What is a drivers license ?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by UGA Lawdog

Sovereignty is something that belongs to government.

It's such a shame that you have chosen to allow a corporation to tell you who you are. I guess Justice Matthews must've been a real ******* as far as you are concerned, Lawdog:

When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

YICK WO v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (Cite as: 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064)

This holding is completely contrary and antithetical to your line of thinking, Lawdog. YOu believe everything OPPOSITE to the above holding and you deserve some good ole English Common Law punishment for thinking such thoughts

[rentiap]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UGA Lawdog
There is no exemption for "sovereign citizens," because there is no such animal. Sovereignty is something that belongs to government.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

It's such a shame that you have chosen to allow a corporation to tell you who you are. I guess Justice Matthews must've been a real ******* as far as you are concerned, Lawdog:

YICK WO v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (Cite as: 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064)

This holding is completely contrary and antithetical to your line of thinking, Lawdog. YOu believe everything OPPOSITE to the above holding and you deserve some good ole English Common Law punishment for thinking such thoughts

Even with the use of the ignore list we still have to read some of the crap spewed forth from certain individuals (Trolls)because of quotes.
If I may add my 2 cents here?

The first part of the snipit or quote from lawdog is actually correct in that there is no such animal as a sovereign citizen. Only the sovereign people. Once you have agreed or volunteered to be a citizen and under their servitude citizens have no rights.And they should shut up and do as they are told.Like the good little slaves that they are.14th amendment article 4.
Involuntary servitude shall not exist.As clarified in the 13th amendment, We are born sovereign with unaleinable rights they are not not given to us by the constitution..
As for the second part of his quote obviously a fictitious entity cannot be sovereign.

As you so very well pointed out that sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.

Cheers,
Craig.

[David Merrill]

Even with the use of the ignore list we still have to read some of the crap spewed forth from certain individuals (Trolls)because of quotes.

I disagree. In this forum nobody is making you do anything. In addition nobody is making you respond to statements like AndyK's. I happen to know from history that he is just spewing his junk to agitate - you have him properly marked as a troll.

Your misperception about the Ignore List is what drummed up your comment. Even by hearsay. If everybody would put these people on their Ignore List then they might still be writing for a while, but nobody would be reading them.

This is just of course a decision I made and I am hoping others will make. AndyK may have actually said that government is the sovereign. Well that is either the words of a troll or just plain stupid. Either way, it is easy jockeying the mouse to put him on my Ignore List.

I think it was mrg who pointed out that my Ignore List campaign to get others to quit reading the trolls was not working too well. I think it started a bit slow but is becoming effective after only a couple weeks. So do it today. Quit mistraining your court to respond and appear before junk benches; AndyK, Judge Roy Bean, Shoonra, Skeptic62, UGA Lawdog and B Rookard - click them off suijuris today!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

LAWDOG:

Thanks for the update on Texas DL law.

[rentiap]

David;
You are correct. nobody can make me read or write anything that I don't want to. It is hard not to reply to such blatent lies and deception or stupidity which is exacty what they are after.

Point well taken I will refrain from further response to the trolls.

Cheers,
Craig.

[UGA Lawdog]

From Black's Law Dictionary:

Sovereign right: A right which the state alone, or some of its governmental agencies, can possess, and which it possesses in the character of a sovereign, for the common benefit, and to enable it to carry out its proper functions; distinguished from such "proprietary" rights as a state, like any private person, may have in property or demands which it owns.

So if you get sued, don't defend on the basis that you have sovereign immunity....unless you want to get laughed right out of court.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rentiap

David;
You are correct. nobody can make me read or write anything that I don't want to. It is hard not to reply to such blatent lies and deception or stupidity which is exacty what they are after.

Point well taken I will refrain from further response to the trolls.

Cheers,
Craig.

I pointed out earlier today on another thread. The "stupidity" is proof these folks are trolls. Because not a one of them on my Ignore List is stupid. It is because of that I am adamant to keep from peeking at what they write. It is too tempting to respond because these folks are why I tolerated the Quatloos Insultinator; they provide wonderful insight into the psychotomimetic delusions - the protectionism and appeasement of false balances and fraud.

Lately it just struck me, being that I have put them on my Ignore List, how dangerous they are by simply prodding courts of competent jurisdiction into responding and/or appearing before their baited benches. Even in cyberspace I advise against writing back to them. Your court will be more competent for it I am sure.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. If you really must talk to them, most of them are members on Quatloos. Just go over there and try making sense. You will get whatever you are looking for by talking to them here, but ten-fold. - Better than trashing things up around here.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think it was mrg who pointed out that my Ignore List campaign to get others to quit reading the trolls was not working too well.

I think it started a bit slow but is becoming effective after only a couple weeks.

So do it today.

Quit mistraining your court to respond and appear before junk benches;

AndyK, Judge Roy Bean, Shoonra, Skeptic62, UGA Lawdog and B Rookard - click them off suijuris today!


Regards,

David Merrill.

I do not recall saying that, but I could be wrong.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding, about whether or not I said the tactic might not be viable, or seemed to be failing.

If I said anything, it was only that it seemed many were not inclined to participate in the "do not feed the trolls" exercise, and some were opposed to it.

I have the same ignore list as you have, and others are also taking it up it seems.

Notwithstanding my ignore list, I still seem prone to feed the trolls, although much less than before.

I would encourage others to join the campaign.

I did not intend to denigrate your proposal, in fact I joined in fairly quickly.

I do not wish to disrespect the viewpoints of other contributors of valuable materials, who disagree with this approach either.

I have posted my observations and feelings concerning the trolls.

[SansRecours]

It never fails on this forum:

Someone starts a thread and just as it is about to get meaningful and/or interesting, someone drags it off into the ocean of off-point argument.

This forum can easily be a thousand pages shorter if those posting will make their number 1 concern asserting a provable point, and their number 2 concern avoiding asserting any thing off-point.

SansRecours

[RickA]

It never fails on this forum:

Someone starts a thread and just as it is about to get meaningful and/or interesting, someone drags it off into the ocean of off-point argument.

This forum can easily be a thousand pages shorter if those posting will make their number 1 concern asserting a provable point, and their number 2 concern avoiding asserting any thing off-point.

SansRecours

..........Uh huh. Notice you don't read a peep from them when a specific topic has been so sidetracked that, after pages of off topic material, the intent of the thread has been lost? But, let a topic get started that has some teeth then, they ascend from the depths.