Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 10. (Read 1627 times)

ok so i went on and listened to the 10->18 minutes of badeckers latest link featuring his jesus superstar karl lentz, and found many many flaws

and jusruning minute 17-18 i hear those golden comedy words which i explained earlier
karl lents questioned the attourny and asked if the attourney had FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.. where by karl tried to get the attorny dismissed by not being the actual person harmed/damaged

as i said before h even linked the video

i am still laughing at how predictable karl lentz tactics are.

oh and the waffle in minute 10-17.. was karl lentz just trying to say that filing your own claim means you dont have to understand thier laws/codes (he even analogises it like computer code he cant translate) and then says how filing own claim means he can make his own rules and his own law in his own language...

no. the law is the law. the venue has its own policies and procedures and responsibilities and rights if your in thier venue the people in it know the law and the jury know the law they suppose to follow. if you walk in with your own personal law that you created in your language you will get laughed at.
making a counter claim does not make your made up law suddenly valid. otherwise here is a law

i decree from this day forth that BD be recognised as a helicopter
and now in my post where its my authority to speak everyone reading this must comply to my law
??
sorry but i didnt make you become a helicopter because thats not how things work

one thing that BD keeps ignoring is with rights come responsibilities too..
BD and karl pretend they are responsible for nothing and can do anything according to their law

Cop:  license and registration please
Driver: I'm not driving, I'm traveling in accordance with some maritime law from 8 centuries ago.
Cop:  (chuckle) (Cool, one of these). In radio- got another one, bring the window punch

ok so i went on and listened to the first 10 minutes of badeckers latest link featuring his jesus superstar karl lentz, and found many many flaws

take karl saying about 'make it your court' rhetoric
sorry DB sorry karl but the BS of making the court public instead of private, has no sway.
"public" is a membership group of something like a association.. or to make it real simple its like having customers of a gym.. a gym membership..
so those who are members of the gym (members of the public) get certain priviliges/ facilities and also responsibilities granted to them.
these members dont own the gym they are customers of the gym. and they still need to follow the gyms/courts/states/feds rules

karl pretends that filing a claim is about switching from being treated as a customer to being an owner.. but it is not. you do not own the court when you enter their venue.

the actual real world eyes wide open truth is that by putting in your claim, you can then be an accuser and make the accused the one that has to defend themself and show proof and plead their innocence.
it has nothing to do with who has control of the court. the courts rules and policies remain the same.
seriously BD just take your admiration glasses off and just try, just once to be critical of karl lentz, instead of blindly following him
oh and by the way, by putting in your claim. doesnt quash their claim. you still have to plead your case in their claim. and by the way. when people are summoned. they usually dont have time to file their own claim from the time a police officer is knocking at the door with a warrent and handcuffs to the time your in court.
so dont even rely on the whole counter claim stuff.

but if you do counter claim. atleast try to counter claim about something evidential and dont just waffle out some speach you heard on youtube as ifs its gods words. actually have evidence to support the claim your filing involving things that you are involve in.

franky1 [clicks link]
franky1 [listens to first 30 seconds of video]
franky1 [hears karl lentz talking]
franky1 [facepalms]

badecker.. you utter idiot

all you have been showing is freeman stuff. the video you linked is freeman stuff..

your the freeman fangirl

oh and here is some funny things about your 'face your accuser'

1. by your silly rhetoric, murder is not a crime if the human who is harmed is dead, as they cant then accuse you. because your flawed crap is trying to todler tantrum a silly rebuttle that the only human that can accuse you has to be the one who has been harmed by you, where no one else can represent thier interest, estate property on the harmed parties behalf

2.your also trying to insinuate that rape is not a crime if the accuser cannot physically identify you because you may wear a bag over your head. even if there is DNA evidence you going to assume that the accuser has to make a physical identification themselves

3. you talk about rights but ignore responsibilities, you talk about rights but ignore who gets the rights and who doesnt. civil rights is a different contract compared to human rights. and its why foreigners to america need to become citizens to gain the right to vote and use public services.

4. your links and rhetoric have not shown any signs of working as proven by the karl lentz video you linked where you were very addiment was about freedom to travel. but the video was selectively 'la la la la' for a reason
karl lentz didnt ned all the pomp and posturing of 'your in my court, i havnt finished talking' crap as its not his court as he doesnt own the deed to the building. nor did h summon the cop. it was the states/fed court that summoned karl lentz
even so. all karl lentz had to say in court was 'the cop just said i didnt harm or damage anything so it wasnt reckless driving'
and the result would have ben the same.. karl lentz just added and twisted it with alot of freeman mumbo jumbo wishy washy stuff just to make it sound like he won in regards to freedom to travel

seriously take a few steps back, take a few calm breathes realise your following of freeman stuff dropped you in it and showed that its not what you expected it to be

P.S i have sat in court as research for many different things just to see how things work. i do do my research and i think you have shown absolutely no care to research and just desire to believe whatever you find on websites/videos as true based on titles or conclusions without testing them out or digging into them or even critically thinking about them

i hope one day you wake up and start doing more research and actually check things out as i look forward to your awakening. but for now ill let you carry on dreaming as its just pure comedy reading the crap you think is true

I bet you can't wait for government to censor anything you might say.

Go search for "Sovereign Citizens Getting Owned And Arrested" on Youtube.  Imagine it's BADecker in every video.

Actually, it's high time to do what I am writing. But there are two ways to do it. There is simply going out and doing it. And there is Learning law first, with a group, and maybe within a Private Membership Association.

A couple decades ago I was part of a group in Phoenix who was studying law. While they didn't have things down as well as Karl Lentz, they had them down well enough so that several of the group drove without registration and license.

One of the group went to court - no car license. A bunch of us attended. The judge freed the guy, but I think he was a little intimidated by the group. Most of us didn't understand what was really going on, because the group was a loosely knit group, and the main studies were done by a half-dozen of the group.

The main man was quite intelligent. There were times that he had the judges of the whole State quaking in their boots because he constantly brought up law that showed they were wrong.

One of the main men was a guy who has become quite popular in some circles. He and his people have moved on to form their own group. Sure, they have their failures, just as PopoJeff suggests, because every case is slightly different. But they have their many successes, too, throughout the country. And they don't even use the Karl Lentz best methods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oYlJCbqqq8

Look them up at http://marcstevens.net/.

WRONG

Mr Decker, you can certainly choose to believe what you want to, and I'm not going to argue with you about your misled beliefs. Sir, carry on, do your thing.

But to every other human reading the words he writes....... PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not believe his words at face value. YOU WILL END UP IN JAIL IF YOU BELIEVE THE STUFF HE WRITES.  Do your own research please.

You have the right to travel on the public rights of way. You have the right to take your property with you as you travel on the public rights of way. If you take your car property with you as you travel on the public rights of way, you have that right without licensing, because it is a right.

If you don't agree with them that you were driving, but rather, say that you were going from point A to point B with your property, you aren't using any of their legal styled words. You aren't doing what they say you are doing.

If you haven't injured someone, there is no cause for them attacking you to take you to court or make you pay a fine. But... you have to take it to court when they attack you, unrepresented, requiring your accuser to show his injury that you did. This is standard law.

But nobody who does it this way insistently maintains his innocence of injuring anyone. Rather, he is talked into accepting what Judge Judy says in whatever she says it. Or he is represented by an attorney, which makes him a ward of the court without the ability to officially say anything in court unless the judge lets him.

The car is your private property of course, but purchasing a car does not give you the right to drive. You need a good health and decent driving abilities to obtain a license. Take  into account that when you're driving on public roads and you don't have that license you can literally get someone killed. Someone needs to pay the time of the examinators, your school hours and that shouldn't be paid from public money because not everyone has a car or the ability to drive.

It's quite apparent some who post legal info on here have never spent a day in the courtroom.

If you do all your legal studies on the internet, you'll learn the hard way.

??my?? freeman stuff
dude your the one quoting video links of the whole 'freeman' stuff
karl lentz is very much a poster child for the freeman people

couple days ago... i just checked all 3 pages of posts and seen that link not used before
did you know that video got debunked
the video never says the actual reason the case he scenario'd out got dismissed/discharged as he ' la la la la la'd out that part of the quote..

it was never about freedom to travel.
if you actually done some research it was the cops testimony being used as the guys defense about the reckless driving claim
again nothing to do with right to travel, freedom to travel

here
the virginia code law
"“Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving. ” Va. Code § 46.2-852"

because no life, limb or property was endangered.. he obviously was not guilty
as the cop even said no loss of limb, life, no damage to property
seriously if you actually thought that the link had anything whatsoever to do with freedom to travel.. then you really need to check things out more

but remember. its you taking the freeman stance. so i have no clue why you keep saying its my freeman stance
again for emphasis. that video link is nothing whatsoever about freedom to travel

just atleast try to do your research
karl Lentz went on to promote that video of how people who do drive recklessly can get away with it because of 'the lalalalala annotation'(which he does not mention but pretends its abut fredom to travel).. but the reality is the cops evidence proved innocence due to the testimony saying no endangerment to life, limb or property

if you drive recklessly.. you will be found guilty
P.S it only took me 5 minutes to debunk that video as not proof of the 'freedom to travel' freeman thing you want to promote

past point.
just for emphasis about this topic of driving licence. tresspass is also another category aswell as loss/damage
the video case scenario was not about being unlicenced and theirfore trsspassing/breaking the highway code. it was about reckless driving accusation.

if anything... by now if people aint laughing at badecker, they must be atleast seeing how obvious badecker has not himself even filed a claim or been in a courtroom or made any claims

all of his information is from websites that are freeman based but not gleamed from personal experience..

badecker. seriously, honestly and with deepest regards.
take two steps back from the scripts your reading and try to atleast put a critical hat on to knit pick the freeman stuff you follow

you really have absolutely no clue
the reality is
1.the mexican doesnt just turn up on day, file a claim and walk into a courtroom where 12 people are always there just sitting there, purely for the sake of hope some random person files a claim

2. there is a schedule and organising that occurs first. such as a hearing before a trial
the point of a hearing is to hear the claim to see if there's any worthyness to it to even organise getting a jury to take a day off work and attend.. theres other stuff too

3. if you done a case against the us government. then federal employees legal team would turn up to represent. then all you would end up doing is acting like a manchild having a todler tantrum crying about how you dont recognise the opposition and its not who you are looking for.
the judge on the other hand would recognise them as the representing the fed, because again the court house is the federal court house and so the rules are in the feds favour

4. so by you screaming 'no thats not my accuser. i want my accuser.. yes YOUR CLAIM would be dismissed but the feds claim that your an illegal immigrant wont be dismissed..

you can try it.. i mean literally try it and stand in a court room waving your hands about shouting and spitting and screaming how you dont recognise the other party and you want the human known as "USA" to appear
but all your doing is wasting your own time on your own claims.. and not rectifying the claim against you

5. also its not just a time waste but you can actually get in more trouble such as a fin or few days in jail for bing such a prat wasting the courts time in the manner you think is how you should act

whats next
get pulled over by a cop and then put a claim in that you wish to summon your accuser Mr N.Y.P.D
go on think about it. walk into any place and just shout out. 'im looking for someone with a birth certificate in the name of mr n y p d
everyone just gonna laugh at you and either pretend you said nothing or think your in the middle of having a stroke/breakdown and call for an ambulance to later have a 72 hour psych hold/test done
plus you still dont get $20 for the cop stop service

If they do I accept it with my full heart.

But sadly we are not entirely free even if we live in a democratic country,all our efforts get sucked for government's benefit and for the politicians to get refill their offshore accounts.

This is all great and stuff, and if you want to do it this way, you will wind up with the results that it brings you.

But beneath all this is the common law. Amendments 6, 7 and 9 show that people - actual flesh and blood humans - can take accusations against them to their local jury that doesn't have a judge/magistrate doing any part of the judging. It's called common law court of record. This is upheld by CJS, Federal Courts, Section 744.

If a smart Mexican came up over the border illegally, and he was caught, he could require a jury trial, and stand as a man in that trial. If he wrote up a claim against anybody in general, and filed it into the complaint against him, he could require government to get on the stand, and show the damage he caused, so he could pay it off. The government can't get on the stand. The government isn't a man. Government doesn't show, case dismissed.

Doing it this way places him outside everything that you talk about. In the things you talk about, the courts always have representation for/of the parties. It might be by attorney representation, or it might be pro se, or it might be propria persona, or it might somehow even be sui juris. They do this because representation means that the actual party being accused isn't standing in the court personally. His representation by someone else means that the whole thing falls into and under complaints... even if he makes a claim through representation.

If a man stands present, not represented by anyone, and not representing anyone, and files a claim into their complaint case, his clam must be heard and cleared up before they can continue with the rest of the case. And since he is a man standing present in court, he has the right to have his accuser come forward on the stand, show the damage he was damage with, and prove that the accused did it.

In the case of the illegal Mexican, his accuser is invariably THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It says so on the indictment. So, let Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA take the oath/affirmation, get on the stand and prove how they were harmed by him. Government can't do it. Nobody shows up after 3 calls... case dismissed.

This only works if the guy stands as a man. It works because it is written right into basic law. And I am not saying that even if he is smart and shrewd, that he wouldn't need some help... some council-friend who has who has limited power of attorney for him, to put some paperwork into the courts for him, while he is incarcerated. He would have to be very clever to do it all right in court, writing up his claim on the spot, and submitting it to the judge right in court.

All this is foundational law in the USA.