New Yawk Citee Inc.

[Lawdog]

That "fiction" can put your butt in a cell. Or execute you...ask the ghost of Tim McVeigh.

Call it a fiction if you want, but it has real power.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

That "fiction" can put your butt in a cell. Or execute you...ask the ghost of Tim McVeigh.

Call it a fiction if you want, but it has real power.

I have no rebuttals in regard to your assertion about the 'enforcement power' of that 'fiction', but that assertion does not alter the FACT that it is still a "Legal Fiction". This is one of the primary points that I have attempted to tell other members of the patriot community for a long time. . .
They (the patriot community) can assert and publish as many and varying styles of documentations into one of these 'courts' as their hearts desire and without someone to 'enforce' their claims, they may just as well be urinating into a gale force wind that is blowing straight into their faces.

ENFORCEMENT. Without it, your claims are dead in the water.

Now watch and see if someone does not come back and claim that they themselves will 'enforce' the claims. Yet if they were so full of 'enforcement' then there would be no government, but only the dictatorship ran by the one claiming to have all this 'enforcement' capability.

Jerry Carlos

[gldskr]

Back to the case at hand.

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

for those who may have missed some sarcasm or hidden info:

yes the car is registered, however, the fact that it is registered and has plates and insurance does not prevent a free man from using that car to travel in, talk on a cell phone travel rapidly down the public highway or squeel the tires, etc...
The fact is, the free man ThomPaine wasn't using the car to travel in, THOMPAINE was the operator of the motor vehicle with a cellphone to his ear, in violation of the law.

I have won several cases using SMJ/IPJ involving plated cars with insurance, etc. The simple facts are that the city of NY does not have jurisdiction over me to tell me what i can or cant do in a privately owned automobile.
The simple fact is, is that ThomPaine does not own a private automobile, but THOMPAINE does own a vehicle, registered as a motor vehicle. Look at your Certificate of Title and you tell me who the owner is. NYC certainly does have jurisdiction over THOMPAINE's registered motor vehicle.

I don't mean to belittle your successes, but I would be interested in the nature of those successes.

2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no PERSON shall OPERATE a MOTOR VEHICLE upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion. (b) An OPERATOR of a MOTOR VEHICLE who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the OPERATOR was not engaged in a call. (c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a mobile telephone, unless otherwise provided by law.

4. A violation of subdivision two of this section shall be a traffic INFRACTION and shall be punishable by a FINE of not more than one hundred dollars.

I am not a person and was not operating a motor vehicle, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me...
Perhaps so, but it was not you that got the ticket it was THOMPAINE. But you agreed to be his surety, that is what is cut and dried.

gldskr

__________________

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

That "fiction" can put your butt in a cell.

Or execute you...ask the ghost of Tim McVeigh.

Call it a fiction if you want, but it has real power.

Sick sick puppy.

Hitler had "real power" too.

Hitler couldn't put a scratch on the asses of the DC murderers.


Corporate Municipal Mercenary Armed Forces of a Foreign Occupation Junta Warring Upon a Domestic Population

REAL POWER, BIG BRAVE MEN AND THEIR MK-ULTRA MONARCH WHORE

Foreign minions of war financiers/investors/profiteers.

DC is FOREIGN, those are FOREIGNORS.

Not traitors, no treason, FOREIGNORS.

You are the traitor, the quisling.

You are one sick dog.

Live it up, bubba.

Go peddle your counterfeit-security dead pledges, swindler.

[mrg]

Gldskr, NOBODY with or without full knowledge "agrees" to be surety for the ALLCAPS other than under force of arms, either implied, threatened, or applied.

That is not "agreement," it is tyranny.

That is what is cut and dried, literally.

If there is not full disclosure there can be no "agreement."

You really think you have gotten out from under the gun, free and clear?

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by mrg

Gldskr, NOBODY with or without full knowledge "agrees" to be surety for the ALLCAPS other than under force of arms, either implied, threatened, or applied.

That is not "agreement," it is tyranny.

That is what is cut and dried, literally.

If there is not full disclosure there can be no "agreement."

You really think you have gotten out from under the gun, free and clear?

Persons, as that term is defined, agree all the time to be the surety for the entities that are created. That is who the stautes are designed for. That the statutes are deceptive cannot be denied. But the flesh and blood man has recourse if he chooses to use it. Ignorance is bliss and that is the cornersone of statutory construction.

In re. the right to travel. The Feds have defined a motor vehicle as to its use in a commercial endeavor. You've seen the code section so no need to repeat it again. Subsequently, I believe all 50 states have entered into a uniform compact wherein their statutes will conform to this defintion.

Now there is no level of deception the states won't use to accomplish their goal. In Arizona a motor vehicle is defined as a vehicle that is self propelled. There are dozens of others depending upon which state you are in. The bottomline is that all statutory authority rests upon the federal definition. If it were any other way the states will have breached the compact. That ain't gonna happen considering the FRN's at stake.

It is our obligation to know the law, particularily the jurisdiction we choose to operate within. In re. travel, I don't engage in commerce upon the highways, therefore I needn't register my vehicle nor procure a license to drive it.

As to your last point. I don't deny that it is an uphill battle, and as we know LEO's aren't employed to think, but occassionlly they do ; and it is our duty to impart upon them who their true employers are.

Codee's minions will disect the statutes until they are blue in the face, when the Feds have already done the work for them. We are "governed" by federal laws, the states just provide the correllaries. Within those laws there is always remedy.

gldskr

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Learned authorities (scientists) say the earth is round. Therefore, a flat earther is someone totally out of step with those authorities.

Learned authorities (attorneys, law professors, and judges) say "sovrun citizun" theories are bogus.

The flat earthers are analogous to "sovrun citizuns." Not to learned legal authorities.

Yeah, now, ya nugget. In the context of what I said before, as you well know, I raised the example of one Galileo being ORDERED to state the earth is flat, even though he new better.
That is EXACTLY what you and the other corporate whores are doing today.
Flat earther.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

That "fiction" can put your butt in a cell. Or execute you...ask the ghost of Tim McVeigh.

Call it a fiction if you want, but it has real power.

Remember that when YOUR balls are in the vice and don't even bother to ask for mercy, for there will be none for you and your ilk.

[andrewmitch]

The bottom line is we are men and take on no other status (person, human being) unless we concur. On the other hand, it doesn't matter because they have the guns and all governments are only able to maintain and grow in power through force or the threat of force given their courts have the backing of policy enforcement officers.

But the real botton line is that Members of the BAR such as lawdog, who believe that man's law is above God's law (and earn a living off of that belief), will have to answer for their sins one day.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

The bottom line is we are men and take on no other status (person, human being) unless we concur. On the other hand, it doesn't matter because they have the guns and all governments are only able to maintain and grow in power through force or the threat of force given their courts have the backing of policy enforcement officers.

But the real botton line is that Members of the BAR such as lawdog, who believe that man's law is above God's law (and earn a living off of that belief), will have to answer for their sins one day.

Which version of God's law?

Torah and Talmud?

King James Bible?

Catholic Bible (with apocryphal books) and Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church?

Koran and Sharia Law?

That's part of the problem with you wingnuts...you blather on about "God's law" when anyone with a lick of sense knows that even people who believe in God don't agree what exactly "God's law" is. Wars have been fought over one group of people saying "this is God's law and we have to follow it" and another group saying "no, that's not God's law, we can disregard it."

I don't want to live in a theocracy. If you do, I suggest you move to Iran.

You are free to worship God however you like, but any attempt to impose what YOU consider to be "God's law" on me will meet with severe consequences.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Which version of God's law?

Torah and Talmud?

King James Bible?

Catholic Bible (with apocryphal books) and Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church?

Koran and Sharia Law?

That's part of the problem with you wingnuts...you blather on about "God's law" when anyone with a lick of sense knows that even people who believe in God don't agree what exactly "God's law" is. Wars have been fought over one group of people saying "this is God's law and we have to follow it" and another group saying "no, that's not God's law, we can disregard it."

I don't want to live in a theocracy. If you do, I suggest you move to Iran.

You are free to worship God however you like, but any attempt to impose what YOU consider to be "God's law" on me will meet with severe consequences.

Any TRUE follower of a Religious teaching (regardless of which one) will plainly and simply tell you that the Laws of God are those Laws which are in your heart. The inward knowing of the differences of right/wrong and love/hate. Any of those TRUE believers (followers) will also tell you that they are fully cognizant of the fact that the 'written' word of "God""yahweh""Allah" or any other title, are all subject to the interpretations of the writers and then further subject to the interpretations of the reader. The existence of God or the lack of His existence, subsequently the validity of His law or the invalidity of His law are all dependent on the 'belief' factor found in each of us.

You boldly issue a threat to anyone who attempts to push their beliefs on you. What do you think you are doing when you place your belief in what we consider a false religion (legalism) upon us? You don't want to worship God, that is your prerogative, but at the same time, you cannot push that personal belief system of yours upon us, especially under the guise of your system being 'the Law'.

Jerry Carlos