must appear and verify his claim, on the Record – Only a ‘man’ may utter with his voice in open court and verify a claim, a corporation such as the STATE OF TEXAS cannot.

So what we have here is a D.A. who is filing false claims against his fellow man to unjustly enrich himself and the almighty STATE OF TEXAS Corp. or UNITED STATES by attempting to hoodwink you with a ‘criminal complaint’, because they make BILLIONS of dollars through the courts with this con on a yearly basis. Remember that gov’t cannot file claims against the People, as the People are the one’s who created the gov’t – gov’t can only file complaints.

He’s operating under the presumption that YOU are one of that corporation’s own internal employees who is contractually obligated to abide by that corporation’s internal ‘laws’ known as codes and statutes, which are NOT actual laws of this land. It is not against the law to presume, and if you don’t rebut, you must agree, and when two entities agree, we now have law. Yes, it is quite the con, but they make billions of dollars through the court system on a yearly basis from non-employees of their corporation because we don’t know the difference between statutes and actual laws.

So how do we combat this criminal behavior?

Answer: We must file a claim against him to counter his silly complaint!

You can learn a lot about this subject from another post of mine, here:
The STATE OF TEXAS vs John Q. PUBLIC [illegal possession of]

He is committing barratry; attempting unjust enrichment; extortion; harming your good name within your community; malicious prosecution, theft/robbery of property without due process of law, and wasting your very precious and valuable time dealing with his toothless nonsense known as a ‘criminal complaint’, and now you are going to file a claim (not a complaint, but an actual claim) against him and drag him into court as a defendant for trespassing on your Rights by filing false claims against you.

You are going to require compensation from him for the trespass(es), and because your compensation is going to exceed twenty dollars (see Article VII), you are going to invoke your Right to a ‘trial by jury’. Now the D.A. has become a defendant in a trespass claim and YOU are now the prosecutor in a court of record, and in a court of record, the Tribunal is Independent of the Magistrate. You are now the prosecutor; the man who filed false claims against you is now the wrongdoer, and the Jury now becomes the Judge. The guy who normally plays God (the Judge) is now lowered to the status of a mere referee who is to carry out the court’s orders and keep court decorum, only. He can no longer tell you to sit down and shut up, as this is now YOUR court, and it is YOUR claim in that public building, and he is only there to referee by your request.

The D.A. has his case (criminal complaint) and you must bring forth YOUR case (an actual claim) so you aren’t playing defendant in THEIR court.

These scumbags make BILLIONS of dollars every year with this con of filing ‘complaints’ (read that as false claims) against their fellow man because we have never been taught the Law.

That corporation has THEIR set of rules for their own internal employees (US Codes Title 1 – Title 54) as found here,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

And we have our own set of rules, known as the Common Law – Do. No. Harm.

You will NOT find any reference to those statutes (US Codes) in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because they are a SEPARATE set of rules/codes/statutes/regulations that are NOT part of the Law of the Land known as the Constitution. They are rules for internal gov’t employees who are being compensated to abide by the ‘you may not possess 30 round magazines’ statutes. You will not find BURGER KING or XEROX statutes in the Constitution either, as they are a SEPARATE set of rules that only apply to employees of those corporations while they are on the clock and receiving pay.

The Second Amendment clearly states:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That word ‘shall’ means at anytime in the future, and there is ZERO Amendments or Footnotes anywhere in the Bill of Rights that reference man to go to US Codes to validate the Law, because US Codes are NOT Laws, they are totally Independent of the Constitution, and have zero force or effect in Law unless you are an employee of that corporation and under contract to perform by those internal statutes, period!

To change that Law (2nd Amendment), it would have to be ratified by 3/4’s of the States, then voted on by the Senate, and that will NEVER-EVER happen on American soil and they damned well know it, so all they can do is HOPE you continue to go along with their con by convincing you that their internal corporate statutes are laws by continuing to use the media to call them laws, instead of what they actually are – Internal Corporate Statutes of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

This corporation’s CEO and Board of Directors (Obama, Senators, Congressmen) can change their own internal firearms statutes at will-on a daily basis because it is a separate set of rules that only applies to employees of that corporation, but do not apply to the average American who is not on the gov’t payroll. Just like BURGER KING or XEROX can change their own internal ‘laws’ at will, so can the ‘UNITED STATES Corp.’, and they don’t need a Constitutional Amendment to do it, because those statutes are NOT Laws of this Land, and only apply to employees of that corporation. They can change them daily, as they most often do, and need no ratification from the several States, because they are NOT laws, they are statutes that only apply to the CEO (Obama) and those gov’t agents/employees beneath him.

In closing: You may own/buy/sell/possess any weapon of choice without permission from that corporation if you are not an employee of that corporation, and all they can do is COMPLAIN about it – hence their ‘criminal complaints’, and you are not lawfully required to buy a tax stamp or a concealed carry permit either, unless you are under employment contract and receiving pay to abide by restrictive firearms statutes, which are NOT laws.

America, like England, Australia, Canada, and Ireland are ‘Common Law Nations’, and you may do anything you damned well please as long as you are not harming another man or his property, and that includes owning/possessing an automatic weapon without having to purchase an extortion stamp, as well as openly (or concealed) carrying any firearm of your choice, anywhere you go, unless it is prohibited by Private Property Owners such as a local business, etc.

Remember, the Plaintiff MUST appear and verify his claim. The STATE OF TEXAS cannot take the stand and verify the complaint (false claim), and the D.A. cannot verify the claim either, as you did not harm HIM or HIS personal property, therefore he is filing false claims against you, and that is a very big NO-NO in Law that can cost him his house; his automobile; his retirement fund; his freedom if a Jury sees fit. The D.A. cannot verify a claim on his or his plaintiff’s behalf because he himself has no first hand knowledge of anything his plaintiff is claiming, so all he can do is file a complaint on his plaintiff’s behalf. He can on the other hand CERTIFY the complaint, because he’s the one who drafted it, but anyone can certify something is on a piece of paper, just as a Notary certifies a document, but she cannot VERIFY anything on it because she herself has no first hand knowledge of anything on the document, therefore all she can do is certify she witnessed the document, but certifying something and verifying something are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS

A living man must show up in court and VERIFY you have caused him or his personal property, harm, injury, or loss. If there is no man, there is no controversy, and if there is no controversy, what the fuck are we doing here today?

Remember also…

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.”


They make BILLIONS of dollars every year filing COMPLAINTS against people who do not know the law and do not know the difference between as silly ‘criminal complaint’ and an actual claim.

In closing: You may own, possess, buy, sell, any weapon or weapons accessory (including fully automatic weapons, silencers, mini-guns, tanks, etc.) you can afford, and you are NOT lawfully required to ask anyone from any gov’t agencies permission to do so, nor you are required by law to purchase a permit to do so, either. As long as you are not harming your fellow man, no actual law has been broken, and the STATE OF*** cannot take the stand and verify harm because the STATE is not a living man.

If you’d like to learn more about how to defend your Rights against rogue Gov’t agents and their Agencies by countering their complaints with claims, I’d suggest you get to YouTube and look up ‘Karl Lentz Common Law’.
THIS COMMENT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.


Arminius,

Thank you for this cut and paste article on amateur legal theories by Karl Lentz. I will respond to each amateur legal theory individually below.

THE BOTTOM LINE: EACH AND EVERY SINGLE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY BELOW IS A FRAUD.


1. United States Corporate Statutes vs Laws of the Land:

RESPONSE: The very title of this article on amateur legal theories is itself a fraud. First, as used in this title, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CORPORATE STATUTES" (in the way the author means it). Second, under the tenth amendment, TRUE CORPORATE STATUTES ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW, not by FEDERAL law (so real "corporate law" is not in the United States "Corporate" Statutes anyway). Third, the law of the land IS THE SAME THING AS FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES AND CASE LAW ANYWAY (so there is no "verses"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_land.

2. Internal Corporate Restrictive Firearms Statutes as found in U.S. Codes and State Statutes are enacted for Gov’t employees to abide by while they are on the clock so they cannot over power, with Arms, the American People while performing their jobs as ‘public servants’.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note he glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. This is because there isn't one. FOR PROOF, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22statutes+only+apply+to+government+employees%22+&btnG=. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22statutes+do+not+apply+to+ordinary+citizens%27%27&btnG=. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22statutes+only+apply+to%22++firearms&btnG=. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=30&q=%22statutes+do+not+apply+to%22++firearms&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.

If there is case that says all firearms statutes were enacted to apply ONLY to government employees and ONLY while they were on the clock, then all firearms statutes were enacted to apply ONLY to government employees and ONLY while they are on the clock then. But, if there is no case that says all firearms statutes were enacted to apply to ONLY government employees and ONLY while they were on the clock then, then all firearms statutes were not enacted to apply ONLY to government employees and not ONLY while they are on the clock. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearms laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

3. Statutes are enacted to help run gov’t more efficiently and to keep restrictions on Gov’t employees, not the average American.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says all statutes were enacted to keep restrictions on Government employees, rather than the average American, then all statutes were enacted to keep restrictions on Government employees, rather than the average American. But, if there is no case that says all statutes were enacted to keep restrictions on Government employees, rather than the average American, then all statutes were not enacted to keep restrictions on Government employees, rather than the average American. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

4. Because of collective ignorance of the Law; the public fool system, and the gov’t owned media, they have used THEIR OWN internal statutes that are ONLY MEANT FOR THEM to control the rest of us.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says that the government has used ITS OWN "internal statutes" that were ONLY MEANT FOR "THEM" to control the rest of us, then the government has used ITS OWN "internal statutes" that were ONLY MEANT FOR "THEM" to control the rest of us. But, If there is no case that says that the government has used ITS OWN "internal statutes" that were ONLY MEANT FOR "THEM" to control the rest of us, then the government has not used ITS OWN "internal statutes "that were ONLY MEANT FOR "THEM" to control the rest of us. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

5. and keep us equipped with less firepower than they themselves have available to secretly and overtly overthrow the American People without a single shot fired.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says all firearms statutes were designed to keep us equipped with less firepower than "THEY" themselves have, then all firearms statutes were designed to keep us equipped with less firepower than "THEY" themselves have. But, if there is no case that says all firearms statutes were designed to keep us equipped with less firepower than "THEY" themselves have, then all firearms statutes were not designed to keep us equipped with less firepower than "THEY" themselves have. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

6. They add restrictive firearms statutes to THEIR CODES on a daily basis because they have hoodwinked us into believing the internal rules of their corporation, for their own employees... apply to you an I.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says the internal rules of "THEIR" "corporation", for their own employees do not apply to you and I, then the internal rules of "THEIR" "corporation", for their own employees do not apply to you and I. But, if here is no case that says the rules of "THEIR" "corporation" do not apply to you and I, then the rules of "THEIR" "corporation" do apply to you and I. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

7. We keep abiding by THEIR INTERNAL STATUTES because we’ve never been taught the difference, and it is working out very well in their favor to say the least. Since we keep abiding by THEIR Restrictive Firearms Statutes (only meant for gov’t employees), they keep adding more, more, and more, until eventually they will be the only one’s with guns while you and I are left with nothing more than sticks and stones.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says "THEIR" Restrictive Firearms Statutes are only meant for government employees, then "THEIR" Restrictive Firearms Statutes are only meant for government employees. But, if there is no case that says "THEIR" Restrictive Firearms Statutes are only meant for government employees, then "THEIR" Restrictive Firearms Statutes are not only meant for government employees. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

8. Basically, they’ve pulled the ole switcheroo on us. They are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to them.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says "THEY" are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to "THEM", then "THEY" are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to "THEM". But, if there is no case that says "THEY" are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to "THEM", then "THEY" are not enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to "THEM". It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

9. This is how they are controlling society instead of SERVING SOCIETY, but the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man, then the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man. But, if there is no case that says the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man, then the con is not being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearm laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

10. First allow me to pose a common sense question:

RESPONSE: No response required.

11. Can anyone point me to the actual footnote or statute under the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution that states I must pay $200.00 for a Tax Stamp in order to own or possess an Automatic Weapon or Silencer, or any other weapon or accessory I wish to own?

RESPONSE: Let's try this rhetorical question in reverse. Can anyone point me to the actual footnote or statute under the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution that states that a $200.00 Tax Stamp in order to own or possess an Automatic Weapon or Silencer is unconstitutional? If there is no case that says a $200.00 Tax Stamp in order to own or possess an Automatic Weapon or Silencer is unconstitutional, then a $200.00 Tax Stamp in order to own or possess an Automatic Weapon or Silencer is not unconstitutional. NOTE: Only the judicial branch of government (which makes "case" law) has the Constitutional power to declare a statute unconstitutional. That is why a "case" is always necessary for a statute to be declared unconstitutional. Without a case, the Constitutionality of a statute is unknown and it will be enforced unless and until such time as it is declared unconstitutional. Translation: Do not violate a statute that you believe is unconstitutional, because you have no way to predict how the court will rule on that question. If you guess wrong, you will pay the penalty.

12. Or the footnote under Article II pointing me to US Codes stating I must obtain a concealed carry permit from the STATE prior to exercising my already inherent Right of bearing my firearm, either concealed or openly?

RESPONSE: The short answer to this rhetorical question is the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. (Note that the amateur legal theorist author of this rhetorical question does not know that "Article II" and the "second amendment" are two entirely different parts of the Constitution. Article II relates to the powers of the president. https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html). The second amendment relates to firearms. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/second-amendment. Now, let's try this rhetorical question in reverse. Can anyone point me to the footnote under Article II pointing me to US Codes stating that the requirement of a concealed carry permit from the STATE is unconstitutional? If there is no case that says the requirement of a concealed carry permit from the STATE is unconstitutional, then the requirement of a concealed carry permit from the STATE is not unconstitutional. NOTE: Only the judicial branch of government (which makes "case" law) has the Constitutional power to declare a statute unconstitutional. That is why a "case" is necessary for a statute to be declared unconstitutional. Without a case, the Constitutionality of a statute is unknown and it will be enforced unless and until such time as it is declared unconstitutional. Translation: Do not violate a statute that you believe is unconstitutional, because you have no way to predict how the courts will rule on that statute's Constitutionality. If you guess wrong, you will pay the penalty.

13. I’m having a hard time finding ANY reference to US Codes in the Constitution, which just happens to be, still to this day, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that restricts Government employees, and from what I’ve read in Marbury vs Madison, it looks like the Supreme Court (Gov’t employees Supreme Court) has ruled that any secondary law (which would be a statute, code, rule, regulation, such as those found in US Codes or State statutes) that comes into direct conflict with the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, is to be ignored with impunity.

RESPONSE: This claim is a COMPLETE FRAUD. Marbury v. Madison does not say that any law can be ignored with impunity, even one that the courts later declare to be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not refer to the U.S. Code by name. It does not have to. Instead, the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to make FEDERAL law here. CLICK HERE: http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8. The U.S. Code is merely the name of all of the current statutes of Congress organized in such a way that all of the laws on the same legal subject appear together in the same title (to make research of a particular subject easier). Organizing all of the current statutes of Congress in this manner does not make them "unconstitutional". Nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from organizing their own current statutes by category (by title). The statutes themselves remain exactly the same. Further, the Constitution empowers Congress to do whatever is necessary and proper to carry out its duties as described elsewhere in the Constitution. CLICK HERE. https://legaldictionary.net/elastic-clause/. Finally, under the tenth amendment, the STATES retain all powers that they did not expressly delegate to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. So, contrary to the amateur author's understanding, it is not unconstitutional for Congress or the states to pass statutes, because the Constitution expressly empowers it with the ability to do so in the Constitutional sections linked to above.

NOTE: EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CLAIM BELOW IS A FRAUD. EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CLAIM BELOW IS FAKE.

Here, read it for yourself:

Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):

14.“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,”

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22no+provision+of+the+constitution+is+designed+to+be+without+effect%22.


15. “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”,

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22anything+that+is+in+conflict+is+null+and+void+of+law%22++&btnG=.

16. “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical,

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22clearly+for+a+secondary+law+to+come+in+conflict+with+the+supreme+law+was+illogical%22&btnG=.

17. "for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws''

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE.Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found.CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22for+certainly%2C+the+supreme+law+would+preveail+over+all+other+laws%22&btnG=.

18. and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the basis of all law

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22and+certainly+our+forefathers+had+intended+that+the+supreme+Law+would+be+the+basis+of+all+law%22&btnG=

19. and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law,

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22and+for+any+law+to+come+in+conflict+would+be+null+and+void+of+law%22&btnG=

20. it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed,

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found.CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22it+would+bare+no+power+to+enforce%2C+in+would+bare+no+obligation+to+obey%2C+it+would+purport+to+settle+as+if+it+had+never+existed%22&btnG=

21. for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law,

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found.CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22for+unconstitutionality+would+date+from+the+enactment+of+such+a+law%2C+not+from+the+date+so+branded+in+an+open+court+of+law%22&btnG=

22. no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22no+courts+are+bound+to+uphold+it%2C+and+no+Citizens+are+bound+to+obey+it.+It+operates+as+a+near+nullity+or+a+fiction+of+law.%E2%80%9D&btnG=

23. If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. Not only does this FAKE quote not appear in Marbury v. Madision, it does not appear in any case found. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=%22If+any+statement%2C+within+any+law%2C+which+is+passed%2C+is+unconstitutional%2C+the+whole+law+is+unconstitutional%22&btnG=

24. Am I reading that wrong?

RESPONSE: No. You did not read it wrong. You wrote it wrong. You made up these FAKE quotes to intentionally defraud other amateur legal theorists. You knew that other amateur legal theorists do not know any better than to believe charlatans like you. You knew that other amateur legal theorists would not verify the accuracy of your fraudulent statements because you know they refuse to read the law itself. Instead, you knew that amateur legal theorists only obtain their information about the law from other amateur legal theorists like you. You knew these other amateur legal theorists would copy your fraudulent quotes above and post them all over the web without verifying them. You created this hoax to fraudulently incite hatred and violence against the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and other innocent Americans.

NOTE: The FAKE quotes above speak volumes about the honesty, character and integrity of the charlatan author of these amateur legal theories. Such charlatans do not lie to those for whom they have respect. They lie only to those for whom they have no respect. The lie above was directed towards all Americans, including you. That means that the charlatan who wrote the FAKE quotes above has no respect for the American people, including you. These charlatans do not love Americans. They hate Americans. Otherwise, they would not lie to Americans. These charlatans are not patriots. They are the enemies of patriots. Lies do not "help" the American people. Lies harm he American people.

25. What would be considered secondary laws that are in direct conflict with the Law of the Land?

RESPONSE: In a word, almost "NON-EXISTENT". On rare occasion, the ELECTED law making representatives of "We the People" pass a law that is interpreted by the ELECTED courts to conflict with the Constitution. But, such laws are extremely, extremely rare.

26.. Could it be those restrictive firearms codes and statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes?

RESPONSE: The ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" write all of their statutes bearing in mind the Constitution and they are careful not to write laws that conflict with it. It is extremely rare for them to make a mistake in this regard.

If there is a case that says all restrictive firearms codes and statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes are in direct conflict with the Constitution, then all restrictive firearms codes and statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes are in direct conflict with the Constitution. But, if there is no case that says all restrictive firearms codes and statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes are in direct conflict with the Constitution, then all restrictive firearms codes statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes are not in direct conflict with the Constitution. It is that simple. NOTE: Only the judicial branch of government (which makes "case" law) has the Constitutional power to declare a statute unconstitutional. That is why a "case" is necessary for a statute to be declared unconstitutional. Without a case, the Constitutionality of a statute is unknown and it will be enforced unless and until such time as it is declared unconstitutional. Translation: Do not violate a statute that you believe is unconstitutional, because you have no way to predict how the courts will rule on that statute's Constitutionality. If you guess wrong, you will pay the penalty.

27. Silly things like ‘you must obtain a class III weapons permit…’, or ‘you must obtain a concealed carry permit…’, or ‘you must pay $200.00 for a tax stamp…’?

a. RESPONSE: Those provisions do not conflict with the Constitution. If there is a case that says it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a class III weapons permit, then it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a class III weapons permit. But, if there is no case that says it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a class III weapons permit, then it is not unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a class III weapons permit. It is that simple. NOTE: Only the judicial branch of government (which makes "case" law) has the Constitutional power to declare a statute unconstitutional. That is why a "case" is necessary for a statute to be declared unconstitutional. Without a case, the Constitutionality of a statute is unknown and it will be enforced unless and until such time as it is declared unconstitutional. Translation: Do not violate a statute that you believe is unconstitutional, because you have no way to predict how the courts will rule on that statute's Constitutionality. If you guess wrong, you will pay the penalty.

b. RESPONSE: Those provisions do not conflict with the Constitution. If there is a case that says it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a concealed carry permit, then it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a concealed carry permit . But, if there is no case that says it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a concealed carry permit, then it is not unconstitutional for a person to be required to obtain a concealed carry permit. It is that simple. NOTE: Only the judicial branch of government (which makes "case" law) has the Constitutional power to declare a statute unconstitutional. That is why a "case" is necessary for a statute to be declared unconstitutional. Without a case, the Constitutionality of a statute is unknown and it will be enforced unless and until such time as it is declared unconstitutional. Translation: Do not violate a statute that you believe is unconstitutional, because you have no way to predict how the courts will rule on that statute's Constitutionality. If you guess wrong, you will pay the penalty.

c. RESPONSE: Those provisions do not conflict with the Constitution. If there is a case that says it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to pay $200.00 for a tax stamp, then it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to pay $200.00 for a tax stamp. But, if there is no case that says it is unconstitutional for a person to be required to pay $200.00 for a tax stamp, then it is not unconstitutional for a person to be required to pay $200.00 for a tax stamp. It is that simple. NOTE: Only the judicial branch of government (which makes "case" law) has the Constitutional power to declare a statute unconstitutional. That is why a "case" is necessary for a statute to be declared unconstitutional. Without a case, the Constitutionality of a statute is unknown and it will be enforced unless and until such time as it is declared unconstitutional. Translation: Do not violate a statute that you believe is unconstitutional, because you have no way to predict how the courts will rule on that statute's Constitutionality. If you guess wrong, you will pay the penalty.

28. Do US Codes supersede the Constitution's Supreme Authority?

RESPONSE: No. The US Codes do not supersede the Constitution, THEY FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. There is more to the Constitution than the second amendment. Congress cannot ignore its regulatory duties and responsibilities under the remainder of the Constitution.

29. Are the US Codes actually the REAL law of the land, and the Constitution is just a silly Document that should be ignored?

RESPONSE: No. The U.S. Codes do not conflict with the Constitution and BOTH he U.S. Codes and the Constitution are the REAL law of the land. CLICK HERE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_land.

30. If so, were the US Codes written PRIOR to the Constitution? And if so, can someone please send me the Congressional Record of that? Do US Codes and State statutes Supersede the LAW OF THE LAND? Can someone please refer me to that case law or the footnote in the Constitution stating so?

RESPONSE: No. The U.S. Codes do not conflict with the Constitution. All FEDERAL and STATE statutes further the purpose and intent of the Constitution and are in complete harmony with the Constitution. Otherwise, the Supreme Court OF The United States declare them unconstitutional and strike them down.

31. For some strange reason I cannot find ANY footnotes or Amendments in the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that points me to US Codes or State Statutes to validate the Law known as Article II ~ Scratches head in confusion.

RESPONSE: Article II? Do you mean the second amendment? Article II is the section of the Constitution that relates to the powers of the president. CLICK HERE. https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html. The second amendment is the section of the Constitution that relates to firearms. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/second-amendment. Regardless, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to write the legislation about which you complain. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8. Further, the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to do whatever is necessary and proper to carry out its law making duties as described in the Constitution. CLICK HERE. https://legaldictionary.net/elastic-clause/. Finally, under the tenth amendment, the STATES retain all powers that they did not expressly delegate to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. So, contrary to the amateur author's understanding, it is not unconstitutional for Congress or for the the states to pass statutes, because the Constitution expressly empowers them with he ability to do so in the sections linked to above.

32. If someone can help me find the actual footnote under the 2nd Amendment that points me to the US Codes stating I must purchase a $200.00 Tax Stamp to exercise the Rights that Document protects, it would be greatly appreciated.

RESPONSE: Let's try it in reverse. "I would greatly appreciate if someone can help me find the actual law that makes a $200.00 Stamp Tax unconstitutional." Regardless, it is the tenth amendment that authorizes THE STATES to impose certain taxes and permits relating to firearms.

33. Go ahead, I’ll wait (watching clock and drumming fingers on desk).

Do you know your American History? Are you sure? I hope you’ll take the time to personally verify the information below; you’re about to take the Red pill.

34. Are you aware that you have NOT had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die (without a return date) in 1861.

RESPONSE: This claim is pure fraud. Note that the amateur author of this amateur legal theory does not even know the consequence of Congress adjourning a session sine die (without a return date). It merely means that congress simply reconvenes when the next formal session is scheduled to begin. CLICK HERE. NRLB. v. Noel Canning. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3293670442848064324&q=%22sine+die%22++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States wrote, "The Senate or the House of Representatives announces an inter-session recess by approving a resolution stating that it will "adjourn sine die," i.e., without specifying a date to return (IN WHICH CASE CONGRESS WILL RECONVENE WHEN THE NEXT FORMAL SESSION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN)."

Note that even if congress really were somehow shut down after walking out sine die1861 (and it was not), such would not have any effect whatsoever ON THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the executive branch and the judicial branch). So, the government as a whole WOULD HAVE CONTINUED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT anyway. But, the amateur author does not know enough to even realize this.

If there is a case that says we have NOT had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die in 1861, then we have NOT had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die in 1861. But, if there is no case that says we have NOT had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die in 1861, then we have had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die in 1861. It is that simple.

35. D.C. basically sat dormant for ten years and the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme.

RESPONSE: No so. Even if CONGRESS really were somehow shut down after walking out sine die in 1861 (and it was not), such would not have any effect whatsoever ON THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the executive branch and the judicial branch). So, the government as a whole WOULD HAVE CONTINUED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT anyway. But, the amateur author does not know enough to even realize this. .

36. and the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme, then the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme. But, if there is no case that says the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme, then the foreign money masters did not decide to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme. It is that simple.

37. In 1871 they inhabited those halls of congress in D.C. and incorporated that ten square mile radius and they named their newfound shitty little corporation the ‘UNITED STATES’, which is NOT the same as the ‘united States of America’ in an attempt to hoodwink/fool the People into believing they once again had a legitimately seated gov’t body (see District of Columbia Act of 1871).

RESPONSE: In the Act of 1871, Congress (not foreign money masters) simply created a CITY GOVERNMENT for Washington, D.C. (NOT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA which is something entirely different).

Amateur legal theorists are PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to discredit and delegitimize the FEDERAL government of “We the People”. So, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". Two such FEDERAL statutes cited by amateur legal theorists in support of this false claim are the "Act Of 1871" and "Title 28 U.S.C. (15)(a)".

THE ACT OF 1871:
The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT"] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States."

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes.../c41s3ch62.pdf.

Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C., (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES). But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121Cr...ourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

FACT:
There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1871 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this. NOTE: The cases which support this response are quoted and linked to below.

American History

38. ‘UNITED STATES’ that is masquerading as your legitimate gov’t body on American soil and the con continues to this day.

RESPONSE: This is not so. And, just so that you know, the Act of 1871 IS A SECONDARY LAW (to use your term). It is therefore impossible for the Act of 1871 to "supersede" (to use your term) the Constitution and only the Constitution itself can change the organizational structure of the United States, not a secondary law like the Act of 1871. And, just so that you know, ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT can change the or the organizational structure of the United States from a Constitutional Republic to some other organizational structure. A "secondary law" (to use your term) cannot "supersede" the United States Constitution and create a new organizational structure for the United States.


39. Yes, the UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation operating under the International Organization Immunities Act (UN) since 1945.

RESPONSE: This is not so. And, just so that you know, the International Organization Immunities Act IS A SECONDARY LAW (to use your term). It is therefore impossible for that "secondary law" (to use your term) act to "supersede" (to use your term) the Constitution and only the Constitution itself can change the organizational structure of The United States, not a "secondary law" like The International Organization Immunities Act.


40. The UNITED STATES is not the same as the ‘united States of America’.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says the UNITED STATES is not the same as the united States of America, then the UNITED STATES is not the same as the united States of America. But, if there is no case that says the UNITED STATES is not the same as the united States of America, then the UNITED STATES is the same as the united States of America. It is that simple.


41. All your so-called ‘elected officials’ must expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says your so-called ‘elected officials’ must expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office, then your so-called ‘elected officials’ must expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office. But, if there is no case that says, your so-called ‘elected officials’ must expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office, then your so-called ‘elected officials’ must not expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office. It is that simple.


42. Proof: Oath of office makes all elected officials foreign agents

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says the oath of office makes all elected officials foreign agents, then the oath of office makes all elected officials foreign agents. But, if there is no case that says the oath of office makes all elected officials foreign agents, then the oath of office does not make all elected officials foreign agents. It is that simple.


43. And be sure to listen to the audio of Rod Class explaining this to you at the bottom of that post to help you better understand what has actually happened.

RESPONSE. CLICK HERE. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes . Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.


44. That corporation has its own set of rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ (US Codes Title 1 – Title 54) that only apply to internal employees of that corporation... .

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says all rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ only apply to internal employees, then all rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ only apply to internal employees. But, if there is no case that says all rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ only apply to internal employees, then all rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ do not only apply to internal employees. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all laws to government employees. None. The truth is that laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.


45. See their internal statutes here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Where do these statutes say that they only apply to internally to employees of the ELECTED government of "We the People". Where? If there is a case that says their internal statutes only apply to internal employees, then their internal statutes only apply to internal employees. But, if there is no case that says their internal statutes only apply to internal employees, then their internal statutes do not only apply to internal employees. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all laws to government employees. None. The truth is that laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

46. Employees of that corporation must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes while they are on the clock receiving pay, because they are being compensated, as they have signed into an employment contract to hold that gov’t job, unlike most of us who are NOT being compensated.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says only employees of that "corporation" must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes while they are on the clock receiving pay, then only employees of that "corporation" must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes while they are on the clock receiving pay. But, if there is no case that says only employees of that "corporation" must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes while they are on the clock receiving pay, then others who are not employees of that "corporation" must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all firearms laws to government employees. None. The truth is that firearms laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.


47. Statutes are NOT laws, they are internal rules for INTERNAL employees of that corporation, just as BURGER KING or XEROX has their own internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations that only apply to their internal employees while they are on the clock and being compensated to abide by them, so does the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur non-sense. If there is a case that says statutes are NOT laws and that they are internal rules for INTERNAL employees of the government of "We the People" while they are on the clock and being compensated, then statutes are NOT laws and they are internal rules for INTERNAL employees of the government of "We the People" while they are on the clock and being compensated. But, if there is no case that says statutes are NOT laws and that they are internal rules for INTERNAL employees of the government of "We the People" while they are on the clock and being compensated, then statutes are laws and they are not internal rules for INTERNAL employees of the government of "We the People" while they are on the clock and being compensated. It is that simple. There is no provision any law that limits the application of all laws to government employees. None. The truth is that laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

48. Now you know why Title 26 of THEIR CODE reads like this,

‘INTERNAL Revenue Code’ …. Those taxing statutes are only enforceable on their own INTERNAL EMPLOYEES who have signed into an employment contract to hold their government jobs, and do not apply to the average American who is not a gov’t employee. That is why the Income Tax is also voluntary for anyone who wishes to participate. They cannot force NON gov’t employees to file, but if you wish to voluntarily file and pay, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you from donating to their corporation.

RESPONSE: THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE. This is what title 26 actually says. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26. This is what the courts say.

Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.
This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities on employers to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes" an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens. The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743.

Relevant Case Law:

Taliaferro v. Freeman, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit rejected as frivolous the taxpayer’s argument that the federal income tax applies only to federal employees, and ordered sanctions against him up to and including double the government’s costs.

Montero v. Commissioner, 354 F. App’x 173 (5th Cir. 2009) – the 5th Circuit affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the taxpayer for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1986) – the 1st Circuit imposed sanctions on the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected his attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions the taxpayer wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

Briggs v. Commisioner, T.C. Memo 2016-86, 111 T.C.M. (CCH) 1389 (2016) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that wages from private-sector employers are not “income” for Federal income tax purposes. The court imposed a $3,000 penalty against the taxpayer for “persist(ing) in raising frivolous arguments.”

Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1189 (2014) – the court debunked the argument that only federal employees are taxed and imposed $2,500 sanction against the taxpayer for making frivolous arguments contained in Peter Hendrickson’s book “Cracking the Code.”

States v. Hendrickson, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-5395 (E.D. Mich. 2007) – the court permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who filed tax returns on which they falsely reported their income as zero, from filing tax returns and forms based on frivolous claims in Hendrickson’s book, “Cracking the Code,” that only federal, state, or local government workers are liable for federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal taxes.

Other Cases: Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Wis. 1985); Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813 (1994).


49. You must remember that America is a Common Law Nation, and you must also remember that Slavery and Involuntary Servitude are against the law on American soil (see Amendment XIII), and no man may compel performance from another man without fairly and justly compensating that man.

RESPONSE: It is true that the thirteenth amendment prohibits slavery, but it does not mention compensation. CLICK HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/thirteenth-amendment.

50. What would constitute performance in the context of this writing? Answer: Forcing another man/woman to abide by internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations of a corporation he/she does NOT work for.

RESPONSE: In the United States, no man/woman is forced to abide by any internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations of a corporation he/she does NOT work for. Paying income taxes to the FEDERAL government of "We the People" is not synonymous with being employed by the FEDERAL government of "We the People" without compensation. Claims to the contrary are fraud.

51.They have hoodwinked the majority of the country into believing their internal rules/codes/statutes/regulations (which are not laws) apply to EVERYONE on this landmass,

RESPONSE: This is not so. The laws made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" apply to whomever the law says they apply to. It is that simple.

52.They only apply to employees of that corporation who are being compensated to abide by them while they are on the clock fulfilling their part of the employment contract.

RESPONSE: This is not so. The laws made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" apply to whomever the law says they apply to. It is that simple.

53. If you are a local/state/federal employee, then you are not allowed to possess certain weapons without a tax stamp, and you must obtain a concealed carry permit, or you may not possess 30 round magazine, etc. …… While you are on the clock and receiving pay, only!

RESPONSE: This is not so. The laws made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" apply to whomever the law says they apply to. It is that simple.

54. If you work for BURGER KING or XEROX, you are required to abide by that corporation’s internal rules/regulations/statutes while you are on the clock, but when you clock out at 5PM you are no longer contractually obligated to abide by those internal rules until you clock back in to work the next morning at 7AM.

RESPONSE: This is true and it has absolutely no application whatsoever to the laws passed by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" or to the people of the United States themselves.

55.Those of us who are NOT local/state/federal employees are not contractually bound by those internal corporate statutes, as we are not receiving a gov’t paycheck on the 1st and 15th like all other gov’t employees who are being compensated to abide by that corporation’s internal statutes.

RESPONSE: This is not so. The Constitution does not require a contract between the government of "We the People" and an individual in order for the laws of "We the People" to be binding upon that individual. The Constitution does not require the government of "We the People" to pay an individual a paycheck to be bound by the laws of "We the People".


56.Yes, the UNITED STATES is a Federal Corporation, they even tell you this in their own codes.

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

RESPONSE: Amateur legal theorists are PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to discredit and delegitimize the FEDERAL government of “We the People”. So, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". Two such FEDERAL statutes cited by amateur legal theorists in support of this false claim are the "Act Of 1871" and "Title 28 U.S.C. (15)(a)".

TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.


APPLICATION:
So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.


FACT:
This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT.


THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:
1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson +v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v. +Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+ v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&h l=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Er nest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wi ggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens +v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Bea vers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&a s_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+ v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Bo yce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sd t=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [much less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINION...-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+D AKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Har tsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edw in+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Pa ul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+ v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."


THE BOTTOM LINE:
Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.


FACT:
Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.

https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

57. If they are not paying you to abide by those ridiculous firearms rules/codes/statutes/regulations (which are NOT laws), then they simply do not apply to you, as slavery and involuntary servitude are against the law on American soil (see Amendment XIII).

RESPONSE: The ELECTED government of "We the People" does not need to pay individuals to make them subject to the laws of "We the People". The laws made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" apply to whomever they say they apply to. Obeying firearm laws does no make you a "slave".

58. So, what is gov’t doing to us?

RESPONSE: Through the ELECTION process, the government of "We the People" is passing and enforcing laws reflecing the will of the majoriy of voters, so long as those laws do not violate any provision of the constitution.

59. Because you have in your possession a Certificate of Live Birth; a Driver’s License, and a Social Security No., (all of which are gov’t issued ID’s), this corporation likes to run wild with their presumptions that YOU are one of their own internal employees who are contractually obligated to abide by their internal rules/codes/statutes/regulations, but they are forgetting to tell you one thing:

RESPONSE: The ELECTED government of "We the People" is not a "corporation" (as the cases above conclusively prove). Driver's licenses are not issued by the federal government. They are issued by the states. There is no such thing as a "presumption" that people who are issued birth certificates, social security cards or driver's licenses are employees of a non-existent corporation. The application of the law is not limited to employees of a non-existent corporation.

60. If they expect any kind of performance out of you other than merely possessing those ID’s, they are lawfully required to compensate you, just as they are compensating all other local/state/federal employees who are being compensated to abide by that corporations own internal statutes, which are NOT laws.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. If there is a case that says the ELECTED government of "We the People" is lawfully required to compensate everyone who has a government issued ID, then the ELECTED government of "We the People" is lawfully required to compensate everyone who has a government issued ID. But, if there is no case that says the ELECTED government of "We the People" is lawfully required to compensate everyone who has a government issued ID, then the ELECTED government of "We the People" is not lawfully required to compensate everyone who has a government issued ID. It is that simple. The truth is that the laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.


61.They aren’t compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, therefore those internal statutes do NOT apply to you, period! But if you’re willing to play along and willfully abide by those statutes without compensation, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. If there is a case that says unless the government of "We the People"is compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, statutes do NOT apply to you, then unless the government of "We the People" is compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, statutes do NOT apply to you But, if there is no case that says unless the government of "We the People" is compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, statutes do NOT apply to you, then whether or not the government of "We the People" is compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, statutes do apply to you. It is that simple. There is no provision in any law that says all statutes only apply to government employees. The truth is that the laws apply to whomever the law says they apply to.

But if you’re willing to play along and willfully abide by those statutes without compensation, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you.

RESPONSE: There is no requirement that the ELECTED government of "We the People" compensate an individual in order for that individual to be bound by the laws of "We the People".

This is how they control the majority of society, because most of us don’t know the difference between internal statutes and actual laws.

RESPONSE: Statutes are the name for all laws passed by FEDERAL and STATE lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" to make our laws. This term is intended to distinguish statutes from court decisions which are called the "common law" or "case law". In the event that FEDERAL or STATE lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" were actually pass a law that only applied to internal employees, that law WOULD STILL BE A STATUTE, BECAUSE IT WAS PASSED BY LAWMAKERS ELECTED BY "WE THE PEOPLE" (as opposed to a decision coming from a court). Not one single FEDERAL of STATE legislative body ELECTED by "We the People" passes TWO DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STATUTES WHEREBY ONLY ONE SUCH CLASS IS "ACTUAL LAW". ALL STATUTES ARE "ACTUAL LAW".

Keep calling something like a code or a statute a ‘Law’, and before you know it everyone starts believing they actually ARE laws.

RESPONSE: ALL STATUTES ARE "ACTUAL LAW". Neither Congress nor the state legislature pass "NULLITIES".

They make BILLIONS, possibly TRILLIONS of dollars every year off unsuspecting Americans who don’t know the law; who don’t know their Rights by presuming you into a quasi-employment position within their shitty little corporation, and they are conveniently forgetting to send you your check on the 1st and 15th.

RESPONSE: Most Americans know the law. Only amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe the law does not apply to them. There is no presumption in the law that every American is an employee or quasi-employee of the ELECTED government of "We the People". Only amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the ELECTED government of "We the People" is a corporation (a false claim intended to delegitimize the ELECTED government of "We the People"). The ELECTED government of "We the People" is not obligated to send individuals a pay check on the 1st and 15th in order to obtain their compliance with the laws passed by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People".

So, how do we protect our Rights from gov’t agents/agencies that insist on Interfering with your Right to own/possess any firearm you choose, which would include fully automatic weapons or an F-16 without any type of license or extortion fee tax stamp?

RESPONSE: You can enforce a RIGHT that you actually have. But, you cannot enforce an imaginary RIGHT that you do not actually have. The problem is that amateur legal theorists cannot tell the difference.

First we have to learn the difference between a ‘criminal complaint’ and an actual claim.

RESPONSE: Whether the charging instrument is an indictment, a grand jury indictment or a complaint, its operates as an effective charging instrument. one of these charging instruments need be a claim (a term used in civil, not criminal law) to be legally effective.

Here’s what happens: Some gov’t goon/agency gets word that you possess and automatic weapon without a tax stamp (extortion fee) and they send out their goons to kick down your door and arrest you in the dark of night. The D.A. then files a ‘criminal complaint’ against you for possession of that/those weapons without the proper tax stamps/permission and attempts to throw you in a cage for 10 years and wreck your life/family/finances, etc. You must realize that he is only COMPLAINING about your possession (hence the criminal complaint), because he has no actual claim. He’s hoping like hell that you do not know the law and you or your attorney file any kind of paperwork back into his silly complaint, such as an affidavit; a rebuttal; a counterclaim, etc., which now creates joinder. Now that you’ve acknowledged his silly complaint as anything legitimate, he now takes his complaint and runs with like an actual claim and the STATE now becomes the injured party ….. Cool little con they have there, eh?

He had no lawful case (claim) until you started playing attorney and filing paperwork back into his silly complaint, which ultimately legitimizes the toothless piece of paper known as a ‘criminal complaint’ and gives it legs.

RESPONSE: Not so. The prosecutor does not need a "claim" (a term used in civil law). The prosecutor only needs an indictment, a grand jury indictment, an information or a complaint. Nothing you file or do not file changes the character or status of the charging instrument that is filed by the other side. The indictment, the grand jury indictment, the information and the complaint is legally effective upon being filed and nothing left is required to make it legally effective. What you do or do not do in response to that charging instrument has no effect on it whatsoever.

As free men/women on American soil we do NOT answer silly complaints. If we answered every single complaint someone made against us on a daily basis, we’d never get anything done. But we do answer to verifiable claims made by another man/woman who claims to be an injured party; or claims we have harmed them or their private property, and if we have done them harm, we try to compensate them for our trespasses.

RESPONSE: If you want to be criminally convicted, then do not answer the indictment, the information, the complaint or other charging instrument filed against you by the ELECTED prosecutor's office.

The D.A. cannot be an injured party because your possession of an automatic weapon without a tax stamp did not harm HIM or his personal property, therefore he is bringing controversy where there is no controversy; he’s attempting to unjustly enrich himself and the almighty STATE by hoodwinking you with a silly complaint that has zero force or effect in actual law.

RESPONSE: NO "INJURED PARTY" OR "VICTIM" IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF A "TRAFFIC" OR "CRIMINAL" OFFENSE.

CLICK HERE. In Re Bailey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5253372207459456521&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Bailey was convicted for no valid registration and driving without a seat belt. In response, Bailey filed suit challenging his conviction and alleged that his conviction was improper because "THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY OR NO INJURED PARTY PRESENT IN COURT... ." But, because no injured party is required, the court dismissed Bailey's suit. (in the 8th paragraph at about 55% through the text).

CLICK HERE. State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Franklin City Municipal Court, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=549459522472259594&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a driver sued a city court and demanded a dismissal of the traffic case against him. In response, the court wrote, "In his complaint, relator [the driver] requested mandamus because THE CASE 'HA[D] NO INJURED PARTY NOR ANY DAMAGED PROPERTY; HENCE UNDER THE COMMON LAW, THERE IS NO CRIME THAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY RELATOR [the driver].' [NOTE HERE THAT THE DRIVER ALSO CONFUSES "CRIMINAL" LAW WITH "TRAFFIC" LAW]. He [the driver] provided no authority in support of this argument." But, because no injured part is required, the court granted summary judgment against he driver. (in the paragraphs actually numbered "4" and "12").

CLICK HERE: State v. Eytcheson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9627835908484675097&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Eytcheson appealed his convictions for no valid driver's license and for failing to wear a seatbelt. On appeal, he argued that, "[N]O INJURED PARTY MADE A COMPLAINT OR TESTIFIED. This is due to the fact that THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY. SINCE NO INJURED PARTY, NO CRIME EXISTED for which I could be found guilty or innocent [NOTE HERE HOW EYTCHESON ALSO CONFUSES "TRAFFIC" LAW WITH "CRIMINAL" LAW]." But, the court implicitly held that no injured party was required and wrote, "The elements of the traffic offenses were established [proven] through the direct testimony of Officer Colon. [Therefore] Eytcheson's [argument]... is overruled." (at the paragraph actually numbered "59" at about 80% through the text).

CLICK HERE. State v. Gorombey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18163258503552934413&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Gorombey appealed his convictions for failure to produce proof of insurance, failure to produce a valid driver's license and for failure to yield the right of was to an emergency vehicle. Gorombey alleged that the trial erred in denying his motion to dismiss "because of the State's failure to prove... A SPECIFIC LOSS OR INJURY caused by his violations of the statutes... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "In the case of speeding, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A PERSON OR OBJECT WAS ' INJURED' but [only] that the State [proved]... every element of the crime... ."

FACT: NO "INJURED PARTY" OR "VICTIM" IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF A "CRIME".

CLICK HERE. Ex Parte Benson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15187687315442944994&q="no+victim+is+required"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Benson was convicted of DWI. He filed suit and alleged that his rights were violated because there was no victim. In response, the court wrote, "[N]O VICTIM IS REQUIRED FOR THE OFFENSE OF FELONY DWI, MUCH LESS ONE WHO HAS SUFFERED INJURY." (in the 30th paragraph at about 45% through the text).

CLICK HERE. United States v. Simpson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15322049001480763939&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a criminal defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds "THERE 'IS NO INJURED PARTY IN THESE CHARGES. IF THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, THERE CAN BE NO CRIMINAL CHARGE.' [But, the held otherwise and wrote, ... THIS] IS INCORRECT. Mr. Simpson was convicted of violating [several statutes]... , NONE OF WHICH REQUIRE [AN]... INJURY TO A THIRD PARTY." (in the 2nd to last paragraph).

CLICK HERE. United States v. Hoodenpyle, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11990559989165611219&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for, among other things, filing a fraudulent lien against an IRS agent. On appeal he argued, "there is "NO INJURED PARTY" because "the United States of America is a created [CORPORATE] fiction. [T]he Defendant cites NO LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AN INJURY IS REQUIRED TO BRING A CRIMINAL ACTION. The [fact that]... that the Defendant has violated [the law ALONE]... is sufficient [for a conviction]... .'' (in the 1s and 2nd full paragraphs). NOTE THAT THIS DEFENSE IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT ARMINIUS' DRIVER CHARACTER SAYS IN THE CAPTION ABOVE.

CLICK HERE: United States v. Herring, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17446870927330849406&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Herring was charged with passing counterfeit securities. He moved for dismissal alleging, that "there is NO INJURED PARTY HERE AND THEREFORE NO CRIME CAN EXIST IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INJURED PARTY." But, because no injured party is required, the court denied the motion to dismiss. (in the 4th paragraph at about 20% through the text).

CLICK HERE: Andriatti v. Warren, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12016694743193285253&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Andriatti filed suit in federal court seeking release from state prison for a "victimless crime". On appeal, Andiatti argued that "the State of Georgia does not have personal jurisdiction over her because THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY." But, because no injured party is required, the court dismissed the suit.

CLICK HERE: State v. Few, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4045733516187147122&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Few was convicted of possessing weapons as a convicted felon. On appeal, he argued, "I don't understand how a living soul could possibly be sent to prison for anything IF THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY OR ANY ONE COMPLAINING WITNESS or international maritime contract that I had signed to lose OR SOMEONE TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THEIR PROPERTY as a result of criminal actions." But, because no injured party or property is required, the court affirmed the conviction. NOTE THAT THIS DEFENSE IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT ARMINIUS' DRIVER CHARACTER SAYS IN THE CAPTION ABOVE.

CLICK HERE. United States v. Burnett, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10827429194429162608&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Burnett was charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Burnett moved to dismiss the charges "on the grounds that there are (sic) "NO INJURED PARTY NOR A STATEMENT BY AN INJURED PARTY." But, because no injured party is required, the court denied Burnett's motion to dismiss. (in the 3rd TO LAST paragraph).

CLICK HERE. Bartee v. Porto, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6545574243707954784&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted criminal sued the judge and others who were involved in his criminal conviction on the grounds that they "allowed the trial to proceed and selected jurors despite the fact that THERE WAS NO 'INJURED PARTY' MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST HIM." But, because no injured party is required, and because judges are immune from suit, the court dismissed Bartee's suit. (in the 2nd paragraph at about 40% through the text).

CLICK HERE: State v. Miller, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16269401250766978085&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Miller appealed his conviction for the illegal manufacture drugs. On appeal, he argued that
"charging him with illegal manufacture of drugs was improper since that "is not a criminal violation as defined by the U.S. Constitution or any law in accordance thereof BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY... ." But, because an injured party is not required, the court affirmed the conviction. (in paragraph actually numbered "7" at about 30% through the text).


CLICK HERE. Hamilton v . Owens, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4610058629695073120&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted state criminal ("Petitioner") filed suit against a state government official in federal court seeking his release from state prison. The court wrote, "Petitioner argues that... 'THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY'... . Petitioner... contends that 'A... STATE CANNOT BE AN INJURED PARTY.'" But, because an injured party is not required, the court dismissed the suit. (in the 8th paragraph at about 45% through the text).

CLICK HERE. State v. Markarian, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10281818287738705375&q="requirement+of+a+victim"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property under false pretenses and forgery . On appeal he argued that there was no injured party (no victim). But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[W]e hold that A VICTIM IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of either obtaining property by false pretenses or forgery, and affirm the [conviction]... . [F]or the statutory crimes of obtaining property by false pretenses and forgery, A VICTIM IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT as neither the word victim nor its synonym appears in either statute... . Therefore, WE FIND [NOTHING]... THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VICTIM as an essential element of obtaining property by false pretenses. (beginning at the 5th paragraph at about 25% through the case).

CLICK HERE. Moallen v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3321601625613974580&q="requirement+of+a+victim"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for using a fictitious credit card on the grounds that there was no injured party (no victim). But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]HERE NEED NOT... BE A VICTIM FOR THERE TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THERE BEING NO... REQUIREMENT OF A VICTIM, failure to allege the same [a victim] does not render the indictment fundamentally defective."

CLICK HERE: United States v. Simmons, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1142947892906246045&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Simmons moved to change his guilty plea in connection with a charge of possession of heroin and cocaine with intent to distribute. Simmons raised a number of arguments, including the argument that there was no injured party. The court had just decided a case that addressed Simmons' argument. In discussing that other case, the court wrote," Pryor also alleged that the government lacked standing because there was NO INJURED PARTY; again the Sixth Circuit noted that "[t]here is standing . . . because `the I INJURY TO [THE UNITED STATES] SOVEREIGNTY ARISING FROM [THE] VIOLATION OF ITS LAWS... SUFFICES TO SUPPORT A CRIMINAL [CONVICTION]... .'"(in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15805455771417227202&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. Note that in this jurisdiction the United States itself CAN BE THE INJURED PARTY.


62. When the D.A. files a criminal complaint against you, it reads like this: STATE OF TEXAS vs John P. Doe [Illegal possession of class III weapon]. What he is doing is filing a complaint on behalf of some entity that goes by the name ‘STATE OF TEXAS’, but on American soil you have the Right to confront your accuser and attempt to compensate him for any harm you may have caused (see Article VI) – Can this entity known as the ‘STATE OF TEXAS’ take the stand and point you out across the room and say, That man right over there harmed me and my personal property by possessing that automatic weapon and I require compensation for the trespass!’ ? Answer: No, it cannot. Basically the prosecutor has himself an imaginary friend he’s hoping you don’t call to the stand to verify you’ve caused him harm, injury, or loss.The Plaintiff must appear and verify his claim, on the Record – Only a ‘man’ may utter with his voice in open court and verify a claim, a corporation such as the STATE OF TEXAS cannot.

RESPONSE: As the case above clearly demonstrate, no "victim" or "injured party" is necessary in traffic law or criminal law. One of the primary purposes of criminal law is to prevent there from being a victim in the first place.

63. So what we have here is a D.A. who is filing false claims against his fellow man to unjustly enrich himself and the almighty STATE OF TEXAS Corp. or UNITED STATES by attempting to hoodwink you with a ‘criminal complaint’

RESPONSE: The prosecutor (state's attorney or district attorney) is ELECTED by "We the People" to prosecute violators of the laws made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People". They do not file "false" charges, informations, indictments or complaints against anyone. All of the facts that are alleged in the charging document (regardless of the name) comes from the sworn, written statement of the victim(s), the eye witness(es) and/or law enforcement officer(s) involved or some combination thereof.

64. because they make BILLIONS of dollars through the courts

RESPONSE: Fines are the alternative to jail as punishment for violations of the law which is made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People". Fines are thought to be less intrusive than jail. So generally, fines are for minor offenses (called "CIVIL" infractions) and generally, jail is for more serious offenses (called "CRIMES"). But, some crimes are punishable by BOTH jail and by fine.

65. with this con on a yearly basis.

RESPONSE: There is nothing about the forgoing that is a "con".

66. Remember that gov’t cannot file claims against the People, as the People are the one’s who created the gov’t – gov’t can only file complaints.

RESPONSE: Not only is this amateur claim a lie, it reflects a stunning ignorance of law, civics and history. THE "GOVERNMENT" IS THE PEOPLE OF THE JURISDICTION COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE, THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESETATIVES. THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY HAS THE RIGHT TO CHARGE AND CONVICT THOSE WHO VIOLATE THEIR LAWS MADE BY THE ELECTED LAWMAKERS OF "WE THE PEOPLE". Second, the government is not required to file a charging document called a "claim" to make a valid charge against a person who violates the law. The name of the charging document can be, "INDICTMENT", "INFORMATION" or "COMPLAINT". A charging document called a "claim" (a civil law term) IS NOT REQUIRED.

67. He’s operating under the presumption that YOU are one of that corporation’s own internal employees who is contractually obligated to abide by that corporation’s internal ‘laws’ known as codes and statutes, which are NOT actual laws of this land.

RESPONSE: Not so. No such "presumption" exists in the law. Not only that, but there is no requirement for you to be an employee of the government to be bound by the laws of the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People". The law applies to whomever the law says it applies to.

68. It is not against the law to presume, and if you don’t rebut, you must agree, and when two entities agree, we now have law. Yes, it is quite the con, but they make billions of dollars through the court system on a yearly basis from non-employees of their corporation because we don’t know the difference between statutes and actual laws.

RESPONSE: There is no such "presumption" under the law. So, there is nothing to "rebut". Failing to rebut a nonexistent presumption does not constitute an agreement. Not only that, but there is no requirement for you to be an employee of the government to be bound by the laws of the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People". The law applies to whomever the law says it applies to.

69. because we don’t know the difference between statutes and actual laws.

RESPONSE: THEN, SHOW ME THE LAW! Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. If there is a case that says there is a difference between statutes and actual laws, then there is a difference between statutes and actual laws. But, if there is no case that says there is a difference between statutes and actual laws, then there is no difference between statutes and actual laws. It is that simple. THE TRUTH IS THAT STATUTES ARE ACTUAL LAWS AND THEY APPLY TO WHOMEVER THE STATUTE SAYS THEY APPLY TO.

70. So how do we combat this criminal behavior?

RESPONSE: You don't. There is no criminal behavior to combat. The enemy that you demonize does not exist. The enemy that you demonize is imaginary. The enemy that you demonize is only in your delusional imagination. The ELECTED judges are legally authorized by constitution, statute and by the common law (case law) to preside over their cases. The ELECTED deputies of the ELECTED city police chief, the ELECTED county sheriff or the ELECTED governor are legally authorized by constitution, statute and by the common law (case law) to arrest and charge those who have violated the statutes of "We the People". The ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" are authorized by constitution, statute and by the common law (case law) to make our laws which are limited solely by the Constitution as interpreted by the courts (not by you).

71. Answer: We must file a claim against him to counter his silly complaint!

RESPONSE: Not only is there no criminal behavior to combat, but filing a civil suit containing civil claims against judges or prosecutors are futile. Judges and prosecutors are immune from suit for all actions arising out of their official duties. This is why Rod Cass and Karl Lentz has a 100% failure rate in filing such frivolous lawsuits.

72. You can learn a lot about this subject from another post of mine, here:

The STATE OF TEXAS vs John Q. PUBLIC [illegal possession of]

RESPONSE: It is true that you can learn a lot of delusional amateur legal theories ("Voodoo law") from Rod Class and Karl Lentz (both of which have LOST every case in which they have ever been involved). But, you will learn nothing about the real law that used by the entire rest of the planet.

73. He is committing barratry; attempting unjust enrichment; extortion; harming your good name within your community; malicious prosecution, theft/robbery of property without due process of law, and wasting your very precious and valuable time dealing with his toothless nonsense known as a ‘criminal complaint’, and now you are going to file a claim (not a complaint, but an actual claim) against him and drag him into court as a defendant for trespassing on your Rights by filing false claims against you.

RESPONSE: faithfully discharging his duties and obligations under the law, as he is lawfully required to do, the prosecutor does not commit barratry; attempt unjust enrichment; extort anything; harm your good name within your community; maliciously prosecute or steal or rob without due process of law.

74. You are going to require compensation from him for the trespass(es), and because your compensation is going to exceed twenty dollars (see Article VII), you are going to invoke your Right to a ‘trial by jury’.

RESPONSE: Your compensation will be zero because prosecutors and judges a immune from suit for all action arising out of their official duties. So, you case will be automatically dismissed upon the first motion of the defendant.

75. Now the D.A. has become a defendant in a trespass claim and YOU are now the prosecutor in a court of record, and in a court of record, the Tribunal is Independent of the Magistrate.

RESPONSE: Yes. The prosecutor will be a defendant all the way up until he/she files a motion to dismiss on the grounds of immunity and the case will be automatically dismissed. This should take about two days. The court you are in is irrelevant when the party you sue is immune from suit.

76. You are now the prosecutor; the man who filed false claims against you is now the wrongdoer, and the Jury now becomes the Judge.

RESPONSE: The case will be dismissed BEFORE you become the prosecutor because the party you sued is immune from suit. The case will be dismissed BEFORE it ever gets to a jury.

77. The guy who normally plays God (the Judge) is now lowered to the status of a mere referee who is to carry out the court’s orders and keep court decorum, only.

RESPONSE: The judge is always just a mere referee who keeps court decorum.

78. He can no longer tell you to sit down and shut up, as this is now YOUR court, and it is YOUR claim in that public building, and he is only there to referee by your request.

RESPONSE: Your case will never get to trial proceedings. It will dismissed with the first piece of paper filed by the defendant BEFORE it ever gets to a jury.

79. The D.A. has his case (criminal complaint) and you must bring forth YOUR case (an actual claim) so you aren’t playing defendant in THEIR court.

RESPONSE: Not so. Rod Class makes a similar amateur mistake. He mistakenly believes that filing a civil suit against government officials involved in the criminal case against him somehow replaces or otherwise stops the criminal case against him. But, this is not so. The criminal does not even slow down, much less stop, merely because the defendant files a civil lawsuit against someone. And, any civil case filed against the judge or prosecutor in the criminal case will be thrown out of court upon the defendant's first filing (the motion to dismiss).

80. These scumbags make BILLIONS of dollars every year with this con of filing ‘complaints’ (read that as false claims) against their fellow man because we have never been taught the Law.

RESPONSE: Rod Class also makes this same amateur mistake. He confuses criminal cases with civil cases and scrambles up the rules relating to one with the rules that actually relate to the other. A "complaint" is a charging document in a criminal case. A claim is a single count in a complaint in a civil lawsuit. The fact that prosecutors do not call their charging document a "claim" does not have any effect whatsoever on the validity of the charges.

81. That corporation has THEIR set of rules for their own internal employees (US Codes Title 1 – Title 54) as found here, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

RESPONSE: SHOW ME THE LAW! Show me where in Titles 1 to 54 there is any language that says all statutes only apply to government employees.

82. And we have our own set of rules, known as the Common Law – Do. No. Harm.

RESPONSE: Common law is case law. So, common law says a whole lot more than "Do no harm".

83. You will NOT find any reference to those statutes (US Codes) in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because they are a SEPARATE set of rules/codes/statutes/regulations that are NOT part of the Law of the Land known as the Constitution.

RESPONSE:

84. They are rules for internal gov’t employees who are being compensated to abide by the ‘you may not possess 30 round magazines’ statutes.

RESPONSE:

85. You will not find BURGER KING or XEROX statutes in the Constitution either, as they are a SEPARATE set of rules that only apply to employees of those corporations while they are on the clock and receiving pay.

RESPONSE: This is true and has nothing to do the statutes made by the lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" to make out laws.

86. The Second Amendment clearly states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

RESPONSE: Agreed.

87. That word ‘shall’ means at anytime in the future, and there is ZERO Amendments or Footnotes anywhere in the Bill of Rights that reference man to go to US Codes to validate the Law, because US Codes are NOT Laws, they are totally Independent of the Constitution, and have zero force or effect in Law unless you are an employee of that corporation and under contract to perform by those internal statutes, period!

RESPONSE:

88. To change that Law (2nd Amendment), it would have to be ratified by 3/4’s of the States, then voted on by the Senate, and that will NEVER-EVER happen on American soil and they damned well know it,

RESPONSE: Not so. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. See the second (2nd) paragraph here. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution.

89. so all they can do is HOPE you continue to go along with their con by convincing you that their internal corporate statutes are laws by continuing to use the media to call them laws, instead of what they actually are – Internal Corporate Statutes of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

RESPONSE:

90. This corporation’s CEO and Board of Directors (Obama, Senators, Congressmen) can change their own internal firearms statutes at will-on a daily basis because it is a separate set of rules that only applies to employees of that corporation, but do not apply to the average American who is not on the gov’t payroll.

RESPONSE:

91. Just like BURGER KING or XEROX can change their own internal ‘laws’ at will, so can the ‘UNITED STATES Corp.’, and they don’t need a Constitutional Amendment to do it, because those statutes are NOT Laws of this Land, and only apply to employees of that corporation.

RESPONSE:

92. They can change them daily, as they most often do, and need no ratification from the several States, because they are NOT laws, they are statutes that only apply to the CEO (Obama) and those gov’t agents/employees beneath him.

RESPONSE:

93. In closing: You may own/buy/sell/possess any weapon of choice without permission from that corporation if you are not an employee of that corporation, and all they can do is COMPLAIN about it – hence their ‘criminal complaints’,

RESPONSE:

94. and you are not lawfully required to buy a tax stamp or a concealed carry permit either, unless you are under employment contract and receiving pay to abide by restrictive firearms statutes, which are NOT laws.

RESPONSE:

95. America, like England, Australia, Canada, and Ireland are ‘Common Law Nations’, and you may do anything you damned well please as long as you are not harming another man or his property,

RESPONSE: Yes. These countries are common law countries. But, this does not mean "you may do anything you damned well please as long as you are not harming another man or his property." Instead, this merely means that in addition to STATUTES made by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" to make our laws, THESE COUNTRIES ALSO RECOGNIZE CASE LAW ("COMMON LAW") AS PRECEDENT AND AS BINDING LEGAL AUTHORITY GOVERNING ALL FUTURE CASES ON THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECT (SO LONG AS THAT CASE LAW IS NOT PRE-EMPTED BY STATUTE).

96.and that includes owning/possessing an automatic weapon without having to purchase an extortion stamp, as well as openly (or concealed) carrying any firearm of your choice, anywhere you go, unless it is prohibited by Private Property Owners such as a local business, etc.

RESPONSE: Not so. If a statute requires you to purchase a stamp to own or possess an automatic weapon, then you have to purchase a stamp to own or possess an automatic weapon. If a statute requires you to obtain a permit to carry an open or concealed firearm, then you have to obtain a permit to carry an open or concealed firearm.

97. Remember, the Plaintiff MUST appear and verify his claim.

RESPONSE: Rod Class also makes this same amateur mistake. He confuses CRIMIAL CASES with CIVIL CASES and scrambles up the rules relating to one with the rules that actually relate to the other. This can be true in a CIVIL CASE of the type that an ordinary person or entity can file against another person or entity. But, this is NOT TRUE in a CRIMINAL CASE of the type that ONLY A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" can file against a person or entity.

98. The STATE OF TEXAS cannot take the stand and verify the complaint (false claim),

RESPONSE: Nor does it have to. In a CRIMINAL CASE, such is not required.

99. and the D.A. cannot verify the claim either,

RESPONSE: Nor does it have to. In a CRIMINAL CASE, such is not required.

100. as you did not harm HIM or HIS personal property,

RESPONSE: Rod Class also makes this same amateur mistake. He confuses CRIMIAL CASES with CIVIL CASES and scrambles up the rules relating to one with the rules that actually relate to the other. Harm, injury or damage is not required in a CRIMINAL CASE of the type that ONLY A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" can file against a person or entity. Harm, injury or damage is ONLY required in a CIVIL CASE of the type that an ordinary person or entity can file against another person or entity.

101. therefore he is filing false claims against you,

RESPONSE: The ELECTED prosecutor does not file a false anything against anybody. The reason that Karl Lentz mistakenly believes this is because he does not know the law.

102.and that is a very big NO-NO in Law that can cost him his house; his automobile; his retirement fund; his freedom if a Jury sees fit.

RESPONSE: Not so. It cannot cost him anything because he is immune from suit in connection with all activities relating to his official duties. And, such certainly cannot cost the prosecutor his/her "freedom if a jury sees fit". The only type of case in the world in which a defendant can lose his/her freedom is a CRIMINAL CASE of the type ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN FILE against a person. A defendant can NEVER lose his/her freedom in a CIVIL CASE of the type an ordinary person (like Karl Lentz) can file against another person.

103. The D.A. cannot verify a claim on his or his plaintiff’s behalf because he himself has no first hand knowledge of anything his plaintiff is claiming, so all he can do is file a complaint on his plaintiff’s behalf. He can on the other hand CERTIFY the complaint, because he’s the one who drafted it, but anyone can certify something is on a piece of paper, just as a Notary certifies a document, but she cannot VERIFY anything on it because she herself has no first hand knowledge of anything on the document, therefore all she can do is certify she witnessed the document, but certifying something and verifying something are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS

RESPONSE: It is true that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney testify (or verify) anything in any of their cases. It is true that the prosecutor proves his case on behalf of "We the People" with sworn testimony from any victim, any eye witnesses, any documents, any audio or video recordings, and photos and any statements voluntarily made by the defendant to others. If (and that is a big "IF") the prosecutor certifies anything on the complaint, it is only that he has a good faith belief that the allegations are true based on the sworn statements of any victim, any eye witness or any person to whom the defendant voluntarily made statements. Of course, the prosecutor also certifies that he has served the documents on certain other parties as required by law.

104. A living man must show up in court and VERIFY you have caused him or his personal property, harm, injury, or loss. If there is no man, there is no controversy, and if there is no controversy, what the fuck are we doing here today?

RESPONSE: This can be true in a CIVIL CASE of the type that an ordinary person or entity can file against another person or entity. But, this is NOT TRUE in a CRIMINAL CASE of the type that ONLY A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" can file against a person or entity. Harm, injury or damage is not required in a CRIMINAL CASE of the type that ONLY A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" can file against a person or entity. Harm, injury or damage is ONLY required in a CIVIL CASE of the type that an ordinary person or entity can file against another person or entity.

105. Remember also…Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.”

RESPONSE: This quote is inaccurate. See the final full paragraph. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15281186693327493555&q=%22trinsey+v.+Pagliaro%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. But, this case does not mean that nothing attorneys say can ever be considered by anyone for any reason. Instead, this case only means, "Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PURPOSES OF GRANTING A MOTION TO DISMISS OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT." Translation: Evidence from others (like sworn affidavits) is also required FOR PURPOSES OF GRANTING A MOTION TO DISMISS OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

106. They make BILLIONS of dollars every year filing COMPLAINTS against people who do not know the law and do not know the difference between as silly ‘criminal complaint’ and an actual claim.

RESPONSE: Rod Class also makes this same amateur mistake. He confuses CRIMIAL CASES with CIVIL CASES and scrambles up the rules relating to one with the rules that actually relate to the other. A "complaint" is a charging document in a criminal case. A claim is a single count in a complaint in a civil lawsuit. The fact that prosecutors do not call their charging document a "claim" does not have any effect whatsoever on the validity of the charges.

107. In closing: You may own, possess, buy, sell, any weapon or weapons accessory (including fully automatic weapons, silencers, mini-guns, tanks, etc.) you can afford, and you are NOT lawfully required to ask anyone from any gov’t agencies permission to do so, nor you are required by law to purchase a permit to do so, either. As long as you are not harming your fellow man, no actual law has been broken, and the STATE OF*** cannot take the stand and verify harm because the STATE is not a living man.

RESPONSE:

Not so. If a statute requires you to have a permit to own, possess, buy, sell any weapon or weapons accessory (including fully automatic weapons, silencers, mini-guns, tanks, etc.), then you to have a permit to own, possess, buy, sell any weapon or weapons accessory (including fully automatic weapons, silencers, mini-guns, tanks, etc.).

108. and the STATE OF*** cannot take the stand and verify harm because the STATE is not a living man.

RESPONSE: Harm, injury or damage is not required in a CRIMINAL CASE of the type that ONLY A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" can file against a person or entity. Harm, injury or damage is ONLY required in a CIVIL CASE of the type that an ordinary person or entity can file against another person or entity.

109. If you’d like to learn more about how to defend your Rights against rogue Gov’t agents and their Agencies by countering their complaints with claims, I’d suggest you get to YouTube and look up ‘Karl Lentz Common Law’

RESPONSE: Karl Lentz cannot teach you anything about the real law that is used by the by the courts, governments and by the entire rest of the world.

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
Not a "US Citizen" slave. Living in the private, not corporate world.


Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 11.11.49 AM.png


Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 11.11.53 AM.png


Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 11.11.56 AM.png
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,005
Likes
60,896
Location
Rocky Mountains
When our governing officials act to dismiss the right of due process and defraud us of honest justice in accordance with the law as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore constitutional and legal duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers. Respondent refuses to allow ResHis/Her individual rights to be undermined and treaded upon in this manner, especially by those whose sworn duty it is to protect Respondent in their free exercise and enjoyment thereof.

“A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. See Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 1991) (trial court abused discretion by misinterpreting Code of Judicial Conduct); NCNB Texas National Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.1989) (trial court abused discretion by failing to apply proper legal standard to motion to disqualify counsel); Eanes ISD v. Logue, 712 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1986) (trial court abused discretion by erroneously finding constitutional violation).” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)

A. Standard of Review

An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss a claim under section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for an abuse of discretion. See Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (discussing former article 4590i); Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Tex.2001) (discussing former article 4590i). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding rules or principles. See Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P., 189 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (discussing section 74.351) (citing see Garcia v. Martinez, 988 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.1999)). When reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992)). A trial court does not abuse its discretion merely because it decides a discretionary matter differently than an appellate court would under similar circumstances. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing see Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 *445 (Tex.1985)). However, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion. See id.” Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.

Respondent demands that the court take judicial notice that the Prosecution in the instant matter have failed or refused to respond and address any of the written pleadings Respondent has filed with this court. When opposing counsel fails to respond to written pleadings containing points and argument of law as submitted by the other party, then those points and arguments become conclusively established judicial admissions of fact requiring no further presentation of facts or evidence in support, and opposing counsel may not attempt to later argue that those facts are incorrect or inadmissible:

"Assertions of fact, not pled in the alternative, in the live pleadings of a party are regarded as formal judicial admissions. Any fact admitted is conclusively established in the case without the introduction of the pleadings or presentation of other evidence." Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex.1983) citing Kirk v. Head, 137 Tex. 44, 152 S.W.2d 726 (1941); 1A R. Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 1144 (Texas Practice 3d ed. 1980).

"A judicial admission is a formal waiver of proof that dispenses with the production of evidence on an issue. Lee v. Lee, 43 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). A judicially admitted fact is established as a matter of law, and the admitting party may not dispute it or introduce evidence contrary to it. Id.; Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, writ dism'd). This rule is based on the public policy that it would be absurd and manifestly unjust to permit a party to recover after he has sworn himself out of court by a clear and unequivocal statement. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carr, 242 S.W.2d 224, 229 (Tex.Civ. App.-San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd); Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641; Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d at 374. Five conditions must have occurred for a party's admission to be conclusive against him: (1) the declaration relied upon must have been made in the course of a judicial proceeding; (2) the declaration was contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of recovery or defense asserted by the party; (3) the statement was deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; (4) giving conclusive effect to the declaration would not run contrary to public policy; and (5) the declaration related to a fact upon which a judgment for the opposing party was based. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 242 S.W.2d at 229; Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641-42." Peck v. Peck, 172 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied);