Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 2. (Read 1607 times)

But licensing doesn't change the ability to drive carefully in anyone. In fact, because there are cops out on the roads, there are more accidents. Watch people when they see a cop. All of a sudden they become fearful, taking their eyes off the road, and watching to see if the cop is going to come after them.

If we treated licensing the way it should be, people would have enough confidence to not care if the cop ticked them or not. Why? Because 100% of the tickets can be beat where there is no accident. It's just that people don't know how. (I am talking USA and Britain, here)

Making the government pay you to get the license would help to clarify the power you have. It would take a whole lot of driving stress out of your life as well.

But when is a thing bad? When is something that is done bad?

If you drive one mph over the speed limit, is this bad? Some States have official laws that say you can drive over the speed limit if you are not endangering anyone. So how do you determine what is bad? One way...

You do something bad when you harm a human being, or damage his property, or directly threaten him. That's it. And to show you, look through all the statutes and take a look at where the statute says "man" or "woman." Essentially all the statutes say "person," the definition of which doesn't include a man or woman.

It's right in the law. You don't have to go to some 400-page freeman brief to find it. If you want to call it freeman stuff, then you are calling the law freeman stuff. It can't be any plainer for you.

nope

law is about taking freedom.. but to take it when bad people do bad things

in a lawless country, people are free. you have feet to walk, lips to talk. laws are made to restrict freedoms for those to impact others lives or property negatively

amendments are made to reduce the limitation or increase the limitation
but i find it foolish that now after 12 pages of waffle your saying laws are needed to give freedoms.

your just not grasping the concept of law at all

keep trying. you'll probably get it right in a few years

edit to respond to below post
dang badecker your still drilling the freeman mantra of man woman and person
DO YOUR FRIGGEN RESEARCH AWAY FROM THE FREEMAN CULT

remember amendments are changes to the law to give people rights. meaning the original law didnt include them
meaning the laws were initially made to limit people actions

also learn plain meaning.
plain meaning is not the complex crap you try to make out
plain meaning is in the law

And the basic law is to not take freedom away from anyone else. Built right into the basics of the law are the methods for punishing government officials for attempting to take your freedom away for nothing.

No.  You are not a free man/woman in a free country.  You are subject to government laws in the country you live in.

Unless your country is a monarchy and you are a member of the royal family.

so badecker avoids research yet again. badecker doesnt even want to learn the truth of the karl lentz stuff he quoted as reference. thus shows his limited knowledge and lack of understanding even the stuff he quotes

i think badecker definetly should not be giving tips for what people should be doing in a court room, nor behind the wheel of a vehicle
this last 11 pages of the topic proven he is not capable of winning in his scenarios. but just wasting time and hoping people give up chasing him
maybe he should learn SLAPP is not a strategy as many courts throw out the claim before even inviting people to turn up as its contents contain no merits to even bother forming a case

if only badecker knew that just making random claims wont guarantee he gets a day in court let alone showing enough evidence to convince the need of a jury. badecker might actually try new tactics that are not the freeman flaws

I realize you are having a difficult life within yourself. And I think that many of the people who post in this forum do, as well. But, you ARE important. Whether she loves you or not, you are very important to your wife. So, feel loved, and stabilized within yourself. Then seek out the true knowledge. You can do this. You owe it to yourself to do it, because you are important in the scheme of things... just like everyone else.

well atleast you admit you were on the bus and showing how you love to tell idiots what to do. sorry im not on your bus so im not listening to your nonsense

anyway. its obvious you have not read them books from cover to cover you just like your freeman sites that summarise and misinterpret it all

milions of people have seen the flaws that you keep spouting out. as they have done research further than you have shown capable of doing.

but have a nice day trying to beg for a jury using your stupid methods. it wont work.
11 pages of this topic and you still have not even thought to yourself that it might be worth really studying law

you havnt even shown good knowledge of just the laws around driving licence.
so maybe start there

ill make it easy for you
you love karl lentz so much. just try and learn what karl 'la la la' through. learn the law he didnt talk about.
ill give you a spoiler. it was not about freedom to travel

How do you even live... you are alive, aren't you? You can't even read what is right before your face... oh, that's right, It's covered by your palm (facepalm).

I tell you the law, and you don't want the law by not agreeing with the law. Then you (in outlaw form) say that I am the one who doesn't want the law. How in the world did you ever last this long on the forum at all?

If you want to understand the law, read two things:
1. Blackstone's Commentaries;
2. Maxims of Law.

So you're the kind of joker who wants to sue anybody, even if it costs you way more than $20 just to get your jury win. Nobody is talking about requesting a jury. The correct way to say it is to require a jury.

Oh, btw. It's trial by jury, not jury trial.

Aren't we having fun? I don't ask kids on a special bus. I tell them, just like I am telling you. Here is your stop. Get off the bus.

badecker
you got no clue

you claim you dont want the law, you claim you want to be free of the law. but then try to assert things that are nothing to do with the law held against you. you try to then pretend the law has meaning but only for bits that suit you, but you have misunderstood the law that you think works in your favour

how about understand the whole law, not just parts of it.. and i mean really research and learn it
the only way to beat the law is to know the law. and you, simply have not done the proper law research. you have limited yourself to freeman crap. thats like asking a kid on the 'special bus' for his opinion of quantum physics.
essentially, your not really getting the right info from the best source


by the way 7th amendment does not guarantee you a jury trial
infact using your examples of what you would have said in court as your counterclaim would not warrant the requirement to call on a jury
do your research
you cant just ask for a jury and get one automatically, just because you requested one in your crying whimpers

Easy Rider, with Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson.

Is that from Brokeback Mountain?

Folks, we have always had the ability to limit government's control. People like franky1 don't seem to like freedom for some strange reason. Or, they are trolls who are fighting for the people who get wealthy off controlling us.

It's time that we stood up as men and women, and threw off the shaqckles that government people are attempting to control us with.

1. Stand in court as a man or woman. Don't be represented by an attorney, because signing an agreement with an attorney makes you a ward of the court. In other words, you have already lost, pending the decisions that the court makes, even if they let you win this one. This doesn't mean that you can't use an attorney. But don't sign a client agreement. Rather, sign a co-counsel agreement with him, and stand up and do your own talking in court, at times with the attorney to advise you.

2. The 6th and 7th Amendments allow for you to elect to have a jury trial, no matter what any court decides otherwise.

3. Your property is your property. If government decides to challenge your use of your property, they have no authority to do so. The only things that limit your use of your property is when you harm some other man or woman, when you damage their property, or a direct threat to someone or to a group. That's it! The law is simple.

Study the law. Later, study the statutes and codes. Join with other like-minded people, and change the country back to what is should be... "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all," not only for government people who try to convince you they are your masters and you are their slaves.

ok badecker has officially lost the plot

by him now saying it doesnt matter what he is being accused of. means he is going into court ignorant of what he is defending himself against

and what is badeckers counter claim. to ask someone to stand up and explain what badecker is defending against.
maybe badecker should try reading the claim... its al there.

again the victim of contract breach, tresspass, damage, loss or injury can be represented by someone else. again i emphasise this to appeal to the single braincell badecker uses to type.
"hey single brain cell research murders. you cannot get away with murder simply by claiming the victim cannot stand infront of you"
if your only defense and counter claim is to cry that the victim cannot stand. then you have become a loser by all possible definitions

badecker has become absolutely absurd with his ignorance

§ 1501.  Drivers required to be licensed.
(a)  General rule.--No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway or public property in this Commonwealth unless the person has a driver's license valid under the provisions of this chapter. As used in this subsection, the term "public property" includes, but is not limited to, driveways and parking lots owned or leased by the Commonwealth, a political subdivision or an agency or instrumentality of either.




person[ pur-suh n ]

noun
a human being, whether an adult or child:
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):
Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being:



Are you a human being?

Since you don't understand contracts and trespass, you are obviously ignorant of the way law works. You continually prove it by sidestepping the issues and misapplying the things I say.

Since it doesn't matter what someone is accused of when he is caught without a license, why would anyone want to understand? If the accused files a claim into the court complaint case against him, there needs to be injury shown before the case can go anywhere. And since the complaint is made by the State, how is the State going to get on the stand man-to-man so that he can be cross-examined by the accused? But if the State can figure out a way to take the oath and get on the stand, how was the State injured, concrete or otherwise... broken arm? breach of contract?

A complaint is not an claim of injury. If it is not a complaint, but rather a claim against me, it might be a claim of injury. But the State only files complaints in standard traffic cases, because the judges and attorneys know that the State can't get on the stand. My claim that I file into their complaint case requires the State to get on the stand and show the injury. Can the State get on the stand? Explain how he can do it.

If someone wants to file a claim against me, that's his business. Even if the State could file a claim, as I have repeated, I will stand as a man, file a claim into the state's claim, and in that claim require my accuser, the State, to get on the stand and give evidence of his injury. If the State can do this, show me how... since it is the State that is accusing me on the indictment, and since standard law gives me the right to face my accuser so that I can cross-examine him.

If an accuser wants to file a claim against me, it won't be the State. Why not? Because the State can't get on the stand and show an injury to itself or to someone else. If the State plus a man are listed on a claim indictment jointly, it's a form of class action suit. I will require that they all take the stand so that I can cross-examine them all. The State can't get on the stand. Case dismissed... or do you have a way for the State to get on the stand?

Everything you say attempts to bypass a whole bunch of standard court proceedings and rules of court... to say nothing about the right to trial by jury as stated in the 6th and 7th Amendments.



EDIT: The above is only a tiny part of it. Notice that there is a statute that was broken listed in the complaint against me. But when you look at the literal statute, and define the words in the statute, it is always a "person" that the statute is talking about. The definition of "person" does not include "man" or "woman." Since I am standing as a man in court, the statute doesn't apply to me.

your boring
your "damaging concrete" has nothing to do with rules of the road linked to driving licence requirements

if you dont understand contracts and tresspass. you obviously ignorant of the law of this whole topic
as proven by the last 11 pages of your misunderstandings.
even today you dont even know what someoene is accused of when they are caught without a licence hense you making up tht somehow its to do with damaging concrete.
again its nothing to do with damaging concrete. so try learning what someone is being accused of in such topic

and again the human accusing you does not need to be the victim.
otherwise murders would not be a crime because the victim cannot stand if they are dead.
an accuser can be a representative or a witness of the victim
the accusation is breach of contract/tresspass not 'damage'

All you are doing is blabbing things that don't have anything to do with anything that was posted.

Except that none of the things you are saying make any sense at all.