Privatizing your car - Page 2

#11 07-20-2004, 12:13 AM

How many FRNs do we owe "The Man" for his time and comments? There are others here who use this forum that are attorneys also. We do not "see" them berating others who want to learn on their own so as to be free from the clutches of arrogant, imbecilic men and women who are members of a private organization that will not stoop so low as to help others with color of law, i.e. fiction.

YES! We are open to being taught color of law by one who is experienced in such. So...teach us! We're listening. Just remember, everybody has to answer to somebody and we certainly know to whom you answer!!!!

Respectfully submitted.

#12 07-20-2004, 12:28 AM

It appears that "The Man" certainly missed the English 101 and 102 courses in his endeavors to become an "attorney". The sentence structure and spelling will certainly win many favors with the men who wear black dresses. Is this the way that you complete your pleadings and briefs for court review?

We forgot! You have minions working for you who do this particular work.

THIS HAS GOT TO BE A JOKE! What was your class rank at graduation...or did you graduate?

TheBlackTruth · #13 07-20-2004, 01:03 AM

The Man,

I will refrain from any personal attacks but if you are who you say you are, then you must possess a fair portion of intelligence to have met the minimum requirements for your alleged "license" to practice law. And as such, in your profession, you must have observed things that are completely undeniable and yet tend to support many of the theories discussed in this forum. However, if you have somehow failed to see these blaring evidences of fraud, deception and coercion, you are undoubtedly turning a blind eye to organic law and are likely well on your way to becoming a judge.

Like most of us here, I’m here to learn all I can to improve my life and the lives of those around me and I'm sure we all stand a lot to learn from you.

Since it is logistically virtually impossible to disprove a negative, I won't ask you to prove that there was no bankruptcy or that the UCC doesn't apply [as universally as suggested in this community], but I will ask you to substantiate your claims by showing that the evidence we have for these theories is somehow flawed or insufficient for our conclusions.

I make no claims to any titles (e.g. Redemption). I simply read and learn all I can based on what makes sense and what WORKS and I'd sure like to see you argue with the mountain of evidence that illustrate that many of the techniques and processes discussed here are very successful.

I look forward to reading future posts from you.

Jerseee · #14 07-20-2004, 01:04 AM

Actually,

It is kind of refreshing to read posts like that. I admire his candor and his ability to stir up the masses. His position is straight forward and no holds barred. The Man, even admits that the UCC stuff is crap!

I like it!!! I wish he would post more. He admits to alot of things and that is what I have seen a lack of lately. He even cites case law (for all you UCC die hards)!!!

The Man has admitted alot to us and is teaching us.....we should listen and heed.

He has admitted that there is no money and he is proud to be a servant/slave/man whore. He has just taught me that he is knowledgeable, intelligent, cunning, sly, and loves controversy. He is refreshing. At least he has more guts to admit to his allegiance to his master than most of his slave brothers.

But notice that he loves using the conveniences of a modern society against you! That is his justification to supress the spirit of the american people. Basically, we as a society owe it his master for our way of life. Yup, his master did everything for us and we should be grateful and pay tribute every hour and every day of our existence. Just as he does. Yup, we oughta pay with our property, our children, our energy, and our faith--but not with LAWFUL money! Oh no. don't use gold or silver--they can't control that.

What The Man, fails to realize is that this site is not against LAWFUL excise taxes that congress should be collecting. He also fails to realize that people are generally law abiding folks without police interference. They need a police force to protect them from the treachery they do. That is why The Man is arrogant enough to post such things.

The Man, never mentions anything about oaths and judicial notice--but he does admit that you need to follow procedure and rules. The Man, encourages a lawless society and financial control of the masses.

Folks, you need to wake up and listen to this guy, with an open mind and not resentment--for you will miss his message. It was a matter of time before the slaves would try to start a ruckus here. It is like this because we are getting results LAWFULLY. So The Man should be a little concerned. Hell if we are so silly--why is he trying to discourage our efforts by riddicule? Why is he even posting if he knows that we will not be successful in court? It must be out of the kindness of his black heart.

I don't blame him at all for posting his feelings. How would any of you like to work on a field alone and be a slave by yourself? He needs company.

The sad part of The Man's post is that he is confirming everything we know about their "legal" system. Also, he knows that his brothers in fraud have everything pretty much sewed up. His brashness and elitist posting should be a wake up call to all of us (especially the UCC redemtpion crowd)!

I am glad he posted. As this is not directed to The Man but, I am sure he will post some more interesting rebuttals and display his knowledge.

This is not to discredit him in anyway. This is to encourage our members that you must follow courtroom procedures and rules. When you start doing this and getting wins--then The Man and a few more of his buddies in fraud will start posting more. This is how you know our sh*t is working!!! So keep reading his posts--you may learn something.

Personally I think it is billymac but I have no proof.

suijuris · #15 07-20-2004, 01:40 AM

The man,

Do you know of anyone who gets their electricity, internet, or running water as a benefit from the government, other than wards of the state who receive welfare? I pay private companies for such services, and have never heard of anyone other than state agents, employees, or wards receiving the above listed services from the government. Do you understand the difference between services and benefits? I ask only because I see you use those terms interchangeably, which can lead to confusion.

We are not discussing police or the armed forces, so let us stick to the topic at hand, travel rights. Please start a new thread in the taxation thread if you want to talk about taxes.

Vehicle registration and licensing and driver's licensing are not taxes; they are fees paid for state issued privileges. Feel free to produce a law in your state that would indicate otherwise, as you should know your state's code quite well.

A privilege is something that can be granted or revoked; it is in essence permission to do something otherwise unauthorized. So when your state enforces laws upon citizens that purport to require drivers and vehicle licensing and registration, they are requiring permission to use the "paved roads."

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

The highways and byways of this country, or "paved roads," as you call them, belong to the public. The Supreme Court has decided that it is our right to travel upon them, so nobody can require permission to travel upon the public highways and byways unless operating in commerce. Not the state of "The Man," or anybody else, as the Constitution and the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land and all states are compacted and bound to follow.

As far as regulating how people behave themselves once they are on the public highways, that is a different matter altogether. The courts have clearly ruled that the states can regulate such activity in the interest of safety or if one is involved in commercial activity, so long as they do not trespass upon one's inherent rights. So I must accept that speed limits, DUI laws, and such are in order for those who do not take responsibility for their actions while in the public, even though they are victimless crimes.

Also, as to your statements on the UCC Redemption followers; we have been attempting to communicate to all that the purpose of this site is to discuss and learn the law. So when you speak on this subject I request that you recognize that fact and address them as a group rather than presume that everyone here subscribes to those beliefs.

Jerseee, I am not sure that it is billymac. If so, he is spending a lot more time proofing and spell checking than before he was banned. I guess he could have taken some English classes...

The Man · #16 07-20-2004, 09:54 AM

"It is like this because we are getting results LAWFULLY. "

Ok, as to getting results, if any of you can give me a case citation be it a federal district court (those I can look up on westlaw) or a state trial court where you all received the relief you wanted based on the legal theories that I am talking about, then I will stand corrected.

AS to comments about DUIs being victimless crimes ask anyone of the tens of thousands of your fellow Americans living in wheelchairs or on crutches because some royal dumbass was driving while blind ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD and they may disagree. If you or a love one are ever involved in an accident where you are the hapless landing area for a drunk on a binge you may see what I am talking about.

By the way, utilities are not private. You think they are. You are wrong. They may be operated as a private entitiy but a vast majority of the infrastructure or sources they use to deliver their products are owned, built, and maintained at the state or federal level.

Look y'all, I know my tone sounds harsh and I know you don't agree and that's fine. That's why the Courts are there. I usually confer, even though not required, with the other side before filing dispositive motions. They never agree. There may be some shouting, the phrase ab initio flies around, sometimes I hear shotguns in the background but invariably we give it to the court to decide. WIthout exception the Court agrees. The one post actually cited case law. I haven't looked it up yet, I assume it's outdated, taken out of context or dicta. If not, good work. But I would say that what that poster demonstrates is the right way to do things.

Look, I need to get off to work. You all want to keep blasting me by calling me names like 'whore', great. Can't say I expected much else. Sort of standard operating procedure to see that sort of reply. In the meantime, like I said you all keep filing your Notorial Oaths of Dishoner and the like, it's a free country and the Courts are open to all.

The Man

Jerseee · #17 07-20-2004, 11:05 AM

The term was "Man Whore" not "Whore" there is a difference. A professional slur--not a personal one, since I do not know anyone here personally.

As for wins--most of what we do, barely make it to court because of the overwhelming evidence that we have against your master. So instead of letting this go to court--they decide to back out at the last minute--avoiding documenting the case altogether. Nice strategy on their part and also a bad decision. Because now we are going to push the envelope until one of your fellow esquires decides to take one of us up on a case.

The Man, we know the drill. If we go to court and start getting the evidence, motions, objections and judical notice on the record--things change and then we are approached outside the courtroom by one of your cohorts to make a deal. If this stuff is a slam dunk for you, may I ask why are you warning us?

Although this post of yours is a bit more mild--you have set the tone. As I said before, your posts are refreshing and welcome. If I cannot appeal to you morally--I do find that your openess and candor is a better trade-off.

In any event, thanks for posting. Nice rebuttal.

mrmaw · #18 07-20-2004, 01:12 PM

I beleive "The Man" is out of Texas, Abilene area.

Akira · #19 07-20-2004, 01:15 PM

Okay Mr. Man... I'll bite...

As a computer hacker, I can tell you, there are a lot more secrets to computers, then are ever shared. So, when legal push came to shove, I went looking for the "lunatic fringe". These are the peeps that know what they don't teach in school. Unlike computers, in law, there is no "quick test - quick answer" to see if the aquired info is correct. Much effort must be applied, to separate fact from fiction.

Everyone is here, directly or indirectly, as a result of being shafted by "the system". We have approached it from your side, and understand where you, and other non-victums, are coming from. Now it is time for you to approach it from ours, if you are truely here to learn.

My suggestion to you is... do as I have done... take what is given, and verify it for yourself. To do otherwise, would be like discussing trigonometry with a 1st grader. (elite hacker vs. Windows for Dummies?)

I constantly give the following case cites, to demonstrate the ongoing fraud, to anyone involved in the system. It's amazing the excuses for their refusing to look. Here at Sui Juris, blind allegence is never advocated, to your side, or to ours. What is encouraged is questioning authority. All authority. And when authority is cited, references are researched and conclusions are drawn, based on knowledge, not heresay. I encourage you to do the same.

I think this can be a win-win, once we put our differences behind us. You obviously feel we are blind to the truth, as we feel you are.

While your loyalty to your master is admirable, are you sure who your master is loyal to?

This perfected aurguemnet has worked for me, and several other people here... and it's an arguement that I personally brought to this forum... attack away...

(get the long version here)

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

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, .....for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)

Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 .....As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

(Clearly establishes a right to travel.)

"The State of Xxxxxxx arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a priviledge, and issued a license and a fee for it."

Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution ..... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

And If They Do ............

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

That Means You Can't Punish Me.........

United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):

Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent

1. It must be proven that you are the party.

2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.

3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.

Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”

"I submit your Honor, I couldn't have done an evil task, because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit that Prosecution Counsel's burden is to prove I did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, namely, to get the license. And I would submit that, and specificly proclude that, he cannot perform his task."

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

Driver = regulated occupation for hire.

Commercial drivers license vs. non-commercial Right of Travel....

Clearly there is a conflict here, and it has existed for 60-70 years.

On one side we have Positive Law, alledgedly available in a judicial, Article III, court, based on the Constitution of the united States, and decisions by the highest court in the land, all of which is based on thousands of years of history, and is in harmony with God's Law (All law flows from God, y'know).

On the other side, we have statute and regs (incomplete law) created by an inferior legislature, proported by an inferior non-judicial court, under "color of law", for an incredible 70 years, and, all of which, is in conflict with God's Law.

History is repleat with civilizations that have made decisions that became their downfall. To assume that the courts are above this is fool hardy.

Two bodies, within the same system, with diametricly opposed points of view? One brings Life, Liberty and growth, one brings regulation, censorship, and death. Kind of like a cancer, huh?

So attack away......

Sui Juris spoke of victumless crimes.. but it is clear you still have your blinders on... as you only saw what you wanted to see...

Why is everything in the last place you look?

because... when you find what YOU (subjective/ego/flesh) are looking for... YOU stop looking... your expectations are met...

There could be a motherload of answers, just one step beyond... but you would never find them... only because your mind is closed to the opportunity.

God has placed me here, on his great earth, to sojourn in his name, and spread the "good news". By what authority do you deny me these God given rights? Safety? puh-leese

I welcome you to the forum, and look forward to your posts... please continue... it helps us all to sharpen our pencils.

But rather than continue to finger point... I give you fodder for discussion... defend yourself ! hahaha

I await your rebuttal...

For HIS Glory,

Akira

weishaupt1776 · #20 07-20-2004, 01:43 PM

The Man has been neutered