a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person for no license

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by freebeme

So the above is a quote from post 225, not post 1, and you were quoting nothing previously posted.

You are complete tool of disinformation. Do to your complete lack of clearly remembering your own posts, Ignore list for you. You have not yet posted one thing other than your unsupported comments. No evidence for what you write, means you write crap.

I accept your unresponsive remarks as tacit agreement to my responses.

What does 'Ignore list for you' mean? Oh, I forgot, you don't respond to questions. Also, this is not writing, it is typing, but then again, that is like driving is to traveling, right?

The above quotes from freebeme are perfect examples of the type of nonresponsive 'stuff' you will receive from attorneys that don't like what you have to say. Here is another non-responsive statement one will encounter when dealing with an atwister........BOOTSTRAPPING

There is no way your ego will allow you to ignore me, since I am willing to spend the time to rebut every single spin you spew. However, if you are right, then I need not rebut you.

[David Merrill]

Good going Moishanb;


You made his ignore list? How do I do that?

Somebody wrote me about UGALawdog here. Wondering why as a Senior Member I do not banish him for being banished and coming back under a new Handle? It was a PM but I think I will write my Response here:

Actually I wasn't aware I am a Senior Member. I will look. At any rate it confers no policy or administrative power that I am aware of.

Lawdog is UGA Lawdog of Quatloos - at least that has always been my presumption. He is annoying but we have an Ignore Function. If enough people put him on the Ignore List, then people stop responding and he goes away.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Both Lawdog and Freebeme have revealed they are trolls here to inflame and blockade the learning about and implementation of remedy. I am convinced they are both attorneys by doctrine if not by Bar Card.

And I am going to call the Bar Association of the State - The State of Colorado Supreme Court for Edward Nottingham's Registration #: (303) 866-6554.

Edward Nottingham #4498

And as far as Karen Abbott's sensationalist reporting goes. She and Nottingham are a tagteam against assize and remedy. When Nottingham put electronic filing into place, requiring attorneys to do so, Karen wrote in the same disgusting style to make it sound as though us suitors and future suitors were just out of luck - denial of access to the federal courts. Well, try as I might I cannot find that article. It was about the bicycle pages (process runners) being a thing of the past if any of you want to try finding it. It would seem that Karen has moved on to a new career long by now...

So if you two dolts want to bring up that old article about my Motorscooter, I will just reply by showing the source from now on. I am long through being insulted by that kind of distortion. And I am warning the both of you that you better kick up your entertainment value a notch or I am making the major Admin decision to put you both on my Ignore List.

So There!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[freebeme]

Due to the poor moderation on this site I have decided to quit discussing the right to engage in any licensable activity in this thread. It has got way off point and it cannot be saved here. The right to be held to answer to crimes and not public offenses is very important and serious. It cannot be understood with people trying to compare it to other philosophies they may have on the law.

I have decided to continue this conversation here:

Administrative Law Steals Rights

The above link may require registration, however the board simply has moderators that will listen to needs of posters.

I have decided to discuss only one part at a time of the philosophy needed to combat administrative licensing laws and to combat the trial of public offenses which have no victim.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

I'm also confused as to what the Berkely mathmatician, Carl Miller, has to do with me. I'm a New Yorker!

Carl Miller is the one you ultimately stole your post from. Sorry I could not get to this until now. The words in between the quotes are a direct copy from his video tapes. I remember the quotes from 98'. That is how long people have been losing with that type of legal logic. Decades now.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Carl Miller is the one you ultimately stole your post from. Sorry I could not get to this until now. The words in between the quotes are a direct copy from his video tapes. I remember the quotes from 98'. That is how long people have been losing with that type of legal logic. Decades now.

Above is another demonstration of "how" you cannot keep your word. In the following quotation (at bottom), you stated that you were not going to engage in this discussion any further due to the "poor moderation" of this forum.

If you cannot live up to your word, then how can you expect anyone on this forum or your forum to believe anything you say? Actions speak louder than words.

Originally Posted by freebeme

Due to the poor moderation on this site I have decided to quit discussing the right to engage in any licensable activity in this thread. It has got way off point and it cannot be saved here. The right to be held to answer to crimes and not public offenses is very important and serious. It cannot be understood with people trying to compare it to other philosophies they may have on the law.

I have decided to continue this conversation here:

Administrative Law Steals Rights

Jerry Carlos

[trooper2ls]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Carl Miller is the one you ultimately stole your post from. Sorry I could not get to this until now. The words in between the quotes are a direct copy from his video tapes. I remember the quotes from 98'. That is how long people have been losing with that type of legal logic. Decades now.

So I grab some cites from Nexus and Westlaw and now I'm accused of stealing posts? Do attorers do that in the courtroom when they happen to use a cite that someone else did in the past? I have never heard of Carl Miller nor seen any material published by him .. sorry.

..J

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

So I grab some cites from Nexus and Westlaw and now I'm accused of stealing posts? Do attorers do that in the courtroom when they happen to use a cite that someone else did in the past? I have never heard of Carl Miller nor seen any material published by him .. sorry.

..J

Your apology is superseded by your lie. You may have not got the quotes from Carl, however you did cut and paste them and you did not get those quotes by doing your own research. Why do I know? Because I have been doing this crap since I was 16. I remember those quotes from 13yrs. ago. I am sorry that you are trying to pass it off as parallel research. Even the words in between the quotes you did not write.

You are now just a flat-out liar. You did not get those citations independently and string them together in that order on your own. Those citations are in the exact same order as Carl Miller had placed them. Everything in size 5 font is quote from Carl Miller himself and is not part of lexus nexus or wests law. It is Carl's own words. If you have a complaint about being called a liar get PM sent to Akira and have him take a look at this post. Akira , the site moderator knows Carl's work and will also be able to identify you are a liar. To now actually clam that you did the research... You are scum.

Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "


Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

And If They Do [A license and a fee] ............


Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”


That Means You Can't Punish Me.........


United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.

Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”

Watson v Memphis, 375 U.S. 526 (1964):
"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491 (1966):
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 (1913):
"the claim and exercise of a constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime."

[freebeme]

I have decided to quit discussing the right to engage in any licensable activity in this thread.

And I have not Jerry. Maybe you have a hard time understanding topics. I am not discussing any more about licensable activities.

Speaking of folk going back on there words, you said you were leaving this forum. So every post you make casts you as a liar by your own measure. I swore I had you on my ignore list. It must not have took.

[trooper2ls]

Freebeme you are young enough to be one of my children. You are allow to have your opinion, but I don't have to read or respond to any more of your posts and personal attacks. I personally don't care what you think.

Bye.

[freebeme]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

Freebeme you are young enough to be one of my children. You are allow to have your opinion, but I don't have to read or respond to any more of your posts and personal attacks. I personally don't care what you think.

Bye.

And I do not care what you say. You cut and pasted that research and now claim it as your own. You are thief and a liar.