Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 6. (Read 1607 times)

Queen's Bench, because that is the place where man-to-man confrontations are done in the legal UK. Other courts in the UK are person-to-person courts. Do what you want, of course. But why accept that you are a person that they manipulate any way that pleases them? Rather, be a man, where the points of harm or damage to a fellow man are the law.

Actually, I do have first-hand experience, although it is in a slightly different area than this thread, and in that it never got to the point that we have been talking in this thread.

I wrote to government people on a man-to-man basis about suing them man-to-man, and they backed down. So I didn't have to sue them. But this doesn't say that they won't pick up the case, or start a new one, sometime.

Why have you, for several pages, now, been saying that I am telling people to go into any court?... or proclaim some common law?... or spout freeman stuff?

Much of what the freemen "spouted" is exactly the same as people "spout" in courts everyday to win the cases they win. The fact that some of the freemen didn't win has to do with some of the other things they spouted, or maybe the attitudes they had about some things. This thread isn't court. So the wording and the processes in the thread aren't things that would be used in court exactly as they are here. Why are you so against the law?

Looks like you are simply against me by lying by saying that I tell people to go into any court. Didn't I even suggest Queen's Bench rather than other courts? Didn't I say several times a "common law court of record?" This isn't any court. It's specific courts. So, you are a straight-forward liar about me.

The court isn't generally the place to proclaim some common law in the sense of telling people what common law is all about. However, judges use past court cases all the time. Attorneys use the same all the time. Court cases are considered to be common law. The courts use common law all the time in their operation. I'm beginning to think that you don't know at all what you are talking about, and are simply a troll, sent here to make sure the people remain ignorant of some of their options.

Watch what you will write next. It won't be a logical answer to my points. It will only be some blubbering accusations against what I am writing, with some vague reference to some of the things I am writing. Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about.

Exactly. The use of the license is for driving the car not acquiring it.
Everyone is able to have a car but not everyone is able to drive it freely on the streets. If you don't know how to drive many pedestrians are in danger because of you.

"Anyone of any age" falls into the category of "age of majority," both in statute law, and in common law.

If you sit down at your kitchen table with pen and paper, and you write wording that includes "license" and "drive," does it necessarily have anything to do with Government using those words? Write out the wording that says you have a license to drive. Place it on a little card, laminate it, and carry it with you when you are driving.

Show it to any cop that stops you, or wherever else the driver's license is asked for.

If government doesn't like your drivers license, and they order that you get theirs, they should pay you to get theirs, just like any boss would pay you to do something for him.

Having government's drivers license doesn't make you capable of doing any driving. Nor does it make you a safe driver.

License basically makes you eligible to drive a vehicle.It is totally normal to have your car parked and not a have a license. Just imagine the chaos if anyone of any age was allowed at his/her will to operate heavy vehicle capable of high speeds. The danger associated with such object makes it necessary to have regulations and restrictions.

but you never do what you say. you only say what you say
you have no actual first world experience of things


by the way. think about this properly for one minute.
in the UK. why queens bench specifically.. why not do as you say in local county courts..
why have you been for 8 pages now been telling people that they can go into any court and proclaim their common law.. then spout out freeman scripts

1. you keep saying things like 'no body ever tresspasses on government property"
yet
white house - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_White_House_security_breaches#Into_the_White_House

you pretend there is no consequence of doing so
yet you just admitted

you then go back to denying tresspass exists. it does.
sorry but it really is a thing, not just of civil acts but of common law too. YOU WILL NOT BE FREED under common law

your igorance to avoid talking about tress pass. is the same as anyone saying 'no harm or loss' is not a thing

Loads of court cases that show this?   Show me one.

I have basically been speaking about the USA. The method is similar in the UK. It's Queen's Bench, and the Codes in the UK are more straight forward to what I am saying.

Government buildings as you are talking, might get people shot if they trespass. But if they make it to court, using common law, they can be freed. The only thing that they will lose at is if the legal resident, or his legal guards or other people, file a direct claim against the man for trespassing on their private residence... or something similar.

Certainly a man would have to know what he was doing. So, don't try it. Stay in your room across the hall from notbatman.

People don't have to compare their writing to a Code, but they can, and some have.

My explanations show why I say what I do.

For example. And forget the precipe meeting for a moment to make things simpler.

The accused is in court under a complaint, probably as a defendant. The plaintiff reads the complaint. The judge asks for a plea from the defendant. The defendant requires writing tools (paper and pen), and 10 minutes, to give the court a proper answer. In the answer, he writes out his claim... that no man will come forward and claim he did anything wrong (plus a few other simple things, like stating that he requires a common law court of record).

The judge doesn't want to accept this, so he tries to get the accused to plead guilty or not guilty. The accused says that he already gave the judge his answer.

If the judge is obstinate, and tries to put in a plea for the accused, it's a good idea that the accused have friends in court, who have power of attorney to place paperwork into the case for the accused.

If the judge, and the clerk of the courts are obstinate, and won't even let the accused put paperwork into the court, they start their own case against the judge. And if this goes up to the head magistrate, who often is the governor of the State, or to Federal or U.S. District Court, the judge at the trial is removed from the case and suspended until an investigation takes place.


The point is, there is no simple answer. The forum could be filled with pages of possibilities. So, to suggest that BADecker is somewhat insane, is totally incorrect. You know yourself, if you have really been in court, and are really as knowledgeable about court as you have been claiming, that there are loads of court cases that show this... a small percent perhaps... but many.

uk government:
military bases?
parliament?(not the tourist section)
10 downing street?(not the tourist area)

so security guards and passes are not needed?
ok BD go try walking into the white house, i dare you

Nobody ever compares a code they used in language for their hypothetical case.  They just reference it.

 


(BAD is over in the flat earth thread getting destroyed by a flat-earther if anyone needs more entertainment)

Nobody ever trespasses on government property. All that happens is that someone says they are trespassing.

I really dont even know what to say anymore.  Reading his response gave me a headache. He's talking in circles again, and  answering questions that were not asked, and referring to statements that were not made.

About the only successful defense MrDecker will ever present is that of insanity

lets just play this one out.. again
lets ignore BD's mumbo jumbo freman scripts from his jesus lentz

so common law
harm loss as bd says
 and tresspass as he keeps avoiding

even under common law you are tresspassing on government property if you do not have permission(permit/licence) to be there

Wrong! I didn't reference the code for my hypothetical case. Rather, I CFed (compared) the code to language I used in my case. There is an absolute difference. Why would I do this - CF? Because the code is inside the legal system. My writing that is similar to the Code is outside the legal system, inside the common law that existed before the Constitution. Judges understand this. I don't want to use their Code, because I didn't write it, and because I don't really know what it means.

I don't really care what people believe. Nobody believes the same, anyway. What does what I believe have to do with what you believe? All I am talking is simple common law... which existed long before the Constitution. The Constitution may have been codified, but it is also common law. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights shows that common law from before the Constitution may be used by the people.

All laws flow out of Constitution allowance. Codes are written by Thompsons of Canada, and may not correctly reflect what the lawmakers intended by the laws they passed. Why use Codes? They essentially don't apply to anyone not within the Code system. But CFing the Codes might help Judges understand what you are talking about by what you write.

You did nothing but talk yourself in a circle.   You referenced a code as your basis for suit/warning ... and dont know wtf to do with it now

You admit that you are not a BAR member. You reference a Federal statute, but have no idea what an AUSA is. And you have exactly ZERO courtroom/legal experience.   Yeah, everyone should believe you know the legal system. 

 I can tell you exactly what would happen if he says that....

The judge will then ask if he is waiving his right to counsel. If he confirms that he is, he will sign a document stating such.

which you have no personal experience of

Where did you learn how to be represent yourself in court better than any lawyer ever could?  It wasn't one of those conspiracy websites that sells all the herbal supplements that you're always posting...was it?