Know Your Constitution...

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

Shoonra, attacking the man doesn't prove him wrong or unreliable.

The guy started out bragging about movie heroics that couldn't possibly be his. That tells me a bit about how reliable he is.

Now this videotape is an hour and 45 minutes and this guy has a most annoying cough so I didn't suffer through the whole thing.

But he thinks that the Right to Travel is somehow the same thing as a right to operate a vehicle on the highways. First big mistake.

He also has some notion that traffic court is somehow admiralty jurisdiction. That somehow not getting a drivers license gives on more rights to drive on the highway than having one, etc. etc.

The only part of his spiel that I wasn't going to quibble about was the fact that he's been in jail.

He did say, however, that when stopped by a policeman, one should be polite. Very sensible. But when I advocated the same thing on this website I was abused from every direction.

[rodman652]

of a traffic violations charge and time stamped true copy.
What do you think would happen?

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS ASSERTED

I, John Q. Doe, hereby assert my rights, and deny any and all presumptions that assume otherwise.

I assert my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement, or bankruptcy that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally.

I do not accept the compelled liability associated to the compelled alleged benefit



CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

Article XI § 1 Oath of public officers.
All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of .......... according to the best of my ability. No other oath, affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.


CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
Article I § 1 Political power.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.


U.S CODE TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


U.S CODE TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Which is not the way Miller claimed it. In fact, Millers's claims are so delusional that I wonder if he was in Vietnam to begin with.

No! Not in fact! You claim Miller is delusional, yet you're the one basing your position on speculative conjecture. The hypocrisy is outstanding!

Miller's video claims him to be a paratrooper. How many paratroopers are depicted in Apocolypse Now? Not a single one! So, I cannot possibly see how you're making the claim that Miller claims he's a character in the movie.

Furthermore, in a previous post you give positive notion towards him being delusional because he served in Vietnam. Now you even *wonder* if he served in Vietnam!? So what actually makes him delusional?

And then you go on to make this outlandish argument about a guy who served but thinks he's entiteled to money because he had a similar name to a fictional character in a war movie -- which by the way was a story of a guy making an outlandish argument and not a delusional one, at least based on the summary given.

So, you've clearly shown you're speculating, and you've shown you don't even know the definition of the term "delusional."

But most of all, how relevant is figuring out the correlation between Apocolypse Now and his crew when determining the validity of the facts and arguments presented in the viedo? Absolutely ZERO!

The only person you've discredited is yourself.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

He also has some notion that traffic court is somehow admiralty jurisdiction.

Funny thing how that admiralty jurisdiction will get Shoonra to start calling me names!

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif

I have heard it argued that all debt arises from admiralty jurisdiction.


Shoonra and his career as law librarian, and attorney are expected to bash admiralty as something that never comes above the high tide mark. And this touches directly on my Signature too - Shoonra's myth that the Pope nullified the Magna Charta. That was the Knights Templar - the one and the same Knights Templar Justice Story spoke of in Delovio v. Boit; King Richard returning from the Crusades to adopt the Laws of Oleron for the Black Book of the Admiralty. (attached)



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The guy started out bragging about movie heroics that couldn't possibly be his. That tells me a bit about how reliable he is.

You're right. They couldn't be his, and he made no such claim to begin with so where are you getting this from? And stating an introduction or a biography is not bragging, but it does show your prejudice by claiming that it is.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Now this videotape is an hour and 45 minutes and this guy has a most annoying cough so I didn't suffer through the whole thing.

Lasted for ~5 mins.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

But he thinks that the Right to Travel is somehow the same thing as a right to operate a vehicle on the highways. First big mistake.

Unless you're telepathic, I don't think you can tell me what he thinks. Furtheremore, I don't think he ever made that claim. I would say you're making that correlation. And unless I'm mistaken, such a right doesn't exist (ref underlined part); it's a privilege. If anything, I believe he essentially claimed he doesn't need to ask permission to travel as he sees fit and backed it up with supreme court rulings.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

He also has some notion that traffic court is somehow admiralty jurisdiction. That somehow not getting a drivers license gives on more rights to drive on the highway than having one, etc. etc.

Again, I don't think a license gives anyone a right, but instead assigns a privilege. And, unless I'm mistaken, he shows that no jurisdiction is established.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

He did say, however, that when stopped by a policeman, one should be polite. Very sensible. But when I advocated the same thing on this website I was abused from every direction.

Did Miller attack you? No, he did not. But you attacked him. And claiming victim here is like an attacker who gets cut with his/her own knife.

I have no interest in belittling you or anything of the sort. But insist on attacking a man who is not here to defend himself, and I will give you a mirror.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Funny thing how that admiralty jurisdiction will get Shoonra to start calling me names!

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...s/Warrant2.gif

I have heard it argued that all debt arises from admiralty jurisdiction.


Shoonra and his career as law librarian, and attorney are expected to bash admiralty as something that never comes above the high tide mark. And this touches directly on my Signature too - Shoonra's myth that the Pope nullified the Magna Charta. That was the Knights Templar - the one and the same Knights Templar Justice Story spoke of in Delovio v. Boit; King Richard returning from the Crusades to adopt the Laws of Oleron for the Black Book of the Admiralty. (attached)



Regards,

David Merrill.

Can someone please translate this gibberish into English?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by rodman652

of a traffic violations charge and time stamped true copy.
What do you think would happen?

Considering that the unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways has NEVER been held to be one of the "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States", nothing that you would want would happen.

[rodman652]

Shoonra, The answer to my question, post #22 (W/1st hand knowledge) is...
"Nolle prosequi".

Again, you make assumptions that instantly fall by the wayside. I would never admit to driving a vehicle for obvious reasons known to those that are aware (word art).

In fact, trial will not happen(not yet anyway), and rarely was there a need to even speak. (serious repercussions should they proceed.)

Also, your claim "that the unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways has NEVER been held to be one of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.", lacks merit.

Perhaps you should brush up on the 9th & 10th amendments to the constitution.

Also, be aware of the jurisdictional status of the "person/party" accused in the case.

This quote comes to mind, "It is better to be silent and thought of as ignorant than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt!" (author unkown.)

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Considering that the unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways has NEVER been held to be one of the "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States", nothing that you would want would happen.

Considering that the "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" are always enjoyed without license or permit:

special activities like operating a motor vehicle on the public highway fall under administrative law. So check the definitions for more info.

Here's the catch- "motor vehicle" does not equal "self-propelled device". There is no law in any Vehicle Code regulating a mere 'self-propelled device'...

because by the same code-

motor vehicle= every self-propelled device (like an automobile) by which...persons or property...may be transported or drawn

Its conditional. A qualification as to the particular circumstances where an automobile becomes a vehicle, a "means by which" aka " carriage"

This excludes all other self-propelled devices like automobiles. The ones that do not and may not carry.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Considering that the "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" are always enjoyed without license or permit:

special activities like operating a motor vehicle on the public highway fall under administrative law. So check the definitions for more info.

Here's the catch- "motor vehicle" does not equal "self-propelled device". There is no law in any Vehicle Code regulating a mere 'self-propelled device'...

because by the same code-

motor vehicle= every self-propelled device (like an automobile) by which...persons or property...may be transported or drawn

Its conditional. A qualification as to the particular circumstances where an automobile becomes a vehicle, a "means by which" aka " carriage"

This excludes all other self-propelled devices like automobiles. The ones that do not and may not carry.

Ah, functional illiteracy at its best.

Give it up, son. Not ONE single court in the land has ever agreed with you. Motor vehicle statutes apply to ALL automobiles on public roads. Period, case closed.