Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 3. (Read 1607 times)

as for the other stuff
reecka'd you keep ignorin tresspass and contracts. which are part of the constitution and law.

you can cry all you like about not breaking concrete. but thats not what you are being accused of

if i tresspassed on your property and you decided to take me into your barn.. if i was to be stupid to do a badecker ploy. i would ask you why are you accusing me of humping your wife...
you would be wondering what im on about because im only in your barn because i stood on your grass
i would continue to do a backer and ignore the tresspass and continue to spout off crap about how i must have murdered your mother, even though she is alive. my badecker ploy woul be to continue shouting out random other crimes just to waste time and get detained under a psych hold.

meanwhile the tresspass case continues on

i see no reason to actually do a badecker because acting like a mentally damaged idiot helps no one. and has nothing to do with the tresspass/contracts parts of law

i still dont know why badecker thinks the no driving licence is about breaking concrete..
all i do know is badecker doesnt understand the law to even know what the law he would be breaching by driving without a licence and what the issues of the law are.
hint. its not about broken concrete

i just read the first paragraphand just (facepalmed)
1. pages ago rebecka'd(aka badecker) was saying a claim trumps a complaint. now hoe saying a complaint trumps a claim
how foolish

2. you cant hide a claim under a complaint.. the claim is the court case the complaint is the reason
you can hide the reason but cant hide the case.

3. a claim and complaint made easy:
here is the difference
state makes a claim against rebecka'd and the complaint is that he violated the rules of the road
rebecka'd goes to court thus acknowledging the claim against him and the reason. but then he just bitches and whinges and speaks like an idiot without filing his own claim.
making his bitching and whinges just a bitching complaint without a claim, much like just verbally abusing nonsense you see homeless people spout out when talking to pidgeons

meaning rebecka'd is the one who has just wasted his own time by just being a whiney bitch. rebecka'd if he had any substantial legal complaint to counter the other party that had even a vague chance of having merit. rebecka'd should formalise it in a counter claim. otherwise he might as well just be screaming in the streets

trying to deny the opposition has made a claim and/or complaint. yet be at the court shows that a claim has been made where no hiding has occured because rebecka'd is there in court as requested so he must have known about it

rebecka'd you really need to try learning stuff from an actual court. not from youtube of your fanclub of freeman cultists

i would love to see rebecka's turn up to a court and say that there is no case and the judge just laughs and said "but you turned up to it, right"

a non court formalised complaint is just like having an argument in a pub/bar about how nasty the warm beer tastes. a formal complaint is filed as a claim

Well, well. To claim a complaint still makes it a complaint. The claim of a complaint totally silences the claim in favor of the complaint.

A claim made in complaint form doesn't have the strength of a claim directly made as a claim. You have them backward. Complain all day long about something. People around the world complain. But when you claim something, you are saying it is yours... or at least something of equal value. If you give good reason, and nobody stands against your reason, you win.

Hiding a claim under a complaint doesn't take away from the complaint. Whine all day long. You are not claiming anything when you do it in complaint form.

If you are going to claim something, why shroud it in complaint form? Claim it directly. If you simply claim your complaint, all you are doing is claiming that you are whining.

Making a claim as a man, requires in fairness that a man answer. If the claim is that the complainant will not  take the oath and get on the stand, and if the claim is for a $million if the complainant doesn't, a complainant man has to get on the stand and rebut "viva voce" the claim. The State is the complainant, but is not able to rebut viva voce. The claimant wins.

The claim against me is not occurring. It was a complaint. It says so on the paperwork. Are you saying that the paperwork is faulty? Such falls into the realm of perjury.

I can't file a counter-claim. The complaint paperwork might be backed by a million claims. But it is still a complaint formally. No way to file a counter-claim.

Filing my claim into the case makes it my case until my claim has been rebutted. Rebuttal must be done by the State, since I have the right to face my accuser. If the LEO is my accuser, why isn't his name on the indictment rather than the State's name? Since it is not, he is not my accuser.

The State, my accuser, needs to take the oath/affirrmation, get on the stand, and tell/show tht damage that has been done to him, and prove that I did it. If the case is that I was going 20 mph over the speed limit, how did that hurt the state? Was the state injured... a broken arm, a cut, breach of a contract? Let my accuser, the State, get on the stand and tell the jury. Not the State's representative. The State, my accuser.

Suppose that the State has a power of attorney with someone in the State to be a speaker for the State. So he takes the oath/affirmation and gets on the stand. Does he have first-hand knowledge of any damage I did to the State? Did I bust up some concrete? Did I set a State forest on fire? Did he see it happen?

This is why, when a man/woman is involved, the State doesn't have a case. The only chance the State has is to get the man/woman to be the client of an attorney... thereby becoming a ward of the court. Or to get the so-called defendant to agree that he is the person on the indictment. If the State can't do this, they lose.

by the way. in real law
the claim is the case for/against you and the complaint is the reason/description of the case for/against you

claim vs complaint is not two different levels of court proceding
when a legal complaint is made its the evidence/reason/description of the claim. it does not mean there is no claim. it means a complaint is just the evidence/reason of a claim

so pretending their is no claim, shows that you have no clue how the court system works

for their to be a claim there needs to be a reason.
a complaint without a claim is simply you being a whiny kid. a complaint in court is the reason for the claim
you can formalise your complaint as more then just being a whiny kid, by making it into a formal case. but pretending that while in a case against you is not a case against you and just a complaint. is like saying your not in court that has been alloted a timeslot, organised getting  a judge to sit it and invited everyone involved to turn up.. but just making a forum post whinging at someone

so while a claim against you is occuring. just being a whining kid is not going to help you. yes you should formalise your complaint by filing it as a counter-claim but that does not mean the auto destruction of their claim againt you simply by filing your own counter claim.
you wont win by default by making a counter claim. in your complaint of your counterclaim has to have merit. it has to have proof and actual reason.

just making a counter claim that you identify yourself as a pink helicopter or a transvestite dildo corporation wont help

and then you still have to deal with their claim against you containing their complaint

yes your turn to speak. not own the court

thier claim against you is breach of contract and tresspass
you broke the rules of the road and done something on property you were nt suppose to be on

again you keep being ignorant about contracts and tresspass

you can make any counter claim you like asking if you injured anyone and your claim will be dismissed as no injury is even the claim against you. again its not what you are being accused of. so you wont win your claim, it will just be struck out and the case against you will continue as if you never made a claim

you foolishly think making a counterclaim makes the laim against you disapear. sorry but it dont work like that

your stupid trick is like this:
to walk into the womens bathroom and watch women naked. get sued for indecency but try to defend yourself by asking if you had a gun on you and did you shoot a women.
the case is not about murder or physical harm so everyone in the court will just look at you and think your mentally ill for even thinking your turning up to a murder trial when infact your being civily sued for something else

the only actions resulting from your claim is being put on a mental psych hold for 72 hours

meanwhile the claim against you about the tresspass and breaking the rules still has proof, witnesses and you foolishly admitting the claim against you when you stupidly told them that you were in the situation/location. but then add on the holding the gun nonsense

You have made your complaint against me in court. It's my turn.

I claim that I have not harmed anyone. I claim that nobody will get on the stand and show injury or threat with proof and witness that I was the one who did it.

If you don't answer my claim, you lose/I win. Why? Because you had your turn. It is my turn. And since I am standing as a man unrepresented, you need to get on the stand as a man unrepresented and answer my claim... show that I am wrong.


You might say, " That's not how it works." But you don't know this, because you have never even seen anyone present a claim in court. But the judge knows all about claims, and how they are stronger than a complaint when done by a man.

it is your claim/defense of claim but not your court
the physical building and the employees inside it are not your property
the policies of the court and the training of the employee's did not begin with you

if you owned your own barn and someone stood on your property without your consent then you can take them to YOUR barn.
your property, your barn=your rules
 
but the rules of the road and court are not your rules as its not your property they are state/fed rules and property.
just because you are a member of the gym does not mean you own the gym
just because your a member of 'public' does not mean you own the public property/assets

this allow you be serviced by the court to make a claim and/or defend a claim in their court according to their rules policies and procedures

i know you think that elections means you own the gov but no.
people have food competitions and get to vote on which is the top chef to run a restaurant. that dont mean the customers own the restaurant

use some common sense now and again

you cannot just rewrite the dictionary and write your own policies in someone elses court.
instead you need to learn their policies and procedures and their rules to then know how to navigate them

you cannot just go into state or fed court and pretend you declare it "flat earth court of king reecka'd"
its still and always will be a state/fed court and so always will follow the rules, policies and procedures of the state/fed

atleast try to realise pretending to be a fairy results in a mental assessment possibility result. it wont change he laws or procedures

so learn the real procedures so that you can learn whats fair and unfair. then if being treated unfairly you can hold them to account

i still find it strange how much you go back and forth and making nonsense rather than just take the time to do some real research

by the way.. court papers title has the courts name and jurisdiction as the title. your name would appear under the title defendant.
your a defendant not a court owner.

Well, of course it's my court. Look at all the court cases. They are all titled something like "Jon Doe vs. Jim Jones." All of them. In the example at left, it's Jon Doe's court. If he stupidly wants to give control of it over to some judge, that's his choice. But it's his court because not one thing happens - court is not even convened - until he files his case.

Freedom Speech Easy Rider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc11mJGre10

its not "your court" you silly fool
if someone trespassed on YOUR property you can take them into your barn and set any rule you like for your barn

but when your on roads made by state/government. thats their property meaning they decide the rules and they decide the policies of their court

again we have been over this already.
you cannot just walk into a state/fed court and demand they follow your prefered sharia law
you cannot demand 12 random people to take a day off work just because you think your king
you cannot then ask the jury to wear your prefered colour pink robes and dance the fairy dance when you talk

you need to realise you in their court and acting like a prat in thier court has consequences.
instead of demanding that people ignore court policies and procedures and just believe some fairy freeman policy applies. actually use their policies of their court against them.

every single post so far has been you trying to ignore how courts work and trying to insert your own opinion of your on fairy law

you keep forgetting contracts and tresspass and you forget who's property belongs to who
as soon as you use a road, guess what your using the state/govs property and need to follow their rules.
so learn their rules and use their rules against them
stop trying to make up new rules or new definitions that dont even make common sense
because being a moron is just going to make a judge want to section you for a psych hold

Did seems like trying to create outrage out of nothing. Like giving it meaning like free speech.

People should have licenses because you don't want nut jobs driving and causing accidents.

That's a pretty good attitude to have. If you are a LEO out there enforcing code, you have probably run into some dangerous situations now and again. But maintaining a fun filled attitude can give you the stamina that it takes to carry on.

So, I accept your idea, and will try to remember it when the time comes that I am in a court situation.

Ok  sure.  Have fun with that

If you are the arresting cop, you have to be there, too.    

EDIT: Look. If you are only there by affidavit or by dash-cam/vest-cam, the judge will consider it hearsay if I require verification. So, if you aren't there, there isn't any use in having a pretrial hearing. Might as well go straight to trial.

If we go to trial, I will file a claim as a man on top of your complaint, with the clerk of the court, before trial date.

I have the right to face my accuser. Standard right.

The indictment lists my accuser as The-State-of-XXX/The-County-of-XXX/The-City-of-XXX. Since I am appearing unrepresented as a man, not even represented by myself, but rather present, my accuser must take the oath/affirmation, get on the stand, and tell the court - viva voce - how I have harmed or damaged him/her.

Further, the definitions does not include a man/woman in the the way they are written. The defs only talk about persons. Even a human being is defined in federal statutes as a minor who is a ward of the court. None of this is me, a man.

False arrest. I will seek damages.

 I cant.  I just cant.   Good luck man. 

It all depends on the pretrial hearing in the judges chambers. If the prosecutor drops the charges based on one or more of several things, I might just let the matter drop, as well. If he doesn't, I will have to press my claim in a common law court of record, thereby taking it out of the administrative court.

You think you're getting a jury trial for a traffic ticket or summary case?

You're finally getting it, aren't you. My court, my rules. Standard rules of court are quite well thought out. I might use them.

the lemming above mentions jury. and now sidesteps to talk about attourneys...

dang
rebecka'd(as ill now call you) you know you dun goofed about the jury thing. and now want to misdirect into another direction.
sorry but misdirects only work for capable magicians and many people end up finding out how the trick occurs leaving things not looking so mystical and magical as you think they are.

your powers of illusion are obvious basically

My apologies. I actually thought you knew how to read and understand. No wonder you have trouble with the law. You need an attorney to do your talking for you. Don't deviate from this because it fits you - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. I wonder if you can understand it at all.