Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 5. (Read 1607 times)

if a man walked into a womans public bathroom and scared the women inside and they complained. no matter if the man declared himself a female a lesbian a transgender or anything. there would be consequences

but we can already guess badecker will pretend the law doesnt apply to him because he thinks he has the secret magic rhetoric to perv in womens bathrooms

Person. Man. Women.  All that nonsense will get you literally nowhere.  You can theorize all you want on the internet. But in reality, it will never work in any court. Good luck

no no no you idiot
you have no clue.
stop with your freeman rhetoric about "persons"

its not saying a person is an entity that is not human
its saying its a human, no matter if they pretend to be described by any noun
EG if a human says he is a judge.. the law still appies to him as the human whether he is a judge or describes himself as an employee, a dress wearing fairy or identifies himself as a helicopter.

the point and plain meaning of the word person is to do the exact opposite of your idiotic rhetoric.
your rhetoric is to try escaping liability by redifining your pronoun. however the 'person' means you can use any pronoun you like. your still going to be liable


no where in that does it say excludes humans. not excludes individuals or excludes people or excludes men/women
its done as an inclusive thing to prevent the stupid stuff you waffle on about

so even if you say 'im not a person. im here with friends we are people' .. sorry a judge still sees you as a person
so even if you say 'im not a person. i have testicles im a man' .. sorry a judge still sees you as a person
so even if you say 'im not a person. i run a business, im a business man' .. sorry a judge still sees you as a person

try to research "plain meaning" and why when you try to redifine nouns o your silly small minded definition, you will fail

But in the USA, essentially all the laws refer to persons. Person is defined as some form of artificial entity, generally. Where it is defined as an individual, it could have easily been defined as man or woman. So we see that even if individual means human being, it doesn't mean man or woman. Further, there is law that states that individual applies to infants, which means that they are wards of the state. In other words, men and women are outside of the purview of the law until people state that they are the person that is the object of the discussion. See https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

I think everything goes back to the rules and regulations that exist in each country is certainly very different. especially for developing countries licensing is really needed because there are elements of tax generated for the interests of the country. because the country desperately needs income as one of the spearheads of development of course is from the tax sector. it is not possible for all to be equal, there are times when the state also plays a role in certain matters.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=international+drivers+license&t=ffab&ia=web

Each state has its own laws, we cannot impose laws to pay us to get licensed and to have our vehicle licensed. At least I haven't seen this in any state in the world yet. I think that people alone have to pay for these licenses. For example, I have a business, a self-service car for Mercedes. I only import mercedes accessories from abroad, and pay quite high taxes. The state does not exempt me from any tax, but it would be good to support the small bus, especially the bus with auto parts.

I kinda should apologize. And since I am apologizing, it wouldn't be right to blurt out what I am apologizing for, because that might negate the apology. So, thanks for the talk.

ok last try to wake you up..
it seems you now deny facts of common law. like tresspass because it doesnt fit your script
so lets try your lentz law

you (and lentz) say you can create your own court and claim against someone under your law.. either it be common law, lentz law, sharia law whatever

but why then.. does lentz himself bring up the queens bench when talking about common law UK.. i thought you both were adamant that your scripts meant that people no matter what court they are summoned to locally or nationally, should make a claim in that court.. how can they make their own court

see how easy lentz law falls apart when you start questioning his scripts
atleast try just once to not be a full believer of lentz law AKA freeman stuff and just attempt for fairness of wanting to learn try to question it

by the way my question was rhetorical i dont need th answer as i know what it is. but for your benefit. dont just reply with some old script you heard or your twists to try to sound right. atleast do some critical thinking research and find out what actually is possible and what has actually been proven possible and not just the hypothetical misdirects of freeman/lentz and friends

goodnight

I noticed about the full circle thing. In fact, you are spinning on your full circle so fast that you are way beyond dizzy... like insanely dizzy.

oh im laughing

we have gon full circle to 7 pages ago.. and you still dont realise it

on my property i can have my own house rules. such as charge you for tresspassing it. i can set up my own court in my barn where the punishment is a fine or worse

when you break the laws of someone elses property, you end up in THEIR court
you trying to assume governments courts are your courts is your massive failure of all your freeman speaches

you cannot go into a english led court of law of british or american bases and then walk in trying to proclaim your own court of sharia law or freeman law.

or whatever mis-directed 4 table leg version thats not common law.

you need to learn what law is followed by which court. G government court has family, criminal, civil and true(unfreeman twisted(not BD's scripts)) common law.
remember the jury do not know or understand your sharia/BD's Lentz faith law/freeman misbeliefs. they are following the courts procedures because they are in that court.

Stepping onto the property of someone else isn't necessarily trespassing.

The fact that this isn't a court of law, and the fact that you are barely coherent in the things you write, show that you are simply wasting time.

You been drinking again? Of course, it's almost time to start over where you are. The question is, do you ever stop?

your shoe is your property, and you travel in your shoes
but if you step onto someone elses land you are tresspassing on their property(their land)
and getting into freeman discussions about trying to waffle about how you describe your footwear or what brand it is or the purpose of your footwear or who owns your footware becomes meaningless..
because you still tresspasseed on the farmers property

if you want to try dismissing the fact of tresspass and property. then guess what. the car is not yours anyone can take the car at any time and travel without your consent using the car.

so now your left without the car and without anyone paying your pathetic invoice

Right. So if the owner or the renter files a claim against an accused, they will probably win. But if they file a complaint, and the accused files a proper claim, they will probably lose to the one they accused.

Now let's get back on topic. If the car is your property, and some cop or judge gives you an order to license it, they should pay you to do so. Free country. No slavery. Right to travel.

renting the house meaning you have paid for permission to occupy it
you are an occupant not an owner

EG trump does not own the white house. he is occupying it for the period of his current job role. the whit house is government property

he has permission to occupy it
permission
permit
licence

a licence/permit = permission
you cannot licence yourself to go onto someone elses property

seriously. you actually think that laminating a pic of paper with 'licence to drive' is adequate proof of authorisation to be able to not be a tresspasser on someone else property

are you that ignorant
seriously ask yourself are you really saying that permitting yourself is the same as having permission granted by the property owner

whats next 'consent to have sex with all girls' is your get out of jail free card for rape
whats next 'consent to euphonise anyone' is your get out of jail free card for murder

sereiously get a clue
or atleast
get some paper and write
"Badecker promises to do some independent research not involving freeman based resources"
and laminate it

Regarding the White House...

If you rent a house, whose property is it? Doesn't it belong to the owner? But isn't it the renter's residence? Whose property are you trespassing on? The property of the owner or the renter's residence? If it goes to court, the whole thing depends on who says what on his paperwork, not on the fact that a trespass was done. If the accusations are done by a complaint, the accused can use a claim to overcome them every time.

Few people answer a complaint with a claim in court. So all of the stuff you talk about doesn't apply.

Many cities in the USA have bicycle licensing "requirements." Getting a license for a bicycle doesn't make the operator any safer. If he is going to drive his bike out into the middle of a highway, the license won't stop him. If he is going to drive over someone's flower bed, the license won't stop him. the license just hangs there on the back of the bike, somewhere. It doesn't do anything other than to be flashy and colorful... at least until it gets covered with mud.

Licensing of bikes is a method for brainwashing kids into thinking that cops are the greatest thing in the world, and for the cop shop to make a little extra money. In a man-to-man common law court, bike licensing won't stand, just as car licensing won't. But know what you are doing before you take it to court.

But you are saying a general thing. There are some streets in some jurisdictions in some countries that the thing that you say is exactly right.

In general, in the USA, the license is for making money that can be used by government rather freely in this or that. Rather than repeat it, check out what I said, above, here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53002059.

How about bicycles, do you need a license to ride those in public roads? I have seen them being popular in some EU countries. I wonder in what category does a bicycle assisted with a (small) electric motor falls into, motorbike? Are these insured too?

And, do those rules apply in private property? What if you own a large lot with a road?