Topic: Car and Driver licensing - page 9. (Read 1627 times)

Qualified immunity doesn't fit the man. Even the Nuremberg Trials show this. Qualified immunity only works when the driver wants to act within the System.

Qualified immunity.  Look it up

I don't think that your thinking is true.
In every action that anyone does and can affect other people's lives, you need to get a license. Your car is your property but driving is an action that people might be in danger and this way it should be controlled with licensing policies.

BD's point is that the human body was not born requiring a licnce to walk or talk. so he has freedom to walk and talk as its a biological ability.
but was not born with a car or a gun.. h got those later by earning them.

what he then does is use myths and scripts from fools that think that tresspass and property are meaningless in regards to other people enforcing their written and granted rights but mean everything to him enforcing his written and granted rights. and also thinks that the property in question(road) is owned by him.
what he does not realise is that roads are government property and people are customers of the government
th government is a management company offering services to its members(customerbase) and if its customer break the management companies rules the customers can get in trouble and be banned from using their service, entering their property.

BD can drive an unregistered vehicle unlicenced on his own private land.
but the public roads for safety of members of the public has rules that must be followed

much the same as BD can set rules for his own private property if someone walks on his private land

We are free to buy cars all we want, we can't just drive them around without having proven that we know how to properly drive them. That's why these licenses get revoked when you are found guilty of DUI.

again your avoiding the obvious
a job is not 'do some work' pay me

its a job offer. consideration/interview and there is a get out clause. resign/get sacked/retire

you are completely foolish about trade.
you have obviously not even done freelancing or self employment roles before
just standing infront of a door and if someone asks you to move you hand them an invoice for $500. does not mean they have to accept it

1. you can get in legal trouble for extortion
2. where your trying to seek funds can get you in trouble as it may be illegal to work in certain areas
3. expect a punch on the nose and them charging you for their service. as its obvious you were asking for it

in short by you driving around recklessly and without a licence on a public road is you asking for the police service and you accepting they will charge you for it
and thy can because.. its the law.. its general knowledge and also its just plain sanity

oh and if you wish to divert back to 'in my court'
sorry but if you go to a government funded courthouse. it follows the government rules for how it administers things, the jury know what to expect as they are following the government laws.. so you walking in pretending it becomes your personal court of your personal laws.. wont work.
thats like a middle easterner going into fed court shouting 'obey my sharia law, not your american law'.. sorry but sharia law although its the law of the person shoutings personal preference. its not the policy of the court
there are laws that actually exist and general knowledge that if police stop you you can be charged for certain things
there is NO law that exists nor general knowledge that random person can charge random person for being told to stop

i truly cannot believe how little you actually think about things before hitting the reply button

...
you can if you want make your house become your own court where your own house rules apply. but goodluck having the ability, power, authority to sway someone to enter it.

Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully by a defendant? (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?

Any evidence at all?

A tree of money? No. Just simple trade.

If you have a job somewhere, and the boss orders you to do anything, he pays you. It's the law.

If a cop attempts to be your boss, and you obey, he must pay you. Why? Because he is another man giving you orders, and because the 13th Amendment says no involuntary servitude.

Cops get away with all kinds of nasty doings these days, simply because people don't use the 13th Amendment and collect their pay from their cop-boss.

im still laughing

while BD thinks he has found a free money tree of invoicing cops, and suing judges by provoking a car stop by having no licence...
.. the reality is while BD is trying to waste courts time with his money grab the courts found him guilty of no licence and ordered him to pay a fine, with further penalty if the fine is not paid.

ok. so guess what.. karl lentz is not a milionaire from all the invoices and suits
BD definetly aint rich for the same

and BD especially has no first hand experience and is just trying to repeat scripts he heard from people who heard scripts from people who were just running scenarios out without truthful/full detail explanation

i am loving this comedy from BD.. and he still dont realise its comedy

Fair enough.  LIke I said I don't know much on this topic.

Do you have any examples of judges being sued successfully (and the result somehow changing the outcome of the judges ruling)?

[conspiracy websites without sources to non-conspiracy websites don't count]


"People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything."  <== This really isn't a good point.  It's the lawyers job to defend the defendant for this very reason.  If suing the judge were an option, we'd be seeing it happen often.

Good work, man. But if you look at the case closely, the judge was being sued in his judicial capacity... not his private man capacity. As you see, the defendant was appointed an attorney. He was not allowed to stand as a man. The case doesn't go into enough detail to tell us if he even tried to stand present, un-represent. The case doesn't match what I was saying.

I'm no expert on this.  But a 15 second google search led me to this 1979 Supreme Court Ruling.

Apparently someone tried to sue a Judge in 1964.

Supreme court said hell no, you can't sue a judge, they have absolute immunity.  We have an appeals process for that. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/193/

That's because the people involved didn't do it right.

The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.

In the Nuremberg Trials, German WW2 leaders were found guilty even though the countries involved in the trials were statute law countries. Statute law countries would recognize that many of the German leaders were under orders to commit the atrocities that they did. So, they did it by orders, not because they were particularly against any of the citizens they killed and tortured.

Yet, even in these statute law countries, they were found guilty on a man-to-man basis... because they did wrong things to human beings, things where they had stopped humans for no reason.

In the States, where basic human rights are built right into the foundational laws, it has taken decades to get most of the people to forget how to handle themselves in a man-to-man way, against the cop statute leaders who mess with them.

But, the Nuremberg trials show that there needs to be harm or damage done by a human, before a cop or a German leader can punish him.

Thats frickin adorable.....

Has this really ever worked for you?

In my 18 years of experience in court, as either an affiant, prosecutor or witness.... this has never, ever, happened one single time.  Several have tried, all have failed.

IN COURT ANSWERING THE DA'S INDICTMENT:

Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (first call).
cop stands up 'i witness and accuse the driver'
Driver (says in his head: 'crap wasnt expecting that, dang i dont have a lentz script, what do i do what do i do, what do i do')
driver panics, sweat dripping from his brow, trying to search youtube for a script
judge: 'driver do you plead guilty or innocent to the accusation'
driver panics more , sweat more still searching youtube for a script
judge: 'driver i repeat you shall answer my question do you plea guilty or innocent. this is just a hearing not a trial of jury. we
have to know your response to know if it should be pursued to a jury trial or you accept a plea of guilt'
driver panics more , sweat more still searching youtube for a script
judge: 'driver i shall not repeat a fourth time, if you do not plea you will b held for wasting courts time until your ready to plea'
driver panics more , sweat more still searching youtube for a script

Oooo let me try.

How BADecker Turned his Life Around

After hitting rock bottom in 2026, BADecker found himself in an alley looking for his next high, willing to pay however he could.  Luckily for him, the syringe he found in a trash can didn't have what he was looking for, it had what he needed.  

It was a vaccine.

Within 6 months the swelling in his brain had gone down significantly.  His thoughts were more coherent than ever and for the first time in 13 years he started bathing regularly.

Within a year he had made a couple of real life friends!

By 18 months he managed to accomplish a goal he never thought possible, he passed all the tests and got his first Drivers License!

Today he's an investigative journalist for the NY Times with 2 Pulitzer Prizes, a beautiful wife, and his second child on the way.  He enjoys volunteering for Madam President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' second term campaign.

firstly mr BD freeman you are still using the freeman scripts of 'is that an order, heres an invoice'
do you even have any independant thought?


here is the funny thing
you go into a cafe. and you ask for a coffee.. the waitress can refuse to accept your order, can inform you they have no coffee as the machine is broke, they can take your order and accidently give you tea and not charge you for it

you foolishly believe police should pay people for stopping them. is foolish.. you have pretty much just watched a youtube video and accepted it on face value without doing any actual checks indepndantly

you cant just hand someone a invoice if they ask you to do somthing.
its a custom that there is an offer, consideration, acceptance/rejection. and even if accpting the offer. a cooldown period to cancel/reject the service

the whole 'heres a invoice' is not actually legally binding. its just a attempt to cause confusion hoping to scare of a naive cop. but the reality is that if you play that game. you will end up in court. oh and expect to cover their costs.

i absolutely dare u to stand infront of a door blocking it and when someone asks you to move you hand them an invoice. i really do dare you to try it and see where you end up


i find it utter foolish how karl lentz and now BD think people should always take things to a jury trial,  pay admin fee to file claims for things that are cheaper to do just like normal things are done.. where the result ends up the same.. whereby if you dont have a licence you will b banned from driving and then if caught still driving the punishment increases..
seems BD is attempting to actually get people locked up

itis soo soo obvious that BD has no first hand knowledge because all h refers to is karl lentz. and as shown in previous posts and loads of other sources available karl lentz has been debunked and demythed about the crappy freeman scripts he tries

BD until you personally have first hand experience.. i think you should refrain for advising other people from getting into trouble by blindly following your jesus

and then take yourself 5 steps back from your computer, have some calm time and actually have some inner thought time asking yourself 'hat if karl is wrong, lest actually investigate and research as a critic'

Ethics and morals of a nation, and nation operation theory, don't generally have anything to do with a specific case. Karl might believe all kinds of things. Some people might believe the same, others different. It doesn't matter.

What matters is if anyone harmed or damaged another man or his property.

If the people can't work it out, then the jury will decide... or the judge if there is agreement between the human parties that the judge decide.

Cop:  license and registration please.
Driver: Hey man, is that an order?
Cop: Yes.
Driver: And since you gave an order as a man, here's your invoice for $500 (or State max that the cop would have charge) for stopping me from going from point A to point B. See you in court.
Cop: Oh sure. But sign here (the ticket).
Driver: By: Signature, agent, man.

---

IN COURT ANSWERING THE DA'S INDICTMENT:

Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (first call).
Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (second call).
Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (third call).
(STATE-OF-XXXXX/CITY-OF-XXXXX doesn't come forward.)
Driver: I require State/City $max for wasting my time, etc.
Judge: Case dismissed.
(Driver sues the State/City for false complaint.)

---

DRIVER SUES COP IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MAN FOR STOPPING HIM FOR NOTHING:

Jon Doe (cop) is on the stand.
Driver: When you stopped me, had I done any damage or harm to anyone.
Cop: No.
Driver: Pay me the $max for false stop.
Judge: John Doe, guilty as charged. Pay the man.

so i went on and listened to minutes 18-24

[more facepalms]
karl tries to assume the 'having rights'
sorry karl rights are things written on paper and granted to selective groups of people
(members of the public)(civil AKA citizen rights)

EG human rights might have right to travel. but it applies to humans. but not animals. as its a human right. emphasis human
even though animals have legs too and can put on leg infront of the other to move

biological ability and rights are 2 separate things.
everyone has the biological ability to move around. but that does not give you the right to tresspass or use your hand to grab a girls ass..

once you understand the different categories of abilities and limitations.. rights and responsibilities and which groups of entities have which and which entities can do which. the big picture moment start to click

a right is not the same as a ability no on can tak your ability to walk unless you decide to stand still or they harm you..
a right can be granted and a right can be revoked either individually such as losing your right to freedom when your put in prison
or
rights as a nation/group can be granted revoked. like the right to own slaves was revoked and the rights for black people to vote was granted.

karl believes rights are a basic human thing that cannot be taken away yet prisoners on death row will prove differently

once you learn that rights are given.. you then have to learn they come with responsibilities and concequences and limitations on how you can use those rights