Driver license and registration please?

[SansRecours]

I cannot use the word resident. I have no idea what the word means with certainty in the context of its use. I cannot tell if I have the ability to reside.
Heck, I don't even know what a citizen is anymore.

NO one has answered my question!!

What is the next thing after this brief conversation that the police officer will ALWAYS do? (I say always because I witness that he does this every time, unless one produces a license.) It is important and it happens before going to the radio?

Since no one has answered this last question, I guess I will answer it. Here is what the officer does---
He whips out a pad of paper and writes down what you tell him in response to his asking!

"What's your name?" (name is a word of art, a legalese word, but y'all knew that)
"Where do you live?" (I have never in my life heard an officer use the words of art "reside," "inhabit," "domicile," etc.) so I give him a location.

Now, so far as the supreme court and the identify yourself issue- The court says that one must tell the officer who one is, identify themself, if you will. The court did not go so far as to say one has to produce an identifying document. Just give them a name. However, the court did not have before it the REAL ISSUE, the nature and the character of the parties. (there I go digressing again)

"How come you do not have a license"
"Well officer, the best way to explain it is this- I do not feel comfortable with any one or any body having any of my personal information."
(This conversation, with minor variations, is my M.O. I do not mean to boast here, but one who merely peruses a law dictionary will have more legal knowledge that the police officer. I have a little bit more knowledge and experience than that.

I learned a lesson from some law guru that went something like:

When one is in no trouble with the law, one takes very little time to educate himself in preparation for the time of trouble. Furthermore, when one is in trouble with the law, and in need of knowledge fast there is never enough time to learn.

OK, so I am digressing AGAIN. Here is the next question I want y'all to think about.

Regardless, of what one says to the officer, and what the officer writes on the pad of paper. What is the character and the quality of the statements one makes at the roadside stop? Is any of it a fact? Is any of it evidence? is any of it testimony?

Until next post...

[weishaupt1776]

good stuff, keep it rollin'.
I hope people are seeing the theory behind your posts

[rodman652]

What do you mean "Name is word art?", is it the CAPTALIZATION in the proper spelling?

My given name is (First, Middle) and surname is (Last).

I dont understand what you mean by resident?!
I am Soveriegn and suijuris
I am domiciled (Live) within my Creator
My property belongs to me
The land upon which I inhabit is surrounded by the Township of (whatever).

My answer to your next question is... fact? maybe (but probably not). evidence? yes. testimony? no. It could be used as evidence but who knows what he wrote?

hey,

There are many ways to get around the cops,
this is just one, this is what I do many may disagree i'm just trying to learn and help along with everyone here.
A resident basicaly means your a ward of the state. the whole state Citizen vs. the 14th amendment citizen. Are you a state Citizen under the republic or a united states federal citizen. explaining that to the cop would be suicide. If you have your car registered in your name then your a resident. It goes back to the whole when you bought your car or whoever bought it new didn't use gold or silver to buy the MSO number (Manufacturer state of origin). If you are traveling in a car registered in a trust or a corp then they can't claim residency on you. Furthermore you can't have an address only government can have an address. So I carry a IMQ with an out of country address. this takes me out of the cops jurisdiction. The ID has a shrunk down notary block on the back its cop friendly they are tought that anything notarized is legal. When I recinded my licence i did a change of address with my out of country address. I give the cop everything he wants he just dosen't know what he is getting. If nothing is in your name and the cop can't prove your a residen't under the rcw's 46.20.025 states that if I haven't resided in WA for more than I think its still 6 months then I don't need a licencse and I will never reside in WA since I live in Washington. Since i'm using vechical code one one thing cops kinda understand its easier for the tax collectors to let you go.

this is a neat little article on the diffrence between citizens

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/white-paper.htm

take care,

FD

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

What is the character and the quality of the statements one makes at the roadside stop? Is any of it a fact? Is any of it evidence? is any of it testimony?

Until next post...

Well, alot of the times the cop asks,

• "Do you understand why I pulled you over?"

understand decoded = Do you understand the nature and cause of the charges

If you do then you are ready to cop a plea, right?

Since I wasn't driving in commerce, I have no idea why he pulled me over

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Since I wasn't driving in commerce, I have no idea why he pulled me over

He doesn't know, let alone care that you think you're driving "in commerce." What you think of what you're doing is irrelevant.

The "in commerce" drivel is a meaningless concept in traffic court. Use it and you'll just make a fool of yourself in the process.

Fortunately, the scheme has been around long enough that most people won't pay some Internet scammer for a package of misinformation on how to make a fool of himself with it.

Unfortunately for those who wander off into the legal weeds with this stuff, it's been around long enough that most courts have seen and dealt with it before. Some have seen it often enough that they have little or no patience left and they get annoyed at having to explain it over and over when a bunch of cases seem to come up all at about the same time. It's like someone had a seminar and all of a sudden, five or ten cases crop up in a couple of weeks. Either that or someone had their buddies over and showed them all this neat BS on the Internet about not having to worry about traffic laws or licenses any more.

Some of the stories are truly funny; honestly, some people can't quite grasp the ideas or understand the verbiage and they manage to confuse themselves as well as the court. Others are less funny when the perp winds up paying fines he really can't afford. Really unfortunate things can happen when the case is cut-and-dried and they demonstrate no remorse for doing what they did, and even deliberately try to irritate the judge with silly jurisdictional rantings. Those can be expensive lessons.

Judge Bean, so u take the position that the government is correct in granting citizens the privilage to travel or drive back and forth to get to work and other places that are necessary to survival? Serious question and im not being sarcastic. Now, this is what IVE got to say about drivers licenses. ive told people on this forum before about a declaratory judgment i sought in federal court a couple years ago in reference to the right to travel without license. the judge wrote a order stating "the petitioner is correct in that the state cannot condition his right to travel upon obtaining a drivers license, but the state can condition his right to DRIVE upon obtaining a drivers license. He did a recast (changed the subject of the petition) and dismissed it based on me filing it without paying federal reserve notes based on right to access the courts. he said i should have filed informa pauperia, which wasnt the issue of my right to travel. Now, this is whats interesting, i keep that order (he did release a order) in my car and was stopped by a police officer. i showed him the judgment and he actually got with several other officers and read it and was prepared to let me go until he got to the part about the judge saying the order was dismissed on that court filing fee technicality. the point being made is, if the judge hadnt recast the subject matter of the petition, i had them by the balls. now, what im gonna do is go back and seek another declaratory judgment based on this learning experience.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I really shouldn't devote too much energy to this, but...

Originally Posted by fd3s

hey,

There are many ways to get around the cops,
this is just one, this is what I do many may disagree i'm just trying to learn and help along with everyone here.

Nothing you've put here is going to help anyone. In fact, it may seriously jepoardize someone who may have a legitimate defense.

Originally Posted by fd3s

A resident basicaly means your a ward of the state. the whole state Citizen vs. the 14th amendment citizen. Are you a state Citizen under the republic or a united states federal citizen.

Nonsense. You might as well conjure up a few dead sprits in court to testify on your behalf as use that lunacy in a courtroom.

Originally Posted by fd3s

...explaining that to the cop would be suicide.

More nonsense. He or she has probably heard it before and will probably share a laugh or two about running into another one of the "non-citizen loonies," but your life isn't in danger.

Originally Posted by fd3s

If you have your car registered in your name then your a resident.

Again, more nonsense. You're a resident wherever your place of residence is whether or not you have, let alone register a car.

Originally Posted by fd3s

It goes back to the whole when you bought your car or whoever bought it new didn't use gold or silver to buy the MSO number (Manufacturer state of origin).

I give up. There is no way to interpret, let alone explain something as meaningless as that.

Originally Posted by fd3s

If you are traveling in a car registered in a trust or a corp then they can't claim residency on you.

They don't have to "claim residency on you." Where you reside is irrelevant to being guilty of a traffic violation.

Originally Posted by fd3s

Furthermore you can't have an address only government can have an address.

I have to admit I laughed at that one. Indeed, if you are homeless you might not have an address. I guess 250+ million of the rest of us with addresses just don't see it quite that way.

Originally Posted by fd3s

So I carry a IMQ with an out of country address. this takes me out of the cops jurisdiction.

Wrong. What you carry has nothing to do whatsoever with a cop's jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by fd3s

The ID has a shrunk down notary block on the back its cop friendly they are tought that anything notarized is legal.

Bovine Scatology of the most dangerous sort. Notarization means only that a notary swears they saw the person sign a document. It has no force of law or affect on a peace officer.

Originally Posted by fd3s

When I recinded my licence i did a change of address with my out of country address. I give the cop everything he wants he just dosen't know what he is getting.

He either gets what he wants (driver's license, registration and proof of insurance) or you end up on foot or possibly in jail.

Originally Posted by fd3s

If nothing is in your name and the cop can't prove your a residen't under the rcw's 46.20.025 states that if I haven't resided in WA for more than I think its still 6 months then I don't need a licencse...

Sorry - in order to operate a vehicle/drive a car you need a license.

Originally Posted by fd3s

... and I will never reside in WA since I live in Washington.

And it doesn't matter how you spell or designate it.

Originally Posted by fd3s

Since i'm using vechical code one one thing cops kinda understand its easier for the tax collectors to let you go.

Sure it is. Whatever you said about "vehicle code one one" will make perfect sense. To you, maybe.

Originally Posted by fd3s

this is a neat little article on the diffrence between citizens
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/white-paper.htm
take care,
FD

That's a neat little article full of nonsense.

i agree with bean on this issue and this issue only, if the average citizen on the street hasnt heard your "patrioit" defense, the judge and prosecutor will use that to their advantage and WILL LAUGH AT YOU. thats why i never was a proponent of using the strawman stuff in court. better to use THEIR SYSTEM, and do a dba and a trademark, then use those rules against a offender. when i do go to court, they dont laugh at me, they seal the record.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

He doesn't know, let alone care that you think you're driving "in commerce." What you think of what you're doing is irrelevant.

The "in commerce" drivel is a meaningless concept in traffic court. Use it and you'll just make a fool of yourself in the process.

I was limiting it to the concept of nature & cause, homey. I wasn't even inferring the in court concept

It was purely conceptual in that people & the cop included really don't understand in a jurisprudential sense why the stop happened even if they "knew" the alleged "driver/operator" was "exceeding" the "speed limit"

When you tell a cop you understood why he pulled you over, inpersonam jurisdiction has been relinquished.

JRB, does one have the basic human right to travel to work by any means reasonable or is it a privelege to do so as granted by the STATANISTS?

If you think it is a privilege for you to travel in your automobile in a private capacity, say to take your kids to school, then you deserve to be the catamite of the State that you are

I hope you get pulled over this weekend, ya bum