Dismissed! 2 Counts of NO Lic, Reg, Tags, Insp. Sticker

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

When someone whose opinion matters...like a judge...agrees with you, let me know.

Until then, you're just a wingnut.

Translation

[Lawdog]

From Wikipedia:

boychik : boy, young man. (English boy + Eastern Yiddish -chik, diminutive suffix (from Slavic))

I'm not Jewish, but I find Yiddish slang to have an interesting sound to it. I find languages in general interesting. I majored in French and Spanish in college.

Anyway, boychik means simply "little boy." When I use it, I am being patronizing..I am talking down to someone. It has nothing to do with sex or propositioning someone.

Unlike some of you, I only have sex with women.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Unlike some of you, I only have sex with women.

A protestation!

LOL

You are so obvious.

Glock rhymes with C**k, and substitutes for something you are afraid you might not have?

Why do you feel the need to profess your alleged sexuality, boychik?

That's just classic, little man!

[Livefire]

I haven't seen or been presented evidence thru this site as to the sexual orientation of any of the freedom loving patroits, sovereigns, et al.... I HAVE, however, read postings by Shoonra and yourself, bringing up this topic and find your Freudian slips rather revealing! LOL Now you're talking about little boys and judges when the topic of "dicta" is mentioned..... I also have read where you are "licensed" to carry a "concealed weapon". I suppose that means your little "Glock" is locked and loaded at all times. Boychicks and judges beware! ;-)

Now to make this post productive. I read your post concerning the Annotated GA Code and would make the statement that only the STATUTORY portion stated in the code is prima fascia evidence of the Law. Anything else included is commentary used to assist lawyers in understanding the case law and other actions that detail the history of the statute.

If you're trying to use the argument that the Code isnt law in a case, it probably means that you are grasping at straws. Considerable care is used in compiling code because errors result in a lot of cases being tossed out. The code is also arranged topically vs chronologically, much easier to find stuff!

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

From Wikipedia:



I'm not Jewish, but I find Yiddish slang to have an interesting sound to it. I find languages in general interesting. I majored in French and Spanish in college.

Anyway, boychik means simply "little boy." When I use it, I am being patronizing..I am talking down to someone. It has nothing to do with sex or propositioning someone.

Unlike some of you, I only have sex with women.

Male dogs hump other male dogs to show dominance. It seems like you share a similar quality.

[jeagas68]

!!! UPDATES !!!

This is the Docs for that case for the same guy who got the big WIN in court recently over near Wilmington, NC dealing with several traffic tickets.

Enjoy,

Silver Dollar



---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Subject: Right to Travel


The paste below is an update on most recent adventures. The attachments include 3 of 4 filings/pleadings in the right to travel case pursuant to my six citations for no plate, registration, inspection or insurance in the trial held last April 17th; a summary of that trial; and a summary of the hearing on summary judgment in one of my three prongs in the attack on property tax. You might find them interesting, or not. It is a target-rich environment, and I am trying to get them all done before the IRS plops down on me. Comments appreciated and invited.

AuSable

May 13, 2008

Today was an interesting day. I traveled to the County Seat to file some papers with the court, visit the bank, apply for some permits (not for myself, but for one who is ignorant), and visit the postal service. After I filed the papers with the court, I stopped by the court bookkeeper's office to request a copy of the CAFR for the courthouse so that I could respond to the judge's comments from my property tax case last week regarding the State needing my property tax dollars to support the court. It is my opinion that the court is more than self-sustaining, with its surplus going to public education, by law.

While I was sitting in the office with the bookkeeper and the clerk of court, a bailiff came in to ascertain whether or not I was armed (Other bailiffs have noticed my weapon and done nothing, to the extent that one sauntered over to me in the courtroom one day to check for the weapon. He noted having seen me come into the courthouse on other occasions with my sidearm, and was concerned I might have inadvertently worn it into the courtroom.). This particular bailiff has shown his discontent with my arguments previously, but only passively. I showed him my weapon, and he left suddenly. I told the ladies he would be back to arrest me for carrying a weapon in the court house. It was very ironic that I had just been discussing that very point with them in response to their question about my carrying. I had shown them the weapon as an example of the constitutionally protected exercise of my right, and had just told them about my conversation with the sheriff the previous year in which he had agreed with my argument about the signs in the courthouse being unconstitutional (NC constitution) regarding open carry of weapons in the court house. The signs on the courthouse doors now specifically exclude only concealed weapons from the building. I could not have scheduled any visual aids more effectively than to have the bailiff come in and get huffy.

The bailiff returned shortly with the chief of Detectives who ordered me to unload my weapon and give it to him, with which I complied. He then handcuffed my hands behind my back, led me out to his car, loaded me up, and took me to the magistrate. I offered to walk, as sitting in a police car with handcuffs behind my back has never been comfortable to me. The distance to the magistrate and jail was only one block. The magistrate found probable cause, without benefit of hearing from me, and put me on $500.00 secured bond. I protested his not having given me a meaningful hearing, and he explained what he had done and asked if I had any questions. I then explained that my actions were protected by the Constitutions and the signage in the courthouse indicated that only concealed weapons were prohibited, which is in accordance with the NC Constitution. He didn't care, so I told him I was not a threat or a flight risk and could not be legally, therefore, jailed. I told him I looked forward to my court appearance, to which he laughed and had to agree; since I am a regular in the local courthouse. I told him that if he persisted in violating my rights, I would file suit against him after I had my day in court and got the charges dismissed. He then said my bond would be unsecured. I argued for release O.R., but, discretion being the better part of valor, I opted to accept the unsecured bond and left without my weapon. It was being held for evidence. I told the Captain deputy that he was depriving me of my only means of defense, but he didn't budge.

I then paid a visit to the Sheriff to let him know about my win last month on the traveling charges. After that discussion, he asked me about the "gun thing" at the courthouse. I went through the whole story with him, and he was not real sure whether I was right or wrong. He "did not recall" that our last conversation had resulted in his agreement to my being able to wear a weapon into the courthouse, but did agree that we might have discussed it. It was a good meeting and lasted over an hour. I told him he would be called as a witness at the trial next month.

As I pulled out of the parking lot for the Sheriff's Department, I was shadowed by a city policeman. He followed me for about a block and pulled me over. He was concerned about my lack of a state license plate on my car. When he asked for my registration and license, I gave him my license and explained to him I did not have a registration, title, inspection, or insurance. He asked me how I could drive without all that paper, and I showed him my orders from the trial of April 17th when Judge Carroll had found me "Not Guilty" for the same offenses. I then explained that, at least in my case, these orders constituted a precedent ruling that was applicable to my right to travel. I also warned the officer that I would file a civil lawsuit against him personally if he violated my right to travel and my liberty any further than he already had. Then, I gave him the short class on defense of rights and liberties, for the children. He went back to his car, called for back-up, had a discussion with the arriving officer, called the office on his car radio, hesitated for a few minutes, and came back up to me. I was standing outside my car, wearing my Ron Paul hat, with an empty holster when he came up and handed my license back. As he turned to walk away, he said, "Have a nice day." That was it.

END
D. Sullivan

[[ attached documents ]]

[jeagas68]

!! Still More Updates !!

comment from Ausable who won this case:

I keep my driver's license in case I need to drive a commercial vehicle, like my wife's or mother's car. That is a requirement if the vehicle is under jurisdiction. Just renewed mine yesterday.

See his video:
Troubleshooters: Man protests driving regulations
by WWAY

In this troubleshooters report: A Pender County man who refuses to get a license plate, registration, or insurance on his truck.

Donald Sullivan says the Constitution gives us the right to travel the public highways, and he shouldn't be charged or regulated for simply exercising his right.

You might be surprised to hear a judge ruled in his favor.

Sullivan said, "I can govern myself. And America is about self-government."

"If a person proves he's responsible, leave him alone, he can govern himself, he doesn't need to be bothered by the government," said Sullivan.

Donald Sullivan isn't your typical guy. The retired Air Force Lt. Colonel voted for Ron Paul in the recent election, and says our government has gotten too far away from the republic our forefathers founded.

"We don't have control over our own property anymore, our own lives, our own anything. The state regulates and taxes everything," said Sullivan.

Sick of the government micromanaging his life, Mr. Sullivan staged a unique form of protest. There's no state issued license plate on his truck. You won't find an inspection sticker either.

Sullivan says he doesn't need them and he's been driving around without them for the last year and a half.

Sullivan said, "I wanted to get a ticket, and I wanted to have the vehicle impounded, and I wanted to be arrested, because you have to be standing in a court to pursue these kinds of questions."

He finally got his wish. A trooper pulled Mr. Sullivan over in January, and the case was recently heard in court.

The judge denied Mr. Sullivan's motions regarding the court's jurisdiction over him, but found him not guilty of the driving offenses in question. Mr. Sullivan says it was a huge victory, and says the next time he's pulled over, all he has to do is show the officers the paperwork with the court's not guilty finding, and he is off the hook.

But the lawyer we asked said, not so fast.

Attorney Griff Anderson said, "The court made a determination, for whatever reason, that the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that which they had to prove to prove someone guilty."

"What happened in this case is particular only to this case -- what occurred on the roadway when the trooper cited him. What happened in this courtroom has no bearing whatsoever on what could happen in any future instance on the road," said Anderson.

While Mr. Sullivan raises some interesting questions about individual liberties, Attorney Griff Anderson says it was a very unusual case, and when it comes to driving, the law is clear.

"This has been challenged in the courts, and routinely, North Carolina courts, US courts, other states have upheld the right of the state to regulate the way people travel. They can't prohibit people from traveling on public roads, but they can regulate it by requiring licenses, license plates and insurance," said Anderson.

We're not sure exactly how Mr. Sullivan got off the hook in court, but attorneys tell us being found not guilty is very different than having a case thrown out. Any number of technicalities can cause a case to unravel.

In case you're wondering, despite his distaste for traffic laws, Mr. Sullivan concedes that car insurance is a good idea.

[jeagas68]

Hi, everyone

Today I received a certified copy in the mail of this court filing for the case, there just is not any better proof then this.... See attachment

SD

[David Merrill]

Evidence. I like that. Thanks!

The entire foundation for METRO/City of XXXXX municipal home rule cities and towns is the same argument. I think this guy's success is simply self-governance. While debating oaths of office with an Assistant DA in the Five Boroughs - NY City I uncovered that about home rule cities that sprawl over an entire county and replace the state-county based electorate with a municipal electorate. - That the purpose of the NY constitution is to establish self-governance.

With that in mind, it looks like that is the only winning constitutional argument; argue the purpose of the Constitution.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

Hi, everyone

Today I received a certified copy in the mail of this court filing for the case, there just is not any better proof then this.... See attachment

SD

What?!! Nothing from Lawpuppy on this? Must have got caught going down, huh Lawpuppy? I love it when the evidence proves people like Lawpuppy "wingnuts." LOL