RE: Drivers licence and papers...tangents

[mrg]

Opinion in regards to the thread started by sans recourse:

I commented, impolitely, to the moderator that the thread had 5 stars and drew this response:

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

was it rated at the onset when the thread was focused or 17 pages deep?

I sincerely apologize.

I am new.

If you and perhaps the thread starter were to edit out my tangential postings, I myself would be appreciative.

(I still have not figured out how to delete posts myself.)

I have probably mistaken the tangents for the topic, and contributed to the tangents.

If I do not put materials out, I won't be taking full advantage of the learning opportunity.

I do know that the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

I also know that a lot of what I put out in an effort to actively and honestly participate in an interactive forum may often likely be opinionated, egotistical to some degree, knee-jerk vindictive in some cases, and incorrect.

If there is anyone here who can honestly say otherwise about their own participation, then it will be those who are extremely diligent in their research, study, and application of honest wisdom prior to their posting.

In my eagerness to participate, I forego, to some degree, extremely scrupulous and thoroughly diligent scholarship, in order to be timely involved in active participation.

I do try not to contribute fluff. If fluff has appeared by my hand, it is more than likely an honest error.

I have studied that thread from start to finish, and have followed it closely.

(I have also read and studied quite a bit of the entire forum posts old and new, as well as the articles and downloads.)

As that thread grew, I reviewed it from start to finish many times, partially in order to keep from veering off topic, partially to study, the information, and partly to study the process and nature of the progress of this particular example of what is a fairly new type of human communicative endeavor (interactive internet learning forum discussions).

That thread has had 4212 viewings as of today, and 163 responses, bunny trails and all!!

The originator, and the moderator, as well as the participants and contributors ought rightfully to take quite a bit of deserved esteem (or pride, for lack of a better term), in the amount of interest, participation, and activity that their initial, and ongoing efforts have generated.

The originator of the forum topic apparently initiated (either by design or by fortuitous happenstance) a socratic method for either teaching a subject or for thus allowing a subject to become illuminated.

I do not know whether the author knew the answers prior to setting the task, and was teaching, or if the author was also seeking answers, or both, or neither.

When a teacher chooses this method for bringing to light specifically pre-determined (known to the teacher from the outset) answers, to the question posed or problem presented, or task assigned, then it is the burden of the teacher, by pro-active guidance, to keep the students on point, either through skillfull use of the socratic method itself, or by abadonong it for a another approach, if perhaps another approach might seem better fitted to produce the desired behaviors.

If the teacher chooses the socratic method, and thus initiates a course of study, and then abandons his students for a significant amount of time, and leaves them to their own devices, it will naturally follow that the students will veer off course.

This will happen with adult learners as easily, if not more so, than with immature learners.

Is this nessesarily bad?

One might ask the over 4000 viewers of the topic.

Perhaps the teacher had not intended a socratic approach, and had merely presented the subject, said "learn," and then left the student to study.

This is also a very viable method of teaching and learning, however it is quite open-ended, and the teacher should, at least, only feign horror at what the student shows the teacher when the teacher returns to examine the results of the study.

Perhaps the originator might at this point provide some kind of summary or cloture, and the moderator consider closing the thread, and then the originator and moderator, editing it into something more definitive and educational than what has overall resulted.

As the moderator pointed out either in that thread or elswhere, with the onset of a national ID card being driver licence based, this traffic stop, traffic court, right to travel business is not something to be taken lightly.

(I still maintain that the bottom line in all of this is the utensil that the police officer is resting his hand on when he approaches your travel thingy, and that ultimately this is what is likely to have to be dealt with.)

If my posts are not supposed to be long, I need to be told.

My opinion that's all.

[SansRecours]

AS far as the quasi sovereign and in parens stuff, you were on point. You were answering a question I posed within my thread. I was hoping someone would post these two other capacities so that we could see the absurdity in some of the legitimate legal reasoning of those purporting to be judges.

I agree with the socratic method and the time frame. I chose this method because I want the reader, who answers based upon conclusions not necessarily provable, to find within himself the fact that basing one's position upon mere conclusions is not a firm foundation. I also want those submitting these conclusions to be put to proof. Better on a thread where the ramifications are small, than in front of a judge looking at the possibility of jail time. Notice how, someone going off the point, when asked for proof to support their position, disappears from the thread for a time, reappearing to propose yet another theory. It permeates the forum.

Part of the learning curve is also being able to use what one learns. One cannot build a house knowing nothing about the tools necessary to complete it. If you notice in my threads I say "Go and see for yourself, go look this or that up." Who has? mrg has, idknow has, 2501 has, Weis has. Who has not? Kitchie has not, Camino has not, Shoonra has not.

It of necessity follows that people will veer, at least a little, off course from the topic. You are right on this point. However, some of the posting goes way out in left field. It almost looks in some instances that people are responding to another thread by mistake.

I am not complaining or upset. My heart goes out to those new people. I want those to know certain things some of which follow herein:

I believe that the myriad legal theories trying to articulate the nature of this bondage holding us captive actually have merit, but not all of these theories are provable with fact, evidence, and testimony. This is an underlying reason behind my method. If one goes off-point on a thread, one will go off-point in a legal argument where the stakes are MUCH higher, and the adversaries are excellent at drawing their opposition into bringing a knife to a gunfight. Our own "teachers" fail in this area.

I have attended legal workshops in many places, many of which, although having merit, actually work to further confuse issues, or create convoluted processes whereby the "common" man cannot exercise enough knowledge to argue the matter succinctly. Or worse yet, argue succinctly in a court not having a jurisdiction competent to hear such an excellent argument, making bad case law.

I know of two in particular, while using the "redemption process" landed themselves a ten year prison sentence because all that they could articulate in court was "I accept that for value." Before their indictment I asked the basic question at a "common law" class THEY taught: "What is it that you are accepting for value? Show it to me." I was asked if I was a government agent trying to disrupt a meeting. Heck, even Roger Elvick, the originator of the redemption process did not even use it in his criminal case (Cleveland, Ohio), and did not even present ANY evidence to support the theory he originated. Furthermore, another "learn and win" group teacher claimed attendance at the hearings and advice given to Roger, AND THAT TEACHER NEVER ATTENDED ONE HEARING!!!

Still, others claim that "we are winning cases hands down" yet never show a judgment or a check.

Still, others go around claiming or teaching about sovereign status, armed to the hilt with credit cards, driver licenses, and other evidences of servitude to foreign masters, making a livelihood out of arming people with knowledge a mile wide but a sixteenth of an inch deep, that they do not themselves implement in their own lifestyle.

Moreso, others spout great arguments to police officers or low level lackeys, where such an argument has no effect, because the lackey knows nothing, and it works against the struggle on the whole.

I have met people who spout legal theory and do not know the first thing about how to write an affidavit. Or how to tell a fact from a conclusion.

Excepting for the two word posts on my thread (which I prejudged erroneously by presuming facts, and did apologize) I have really no problems with posting on the DL and Reg. thread, excepting the bizarre way off-point stuff, or the nit picking at topics that could be avoided had the nit picker read and digested what was written.

As far as the time factor, you know yourself that the posting of a message requires forethought, and the gathering of information, which takes time most would spend elsewhere. There is no shame in going a little off the point, but posting a reply to an off point reply of someone not paying attention does no one any good whatsoever. I believe that is the point Weis makes. It is surely the point I make.

For what its worth.

Sans Recours

[KITCHIE]

Sans-- Sorry I did not respond they way you thought I should. I have been in Municiple Court, no proof of ins, no DL not wearing seat belt. I was stopped for no plates or registration. I was not cited for that.

In muni court I announced I had not been arrigned. The judge said the court record reflects that you were arraigned. I told him then there is a fraud upon the court. I also submitted an affidavit revoking my autograph for good cause as the document it appeared on was a forgery.

My brief for discovery began:

I, Gayle-Marie; Jackson (hereafter JACKSON), Creditor-Secured Party, neither gives nor grants any form of jurisdiction or venue to this court and constantly challenges the jurisdiction of this court. I am making a special restricted appearance in Propria Persona and I am not making a general appearance. I am reserving all of my rights, remedies and defenses, statutory or procedural, at all times. I waive none of my rights, remedies and defenses, statutory or procedural, at any time for any reason. I am in constant fear of my life, liberty, person and property from police, troopers, State of Nevada and Washoe County, a municipal corporation and judges.

DISCOVERY ITEMS SOUGHT
Defendant JACKSON hereby notices this court that JACKSON demands discovery under NRS 174.235 rules of discovery under the evidence code.
1. A Certified true copy of original citation with original signatures.
2. Citing officer's full name, badge number and address for service of process.
3. A Certified true copy of the impound log of the vehicle citing officer was driving at the time of the incident.

4. The names of all persons or entities, their badge or other identification numbers and addresses for service of process, who maintained control over the vehicle while it was in impound.

5. A Certified true copy of the impound log for the computer system used by the citing officer at the time of the incident.

6. The names of all persons or entities, their badge or other identification numbers and addresses for service of process, who maintained control over the evidentiary locker where the computer system was kept while in impound.

7. The name, badge number or other identification numbers of the officer who entered a plea of not guilty for defendant JACKSON on November 17, 2004 at the Reno Municipal Court.

8. A certified true copy of the judge's entry log for the day of arraignment of defendant JACKSON showing the judge as being present.

9. The identification number of the Assistant City Attorney Leanne Kendull present on the day of arraignment presenting evidence to the judge giving evidence to the court that there was sufficient belief that defendant JACKSON was, indeed, the proper entity who supposedly committed the crimes charged.

10. A certified true copy of the work log of the Assistant City Attorney Leanne Kendull present at the time of the arraignment of Defendant JACKSON.

So that's the way I went about it. The thing is, is that it's never about the ticket, it's about the process.

Also keep in mind that there are thousands of rulings that are "not for publication" which could very well explain exactly what you want to know about what is a ticket and DL.

Kitchie

[SansRecours]

I would like to know the description of the plate on the conveyance, and the lack of registration.

Also, what was the outcome of the matter?

I did notice that you called yourself DEFENDANT. It seems that you made a general appearance by accepting that title, and making a discovery demand.
Notwithstanding, I do like that you demanded evidence (of which there is none but inadmissible hearsay).

Why are you calling yourself a Creditor and a Secured Party, say in opposition to living soul, or something else?

The reason I ask is that I have seen judges (or those purporting to be) ask people to articulate about this in court, and have yet to see someone successfully do it, or make it relevant enough to the matter to necessitate its inclusion.

SansRecours

Don't let Weis bust your chops.

He don't have the certificate yet.

He was just making a point.

Don't take it as an attack on you. He can be a little moody at a certain time of the month.



Welcome aboard. Call me before you buy anything...


By the way, I think what Eric Williams says about jurisdiction is really helpful. They cannot prove they have in personam jurisdiction without an admission from you. Think about it.

Henry Franklin