Cody's Right To Travel

[ezrhythm]

AWAY FROM HERE spirit of anti-remedy!

The underage unlicensed motorist commandeers an auto better than many licensed ones. I'll bet just for the fact that they have more attention on the task at hand.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

(quotes from article)

A District Court judge rejected an appeal from a Weld County man who claims he does not need a driver’s license to operate a vehicle because he is a citizen of Colorado and not the United States.

But the laws says "any person"- why does anyone think their citizenship will make a difference?

According to Mahan, he was not “driving” but rather “traveling” in a private recreational vehicle, which is allowed under the Colorado Constitution because it is not a commercial vehicle.

But the presumption that is left w/o rebuttal is that the device in question was a "vehicle". And the law turns on exactly that point.

It's not 'traveling' vs 'driving'- it's 'used for transport' vs 'enjoyed for transit'. Lets get this stright for our own future concern- travel vs drive is a loser issue! Traveling can be driving and driving is traveling.

"I wasnt 'consuming food', I was 'eating dinner'...makes no never mind, if you do this at a public restaurant: still required to pay the bill.

But if I am eating my own food, then that's a different story.

In all this there has yet to be one case published on this forum (or anywhere to my knowledge) articulating this point-"where's the vehicle?"

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Shoonra,

Who is the injured party? How was anyone harmed or threatened? I suppose 5 days in jail is justice in your mind. Seeing that you posted this in more than one thread, I am quite sure you're taking joy in this man's dilemma.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There is a definite, if unmeasurable, impairment of the quality of life if unfit drivers or unfit vehicles are allowed on the road. Not touching an unqualified driver until after he kills or cripples somebody is inviting tragedy.

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. That is the weakest non-answer I've ever seen from you and at the same time you again expose yourself as the brainwashed puppet we know you to be.

He was able to drive to and from the courthouse on multiple occasions without risking, killing or crippling anyone else. He is no more a risk than a licensed driver. However, according to your logic, if he were to get a license the next day, magically, he becomes much less of a risk to the general public than if he were not licensed.

Right there is the big lie that you and supporters of the police state like to perpetuate; by the act of getting a license it makes you and everyone around you safer. That is PROPAGANDA.. You introduce nothing but speculation and subjective criteria to support your position.

So, if getting a license make one fit to drive, then why are licensed drivers constantly involved in auto accidents with other licensed drivers (occasionally on the same day the license is issued)? Why are licensed drivers constantly violating driving regulations like DWI/DUI? If driving is so hazardous, why are people issued a learner's permit to drive on the public roads with the public?. Very seldom are driver's licenses not issued and in most instances it is due to failure of the written part of the test. The only conclusion I can come up with is driving must not be that difficult. (I know it's not...I drove my dad's car on a public road when I was about 8 years old and did just fine.) I expect you will respond something along the line that the safety on the roads would be many times worse than it is today....illustrate and use scare tactics...etc. etc. etc.

As usual, your logic is insanely twisted according to the conditioning that you've subjected yourself and accepted as normal.

[Mystic666]

The Mystic One awakens.


When doing refusal for cause one must remember, you must have the pending case number to file in the misc. case jacket with the clerk from a defensive standpoint.

From an offensive standpoint... A case number is not needed, if its just a target letter and no claim has been made in any court.. However, one should refuse the presentment to company only. Then File judgement against presenter, documented by notary, server, and magistrate, in case presenter tries to railroad the procress into a judgement without first filing an official complaint..

Master Mason David, any thoughts to this?

[Mystic666]

When doing refusal for cause one must remember, you must have the pending case number to file in the misc. case jacket with the clerk of court from a "defensive standpoin"t in setting up the notary protest..

From an offensive standpoint... A case number is not needed in R4C, if its just a target letter and no claim has been made in any court.. However, one should refuse the presentment to company only. Then subquently,File judgement against presenter, documented by notary, server, and magistrate, in case presenter tries to railroad the procress into a default judgement without first filing an official complaint with corresponding case number.. However, from this offensive standpoint, you can not file a judgement, until it is reviewed by a magistrate which you can pay the court to review. Once , the magistrate approves and seals your judgement, Then you can keep a copy of this judgement in case the suitor tries to file a lawsuit (formal complaint) against you.... Now you have documented evidence of the interaction to show a company and/or District Court.. The very worst case scenario being that you have to (counter complain). $350.. Welcome to the Court of Competent Jurisdiction as Article 3 Judge.....


PS: Why does the server always redirect and have error message, it isnt until navigating all the way back that it lets you enter forum as signed in.. Furthermore. what has happen to the forum page.. How do i post new threads???

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

if anyone had a reasonable doubt about a drivers qualifications, they could test that person on the spot- just like is already done, everyday, regarding other qualifications, like sobriety, knowledge of traffic signals controls and rules...even those with a DL may be stopped from further use if "it becomes evident that the conditions of license are no longer fulfilled"- like bad eyesight or some other impairment.

The offense in this case was "failure to obtain", not "lack of qualification". Maybe the reason "obtention" is so important is that by doing so the driver is more tightly bound to the traffic laws...but the states interest in this is limited to "transportation", as it is so clearly indicated in the statutory definition, and established time-and-again by custom and precedent all around the world.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Not touching an unqualified driver until after he kills or cripples somebody is inviting tragedy.

Inane, irrelevant, frivolous.

Prove, substantively, and unequivocally, that "licensing" and "insuring" "drivers" keeps "an unqualified driver" off the "road," and has any truly viable impact on "public" "safety."

"Drivers License" is for RE-VENUE, (and IDENTIFICATION) not SAFETY.

And "insurance?"

"Registration?"

RE-VENUE.

IDENTIFICATION (tracking).

SHOONRA has a vested interest in RE-VENUE scams.

How, precisely, does "licensing" "touch" an "unqualified driver" BEFORE "he kills or cripples somebody?"

If you can "buckle up," putter around the block, and not hit anyone or anything or freak out the bureaucrat sitting next to you, stay in your lane, stop at one stop sign and one red light, use your turn signals, turn left, and THE BIG ONE: parallel park, and the REALLY REALLY BIG ONE, plunk down the FRN's, you get a LICENSE with
"YOUR NAME" and "likeness" (and soon your entire life history, DNA, tracking device, etc...) on it.

That "test" is a big JOKE.

They want the RE-VENUE.

Here in Illinois we have a former Governor sitting in jail for his part in "selling" so-called "Drivers Licenses," to "unqualified drivers" including, but not limited to, semi-trailer truck drivers.

Ex-Gov. Ryan of Illinois Reports to Prison
New York Times
By CATRIN EINHORN
Published: November 8, 2007
To some, Mr. Ryan’s prison term should be cautionary in a state where making deals and giving favors have long been viewed as politics as usual.

I have a feeling that somehow, this is not an "isolated incident," specific, and limited to "Illinois"

It isn't about PUBLIC SAFETY, it is all about RE-VENUE.

And TRACKING.





Now, on the other hand, "not touching an unqualified" PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, and JUDICIARY "until after" they kill or cripple somebody IS "inviting tragedy."

"Not touching an unqualified" PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, and JUDICIARY AFTER they HAVE killed AND crippled somebody IS "tragedy."

Here are examples of REAL "injured parties."



Nothing a little plastic surgery won't fix?



DU Baby? Naaaahhh....couldn't be.



How long does the VA treat him before they dump him?
And don't ask me about the VA dumping vets, ask my DEAD father.



Keep US in UN (UNDC)?????
Go NWO!!!

[Shoonra]

The US Supreme Court has held that the DL requirements are for the purpose of public safety, not for revenue.

[ezrhythm]

And nine eleven was staged so that a false safety could be imposed.

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra with your anti-sui juris posts!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The US Supreme Court has held that the DL requirements are for the purpose of public safety, not for revenue.

The US "Supreme Court" are LIARS, theives, murderers, imposters, and traitors.

They are BAR Association attorneys.

That is an organized private monopoly criminal racketeering extortion syndicate.

Legislators enact a bill of attainder ex post facto law and deny that it is a bill of attainder ex post facto law since most people have no idea what these terms mean and trust these treasonous attorneys without reservation.

Because five grizzled old politicos "hold" something, doesn't mean that there is a shred of truth to it.

They can "hold" that stated above, as well as their vile gas until the cows' methane fumes deplete the entire ozone layer and that will not alter the truth that the purpose of the DL is for RE-VENUE and population control.

Because five wizened old BAR Association attorneys "hold" that the sun revolves around the earth, does that "holding" force the sun into orbit around the earth?

Not EVERYONE was "just born yesterday."