Traffic Stop Is an Arrest

[ezrhythm]

[Edited, system hung, couldn't tell post went through.]

[ezrhythm]

..........................................

[Lawdog]

Ezrhythm:

Something someone says on an internet bulletin board is not "testimony" in the legal sense of the term, and it certainly is not proof of anything. I want to see some proof. Thom lives in Georgia, same as I do. I want to be able to verify for myself that what he says is true. I can check the court files, they are a matter of public record.

Farmer Giles:

Your parsing of the word transportation is meaningless; not a court in the land agrees (or has ever agreed) with you. I don't care what nouns or verbs you use....car, automobile, motor vehicle; drive, transport, operate; EVERY court in the land that has considered the issue says there is no such animal as a right to drive on a public street without a driver's license. And it does not matter whether or not you are in commerce, out of commerce, over commerce, or under commerce. Period, case closed, end of story.

I've posted several cases to this effect already. If you tell me what state you live in, I can probably find one for your state as well.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Every court in the land agrees that the language of statutory construction controls the process.

Motor vehicle is defined by statute. I have seen most or all of your posts, and all these cases you posted, and not one yet has addressed this issue. Every case I have seen deals with some distraction that belabors the point, like "the law is unconstitutional", or, "I am above the law", or whatever that has nothing to do with this point.

I would dearly like to see a court case that did deal with this.

Lawdog:

I don't care what nouns or verbs you use....car, automobile, motor vehicle; drive, transport, operate; EVERY court in the land that has considered the issue says there is no such animal as a right to drive on a public street without a driver's license

unless I wrote the state VC, legislators used these words when they passed the laws:

car, automobile, motor vehicle; drive, transport, operate

so I just want to know by direct answer about "transportation".

Rights may be irrelevant. What is directly relevant is what is the law, which very carefully defines a "vehicle" by what it carries and what it does, not who drives it or the fact that it rolls over the road. Use For Transport of Persons and Property.

ALL LAW in EVERY COUNTRY, all say the same things! Thats no coincidence. I'll take a case, cases for any state(s) you can find.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Your parsing of the word transportation is meaningless;

not a court in the land agrees (or has ever agreed) with you.


EVERY court in the land that has considered the issue says there is no such animal as a right to drive on a public street without a driver's license.

Period, case closed, end of story.

I've posted several cases to this effect already.

Again, SO WHAT!

Post your bogus "courts'" "cases" all you want.

Did it ever occur to you that your private monopoly trade guild Tory Loyalist BAR Association Esquire attorney speculative wagering stock markets, slave auctions, whorehouses, and casinos, are not "courts" of our republican forms of government, and that your blathering about this "court" and that "case" are little more than frivolous legal gibberish?

All you BAR Association quislings have between you and the business end of a rope is a highly centralized national so******t foreign occupation junta, a large and stupefied occupation force of heavily armed corporate municipal mercenary troops, a conquered and occupied, dumbed-down, vexed, and weary, domestic population, and an insatiable vested interest in gathering the crumbs that fall from the tables of your Esquire banksters that you have sold yourself to, and under whose tables you scavenge for crumbs.

A republican form of government means a republic.

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

I'm telling you how to fight but not promising victory.

[Lawdog]

Here's a more likely scenario:

99.9% of the population (maybe even more, like 99.999%) consider the courts whose decisions I cite to be legitimate, and they feel they same way about the executive and legislative branches of the governments (national and those of all 50 states).

Have you ever considered that maybe you're just a member of the lunatic fringe? I mean, no one whose opinion matters agrees with you. People who think like you, such as Leroy Schweitzer of the "Montana Freemen", have been convicted of crimes by juries of their peers and sent to prison.

There's no groundswell of popular support for a revolution against the government. That you wish otherwise is irrelevant. You seem to have a need for a scapegoat for your frustrations. I don't know why you're so angry...did you have a manufacturing job and lost it when the plant moved overseas? Did you have to declare personal bankruptcy for some reason? Did you get a raw deal in a divorce? Life sucks sometimes, for everyone. But ranting and raving against lawyers, bankers, Jews, blacks, or whomever you choose to hate is not going to improve your life one iota.

Being full of anger and hate is no way to go through life. People who let anger and hate consume them sometimes end up being famous, for all the wrong reasons. Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are examples. There comes a time when the best thing to do for yourself and your own peace of mind is to lay those negative emotions down, like a bag of bricks you've been carrying. Let them go. You will feel better. Trust me...I did.

[Lawdog]

Court, per Black's Law Dictionary:

An organ of the government, belonging to the judicial department, whose function is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it and the public administration of justice...An incorporeal, political being, composed of one or more judges, who sit at fixed times and places, attended by proper officers, pursuant to lawful authority, for the administration of justice...
The words "court" and "judge," or "judges," are frequently used in statutes as synonymous. When used with reference to orders made by the court or judges, they are to be so understood.

You don't get to create your own court, and neither do I. Every legitimate court in the land can ultimately trace its authority to a Constitution (national or state) and/or a statute passed by Congress or a state legislature.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Here's a more likely scenario:

99.9% of the population (maybe even more, like 99.999%) consider the courts whose decisions I cite to be legitimate, and they feel they same way about the executive and legislative branches of the governments (national and those of all 50 states).

Have you ever considered that maybe you're just a member of the lunatic fringe?

I mean, no one whose opinion matters agrees with you.

People who think like you, such as Leroy Schweitzer of the "Montana Freemen", have been convicted of crimes by juries of their peers and sent to prison.

There's no groundswell of popular support for a revolution against the government.

That you wish otherwise is irrelevant.

You seem to have a need for a scapegoat for your frustrations.

I don't know why you're so angry...did you have a manufacturing job and lost it when the plant moved overseas?

Did you have to declare personal bankruptcy for some reason?

Did you get a raw deal in a divorce?

Life sucks sometimes, for everyone.

But ranting and raving against lawyers, bankers, Jews, blacks, or whomever you choose to hate is not going to improve your life one iota.

Being full of anger and hate is no way to go through life.

People who let anger and hate consume them sometimes end up being famous, for all the wrong reasons.

Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are examples.

There comes a time when the best thing to do for yourself and your own peace of mind is to lay those negative emotions down, like a bag of bricks you've been carrying. Let them go.

You will feel better. Trust me...I did.

The tail trying to wag the dog again?

According to John Adams, fully two thirds of the population was vehemently opposed to the colonial war of secession.

Please substantively prove your first claim.

You have posted nothing but irrelevant, and quite pathologically distorted propagandist rhetorical artifice.

You are a time waster, and energy thief, as well as a quisling Tory Loyalist.

You are a bit off in your estimation of widespread ecstatic public support for your owners' whorehouses, slave auctions, and casinos.

Your third-rate ad hominem fallacious logical propaganda techniques would be laughable, if they were not so obviously pathetic.

Timothy Mc Veigh, the guy who blew up a whole "federal" office building with fertilizer?

Usamma Bin Laden who oversaw the obviously clinical controlled demolition of three giant skyscrapers while hiding in a cave?

Why do you mention "hatred" "blacks," and "Jews," in conjunction with pernicious Esquires?

Is that tantamount to a presumption that I hate "blacks" and "Jews?"

Are you attempting to color me as a racist and "Jew-hater?

That is pretty low.

How do you determine whose opinion matters?

Have you ever considered that maybe you're just a lackey of elitist
war financiers/investors/profiteers eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the world's people?

Are you "a-theist," as well as "a-moral?"

If you are atheist you cannot appreciate the metaphysical operations of blood war.

If you are amoral you cannot consider such.

If you are young it is not too late to reconsider your path.

I suspect you are in far too deep to turn back now.

What a waste of your precious life.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Court, per Black's Law Dictionary:

You don't get to create your own court, and neither do I.

Every legitimate court in the land can ultimately trace its authority to a Constitution (national or state) and/or a statute passed by Congress or a state legislature.

COURT

The hall, chamber, or place where justice is administered.

Noah Webster
American Dictionary of the American Language First Edition 1828 Facsimile Edition

It is a physical space, not the inhabitants thereof.

That's it.

Is the "judge" the "court?"

Did I say "create" my own "court?"

Why do you presume to put words into my mouth?

Again, that is a cheap trick, and quite low.

It is a rhetorical artifice of a third-string propagandist.

Authority goes to Author, does it not?

It must, by definition, and by Law.

(The One Law of that which is, not the artificial figure of speech coined and perpetuated by despots and tyrants, and used for employment by their minions.)

Who is lawful Author to that which was ordained and established?

Is Congress its own Author?

Is "a Constitution" its own Author?

Where then, is any substantive "authority," much less, substantive "lawful authority?"

"Pursuant to?"

How is that which has been authored, "authority" in and of itself, having authored nothing, because having, itself, been authored has no capacity, itself, to author?

How, precisely, does creature master Creator?

You do know, do you not?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Here's a more likely scenario:

99.9% of the population (maybe even more, like 99.999%) consider the courts whose decisions I cite to be legitimate

Maybe in your biased and prejudiced view of the world LD.

It sounds as if you are saying that everyone should just go along with whatever regulation is passed under the bogus claim of being in the "public interest" or "public protection".

Is it your opinion that nearly all the posts of "wins" are lies and nobody has been able to get a single driving without a license, or driving without insurance or any of the other violations of regulation of a citation charged dropped without the assistance of council or through the chance of some anomaly in the judicial process? How can it be these people are winning without the very things you claim they need to be successful?

Your rant against MRG gave me the impression that you are exactly one of the people you were describing. What is wrong with you?

PS. You really should study your history. Your comment about the common law and keeping up with the times in the other thread made you sound extremely uninformed. It's people like you with your mindset who are paving the way for fascism in this country. I say that because you've certainly given me the impression that you believe the government should be able to pass any legislation they deem "in the public interest".