Suijuris Forums - View Single Post

weishaupt1776 · #4 01-02-2007, 07:31 PM

The plot thickens:

Quote:

Originally Posted by codee

Quote:

Originally Posted by palani

It is apparent after reading the first 5-6 pages of this post that Codee has no right to travel despite whatever the heading proclaims. Codee evidently has a right to proper proceedure since that is all he is arguing.

True True. There is no “right to travel argument” here. That is why it is called “Cody's right to travel.” It is wholly different then what any of those cases are talking about.

After he has proven successful beating one proceedure guess what ... another proceedure will be instituted in its' place that may or may not be more successful for the states' revenue grab.

Wrong. I do not defeat procedure. I use it. The problem is the police and judges misusing the procedure.

Wishing you the best of luck with this approach, Codee.

Please do tell what other approach is there that works and generates dismissals on the record?

You aren't dealing with laws that are fixed and remain constant from generation to generation.

Right. I am dealing with administrative laws that have no applicability to me. Thus they can change all they want. I stay the same and I am not subject to administrative procedural laws.

You are going to do battle with proceedure until you pass.

“Do battle” must mean dismiss action after action. “Until you pass” must mean nothing.

Seems like a gross waste of resources that could be better used in more productive pursuits.

Yep! What a waste of resources it is to keep getting Californians out of their traffic fines.

Pretty lame commentary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by palani

I am not declaring your effort to be a total loss.

But I am declaring your cause a total loss. The problem is I am left to assume what your cause is because you offered no strategy based on law yourself. I have a feeling it is because you have none. What you probably have is a bunch of pay-tree-rot crud that you developed none of and are reciting the same lame theories that have never won and have no citations to law.

You evidently do have some success with it.

Yes there is evidence and you should hold on to that for a while. EVIDENSE MEANS ALLOT

However, you might be building on a foundation of sand as administrative rules and proceedures change frequently.

Thank you for the worthless might be. This is not a thread dedicated to random speculation that it all might be built on sand. Please provide the citation to law that makes you think this. I have a feeling you have no citation in law that is causing these doubts in you.

The only way to keep up with the changes is constantly to apply effort and energy.

No!!! Really!!! You have to keep trying in life. Well blow me down!!! I guess you are looking for the extremely lazy mans approach.

Also, folks who decide to remain within the system (What system are you taking about here... “the system” means NOTHING to an unbraiwashed free thinking person who does not buy into pay-tree-rot crap. If nothing else please explain what this “system” is)and are taking benefits (What benefits? This thread has not discussed takings of benefits. So we no you are not referencing anything from this thread so what are we to assume these benefits are? And why would accepting a benefit from my government decrease anything else I have including standing and court defenses?) from it should also be supporting it (What is “it”? Is it the elusive “system” or the “benefit” of getting a ticket.) This is part of silent contract that is formed by accepting things like social security, drivers licenses, voter registration and passports. (wow genius. Now what are the other parts of this silent contract that you speak of. Where is the law that says silent contracts do this, this and this to people who enter into them with the state? Where is the law that says there is a silent contract in any of those rather OBVIOUS licenses and other contracts which do not at all seem “silent. Really, did you think this up or did someone else? Where is the support in law for it?) After accepting these 'cookies' (I guess your concept does not even have a leagal word for it so now you use computer lingo) and the adhesion contracts that are associated you become a criminal (really!!! I have already posted that infractions and regulatory laws are not criminal . I told people to get a hold of me if they wanted the proof. You did not. To call these matters criminal is absurd and you argument is foolish. Your assumption of criminality cuts to the core and it is precisely that assumption which makes you and all the other sheeple LOSE ALWAYS! You should have read past page 6. This statement makes you look like a fool.) if you don't obey all laws (you should obey all laws.); if you know this and don't intend to obey these laws then you are essentially a criminal. (Criminality does not issue from “intention alone.” Sorry but everything you have said is complete crap in the scope of the law.)

Possibly a better plan might be to stay out of the system entirely,

Why do you not test it out, lose, and then right a big article on how the judge abused you.... from prison. I love your “possibly...” Why do you think it is possible. Where is your citation in law to support that this may be a possibility?

don't accept 'cookies' from the cookie monster and stay in honor with no argument.

Honor??? Look through the entire California code and tell me where the hell this staying in honor crap comes from. Time is ticking UCC boy. What a worthless argument. Some people never learn. You tell judgy poo that you are in honor all the way to prison and say hi to Roger Elvick for me.

The law, statutes and governments implemented after the 14th amendment become foreign law and do not require obedience.

SAYS WHO!!! Oh I got to see the citation for this one!!! PLEASE!!! show me why this is true. Just keep in mind that I know your little commerce argument inside and out better then you ever will. It is all based on theory and none of it is based on law. Please show me what a sample brief would look like.