damn, good looking out truth, it IS A PETITION, not a complaint. let me check something out in that regards. ok, ok, without adding a new post, what the judge was saying is he wants either a filing fee or a affidavit of poverty, i submitted mine using hjr 192 and some other stuff and he let himself off the issues with that. i got remedy for that. the petition ITSELF isnt frivilous, its the NOT having the affidavit is what he is referring to. he tried to say i was going indigent because i was using hjr 192 to get out of the filing fee, just another thing to try to sidestep the issues. ok, we have solved the frivilous part of it, we have solved the regulation part ( they can put up stop signs and lights, chicago motor company vs chicago) and the same thompson vs smith, the last equation, the two case sites he submitted to rebut, bell and the poresky case, i need help rebutting those two, neither has anything to do with licensure. ok, my mind is working now, he used the bell case because i said my license was suspended, so, is he saying that with the drivers license "contract", they can suspend the license by citing the bell case? if so, then would my remedy be to rescind my license in writing before i resubmit my motion for reconsideration or should that be a non issue since the contract was fraud from the inception? how can i rebut that case he submitted? as far as the poresky case, i may need to submit murdock vs penn ( no charge for the enjoyment of rights and other case law pertaining to government not restriciting rights?) the petitioner in the perosky case used some lame reasons evidently to get out of the insurance.