NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by Akira

BT,



First, let me start by apologizing.. I am sorry.. it was never my intent to offend..



The frustration/anger exhibited by me, although quite real, was not the direct or indirect result of interacting with you..



The frustration/anger IS a drect result of my overwhelming personal situation, and I had no business pointing my mis-directed anger at you. Again, please forgive me... I am sorry... I meant no malice.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Apology accepted. I suppose i was a bit heated by your comments and I may have lashed out a bit more than I would otherwise. I hope and pray your personal situation isn't too serious.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

I also mean no malice in the following reply. I do intend to answer your question, however...





The Remark

=========



When I questioned the observed lapse(s) in your critical reading skills, it was in reference to this thread. Both alledged mis-reads are located there.....



While responding to that thread, I remember thinking, "Geez, that's the 2nd time BT, has missed the point, that's not like him... I hope everything is okay..."



Mis-Read #1

------------------



The first mis-read was in reponse to Cowboys question of Monday, September 13 2004 @ 01:00 PM CDT which reads:

To which your response was:

Did you answer his question? Do you consider this a mis-read?

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Well, I must admit i could've been more thorough in my response, but allow me to guide you through my reasoning:



Cowboy made specific reference to the files that I linked to in my original message. Those files are in my own, personal file store and I indicated they were likely to remain there until we can verify that any of the documents could actually work. I did plan on adding a link to the SJ.net downloads section, but i must've gotten busy and didn't finish my post (I commonly add to my posts after-the-fact when i have time). The next time I came back to the thread, you had already posted your post (seen below), so i figured, 'why bother?' I guess the answer to that question is apparent now: so that Akira won't use such indiscretion to discredit my argument in an entirely unrelated threat/topic.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

I responded with:

Do you think I answered his question?





Mis-Read #2

------------------



The second mis-read occured just 9 days later on Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:47 PM CDT and was in regard to the two zip files offered by Buscador:

Gregtu and Seeker immediately remarked that they couldn't find them... and you offered your first link (to the abatement.zip file only...).



Two days later Buscador writes

4 hours and 12 minutes later, Buscador added:

FIVE DAYS LATER I ASKED:

to which you replied...

Did you answer my question? Is that a link to the 120 cases.zip file? Do you consider this a mis-read?

<font color=darkblue face=Verdana>Yes, i'm sorry about that. I didn't open the file myself, so I just assumed all the files were contained in the ZIP file. Once again, the product of not having much time on my hands - not that its a patent excuse.



So, out of roughly 335 posts, you have succesfully managed to weed out 2 oversights on my part and beat me over the head with them. Contratulations! You are a scholar and a gentleman.



-BT[/color]

[Akira]

Bear with me... I just whipped this out... no spell check, or anything else....

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

I hope and pray your personal situation isn't too serious.

It is very serious... it's not quite a Wil & Pam Gaston, "A Voice For Children", bad.... my sons haven't been sold to an out of country child slavery ring yet... but most of the other abuses experienced by them are there. I will tell you this much... After I started finally making headway into holding Mom accountable for her frauds and other felonies.. within 60 days, she was working for the Department of Human Services, as a secretary, for the man in charge of support enforcement... who is, also, one of the first people I personally reported Mom's felonies to, some 18 months earlier. DHS chose to respond by not only refusing to investigate the felonies... but instead chose to destroy the evidence. I do have some prima facie evidence that the evidence of the fraud once existed... but the actual evidence is gone. nuff said... you get the idea...

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

<u>Who CARES why it loses?</u> My point was simply that it will likely lose and <u>I gave valid points as to why.</u> Why don't you try addressing my points directly?

Why would I address your points, at all?? as you have already stated.... who cares why?

But, If you don't care why... how do you ever expect to make it a winner?

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

. . . Yet another implicit admission that this argument isn't "perfected" nor is it sufficient to win.

It is sufficient to win.... again, by your own admission...

Originally Posted by TheBlack Truth

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>True statement. [/color]

The law has not changed, nor has what it takes to win (in a lawful Art. III court, with an honest judge).



What is the ONLY reason this brief would lose?



Because the court is corrupt ! Any additional documentation, beyond this original brief, is there strictly to accomodate the perversions of men and the court....



I submit, that it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to "win" today... as there are no rules... there cannot be a "win" if there isn't a "level playing field" Any so-called win, is not the result of a well argued position and right thinking...



Let me ask you this...



When deer hunting season comes around... does the deer ever "win" the game? Does the hunter ever "lose"?



The deer can only "die or tie...", he can never "win"....



The hunter can only "win" or tie (go home empty handed), he can't "lose" (die)



Until the deer gets to shot back... there is no "sport", no "game", no competition or contest.



In court, we are the perverbial "deer"



Commercial aliens won't stop the judge from "hunting", he won't "die", it will only serve to make him more careful.



I submit to you that we NEVER "win" all we can do is "weed out the oversights and beat them over the head with them."



But, now I am argueing symantics....

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

NO CONFLICT = SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

No conflict = no case... what's the point of all this A4V stuff the redemptionists advocate then?

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

First of all, you need to make clear at what type of court proceeding you are suggesting this "argument" be made.

When we go to court today "pro per"... and we stand up and claim to be the flesh and blood man....are we lying? Do we care what the court thinks? Do we care if they can't see us?



I do not go to court, and file additional docs, to accomodate the unrighteous.. the additional documents do not help me to win.. They are weapons used to beat down the unrighteous ! Not so righteousness can "win" but so it can be "maintained".



Again, I need no more than the original brief to win.. all the other docs are sent to maintain the integrity of the court.

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

This is the sort of argument that, if effective, must be made before a plea is entered - before you become a "defendant". A "Defendant", by pleading not-guilty has already granted personal jurisdiction and tacitly agreed that the "charge" is not inappropriate.

Actually, Counselor Miller refers to the brief as presented, as the "hard core" approach. He recommends pleading a demurr, and submiting docs per normal procedure, or, to be a bit more hard core, waiting till the day before court to submit them.



Actore non probante reus absolvitur. When the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.

Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.

Contestio litis eget terminos contradictaris. An issue requires terms of contradiction; that is, there can be no issue without an affirmative on one side and a negative on the other.

When Randy Lee walked in to court and said (paraphrasing) "I am who I say I am, not who the DA says I am"



And the burden goes to the D.A. to prove otherwise...



How is this any different to...



I am a common law freeman.. I was traveling.. here is the proof of my Constitutionally acknowledged right.." Isn't he saying... this is what I was doing.... not what the D.A. says I was doing?



The judge is bound by law to protect your rights... if he doesn't, it's judicial corruption... presumption is only the symptom, not the cause.



Heh, the bottom line here is... you are approaching court as though "guilty until proven innocent" and although, I agree, that is the way it is... it is that way because of corruption....



As we all know,, we are all supposed to be "INNOCENT until proven guilty" I am suggesting we only need the brief to show this...

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

Akira, I appreciate your concern for the development of my reading skills. However, reading and writing happen to be skills i possess at a caliber better than most. I have a level of understanding of this subject-matter as good or better than anyone I've corresponded with on this forum to date. I welcome the questioning of my logic, arguments and accuracy,

so noted...

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

but I request you cease attacking me personally

dude, if I had attacked you personally, there would be no doubt. I only witnessed to an observation, albeit, very tactlessly, and successfully defended the observation, not the lack of tact.

attacks? well.. I dunno... what planet are YOU on?

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

I think i was "due" far more respect than that, but I'll let that go this round.

I agree and stated such.

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

When one is charged with a traffic offense (e.g. driving without a license), the officer who fills out the charging instrument (citation) is alleging that you were driving a vehicle at the time the traffic offense occurred. Given this allegation, if you repsond with the above-captioned brief, YOU WILL LIKELY LOSE. You can put together a brief on your Right to Travel as a free citizen that is so perfectly compiled that the supreme court justices weep on the bench. However, if you don't address the allegation - that you were DRIVING - then its all for not.

This document / arguement is an ICON and is symbolic of our goal as patriots. It's a Classic example of the style of law we are working so very hard to return to, and should be acknowledged and respected as such.



I submit to you, that although, I agree, you are correct, that the brief is inadequate in todays state court... I believe, that, if appealed to a high enough court, this again will be all that's necessary to win !



We are so preoccupied with being paranoid.. because of the perversions of men... If God himself walked up and said "I can fix all of this for you with a snap of my fingers", by your respective. we would laugh and say "get out of the way old man... we're expecting the Terminator to arrive any moment !"



The whole reason for my asking you to reread the brief was to see the 'beauty" inherent in the doc. This brief represents, at least to me, a shining sword of truth ! God's law manifested, on paper, pure, pristine and complete.



I personally see God all around me, all the time, in most everything.... I am blown away, when I meet people who can't even see God manifested in there own children (for example), it tears at my soul.... because I know there is little I can do to show them.. (you can lead a horse to water...) perhaps you are one of these people... I seriously doubt you are.... but this is my presumption....



I have no desire to fight, quabble, argue or anything else that distracts us from our most important mission...



I have been distracted from HIS work long enough...



Bro.. let's move on...



Please join with me in kicking some a$$



For HIS Glory,

Akira

[Akira]

BT,



oops sent the wrong one first.. lol



Please note my response of Tuesday morning made to Buscador in the "Strike at the Root! Nature & Cause, Abatements and Demur" thread...

Originally Posted by Akira

buscador,



Let me say up front.. that any percieved sarcasm expressed by me previously in this post, was in no way targeting you.... I make NO PRESUMPTION about why the previously mentioned file, "120 Major Cases in Their Entirety" has yet to appear in the downloads section.



Clearly, you have shown good faith by attempting to upload it multiple times...

I also made no presumption about the alledged mis-reads.. my only hope, as stated, was that everything was okay with YOU.. For all I knew, you WERE in a hurry that day..

Originally Posted by BT

I guess the answer to that question is apparent now: so that Akira won't use such indiscretion to discredit my argument in an entirely unrelated threat/topic.

Originally Posted by BT

out of roughly 335 posts, you have succesfully managed to weed out 2 oversights on my part and beat me over the head with them.

[idknow]

Akira, wonderful work, eminently applicable and excellently godly!

however, (isn't there always a but?

the url's to other forums are dead: ``page not found''

[Shoonra]

This argument is far from "perfected".

It assumes, erroneously, that the "right to travel" includes a "right" to pilot a motor vehicle on the public highways. The courts have repeatedly said No; the right to travel is merely the right to get from point A to point B - but does not encompass the choice of a means of transportation, much less sitting at the controls of that means of transportation. In other words, you have a right to travel to NYC - but not a right to insist on getting there by dogsled nor even by jet, much less letting you personally pilot the jet or run the dogsled on the public highways.

Having made the fundamental error about the right to travel, everything else in this argument is a waste of ink.

The Supreme Court, no less, has said that the States have a right - and a responsibility - to try to keep the highways safe and efficient by requiring that drivers be qualified and licensed and that vehicles be inspected and registered. It has refused to recognize a "right" to put either a driver or vehicle which lacks current proof of qualifying as roadworthy on the streets.

i was told a person needs a license to practice law also. now, lets dissect that a minute. lets say the law says the speed limit is 55 on a particular roadway. now, do i need a license to go 55? yes, according to the statement " a person need a license to practice the law". I need a license to do whats right? the crap that comes out the devil's mouth. the charge should be, NOT practicing the law. lastly, i dont care about supreme court decisions, statutes, none of that crap, commercial driving arguments,none of it. the only law i believe in is The Most High's laws and He said that if i didnt hurt anyone, no harm, no crime. all these other arguments are fluff for the devil. Not one judge, attorney or stooge can tell me i cant follow the teachings of The Most High.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Supreme Court, no less, has said that the States have a right - and a responsibility - to try to keep the highways safe and efficient by requiring that drivers be qualified and licensed and that vehicles be inspected and registered.

Shoonra, you are no doubt implying that the States have some form of a duty; a duty which you have described above.

Tell me, Shoonra, if someone was injured by some one who the State "authorized" to drive, could they sue the State for allowing a bad driver to be licensed?

If not, then how does the state really have a duty?

IF there is a hole in the road and I damage my car, Can I sue the State for having a Bad road?

I know there are cases involving that, but do they ever win?

Why Not?

Because there is no duty.

Why is there no duty?

How can a duty be proven to exist?

By contract.

There is no contract, so there is no duty. Where there is no duty, there is no case.

You have bought into one of the most sick and twisted dog and pony shows of all time and have probably taught your kids who are teaching or will teach their kids the same.

It's no doubt a generational curse

[Im Huami]

Taking no duty a few steps further...

If there is no duty then there can be no citizens, since citizens exchange thier allegiance for alleged protection.
If there are no citizens there is no state. No state no nation. It is a meme. All smoke and mirrors put on to keep a violent group of men and women that call themselves government in power.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Shoonra, you are no doubt implying that the States have some form of a duty; a duty which you have described above.

Tell me, Shoonra, if someone was injured by some one who the State "authorized" to drive, could they sue the State for allowing a bad driver to be licensed?

If not, then how does the state really have a duty?

IF there is a hole in the road and I damage my car, Can I sue the State for having a Bad road?

I know there are cases involving that, but do they ever win?

Why Not?

Because there is no duty.

Why is there no duty?

How can a duty be proven to exist?

By contract.

There is no contract, so there is no duty. Where there is no duty, there is no case.

You have bought into one of the most sick and twisted dog and pony shows of all time and have probably taught your kids who are teaching or will teach their kids the same.

It's no doubt a generational curse

[Shoonra]

By its very nature, in a republic or a participatory democracy, a govt is elected by the citizens to do a variety of tasks, and so the govt has a duty (actually, several duties) that its citizens expect it to discharge. One of these is to take steps to keep the streets and highways safe.

By the way, your particular questions do have answers. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers got its start when the mother of a girl killed by a drunk driver sued the local police for something akin to dereliction of duty; they had stopped this particular drunk driver ... and, knowing he was unfit to drive, let him get back behind the wheel and allowed him to drive off, only minutes before he killed her daughter. As the police had a specific duty to keep some they knew to be drunk from driving, she sued them and, I think, won a hefty amount.

But the usual responsibility of the govt, as regards driver licenses, is simply to try to weed out conspicuously unfit drivers by requiring would-be and renewing drivers to pass a test or two, including something for eyes and reflexes and knowledge of traffic law, and in some instances requiring more, such as insurance, before letting them have a license. And if that driver thereafter shows that he cannot be trusted on the road - such as by accumulating tickets - his license can be taken away.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

But the usual responsibility of the govt, as regards driver licenses, is simply to try to weed out conspicuously unfit drivers

Yup, guilty until proven innocent. That's the way - Uh Huh Uh Huh You like it