09-20-2006, 01:00 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
I'm with you 100% that you have the right to travel freely ICE. The point I'm making is that you are entering into the commercial sphere by completing the application process and wavering your right(s) as you previously mentioned.
On all DL applications (all that I can remember signing in the past anyways), it has some section referring to following the rules of the road or rules, regulations and statutes and other such items by reference that could not be included on a one or two page application. So I'm not sure how a void for vagueness argument applies.
|
Well, does it explain that you are entering into a commercial contract? Does it explain that you have become surety for your all caps corporate entity?
Or does it even bother to explain that you are waiving your right? Does it even bother to explain why or how they came to have the authority to turn your rights into a mere privilege?
Sounds pretty vague to me.
I don't happen to believe that entering into a contract does away with any of your rights. Which may be why some are so adamant that it is nothing more than a contract. But, you can most certainly "waive" your rights.
Ice
Last edited by Ice : 09-20-2006 at 01:03 PM.
|
09-20-2006, 04:08 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Freedom. some call Cal.
Posts: 2,330
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
I'm with you 100% that you have the right to travel freely ICE. The point I'm making is that you are entering into the commercial sphere by completing the application process and wavering your right(s) as you previously mentioned.
On all DL applications (all that I can remember signing in the past anyways), it has some section referring to following the rules of the road or rules, regulations and statutes and other such items by reference that could not be included on a one or two page application. So I'm not sure how a void for vagueness argument applies.
|
This is all pointless when one knows that a license is only valid while one is engaged in the licensable activity. If I have driver's license it means nothing if I am not drivng. If I am not driving while holding myself out to the public then I am in my private capacity. If I am a private individual no one can make me answer to a bill of pains or attainder. There can be no trial by tribunal and subject matter jurisdiction will always light the way to freedom. SMJ is not waivable... so take the waiver and shove it your honor,,, I am a private man.
__________________
Educational and entertainment only. Nothing posted intended as legal advice. Nothing is legal advice. All responses are general in nature even if responding to a specific question. Nothing in my posts pertains to ANYONE else but me.
Hire an Attorney. 
|
09-20-2006, 06:30 PM
|
 |
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 338
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redy2fiyt
My brother's wife went to the DMV with the intent of obtaining a new driver's license - for the purpose of identification only. When she attempted to sign "All rights reserved, under duress" and then her signature, the DMV employee told her that was not her signature and that it had to be JOE K. BLOW and nothing else. Not knowing what to do, she reluctantly signed.
|
I was thrice told similar words from postal service clerks:
1st response: I keep writing and say "do not tell me what my signature is, thank you."
2nd response: I keep writing and say "call your supervisor out here and we can discuss what is and what is not a signature."
3rd response: I keep writing and ignore the drone. |
09-20-2006, 06:50 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,411
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big Al
"Does not the tendering of a fee in acquiescence to the compelled signing of an application, and submitting to registration not amount to a negotiation in commerce and an exchange of negotiable instrument, commercial paper, for the "benefit" of a "license," for which an unalienable right has unconstitutionally been converted into a privilege?"
Quote:
Which part of "unalienable" do you not understand?
|
How did what I wrote suggest that there are parts of the term "un-a-lien-able" of which I have no knowledge, comprehension, and am incapabable of applying through analytic synthesis which results in a metacognitive evaluation?
Quote:
This is the one word that the meaning of which needs to be burned into the vary center of your soul!
Forget it, and it's welcome to slavery.
|
Agreed.
Are you certain you "under-stand" "un-a-lien-able?"
If you are truly at Liberty, and, as a result, totally free, my hat is off to you.
I am still working on it.
Quote:
Make the meaning of this word your gold standard.
If it does not meet this standard, it's a lie, avoid it at all cost no matter how the idea sounds, or seems to fit your ideas of how you think things work.
|
 |
Which part of my sentence did you not "under-stand?"
I submitted a specific query to which you have submitted a non-responsive, tangential reply.
I know what you are saying, though, so please do not be offended; your writings are viewed, by me, with interest, apprecation, and respect.
I am not suggesting that the licence is other than a waiver of rights, however, it does seem to involve commercial activity, as well as the threat of violence involving firearms.
Last edited by mrg : 09-20-2006 at 06:58 PM.
|
09-20-2006, 09:33 PM
|
 |
Mental Jujitsu
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 676
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ice
Well, does it explain that you are entering into a commercial contract? Does it explain that you have become surety for your all caps corporate entity?
Or does it even bother to explain that you are waiving your right? Does it even bother to explain why or how they came to have the authority to turn your rights into a mere privilege?
Sounds pretty vague to me.
Ice
|
Why would they explain something to a person they are already presumed to know? They are the one applying for a license. Why apply for a license to exercise a right?
Look at the very definitions of license:
License ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/license+)
Quote:
1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
2 a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b : a document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted c : a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights
|
or here
http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/license
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
So what would the person say in court when trying to defend themself? They didn't know they were asking for permission to drive? They didn't know driving is a privilege? They didn't know their rights? In addition, even though it's absurd, it is presumed that someone knows the law...all of it (you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse).
As far as the state is concerned, it's all about presumption. The state and court will presume that you wanted to engage in an activity that required a license. They put the presumptions in place and you on the defensive, they make the presumptions and you have to prove they are wrong. I've seen it first hand. It is an attitude of the state and court.
Although I see your point, the attitude of the state is you're free to contract, you're presumed to know the law and your rights. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans don't understand this. Although this may be vague to the majority of people, how is that the states problem? People do stupid things all the time. They don't know their rights and have no idea of how they've surrendered their rights? So the state is supposed to educate people on what they're presumed to already know or interfere in their right to enter into an agreement with the state?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
This is all pointless when one knows that a license is only valid while one is engaged in the licensable activity. If I have driver's license it means nothing if I am not drivng. If I am not driving while holding myself out to the public then I am in my private capacity. If I am a private individual no one can make me answer to a bill of pains or attainder. There can be no trial by tribunal and subject matter jurisdiction will always light the way to freedom. SMJ is not waivable... so take the waiver and shove it your honor,,, I am a private man.
|
Codee, I believe a great majority of people have no clue of their rights, or at the very least how they've put themselves in a position where they are presumed to have been engaged in a privileged activity.
Your post is a case in point. The problem is (as you probably know given your experience in the courtroom) the majority of people have no idea how to defend their rights. They have no idea how to bring up SMJ, bill of attainder or any of the rules (Constitutional or Judicial) in order to prove the state has no standing in the matter court has no jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
The state makes all these presumptions about you. Unless you have a clear understanding of the items you've brought up, you're better off just mailing in a check than wasting your time in court and then whining and complaining how the system is so unfair when the decision goes against you.
__________________
Liberty: Freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.
|
09-20-2006, 09:46 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Illinois(chi-town)
Posts: 5,076
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
Why would they explain something to a person they are already presumed to know? They are the one applying for a license. Why apply for a license to exercise a right?
Look at the very definitions of license:
License ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/license+)
or here
http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/license
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
So what would the person say in court when trying to defend themself? They didn't know they were asking for permission to drive? They didn't know driving is a privilege? They didn't know their rights? In addition, even though it's absurd, it is presumed that someone knows the law...all of it (you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse).
As far as the state is concerned, it's all about presumption. The state and court will presume that you wanted to engage in an activity that required a license. They put the presumptions in place and you on the defensive, they make the presumptions and you have to prove they are wrong. I've seen it first hand. It is an attitude of the state and court.
Although I see your point, the attitude of the state is you're free to contract, you're presumed to know the law and your rights. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans don't understand this. Although this may be vague to the majority of people, how is that the states problem? People do stupid things all the time. They don't know their rights and have no idea of how they've surrendered their rights? So the state is supposed to educate people on what they're presumed to already know or interfere in their right to enter into an agreement with the state?
Codee, I believe a great majority of people have no clue of their rights, or at the very least how they've put themselves in a position where they are presumed to have been engaged in a privileged activity.
Your post is a case in point. The problem is (as you probably know given your experience in the courtroom) the majority of people have no idea how to defend their rights. They have no idea how to bring up SMJ, bill of attainder or any of the rules (Constitutional or Judicial) in order to prove the state has no standing in the matter court has no jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
The state makes all these presumptions about you. Unless you have a clear understanding of the items you've brought up, you're better off just mailing in a check than wasting your time in court and then whining and complaining how the system is so unfair when the decision goes against you. |
I love you, freefromcontract you just reading my mind. I rest my case no further action to be taken.
__________________
Resolution pending
|
09-21-2006, 08:29 AM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
Why would they explain something to a person they are already presumed to know? They are the one applying for a license. Why apply for a license to exercise a right?
Look at the very definitions of license:
License ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/license+)
or here
http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/license
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
So what would the person say in court when trying to defend themself? They didn't know they were asking for permission to drive? They didn't know driving is a privilege? They didn't know their rights? In addition, even though it's absurd, it is presumed that someone knows the law...all of it (you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse).
As far as the state is concerned, it's all about presumption. The state and court will presume that you wanted to engage in an activity that required a license. They put the presumptions in place and you on the defensive, they make the presumptions and you have to prove they are wrong. I've seen it first hand. It is an attitude of the state and court.
Although I see your point, the attitude of the state is you're free to contract, you're presumed to know the law and your rights. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans don't understand this. Although this may be vague to the majority of people, how is that the states problem? People do stupid things all the time. They don't know their rights and have no idea of how they've surrendered their rights? So the state is supposed to educate people on what they're presumed to already know or interfere in their right to enter into an agreement with the state?
Codee, I believe a great majority of people have no clue of their rights, or at the very least how they've put themselves in a position where they are presumed to have been engaged in a privileged activity.
Your post is a case in point. The problem is (as you probably know given your experience in the courtroom) the majority of people have no idea how to defend their rights. They have no idea how to bring up SMJ, bill of attainder or any of the rules (Constitutional or Judicial) in order to prove the state has no standing in the matter court has no jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
The state makes all these presumptions about you. Unless you have a clear understanding of the items you've brought up, you're better off just mailing in a check than wasting your time in court and then whining and complaining how the system is so unfair when the decision goes against you. |
We all understand the definition of license. This is not really on point. The question is: Is it Contract or Waiver?
The very first thing it is - a Waiver.
It is one thing to contract in order to engage in commerce. It is a totally different story to Waive your right to travel.
So, a man that isn't engaged in commerce has a license that is nothing more than a "Waiver" of his right.
The fact that these issues are not disclosed would make any "contract" with the state void. But a "waiver" of your right allows them complete control over your right of travel. And remember, they can change the rules whenever they want to... that's control.
The whole idea of reserving your right via the signature is in order to have the license to be able to engage in commercial activity without waiving your right of free travel. This reservation of your right is what the BMV fights when they refuse your signature. If it were not a waiver of your right they would have nothing to say about how you sign.
Ice
|
09-21-2006, 08:59 AM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Freedom. some call Cal.
Posts: 2,330
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
Codee, I believe a great majority of people have no clue of their rights, or at the very least how they've put themselves in a position where they are presumed to have been engaged in a privileged activity.
Your post is a case in point. The problem is (as you probably know given your experience in the courtroom) the majority of people have no idea how to defend their rights. They have no idea how to bring up SMJ, bill of attainder or any of the rules (Constitutional or Judicial) in order to prove the state has no standing in the matter court has no jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
The state makes all these presumptions about you. Unless you have a clear understanding of the items you've brought up, you're better off just mailing in a check than wasting your time in court and then whining and complaining how the system is so unfair when the decision goes against you.
|
The state may make hundreds of presumptions. I should be able to rebutt every one that is of consequence in a one page affidavit. All their arguments are the same and rest soley on the premissis that you are engaging the public. I am concidering getting a J-walking ticket soon so I can test out a new one or two paragraph challenge to SMJ. Ultimately I can have license in my pocket. The court can say I am that PERSON,,, A win can still be had by rebutting the "notice" (not quite a presumption yet but on the road to being one,,and that being your NAME Vs. Name) that you are a public person engaging the public for corporate gain. Point this out the right way and fluff it up past a page so the A$$ H0JES know that you mean business if they want to play a game of hardball again.
Right to travel never even has to enter the picture. You are "free: from non-judicial process and should be "free" from civil arrest for non-criminal "violations" of a code.
Quote:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts may not be passed.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 10. Witnesses may not be unreasonably detained. A person may
not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime
for a militia fine.
|
__________________
Educational and entertainment only. Nothing posted intended as legal advice. Nothing is legal advice. All responses are general in nature even if responding to a specific question. Nothing in my posts pertains to ANYONE else but me.
Hire an Attorney.
Last edited by Codee : 09-21-2006 at 09:04 AM.
|
09-21-2006, 10:08 AM
|
|
Mental Jujitsu
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 676
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ice
We all understand the definition of license. This is not really on point. The question is: Is it Contract or Waiver?
The very first thing it is - a Waiver.
Ice
|
Does it say "waiver" on the laminated card or "license"? Yes, you are waivering your rights (not just right to travel, but several rights by statutes you agree to obey), but is IS a license and that IS the entire point.
I fully understand your position and will leave it at that.
__________________
Liberty: Freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.
|
09-21-2006, 10:16 AM
|
|
Mental Jujitsu
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 676
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
The state may make hundreds of presumptions. I should be able to rebutt every one that is of consequence in a one page affidavit. All their arguments are the same and rest soley on the premissis that you are engaging the public. I am concidering getting a J-walking ticket soon so I can test out a new one or two paragraph challenge to SMJ. Ultimately I can have license in my pocket. The court can say I am that PERSON,,, A win can still be had by rebutting the "notice" (not quite a presumption yet but on the road to being one,,and that being your NAME Vs. Name) that you are a public person engaging the public for corporate gain. Point this out the right way and fluff it up past a page so the A$$ H0JES know that you mean business if they want to play a game of hardball again.
Right to travel never even has to enter the picture. You are "free: from non-judicial process and should be "free" from civil arrest for non-criminal "violations" of a code.
|
I know you can defend yourself Codee. It's the majority of people (or sheeple) in America that I was making reference. They have no idea there are numerous ways to stop the process, from time they are handed a "citation" or "violation" to the "appearance" in front of the administrative tribunal.
Hopefully, more of them will find their way to this site and learn from the many contributors in these forums.
__________________
Liberty: Freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.
Last edited by FreeFromContract : 09-21-2006 at 12:19 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
