Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 7. (Read 1607 times)

i would love to see BD say
"i am Standing present, unrepresented"
and a judge interupts and says...
so your a christmas gift standing up, that isnt a regift from someone else.. ok sherrif, please take custody of this man, i recommend a 72hour psych evaluation hold

As I said, anybody can mess things up, courtroom footage or not.

All this stuff is said in regular court cases under regular circumstances. It is also said by some of the freemen.

The difference is how and when it is said, and the circumstances.

Standing present, unrepresented won't cut it alone. A common law court of record must be required as well. And to start into such a court, there needs to be a claim by the accused who was probably a defendant until he made the claim. Courts recognize this stuff all the time. It's all standard law.

If you go and write a list of freeman stuff, for all we know, the freeman said all this when he was already found guilty, and it was his closing statement before sentencing. There needs to be a chronological order listed before anybody can know what you are actually talking about.

It's actual court room footage.

anyon can make a claim.. freeman non-freeman  illegal alien, citizen

but your rhetoric(freeman scripts) is this part
'face my accuser'
'i dont recognise your agent as my accuser'
'stand unrepresented'
'travel a public highway in a vehicle unlicenced'
'hand the cop an invoice'

which is the freeman stuff

and dang..
you still repeating the freeman stuff now
you are so jesus preaching lentz word for word '4 legs of a table'
dude seriously your like 5 years too late to the party. people have moved on from believing that BS its all ben debunked

oh and again for the 5th time
if you want to refer to common law.. you keep forgetting harm, damage, loss AND TRESSPASS
wake up

as for the 4 leg table thing
you dont need a witness if there is things like DNA or security footage
again the accuser can be the witness
the accuser can be an advocate for the one thats harmed or tresspassed on

you really need to try finding some first hand experience of things and stop your lentz religion

You can't get a witness on the stand without the plaintiff accuser (listed on the indictment) showing up in court, and taking the stand first, if the accused stands as a man, unrepresented, and requires the accuser take the stand. The plaintiff is the joker on the indictment. If it is the State, the State can't get on the stand. But even if there is a representative of the State getting on the stand, show the harm or damage to the State. The State felt the pain how? The State had State property damaged how?

Again, the 4 legs of the case table. There have to be:
1. Accused;
2. Accuser;
3. Witness (in addition to the accuser);
4. Conclusive evidence.

In a common law court of record, it is a man-to-man operation.

Anybody can mess things up. Read the differences between freeman stuff, and a man making a legal claim, at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52994494.

an accuser does not have to be the one harmed or tresspassed upon
an accuser can be the witness

seriously
this is going in circles
ok going back as it seems to have not sunk in yet

if someone is dead.. murdered by you. you cannot just say that you are free because your accuser cannot speak(due to being dead) instead someone else with good knowledge and evidence can accuse you on the dead persons behalf

i utterly cannot believe you actually think your scripts you read from an outdated and hole filled social group actually has merit
seriously. go kill someone and ask your accuser to stand mumbo jumbo.
see where it lands you

take other examples where other people can have representatives of that which was harmed tresspassed on
someone in a coma
a child
deaf or blind person may have an advocate, interpretter
someone of a different speaking language have an interpretter
if you steal from a 7-11 the store manager of the store you stole from.. it doesnt need to be the CEO of 7-11
a witness
an agent/employee of the company where the company has given permission/authorisation to advocate for them

if you really think an accuser has to be the one that was harmed or tresspassed on.. then murder cases would be obsolete
(think about it without refering to freeman sites for a rebuttle answer)

If anyone is wondering what happens when people try what BADecker is suggesting, search "Sovereign Citizen Fails in Court" on youtube.  There are tons of hilarious examples.


Here's a good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMYBlyVO7kY

Your accuser is not the cop. The cop is a witness. Your accuser is written on the indictment.

If the cop is the accuser on the indictment, he is not a witness, and the whole story changes.

If the cop and the State are accusers both, written on the indictment, they both must take the stand if required by the accused to do so. State can't do this. Dismissed.



EDIT: As for Karl explaining his case, he could have gone and gotten the transcript. Just because a guy explains the happenings of a case from memory, doesn't mean that he isn't going to make some mistakes, or isn't going to embellish some of the story to get the ideas across.

As for Jessica, certainly she wasn't reading logbook notes of what happened throughout. She was recalling things, and even if she wrote recalled things out ahead of time for the talkshoe, this doesn't make her recall 100% accurate all of a sudden. Ten years is a long time to recall.

In addition, Jessica, some of the things that happened to her would have happened differently with other people. Cops do things differently, as do judges and others. They don't necessarily do the same thing every time. Ask PopoJeff. As a LEO there must have been times he gave out warning tickets, while other times he gave out a real ticket for the same infraction.

You call it freeman stuff because freeman never make claims while they are unrepresented.

Making a claim without being represented, in a common law court of record, or a Federal District Court (as opposed to a United States District Court) is not freeman stuff.

Freeman stuff always includes at least one of the following:
- complaint;
- administrative court;
- representation.

To do it not freeman, as a man, requires all of the following:
- claim;
- common law court of record, or Federal District Court;
- no representation, not even self-representation.

You simply file with the Clerk of the Courts... or if you were dragged into court, you write it up on the spot, and the bailiff hands it to the judge.

i think this really needs quoting again for BD sake


BD
that karl lntz video you linked where he talks through a case... did you even know that was a hypothetical case
do you know why
because the way karl lentz was describing it how he said the jury were saying their guillty guilty guilty and the judge started reading out the maximum penalty
sorry bet thats not even the arrangement/order/play by play a court proceding even works

..
separate thing before ther would even be a trial by jury is things like a hearing. thats something both you and karl did not point out because both of you seem to lack the real experience of how things actually work

you have no clue and you personally have no first hand knowledge.. neither did that jessica girl have first hand knowledge that driving without a licence without risk of punishment works.. (she got punished)
so trying to put yourself as some hotshot expert that is advising people what to do, when you dont even know if it works as you have not tried it. makes you no expert but just a repeater of someone elses BS

to be honest i hope someone who know you and dos follow you blindly, does try it and when they fail. they make you pay the punishment
yes make you accountable for your actions

im saying YOU are the one using the freeman stuff
dang you directly link the stuff and yet you yourself dont even know what your linking
the people in the podcasts you linked are spouting out freeman stuff and your believing them
i have already shown you the holes in the stuff they said having no relevan to actually proving the no licence stuff works..

heck. its easy to say in conversation out of court that if you dance around like a fairy you might not get jail time but case dismissed due to a plea of insanity. bt even that is not anything that proves you can drive on public highways with a licence and never get in trouble

seriously... you need to take a breather and really have some deeper independant thoughts about the stuff you say and quote

also, a side note
you also say 'if they done this'
again you show no proof of it working. you have no clue if it would work because you have not personally tried it
the other podcasts from karl have not proved it has worked either

many people have ripped apart the freeman stuff years ago. its not new.
your just stuck back 5 years ago where many people were duped by it
and its time you woke up

Have you considered offering your expertise to those preparing to stand trial?  You could be a true legend if your strategy works.

You must have really been brainwashed by someone in the legal system to be able to so succinctly think that the law is freeman stuff. How in the world do you even live?

With your driving don't: harm anyone else; damage the property of anyone else; threaten anyone else; threaten damage to the property of anyone else.

And safe living is: don't harm anyone else; don't damage the property of anyone else; don't threaten anyone else; don't threaten damage to the property of anyone else.

How about you?