The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: N30 on March 10, 2018, 05:24:38 PM
-
If I never looked in to how deep the deception of NASA went I would never have come to do the things I do today.
I no longer pay vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance, because I am not required to.
I travel, and I do not drive, and it is because the Flat Earth movement opened my eyes to lies.
To those who think this is nonsense, I was at a red light with a police SUV loaded with shotguns and a criminal cage manned by two men in sunglasses right behind me who did absolutely nothing as they stared at my paper plate that I made on my computer with my cars manufacturer logo and a few other icons as well.
I have been traveling like this for quite some time, and have saved loads of money.
You can do this too, make sure to remove your license plates, as they display intent to "drive" and that you are a licensed "driver".
(https://i.imgur.com/Uxsa1W8h.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HU8UJdHh.jpg)
-
Good luck with that!
-
I'm happy for you, bro! Between that and your perpetual energy generator (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73910.msg2010039#msg2010039) you must be livin' the dream!!
Perfecting the elixir of eternal youth will complete the trifecta. Are you working on that yet?
-
If I never looked in to how deep the deception of NASA went I would never have come to do the things I do today.
I fail to see what your claimed "deception of NASA" could have to do with "vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance" or even the shape or the earth.
In case an ignorant person like yourself was not aware of the facts
"vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance" fees were in place decades before NASA was thought of,
the earth was known to be a rotating Globe centuries before NASA was thought of and
the earth was known to be a Globe millennia before NASA was thought of.
It would seem that NASA has a watertight alibi - it wasn't there at the relevant time.
I no longer pay vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance, because I am not required to.
I travel, and I do not drive, and it is because the Flat Earth movement opened my eyes to lies.
So you are now a thief who steals from the majority who pays for the roads etc? Figures!
So now you are the one that both steals and lies, proven in Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent. « Reply #189 on: March 10, 2018, 04:13:40 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67923.msg2036572#msg2036572)
That's the N30 that we all know! With you supporting the flat earth, they don't need enemies.
-
You should stop paying taxes, as well...
They're giving YOUR money to that evil fraudulent NASA entity!
...and all those bills that keep appearing in your mailbox?
Don't worry about those, just throw them in the fire pit.
-
If I never looked in to how deep the deception of NASA went I would never have come to do the things I do today.
I no longer pay vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance, because I am not required to.
I travel, and I do not drive, and it is because the Flat Earth movement opened my eyes to lies.
To those who think this is nonsense, I was at a red light with a police SUV loaded with shotguns and a criminal cage manned by two men in sunglasses right behind me who did absolutely nothing as they stared at my paper plate that I made on my computer with my cars manufacturer logo and a few other icons as well.
I have been traveling like this for quite some time, and have saved loads of money.
You can do this too, make sure to remove your license plates, as they display intent to "drive" and that you are a licensed "driver".
(https://i.imgur.com/Uxsa1W8h.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HU8UJdHh.jpg)
I mentioned in another thread that the propensity to believe in things such as the flat earth opens one up to taking on board other strange beliefs. This I would maintain is a classic example. I pity any other road user who is involved in an accident with you that is your fault, though I fail to see what having motor insurance has to do with the shape of the planet. Are you related to the brotherhood of the Dome character by any chance?
Also you mention you don’t drive....then you say you were behind some gun toting cops! Did you have your paper printout stuck to your head?
-
I mentioned in another thread that the propensity to believe in things such as the flat earth opens one up to taking on board other strange beliefs. This I would maintain is a classic example.
Yep!
I pity any other road user who is involved in an accident with you that is your fault, though I fail to see what having motor insurance has to do with the shape of the planet. Are you related to the brotherhood of the Dome character by any chance?
Also you mention you don’t drive....then you say you were behind some gun toting cops! Did you have your paper printout stuck to your head?
I think he's using some spurious definition of what "to drive" means, but it's so convoluted it's hard to tell. By this "reasoning", since it's not being "driven", his vehicle doesn't need tags, registration, or insurance (but probably still needs fuel, oil changes, repairs, etc. despite redefining as many words as he can think of). If we presume this is more than just idle boasting, I doubt his "logic" would stand up in court.
-
I mentioned in another thread that the propensity to believe in things such as the flat earth opens one up to taking on board other strange beliefs. This I would maintain is a classic example.
Yep!
I pity any other road user who is involved in an accident with you that is your fault, though I fail to see what having motor insurance has to do with the shape of the planet. Are you related to the brotherhood of the Dome character by any chance?
Also you mention you don’t drive....then you say you were behind some gun toting cops! Did you have your paper printout stuck to your head?
I think he's using some spurious definition of what "to drive" means, but it's so convoluted it's hard to tell. By this "reasoning", since it's not being "driven", his vehicle doesn't need tags, registration, or insurance (but probably still needs fuel, oil changes, repairs, etc. despite redefining as many words as he can think of). If we presume this is more than just idle boasting, I doubt his "logic" would stand up in court.
Surely, not in traffic court, for they are not for criminal cases, and instead for violations of codes.
A violation is not a crime.
That is why traffic courts do not have juries.
Article 3 Section 2 Of The US Constitution states that all criminal cases MUST have a jury.
And yes, I was traveling right in front of a police SUV and nothing happened, because I was doing nothing wrong.
If a "peace" officer threatens you with physical violence if you do not sign their contract to appear in traffic court, simply sign VI COACTUS before your name, which means under duress, and send a letter to the courts alerting them of their mistake. Never appear of your own accord, or you will admit to being the "person" which is legally defined as a business, that is being accused. Remember to reminds the "peace" officer that they are acting outside of the official capacity and that they themselves can be held responsible for threats of violence in a civil claim court case, which can be filed for free if asked. Threats/acts of violence are serious charges. So far I have been lucky not to have needed to deal with officers on the road, mostly because I went in to my local police station with these flyers and educated them about what the law really says. Needless to say they were surprised and speechless, though some seemed knowledgeable about the rights of Americans.
-
I'm happy for you, bro! Between that and your perpetual energy generator (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73910.msg2010039#msg2010039) you must be livin' the dream!!
Perfecting the elixir of eternal youth will complete the trifecta. Are you working on that yet?
You need to get Rowbotham's recipe for the elixir That is , from Dr. S. Golden..
-
I mentioned in another thread that the propensity to believe in things such as the flat earth opens one up to taking on board other strange beliefs. This I would maintain is a classic example.
Yep!
I pity any other road user who is involved in an accident with you that is your fault, though I fail to see what having motor insurance has to do with the shape of the planet. Are you related to the brotherhood of the Dome character by any chance?
Also you mention you don’t drive....then you say you were behind some gun toting cops! Did you have your paper printout stuck to your head?
I think he's using some spurious definition of what "to drive" means, but it's so convoluted it's hard to tell. By this "reasoning", since it's not being "driven", his vehicle doesn't need tags, registration, or insurance (but probably still needs fuel, oil changes, repairs, etc. despite redefining as many words as he can think of). If we presume this is more than just idle boasting, I doubt his "logic" would stand up in court.
Surely, not in traffic court, for they are not for criminal cases, and instead for violations of codes.
A violation is not a crime.
That is why traffic courts do not have juries.
Article 3 Section 2 Of The US Constitution states that all criminal cases MUST have a jury.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Are you an attorney? Disclosure: I'm not, either. The person who wrote this (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-trial-jury.html) purports to be.
And yes, I was traveling right in front of a police SUV and nothing happened, because I was doing nothing wrong.
Yeah, sure...
If a "peace" officer threatens you with physical violence if you do not sign their contract to appear in traffic court, simply sign VI COACTUS before your name, which means under duress, and send a letter to the courts alerting them of their mistake.
If you refuse to agree to appear, they can (and likely will) take you into custody to ensure your appearance. Resisting arrest is more serious than routine driving violations. That might get you a jury trial.
Never appear of your own accord, or you will admit to being the "person" which is legally defined as a business, that is being accused. Remember to reminds the "peace" officer that they are acting outside of the official capacity and that they themselves can be held responsible for threats of violence in a civil claim court case, which can be filed for free if asked. Threats/acts of violence are serious charges.
Oh, good grief! Seriously, dude... you might think twice about dispensing what you think is legal advice. If anyone tries to act on your "advice", they deserve what happens to them - and it's unlikely to be pretty.
So far I have been lucky not to have needed to deal with officers on the road, mostly because I went in to my local police station with these flyers and educated them about what the law really says. Needless to say they were surprised and speechless, though some seemed knowledgeable about the rights of Americans.
Um hmm... some random guy (with zero legal training?) walks in off the street with some "flyers" and "educates" them about law. Sure.
Aren't you the same guy who claims he's discovered a perpetual motion machine?
[Edit] Repair nested quotes.
-
Article 3 Section 2 Of The US Constitution states that all criminal cases MUST have a jury.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Are you an attorney? Disclosure: I'm not, either. The person who wrote this (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-trial-jury.html) purports to be.
Not to mention the fact that you can choose to have a trial by judge (bench trial) instead of a trial by jury. Not sure why you would want to, but it is an option.
https://expertbeacon.com/advice-choosing-trial-judge-or-jury/
-
Surely, not in traffic court, for they are not for criminal cases, and instead for violations of codes.
A violation is not a crime.
That is why traffic courts do not have juries.
You can have a jury trial in traffic court.
-
I hereby find you guilty for being mad as a hatter. Your punishment is to sit in the corner and write out 100 times;
The earth is a globe spinning in the vastness of space and moonshrimp do not exist.
-
I came to a red light today with another cop right behind me and again my car still had nothing but a piece of paper in place of a license plate. Nothing happened.
I am saving so much money.
Reality dictates to me that I am right, and these shills spewing lies are wrong.
-
I came to a red light today with another cop right behind me and again my car still had nothing but a piece of paper in place of a license plate. Nothing happened.
I am saving so much money.
Reality dictates to me that I am right, and these shills spewing lies are wrong.
I don't know what that has do with your ridiculous notion that the earth is a huge pepperoni pizza.
All that seems to prove is that you are a worthless free-loader on the rest of society. At least we know the sort of person you are now.
-
I came to a red light today with another cop right behind me and again my car still had nothing but a piece of paper in place of a license plate. Nothing happened.
I am saving so much money.
Cool, bro! Enjoy the small victory of saving maybe as much as tens of dollars per month. If you never sell, trade in, scrap or otherwise transfer title to the car, you might get away with it. Maybe when you're done with it you can pay to have it stolen. Stick it to the man!!
I'm sure you'll just as breathlessly tell us about it when something does happen.
-
Since when is believing a bunch of nonsense beneficial for one's life?
+ no one cares about your life, sorry flattie
-
I came to a red light today with another cop right behind me and again my car still had nothing but a piece of paper in place of a license plate. Nothing happened.
I am saving so much money.
Reality dictates to me that I am right, and these shills spewing lies are wrong.
Your personal FBI agent already informed the police.
And police has instruction to not waste much time on people who pose no threat for traffic.
Since you stopped at red light, and cop saw the paper in your plate frame, he thought it was your temporary solution until you receive new plate.
Just don't provoke them and you are fine.
For now.
We shall see what will your personal FBI agent report in the future.
kekeke
-
If I never looked in to how deep the deception of NASA went I would never have come to do the things I do today.
I no longer pay vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance, because I am not required to.
I travel, and I do not drive, and it is because the Flat Earth movement opened my eyes to lies.
To those who think this is nonsense, I was at a red light with a police SUV loaded with shotguns and a criminal cage manned by two men in sunglasses right behind me who did absolutely nothing as they stared at my paper plate that I made on my computer with my cars manufacturer logo and a few other icons as well.
I have been traveling like this for quite some time, and have saved loads of money.
You can do this too, make sure to remove your license plates, as they display intent to "drive" and that you are a licensed "driver".
(https://i.imgur.com/Uxsa1W8h.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HU8UJdHh.jpg)
What happens if you get into an accident and get sued? Without insurance you could lose everything.
You are still responsible for what you do in this world. If that accident happens, no matter how unavoidable, you are still responsible. Not protecting yourself and family by opting out of insurance is potentially a big risk.
BTW, I don’t know where you live but here in Connecticut it’s illegal to drive without a license, registration, or insurance. My wife was hit by someone without insurance. He was arrested, his car impounded, and the court ordered him to pay. He was required to make the payment to the state and they paid us.
Aren’t there such laws about this where you live?
Mike
-
Aren’t there such laws about this where you live?
In his own little world that he has constructed? Of course not.
-
Aren’t there such laws about this where you live?
In his own little world that he has constructed? Of course not.
Don't you mean, "On his own little flat earth that he has constructed?"
-
Aren’t there such laws about this where you live?
In his own little world that he has constructed? Of course not.
Don't you mean, "On his own little flat earth that he has constructed?"
Attempt to revert the thread back to the topic might be noble, but the whole picture already overgrew it. :)
-
I came to a red light today with another cop right behind me and again my car still had nothing but a piece of paper in place of a license plate. Nothing happened.
I am saving so much money.
Reality dictates to me that I am right, and these shills spewing lies are wrong.
Your personal FBI agent already informed the police.
And police has instruction to not waste much time on people who pose no threat for traffic.
Since you stopped at red light, and cop saw the paper in your plate frame, he thought it was your temporary solution until you receive new plate.
Just don't provoke them and you are fine.
For now.
We shall see what will your personal FBI agent report in the future.
kekeke
Wow you seem to know a lot about the inner workings about the FBi, perhaps you are part of them, maybe an employee of the online misinformation division. If the cops know that I have not paid the DMV registration for quite some time now and they still leave me alone then I implore others to do the same. I am sure the world would change quite quickly if everyone realized they have been duped in to believing something that is false like paying to "drive" when we all have the RIGHT to travel freely. Reminds me of the globe lie! Oh, I am sure all these lies will come tumbling down when people start realizing the true benefits of breaking free from the oppression of deception!
-
Wow you seem to know a lot about the inner workings about the FBi, perhaps you are part of them, maybe an employee of the online misinformation division. If the cops know that I have not paid the DMV registration for quite some time now and they still leave me alone then I implore others to do the same. I am sure the world would change quite quickly if everyone realized they have been duped in to believing something that is false like paying to "drive" when we all have the RIGHT to travel freely. Reminds me of the globe lie! Oh, I am sure all these lies will come tumbling down when people start realizing the true benefits of breaking free from the oppression of deception!
"online misinformation division" ?? :)
Point one post where I wrote "misinformation".
hehehe
And about "paying for driving", you are using roads that someone built, and someone maintains.
Where do you think money comes from, to pay wages for the people who do it?
As long as you are alone in avoiding the payment for those people, it is
cheaper not to get the payment from you, than to hospitalize or imprison you.
If you start encouraging others to follow, it might give one of two possible outcomes:
- roads start deteriorating and safety drastically decreases, or
- you get removed as negative (even dangerous) influence in the society before number of deaths on roads multiply
-
Wow you seem to know a lot about the inner workings about the FBi, perhaps you are part of them, maybe an employee of the online misinformation division. If the cops know that I have not paid the DMV registration for quite some time now and they still leave me alone then I implore others to do the same. I am sure the world would change quite quickly if everyone realized they have been duped in to believing something that is false like paying to "drive" when we all have the RIGHT to travel freely. Reminds me of the globe lie! Oh, I am sure all these lies will come tumbling down when people start realizing the true benefits of breaking free from the oppression of deception!
"online misinformation division" ?? :)
Point one post where I wrote "misinformation".
hehehe
And about "paying for driving", you are using roads that someone built, and someone maintains.
Where do you think money comes from, to pay wages for the people who do it?
As long as you are alone in avoiding the payment for those people, it is
cheaper not to get the payment from you, than to hospitalize or imprison you.
If you start encouraging others to follow, it might give one of two possible outcomes:
- roads start deteriorating and safety drastically decreases, or
- you get removed as negative (even dangerous) influence in the society before number of deaths on roads multiply
Do you know what percentage of gasoline prices is tax?
-
Wow you seem to know a lot about the inner workings about the FBi, perhaps you are part of them, maybe an employee of the online misinformation division. If the cops know that I have not paid the DMV registration for quite some time now and they still leave me alone then I implore others to do the same. I am sure the world would change quite quickly if everyone realized they have been duped in to believing something that is false like paying to "drive" when we all have the RIGHT to travel freely. Reminds me of the globe lie! Oh, I am sure all these lies will come tumbling down when people start realizing the true benefits of breaking free from the oppression of deception!
"online misinformation division" ?? :)
Point one post where I wrote "misinformation".
hehehe
And about "paying for driving", you are using roads that someone built, and someone maintains.
Where do you think money comes from, to pay wages for the people who do it?
As long as you are alone in avoiding the payment for those people, it is
cheaper not to get the payment from you, than to hospitalize or imprison you.
If you start encouraging others to follow, it might give one of two possible outcomes:
- roads start deteriorating and safety drastically decreases, or
- you get removed as negative (even dangerous) influence in the society before number of deaths on roads multiply
Do you know what percentage of gasoline prices is tax?
Did you know that the taxes on gasoline are used to maintain the roads that you choose to illegally drive on?
-
Do you know what percentage of gasoline prices is tax?
The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon
and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. The federal tax was last raised in 1993 and
is not indexed to inflation, which increased by a total of 64.6 percent from 1993 until 2015.
And with al that I was paying roughly just USD 2.5 per gallon in 2016 in NC.
And the lowest wage I had was USD 8 / hr in one small restaurant in Winston-Salem as a dishwasher and food prep.
Even if there is conspiracy in that, it has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
-
I am saving so much money.
Just out of curiosity, what is the cost of registering and licensing your vehicle that you are saving? Is it really that much?
I suppose it's all relative. If you're only making minimum wage working 1/4 time at McD's, $100 seems like a LOT of money.
-
Do you know what percentage of gasoline prices is tax?
The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon
and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. The federal tax was last raised in 1993 and
is not indexed to inflation, which increased by a total of 64.6 percent from 1993 until 2015.
And with al that I was paying roughly just USD 2.5 per gallon in 2016 in NC.
Most states gas taxes are significantly higher than the federal excise tax. A few even charge state and local sales tax on top of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#State_taxes
-
😎Hey N30 more power to you brother. This scheme seems stupid but I think it's great that you're driving around with a paper tag. Lol
I hope you can give us an update from your jail cell if that happens. Funny as shit.
-
When I was in my late teens to early twenties I thought I was able to outsmart the law. Never spent more than $500 on a car. Cars never lasted more than a year or so. They usually took a shit before they got taken away.
N30 has a child's mentality. Good for him. But, it takes more work and risk than just acting like an adult.
He may eventually grow up. Or not.
-
The Sovereign Citizen movement is indeed very childish, which is what this sounds like.
When my kids expect to have special things, like money for movies or that candy bar they really want (very different ages...), and they act like brats at the same time and/or refuse to do their chores, that's called having an undeserved sense of entitlement.
If you don't play by the rules, you don't get the rewards that the game has to offer. If you think you deserve the rewards anyway, you are just being a whiny little brat. If you take the rewards regardless, that is truly a special kind of petulance and it generally is not a gravy train with a whole lot of track left.
-
I came to a red light today with another cop right behind me and again my car still had nothing but a piece of paper in place of a license plate. Nothing happened.
I am saving so much money.
I just checked. A year's registration for my car is about $96, a whopping $8 per month.
On a side note, a couple of months ago my son-in-law's brother had his truck impounded while visiting them because, at a routine traffic stop (illegal lane change, I think), he was found to be driving with an expired tag (by more than a year) and couldn't show proof of insurance on the spot - apparently he had insurance, but didn't have the verification form in the vehicle as required. Before he could recover the vehicle from impound he had to bring the registration up to date, which meant paying for the entire time it wasn't registered plus a penalty for all of that time (I think the penalty was an additional amount equal to the normal registration fee) and show he had valid insurance.
Because registration had lapsed for so long, he had to show the title to get it re-registered, which was stored (somewhere) in his place several hours away. To find the title, he had to borrow his brother's car and drive there. On the way back, he totaled their car. Ignoring the ruined car, which was a fluke, he paid twice as much for registration, towing and impound fees, and has to come back in a few weeks to appear in court to demonstrate that he has satisfied all obligations and that he did, in fact, have insurance in effect at the time, which avoids an additional fine.
Best of luck to you, bro! Keep on savin' all those big $!
-
I think my insurance company scams me. They raised the price when i got a new car after clearly stating that the age of the car has little( im thinking 5%) bearing on the price of insurance. further more, i enquired numerous times about it and they couldn't tell me why, "it's not on my computer screen". I think i even asked to talk to a manager who still couldnt tell me any reason why.
-
I think my insurance company scams me. They raised the price when i got a new car after clearly stating that the age of the car has little( im thinking 5%) bearing on the price of insurance. further more, i enquired numerous times about it and they couldn't tell me why, "it's not on my computer screen". I think i even asked to talk to a manager who still couldnt tell me any reason why.
How old was your old car? How new is your new car?
If someone else owns your car, (the place you send your payment), you are contractually obligated to maintain insurance to cover the value of the vehicle.
Believe it or not, actuaries know which cars are purchased by idiots more apt to crash.
If you own the vehicle outright, and choose not to insure your own vehicle, the price of insurance is based on your age and driving record.
And you, "think i even asked to talk to a manager who still couldnt tell me any reason why"?
You don't actually remember? Do you think you can just sling your bullshit and not get called on it?
Trying to fake your way through shit that everyone else already knows makes you look stupid.
-
Whats an actuary?
-
Whats an actuary?
What's an apostrophe?
-
OK, i'll tell you.
Ive been thinking lately that i wouldn't be so depressed if I started complaining to complaint lines about all the stuff we bought at Canadian Tire that broke after a year and the bottle of lysol that couldnt spray properly (smelt great i might add). The car thing, i pretty much got what i expected, which was a substanceless response. "Its just something in the computer". I think i did talk to the next level person, the thing is I got too many other serious problems to remember.
-
Help me out here, what do you mean fake my way through?
-
OK, i'll tell you.
Ive been thinking lately that i wouldn't be so depressed if istarted complaining to complaint lines about all the stuff we bought at Canadian Tire that crapped out after a year and the bottle of lysol that couldnt spray properly (smelt great i might add). The car thing, i pretty much got what i expected, which was a substanceless response, i think i did talk to the next level person.
You don't need to remember things that happened, only things you make up.
You buy car insurance once a year. If you had a confrontation, you don't forget whether or not it was elevated to a superior. This may be your first attempt at lying, or you have only lied to family and idiots in the past. I honestly don't care which.
I am done with pathetic little Disney Chat kids.
-
It seems you know your rights. About time you learnt some responsibility.
-
Whats an actuary?
"Actuaries are like accountants, but with less personality."
- Overheard at a party
-
I think my insurance company scams me. They raised the price when i got a new car after clearly stating that the age of the car has little( im thinking 5%) bearing on the price of insurance. further more, i enquired numerous times about it and they couldn't tell me why, "it's not on my computer screen". I think i even asked to talk to a manager who still couldnt tell me any reason why.
Here are the main rating factors for auto insurance:
Geographical location
Age
Gender
Marital status
Years of driving experience
Driving record
Claims history
Credit history
Previous insurance coverage
Vehicle type
Vehicle use
Miles driven annually
Coverages and deductibles
-
"Round Earth" or "Globe" directly benefits millions, if not billions, of peple in their daily life.
Flat earthers can only imagine, pretend, or lie that flat earth benefits their daily life.
-
I am not lying.
I just saved a bunch of money by waking up to the lies I had been fed.
Just like the 2nd Amendment doesn't just pertain to flintlock muskets, the right to travel, which is included in the right to liberty, includes walking in your shoes, riding your horse, pulling your wagon, and yes, traveling in your car.
You can argue about it all you want, you shilly shills, but I just laugh as I travel all over in my car, which I do not "drive" and is not a "vehicle".
I have been directly in front of many cops now, it happens very often, and none of those times have I been stopped.
I have no license plates, no drivers license, no vehicle registration, no insurance, and I keep all of that extra cash.
God bless America.
If you are a real genuine person reading this, please look into this further, as what I say is indeed the truth.
-
I am not lying.
I just saved a bunch of money by waking up to the lies I had been fed.
Just like the 2nd Amendment doesn't just pertain to flintlock muskets, the right to travel, which is included in the right to liberty, includes walking in your shoes, riding your horse, pulling your wagon, and yes, traveling in your car.
You can argue about it all you want, you shilly shills, but I just laugh as I travel all over in my car, which I do not "drive" and is not a "vehicle".
I have been directly in front of many cops now, it happens very often, and none of those times have I been stopped.
I have no license plates, no drivers license, no vehicle registration, no insurance, and I keep all of that extra cash.
God bless America.
If you are a real genuine person reading this, please look into this further, as what I say is indeed the truth.
What do you think happens when they ask to see those documents?
Being in front of a police vehicle is not exactly the same as being pulled over by one.
-
Ive already said what I would do. Do you "rvlvr" ever actually read the thread? This is the second time just today I have noted that you have made ignorant statements, here and in the Jewish Sages thread.
-
I am not lying.
I just saved a bunch of money by waking up to the lies I had been fed.
Just like the 2nd Amendment doesn't just pertain to flintlock muskets, the right to travel, which is included in the right to liberty, includes walking in your shoes, riding your horse, pulling your wagon, and yes, traveling in your car.
You can argue about it all you want, you shilly shills, but I just laugh as I travel all over in my car, which I do not "drive" and is not a "vehicle".
I have been directly in front of many cops now, it happens very often, and none of those times have I been stopped.
I have no license plates, no drivers license, no vehicle registration, no insurance, and I keep all of that extra cash.
God bless America.
If you are a real genuine person reading this, please look into this further, as what I say is indeed the truth.
I have seen people arrested and fined for driving without a license. Twice someone hit one of our cars without insurance and their car was impounded and they couldn't get it back until they got insurance. Driving without a license your car will be impounded. You can get it back in 48 hours as long as it’s registered and insured.
In Connecticut it's called both a driver’s license and an operator's license. CT statute defines driver/operator as "any person who operates a motor vehicle”. It even differentiates between commercial drivers and drivers who operate private passenger vehicles. I read through you first post carefully and it clearly doesn’t apply here in CT. I thought all states had such laws but it seems you’re saying it’s not like that in CA.
Mike
-
I am not lying.
I just saved a bunch of money by waking up to the lies I had been fed.
Just like the 2nd Amendment doesn't just pertain to flintlock muskets, the right to travel, which is included in the right to liberty, includes walking in your shoes, riding your horse, pulling your wagon, and yes, traveling in your car.
You can argue about it all you want, you shilly shills, but I just laugh as I travel all over in my car, which I do not "drive" and is not a "vehicle".
I have been directly in front of many cops now, it happens very often, and none of those times have I been stopped.
I have no license plates, no drivers license, no vehicle registration, no insurance, and I keep all of that extra cash.
God bless America.
If you are a real genuine person reading this, please look into this further, as what I say is indeed the truth.
I have seen people arrested and fined for driving without a license. Twice someone hit one of our cars without insurance and their car was impounded and they couldn't get it back until they got insurance. Driving without a license your car will be impounded. You can get it back in 48 hours as long as it’s registered and insured.
In Connecticut it's called both a driver’s license and an operator's license. CT statute defines driver/operator as "any person who operates a motor vehicle”. It even differentiates between commercial drivers and drivers who operate private passenger vehicles. I read through you first post carefully and it clearly doesn’t apply here in CT. I thought all states had such laws but it seems you’re saying it’s not like that in CA.
Mike
He is either lying or grossly misinformed. Driving commercial does require a different license than a private individual.
-
Ive already said what I would do. Do you "rvlvr" ever actually read the thread? This is the second time just today I have noted that you have made ignorant statements, here and in the Jewish Sages thread.
If a "peace" officer threatens you with physical violence if you do not sign their contract to appear in traffic court, simply sign VI COACTUS before your name, which means under duress, and send a letter to the courts alerting them of their mistake. Never appear of your own accord, or you will admit to being the "person" which is legally defined as a business, that is being accused. Remember to reminds the "peace" officer that they are acting outside of the official capacity and that they themselves can be held responsible for threats of violence in a civil claim court case, which can be filed for free if asked. Threats/acts of violence are serious charges. So far I have been lucky not to have needed to deal with officers on the road, mostly because I went in to my local police station with these flyers and educated them about what the law really says. Needless to say they were surprised and speechless, though some seemed knowledgeable about the rights of Americans.
So that is what you will do. Could work, I do not know. Please let us know when they finally stop you and ask for papers.
Regarding the sages: I did not have the energy to read all the pages. And I did not feel especially compelled to as I do not think it matters much what some religious people said or thought 800 years ago.
-
I love how all the shills just completely ignore the LAW that I posted in favor of your own ignorant conjecture.
Case law IS law and Blacks Law dictionary is backed by case law.
Traffic courts do not use case law, which is why anyone who agrees to show up will be in trouble.
Traffic courts are statutory courts and when their jurisdiction is challenged, by demanding that they prove you are "DRIVING" a "VEHICLE" they fall to pieces because as long as those words never came out of the mouth of the man or woman they are accusing of being a "PERSON" or "BUSINESS", since those words are synonymous in a legal sense, they cannot do anything to that human. Unless of course that human really was a paid driver of something like a taxi cab or semi truck, then the proof is easily obtainable.
Again, I have posted these definitions in the original post.
-
Like I said, it could work.
And I am actually hoping you will be stopped so we’d learn more. Fingers crossed, man!
-
Stopped for what though?
They have no reason to stop me, which is why I haven't been stopped.
I am not doing anything wrong, and unless I run someone over, or smash through someones fence, or drag a chain of spikes destroying the public roadways with my car, police have no reason to stop me, as I am using the public roadways for their primary and preferred purpose of private travel.
Basically, "rvlr" is hoping for something bad to happen, what a wicked person :(
May God have mercy on his soul.
-
Stopped for what though?
They have no reason to stop me, which is why I haven't been stopped yet.
I am not doing anything wrong, and unless I run someone over, or smash through someones fence, or drag a chain of spikes destroying the public roadways with my car, police have no reason to stop me, as I am using the public roadways for their primary and preferred purpose of private travel.
Basically, "rvlr" is hoping for something bad to happen, what a wicked person :(
May God have mercy on his soul.
Or having an unregistered vehicle.
-
So the shill ignores the law again.
I do not own a vehicle.
A vehicle is a device and a device is an invention and an invention is a device.
Or... a device is a scheme to trick or deceive.
Didn't you read the law?
-
Basically, "rvlr" is hoping for something bad to happen, what a wicked person :(
May God have mercy on his soul.
I hope desperately that you never get in an accident and ruin someone's life through your choice to not have insurance.
It's educational to understand your level of selfishness. Speaks volumes.
-
So the shill ignores the law again.
I do not own a vehicle.
A vehicle is a device and a device is an invention and an invention is a device.
Or... a device is a scheme to trick or deceive.
Didn't you read the law?
I read what you posted. If you operate a vehicle you are a driver, according to your post.
-
Basically, "rvlr" is hoping for something bad to happen, what a wicked person :(
May God have mercy on his soul.
I hope desperately that you never get in an accident and ruin someone's life through your choice to not have insurance.
It's educational to understand your level of selfishness. Speaks volumes.
Is it selfish to save the money intended to be extorted out of me for forced insurance when I never get in accidents to feed my kids?
-
Is it selfish to save the money intended to be extorted out of me for forced insurance when I never get in accidents to feed my kids?
Never say never. If you ever do get into an accident (and, God forbid, someone gets seriously injured), then feeding your kids is going to get a lot harder.
-
Let me be the judge of what risks to take in my own life, this is the land of the free, not the slaves, remember?
-
Let me be the judge of what risks to take in my own life, this is the land of the free, not the slaves, remember?
And what happens if you hit someone? The risk goes beyond just you.
-
No natter how invincible/infallible you believe yourself to be, you will one day tell this story to a to a succession of public servants.
-
Basically, "rvlr" is hoping for something bad to happen, what a wicked person :(
May God have mercy on his soul.
I hope desperately that you never get in an accident and ruin someone's life through your choice to not have insurance.
It's educational to understand your level of selfishness. Speaks volumes.
Is it selfish to save the money intended to be extorted out of me for forced insurance when I never get in accidents to feed my kids?
Yes. Yes it is. It is incredibly selfish of you ... moreso because you even fail to comprehend that you are being selfish and that your actions might affect other people. And since you are, that is why I fervantly hope you continue your streak and never get into an accident that affects someone else.
(And he has children. That's truly depressing.)
-
Let me be the judge of what risks to take in my own life, this is the land of the free, not the slaves, remember?
Don't tell me, let me guess. I bet you don't vaccinate your kids or send them to the doctor when they get sick.
-
Let me be the judge of what risks to take in my own life, this is the land of the free, not the slaves, remember?
I understand you are playing a fantasy thought experiment. Rather poorly.
But, even if you ride a unicorn and cause civil injury you are legally/financially responsible to make the aggrieved party whole. Whether you understand that or not.
You aren't a 'driver of a vehicle'? Fine. You are the operator of a machine. Same smell.
Claiming you are irresponsible does not insulate you from tort.
-
If the medicine was affordable, he could pay out of pocket. Or maybe a bank loan. Maybe hes more clear minded for not paying insurance, and so would do less damage in the evnt of an accident...
-
If the medicine was affordable, he could pay out of pocket. Or maybe a bank loan. Maybe hes more clear minded for not paying insurance, and so would do less damage in the evnt of an accident...
What in the serious fuck are you saying?
-
I'm saying someone might take it upon themselves to be more careful.
-
Just thought id add my two cents. You know, like "the banks are just out to make money". I always here people say that. I dont have a real strong opinion on the matter, but if they're (the insurance companies) takin us for a ride, that seems like kindof a bad thing to me...
-
Let me be the judge of what risks to take in my own life, this is the land of the free, not the slaves, remember?
Don't tell me, let me guess. I bet you don't vaccinate your kids or send them to the doctor when they get sick.
Someone who researched the matter told me they make vaccines out of all kinds of nasty stuff (HPV - dead pig embryo) can you confirm or deny?
-
If the medicine was affordable, he could pay out of pocket. Or maybe a bank loan. Maybe hes more clear minded for not paying insurance, and so would do less damage in the evnt of an accident...
Yes, the mass of a vehicle smashing into green light cross traffic is dependent on the clear mindedness of the operator of the vehicle shirking responsibility and would naturally do far less damage than a vehicle being driven by an insured motorist.
-
Someone who researched the matter told me they make vaccines out of all kinds of nasty stuff (HPV - dead pig embryo) can you confirm or deny?
It could well be, though not sure why that matters.
Fecal transplantation is nowadays a fast, safe, and effective treatment. I don’t give a damn if is is poop or whatever as long as it is safe, and does the trick. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
-
No natter how invincible/infallible you believe yourself to be, you will one day tell this story to a to a succession of public servants.
No natter ? You mean he’s a nutter ?
-
After doing a little research, I have to disagree with you. Stephenson vs Binford doesn’t address drivers licenses for private citizens. At the time of the ruling less than half the states had any type of driver’s licenses and not all of those required private citizens to have them. AAMOF, it is illegal to drive without a license in all 50 states. Same goes for an unregistered vehicles.
The fact is SCOTUS has never ruled on the constitutionality of a driver’s license for private citizens and I doubt you’ll ever see them even take on such a case. However, a few state supreme courts have made such rulings and they have been upheld every time. One such case in VA (Thompson v. Smith, 155 VA Supreme Court 1930):
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.
The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
While VA ruled it was a in fact a right of the citizen to travel on public roads it also upheld the ability to regulate how that was done “by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application”. IOW, a private citizen can be required to have a driver’s license. It is a stone cold fact that every time driver’s licenses for private citizens have come before a state Supreme Court the authority of that state to require licenses has never been challenged. It has been upheld time after time.
You might also be interested to hear that such case law exists in California. In 1987 the California Supreme Court upheld the states mandatory auto insurance law. Case law in California specifically requires you to have insurance on your car and upholds state laws concerning licenses and car registrations. By California case law if you have a car that is being driven on the open road it must registered and have insurance.
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
-
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
Do you really think you're going to change the mind of someone who argues that the law doesn't apply to him because a vehicle is a "device" and a device is a "scheme to defraud"?
-
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
Do you really think you're going to change the mind of someone who argues that the law doesn't apply to him because a vehicle is a "device" and a device is a "scheme to defraud"?
Law? What law? The California Vehicle Code is not law, its a code. Which is exactly why traffic courts are statutory courts are not courts of record. And its also why traffic courts do not have juries, as is required by the constitution for all criminal court cases, because violating a code is not a crime.
-
Law? What law? The California Vehicle Code is not law, its a code. Which is exactly why traffic courts are statutory courts are not courts of record. And its also why traffic courts do not have juries, as is required by the constitution for all criminal court cases, because violating a code is not a crime.
So "Flat Earth Directly Benefits your Daily Life" by showing you how to steal money from the other residents of California!
I fail to see any connection between the Flat Earth and your defrauding others.
Do you wonder that many here regard you with utter disgust?
-
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
Do you really think you're going to change the mind of someone who argues that the law doesn't apply to him because a vehicle is a "device" and a device is a "scheme to defraud"?
Law? What law? The California Vehicle Code is not law, its a code. Which is exactly why traffic courts are statutory courts are not courts of record. And its also why traffic courts do not have juries, as is required by the constitution for all criminal court cases, because violating a code is not a crime.
You can have a jury trial in traffic court.
-
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
Do you really think you're going to change the mind of someone who argues that the law doesn't apply to him because a vehicle is a "device" and a device is a "scheme to defraud"?
Law? What law? The California Vehicle Code is not law, its a code. Which is exactly why traffic courts are statutory courts are not courts of record. And its also why traffic courts do not have juries, as is required by the constitution for all criminal court cases, because violating a code is not a crime.
I guess you didn't read my post. You stated "“Case law IS law"”. I pointed that current case law contradicts your first post. I showed you case law that directly supports the legality of states requiring driver’s licenses. I even cited California case law upholding California’s mandatory car insurance law.
Further, SCOTUS case law (California v. Buzard, 382 U.S. 386 (1966)) states:
1. The condition in § 514(2)(b) for the exemption applicable to nonresident servicemen that they must have paid the licenses, fees, or excises "required by" the State of residence or domicile means that they must have paid such licenses, fees, or excises "of" that State. It was not Congress' intention to permit servicemen in respondent's position completely to avoid registration and licensing requirements, which are within the State's police power to impose. Servicemen may be required to register their cars and obtain license plates in host States if they do not do so in their home States, and may be required to pay all taxes essential thereto. Pp. 382 U. S. 391-392.
Case law from many states, including California, uphold requirements for licensing, registration, and insurance.
Case law from SCOTUS upholds a state’s right to require registration and license and that such requirements are enforceable by law enforcement. Something the case law you cite in your fist post does not cover.
So I have to ask. Do you believe case law IS law or not. If so why doesn’t the case law cited above apply?
BTW, I don't know about California but some states to allow a jury trial in traffic court.
Mike
-
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
Do you really think you're going to change the mind of someone who argues that the law doesn't apply to him because a vehicle is a "device" and a device is a "scheme to defraud"?
Law? What law? The California Vehicle Code is not law, its a code. Which is exactly why traffic courts are statutory courts are not courts of record. And its also why traffic courts do not have juries, as is required by the constitution for all criminal court cases, because violating a code is not a crime.
Do you honestly think that codes do not carry the weight of law and that there are no penalties for violating them?
-
It seems your case law argument doesn’t hold water.
Mike
Do you really think you're going to change the mind of someone who argues that the law doesn't apply to him because a vehicle is a "device" and a device is a "scheme to defraud"?
Law? What law? The California Vehicle Code is not law, its a code. Which is exactly why traffic courts are statutory courts are not courts of record. And its also why traffic courts do not have juries, as is required by the constitution for all criminal court cases, because violating a code is not a crime.
In the phrase "the law doesn't apply to him" I was using the conversational, colloquial meaning of the word "law" -- a "system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties."
That you don't recognize that and perversely focus on other non-relevant precise definitions that are only applicable to other contexts is all that is necessary to understand you.
Which you have done spectacularly with this thread. We understand you perfectly.
-
My guess is he is a teenager who thinks he found a loophole no one else has ever discovered. One of those teenagers who think they are smarter than everyone and can't understand why no one else can see this.
-
My guess is he is a teenager who thinks he found a loophole no one else has ever discovered. One of those teenagers who think they are smarter than everyone and can't understand why no one else can see this.
Basically you go to traffic court and the judge asks if you plead guilty or not guilty.
Plead guilty you typically get a reduced fine. Plead not guilty you go to trial and hope the officer dosen't show up. At trial you either pay $0 or full price.
-
My guess is he is a teenager who thinks he found a loophole no one else has ever discovered. One of those teenagers who think they are smarter than everyone and can't understand why no one else can see this.
Basically you go to traffic court and the judge asks if you plead guilty or not guilty.
Plead guilty you typically get a reduced fine. Plead not guilty you go to trial and hope the officer dosen't show up. At trial you either pay $0 or full price.
There are some pretty funny videos of morons trying this defense with traffic cops. They always lose.
-
Oh yes, there seems to be a ton of ”sovereign citizen” videos on YouTube!
Some traffic related stuff:
I wonder where N30 is?
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
And what has your "highway robbery" got to do with the Flat Earth. Plenty of those that don't believe the earth is flat are petty criminals too.
And I have no doubt that most flat earthers are law abiding citizens.
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
There's no evidence that you're not just boasting here and not really doing the things you claim. Unless you provide evidence, I'm going to assume you're just lying and you only imagine you have the courage to do what you claim.
-
Wierd
-
Wierd
Weird
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
The cops in those YouTube videos do not seem too impressed by ”sovereign citizens”. Nor did the judge when a ”traveller” stood before him. Better be prepared for that eventuality.
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
So, you've got no reply to my previous post?
Mike
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
That's been tried and failed. My guess is you are lying.
-
I am in California, thats where I am. I'm traveling daily and not driving at all! I sure do appreciate all the money I am saving that would otherwise have been spent in ignorance. Thanks to those who spread truth like flat Earth! I even keep an employee commendation printout from the LA police department so if I ever get stopped, and the good officer needs to be educated in the rights of Americans, and lets me go without a fuss, he will get a wonderful mark on his employee record.
Your premise is amusing. It's your persistence that makes you hilarious.
-
A cop's opinion of sovereign citizens:
-
Circling back to the original question, how exactly does any of this sovereign citizen stuff indicate the shape of the planet? The topic is how FE benefits your life, but all that's been brought forward is some truly twisted understanding of how the law works.
Did I miss something?
-
You can travel as much as you want.
Drivers license is not about your travel.
It is about operating motorized vehicle (potentially dangerous equipment) while doing it.
Additionally, roads that you are using are regularly maintained.
Where from will come materials and road workers wages?
Would YOU maintain roads for free for others to use them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole USA was assembled as union of sovereign citizens.
There are no reasons to stand out of the union.
If some law is wrong, there are channels to change it.
To make it more fair for everyone equally.
If you are trying to make yourself "more equal" than others around you, it won't work.
Why would you be above "us mortals"?
As I said, if you think some law is not good, start the procedure of reconsidering it and changing as needed.
Understand what is wrong, formulate it well, and then call or mail your representative to explain the problem.
Meanwhile, the police will do what majority of citizens are paying them for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flattening the Earth will not change the way people of the country organized themselves.
-
If I never looked in to how deep the deception of NASA went I would never have come to do the things I do today.
I no longer pay vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance, because I am not required to.
I travel, and I do not drive, and it is because the Flat Earth movement opened my eyes to lies.
To those who think this is nonsense, I was at a red light with a police SUV loaded with shotguns and a criminal cage manned by two men in sunglasses right behind me who did absolutely nothing as they stared at my paper plate that I made on my computer with my cars manufacturer logo and a few other icons as well.
I have been traveling like this for quite some time, and have saved loads of money.
You can do this too, make sure to remove your license plates, as they display intent to "drive" and that you are a licensed "driver".
(https://i.imgur.com/Uxsa1W8h.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/HU8UJdHh.jpg)
You have inspired me.
-
You can travel as much as you want.
Drivers license is not about your travel.
It is about operating motorized vehicle (potentially dangerous equipment) while doing it.
Additionally, roads that you are using are regularly maintained.
Where from will come materials and road workers wages?
Would YOU maintain roads for free for others to use them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole USA was assembled as union of sovereign citizens.
There are no reasons to stand out of the union.
If some law is wrong, there are channels to change it.
To make it more fair for everyone equally.
If you are trying to make yourself "more equal" than others around you, it won't work.
Why would you be above "us mortals"?
As I said, if you think some law is not good, start the procedure of reconsidering it and changing as needed.
Understand what is wrong, formulate it well, and then call or mail your representative to explain the problem.
Meanwhile, the police will do what majority of citizens are paying them for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flattening the Earth will not change the way people of the country organized themselves.
The tax on gasoline pays for roads. Electric cars driven by libs are cheating the system.
-
Circling back to the original question, how exactly does any of this sovereign citizen stuff indicate the shape of the planet? The topic is how FE benefits your life, but all that's been brought forward is some truly twisted understanding of how the law works.
Did I miss something?
It's part of the attitude. "They're all lying to us. Only I and a few others are smart enough to see through the lies. Because everyone has been taught that the earth is spherical, it must be flat! 'They' tell us we have to register our cars and pay a fee or we can't use them on public streets, but that's wrong because everything's a lie. Wake up! Listen to me!"
-
Circling back to the original question, how exactly does any of this sovereign citizen stuff indicate the shape of the planet? The topic is how FE benefits your life, but all that's been brought forward is some truly twisted understanding of how the law works.
Did I miss something?
It's part of the attitude. "They're all lying to us. Only I and a few others are smart enough to see through the lies. Because everyone has been taught that the earth is spherical, it must be flat! 'They' tell us we have to register our cars and pay a fee or we can't use them on public streets, but that's wrong because everything's a lie. Wake up! Listen to me!"
I think it's mostly that last sentence.
-
If you are trying to make yourself "more equal" than others around you, it won't work.
Why would you be above "us mortals"?
As I said, if you think some law is not good, start the procedure of reconsidering it and changing as needed.
Understand what is wrong, formulate it well, and then call or mail your representative to explain the problem.
Meanwhile, the police will do what majority of citizens are paying them for.
I am not above anyone.
I just know what the law says, and that seems to be a rarity these days.
Ask any cop if they know anything about jurisprudence, or the system they condemn people to deal with, and they almost always say "NO!"
Isnt that a problem? When law enforcement has no clue about anything that they are enforcing??
Just from Marcarios' statement, I can tell that either he does not know the law or is intentionally trying to deceive.
Operating a motor vehicle is not the same as traveling in a car.
Legally the definition of operate is...
Operate: To perform a function, or operation, or produce an effect. See Operation.
Perform: A performance is the successful completion of a contractual duty.
So yes, Marcarios, you can travel and operate a vehicle at the same time, but to do so would mean you are completing a contract for compensation, and would require a license.
So! All those who wish to travel unencumbered and freely on our public roads, read the law!
Realize that we are being deceived and that our rights are slowly being taken away from us!
Take off your plates, send a letter to the DMV alerting them that their registration services are no longer required, and travel freely!
If you have the time, stop by your local police department and let them know what you are doing as well!
They are just people like anyone else and are not out to get you, and I hope that many police begin to claim their right to travel while off duty as well.
-
If you are trying to make yourself "more equal" than others around you, it won't work.
Why would you be above "us mortals"?
As I said, if you think some law is not good, start the procedure of reconsidering it and changing as needed.
Understand what is wrong, formulate it well, and then call or mail your representative to explain the problem.
Meanwhile, the police will do what majority of citizens are paying them for.
I am not above anyone.
I just know what the law says, and that seems to be a rarity these days.
Ask any cop if they know anything about jurisprudence, or the system they condemn people to deal with, and they almost always say "NO!"
Isnt that a problem? When law enforcement has no clue about anything that they are enforcing??
Just from Marcarios' statement, I can tell that either he does not know the law or is intentionally trying to deceive.
Operating a motor vehicle is not the same as traveling in a car.
Legally the definition of operate is...
Operate: To perform a function, or operation, or produce an effect. See Operation.
Perform: A performance is the successful completion of a contractual duty.
So yes, Marcarios, you can travel and operate a vehicle at the same time, but to do so would mean you are completing a contract for compensation, and would require a license.
So! All those who wish to travel unencumbered and freely on our public roads, read the law!
Realize that we are being deceived and that our rights are slowly being taken away from us!
Take off your plates, send a letter to the DMV alerting them that their registration services are no longer required, and travel freely!
If you have the time, stop by your local police department and let them know what you are doing as well!
They are just people like anyone else and are not out to get you, and I hope that many police begin to claim their right to travel while off duty as well.
Actually most cops are reasonably well versed in the law.
As for definitions, you are cherry picking one of multiple definitions to suit your purpose. It doesn't work like that.
This approach has been tried and has failed.
-
If you are trying to make yourself "more equal" than others around you, it won't work.
Why would you be above "us mortals"?
As I said, if you think some law is not good, start the procedure of reconsidering it and changing as needed.
Understand what is wrong, formulate it well, and then call or mail your representative to explain the problem.
Meanwhile, the police will do what majority of citizens are paying them for.
I am not above anyone.
I just know what the law says, and that seems to be a rarity these days.
No, you think that you know what the law says. Someone who is their own lawyer has a fool for a client.
-
Jails are full of people who thought the law didn't apply to them.
...maybe you'll see someone you know.
-
You can travel as much as you want.
Drivers license is not about your travel.
It is about operating motorized vehicle (potentially dangerous equipment) while doing it.
Additionally, roads that you are using are regularly maintained.
Where from will come materials and road workers wages?
Would YOU maintain roads for free for others to use them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole USA was assembled as union of sovereign citizens.
There are no reasons to stand out of the union.
If some law is wrong, there are channels to change it.
To make it more fair for everyone equally.
If you are trying to make yourself "more equal" than others around you, it won't work.
Why would you be above "us mortals"?
As I said, if you think some law is not good, start the procedure of reconsidering it and changing as needed.
Understand what is wrong, formulate it well, and then call or mail your representative to explain the problem.
Meanwhile, the police will do what majority of citizens are paying them for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flattening the Earth will not change the way people of the country organized themselves.
The tax on gasoline pays for roads. Electric cars driven by libs are cheating the system.
How much are oil companies paying people for this anti-electric propaganda?
As we don't know what they did 100 years ago to partnership between Ford and Edison and their project to make electric cars before WW1.
-
funny because you don't have a life
-
I am not above anyone.
The base argument used by the FES, and you, is that somehow everyone else has been fooled by a system of conspiracy. That only you and yours have "discovered" the truth and the rest of us are sheep being led to ignorance. No, I'm quite sure you hold yourself in much higher esteem than the rest of us.
I just know what the law says, and that seems to be a rarity these days.
No, you don't. You seem to have trouble with the very basic idea of what is a right and a privilege. You've totally conflated the two in your thread here. Driving/operating/using a car is not a right. Being free to travel is. The mode of conveyance may or may not be a right. Do it on foot, its a right. Use a vehicle, it is likely a privilege.
Ask any cop if they know anything about jurisprudence, or the system they condemn people to deal with, and they almost always say "NO!"
Utter nonsense. Law enforcement, which is what the police are, absolutely understand the laws they enforce, as well as any human can with all variation considered person to person. To say that they don't is equivalent to stating that the police, everywhere and to the last, don't know their own job. This is not a statement you can make with 100% certainty.
Isnt that a problem? When law enforcement has no clue about anything that they are enforcing??
Nice strawman you've got there.
Just from Marcarios' statement, I can tell that either he does not know the law or is intentionally trying to deceive.
If anyone here is dumb enough to follow your advice, they deserve the deception you're peddling and the end result as well. You are the deceiver here. What's worse is that you believe your own ignorance of the topic.
Operating a motor vehicle is not the same as traveling in a car.
Legally the definition of operate is...
Operate: To perform a function, or operation, or produce an effect. See Operation.
Perform: A performance is the successful completion of a contractual duty.
So yes, Marcarios, you can travel and operate a vehicle at the same time, but to do so would mean you are completing a contract for compensation, and would require a license.
So! All those who wish to travel unencumbered and freely on our public roads, read the law!
Realize that we are being deceived and that our rights are slowly being taken away from us!
Take off your plates, send a letter to the DMV alerting them that their registration services are no longer required, and travel freely!
If you have the time, stop by your local police department and let them know what you are doing as well!
They are just people like anyone else and are not out to get you, and I hope that many police begin to claim their right to travel while off duty as well.
This is probably the most disingenuous pile of rubbish, next to a proclamation that the Earth is a pancake, that I've come across on this forum. I live in California too. Please, do us a favor and make sure to record your next encounter with the CHP or local law enforcement. I believe it will be an awesome addition to the pantheon of "sovereign citizens" that get owned on YouTube. You'll find out in short order just how brilliant this idea of yours was.
-
I would just like to point out that opinions do not matter in regards to the law and the majority of opposing arguments in this thread are opinion.
I have posted definitions from the most widely used legal dictionary in the US which is backed by case law.
If I have made a mistake in my interpretations, please, point them out, rather than tell me over and over that I need a license to operate, drive, or use a vehicle, because as I have admitted, such statements are correct. Such activities do require a license, and doing so without one is breaking the law.
However, I do not drive, operate, or use a vehicle as defined by the law.
I do not transport, deliver, or carry persons or property with a vehicle.
I travel in my car for my own private needs using the public roads that are there primarily for such purposes.
Up until 1957 driver was defined by law simply as "one employed", and it still is today, but now it is hidden from the layman through a series of legalese terms.
https://thelawdictionary.org/driver/
The above link is from the 1910 edition of Blacks Law dictionary, but the definition remained unchanged until 1957.
-
However, I do not drive, operate, or use a vehicle as defined by the law.
I do not transport, deliver, or carry persons or property with a vehicle.
Are you not transporting your own person and personal property with a vehicle?
I travel in my car for my own private needs using the public roads that are there primarily for such purposes.
Driving and traveling are not mutually exclusive.
Up until 1957 driver was defined by law simply as "one employed", and it still is today, but now it is hidden from the layman through a series of legalese terms.
https://thelawdictionary.org/driver/
The above link is from the 1910 edition of Blacks Law dictionary, but the definition remained unchanged until 1957.
If the definition changed in 1957, then how is the 1910 definition relevant?
-
From the California Vehicle Code:
VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 4850-4853
4850. (a) The department, upon registering a vehicle, shall issue
to the owner two partially or fully reflectorized license plates or
devices for a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, and one
partially or fully reflectorized license plate or device for all
other vehicles required to be registered under this code. The plates
or devices shall identify the vehicles for which they are issued for
the period of their validity.
Shall is interchangeable with "will". This creates the enforcement that all vehicles owned in California, that will be used on public roads, must be registered and display that registration number (license plate number). Two are issued to the owner for the purpose of display at the front and rear of the vehicle.
ARTICLE 1. Vehicles Subject to Registration [4000 - 4024] ( Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
4000.
(a) (1) A person shall not drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly, unless it is registered and the appropriate fees have been paid under this code or registered under the permanent trailer identification program, except that an off-highway motor vehicle which displays an identification plate or device issued by the department pursuant to Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left standing in an offstreet public parking facility without being registered or paying registration fees.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “offstreet public parking facility” means either of the following:
(A) Any publicly owned parking facility.
(B) Any privately owned parking facility for which no fee for the privilege to park is charged and which is held open for the common public use of retail customers.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to any motor vehicle stored in a privately owned offstreet parking facility by, or with the express permission of, the owner of the privately owned offstreet parking facility.
(4) Beginning July 1, 2011, the enforcement of paragraph (1) shall commence on the first day of the second month following the month of expiration of the vehicle’s registration. This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2012.
(b) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway any motor vehicle, as defined in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 39010) of Part 1 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, that has been registered in violation of Part 5 (commencing with Section 43000) of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to off-highway motor vehicles operated pursuant to Sections 38025 and 38026.5.
(d) This section does not apply, following payment of fees due for registration, during the time that registration and transfer is being withheld by the department pending the investigation of any use tax due under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(e) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a vehicle that is towed by a tow truck on the order of a sheriff, marshal, or other official acting pursuant to a court order or on the order of a peace officer acting pursuant to this code.
(f) Subdivision (a) applies to a vehicle that is towed from a highway or offstreet parking facility under the direction of a highway service organization when that organization is providing emergency roadside assistance to that vehicle. However, the operator of a tow truck providing that assistance to that vehicle is not responsible for the violation of subdivision (a) with respect to that vehicle. The owner of an unregistered vehicle that is disabled and located on private property, shall obtain a permit from the department pursuant to Section 4003 prior to having the vehicle towed on the highway.
(g) (1) Pursuant to Section 4022 and to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 22651, a vehicle obtained by a licensed repossessor as a release of collateral is exempt from registration pursuant to this section for purposes of the repossessor removing the vehicle to his or her storage facility or the facility of the legal owner. A law enforcement agency, impounding authority, tow yard, storage facility, or any other person in possession of the collateral shall release the vehicle without requiring current registration and pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 14602.6.
(2) The legal owner of collateral shall, by operation of law and without requiring further action, indemnify and hold harmless a law enforcement agency, city, county, city and county, the state, a tow yard, storage facility, or an impounding yard from a claim arising out of the release of the collateral to a licensee, and from any damage to the collateral after its release, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with defending a claim, if the collateral was released in compliance with this subdivision.
(h) For purposes of this section, possession of a California driver’s license by the registered owner of a vehicle shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the owner is a resident of California.
This section details the requirement for registration of any vehicle that is left standing, driven, operated, or otherwise used on public roads. The only exemption is for vehicles that are being stored, in private, either by arrangement by the owner or if they have been towed.
Simply put, N30, you are 100% wrong.
-
Lol Again the crux of my argument is totally ignored.
My car is not a vehicle and I am not a driver.
As I posted in my original post, the California vehicle code defines a vehicle as a device.
It also defines a person as a person... or a business or corporation etc.
What is a device?
A device is a mechanical invention that is newly discovered that embraces the concept of non obviousness.
What is an invention?
A patentable device!
WELL, my car that I built is not patentable, nor is it newly discovered.
So, my car is not a device, and therefore not a vehicle.
Unless I register it as a vehicle which is required by law in order to drive.
But its a good thing I do not drive.
I travel.
-
Lol Again the crux of my argument is totally ignored.
My car is not a vehicle and I am not a driver.
As I posted in my original post, the California vehicle code defines a vehicle as a device.
It also defines a person as a person... or a business or corporation etc.
What is a device?
A device is a mechanical invention that is newly discovered that embraces the concept of non obviousness.
What is an invention?
A patentable device!
WELL, my car that I built is not patentable, nor is it newly discovered.
So, my car is not a device, and therefore not a vehicle.
Unless I register it as a vehicle which is required by law in order to drive.
But its a good thing I do not drive.
I travel.
Now I want to hear your ideas about Federal and California income tax, and how you don't pay those either.
-
Lol Again the crux of my argument is totally ignored.
My car is not a vehicle and I am not a driver.
As I posted in my original post, the California vehicle code defines a vehicle as a device.
It also defines a person as a person... or a business or corporation etc.
What is a device?
A device is a mechanical invention that is newly discovered that embraces the concept of non obviousness.
What is an invention?
A patentable device!
WELL, my car that I built is not patentable, nor is it newly discovered.
So, my car is not a device, and therefore not a vehicle.
Unless I register it as a vehicle which is required by law in order to drive.
But its a good thing I do not drive.
I travel.
No, you are ignoring the FACT that the CVC discusses a MOTOR VEHICLE, to avoid confusion regarding what the code applies to. Your DISHONEST rambling and aversion of that fact, conflation of right and privilege, and avoidance of what the regluatory statutes state is the comedy here.
You have provided a fact sheet that could come from anywhere. I have provided a direct quotes from the CVC (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) and provides no mention of the applicability you've misquoted. To be clear, this is the definition for "driver" provided in the code:
A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.
"Is in actual physical control of a vehicle." That would be you.
Here is the definition for vehicle in the CVC:
A “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
To focus narrowly upon the word "device" fails to address the quantification of said appliance within the context of the code. Device, in the application above refers to what "may be propelled, moved, drawn upon a highway" with the only exceptions being the two given above. To even attempt the dishonesty you are spouting means either you do not understand the word "context" or you have no grasp of how a sentence is structured. To proclaim that "device" can only mean what you have given avoids reality:
From the Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary
: something devised or contrived: such as
a (1) : plan, procedure, technique
a marketing device
mnemonic devices
(2) : a scheme to deceive : stratagem, trick
b : something fanciful, elaborate, or intricate in design
c : something (such as a figure of speech) in a literary work designed to achieve a particular artistic effect
irony and other literary devices
a plot device
d archaic : masque, spectacle
e : a conventional stage practice or means (such as a stage whisper) used to achieve a particular dramatic effect
f : a piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function
i.e., smartphones and other electronic devices
or a hidden recording device
Of the definitions given, (f) appears to be what we are looking for. But let's not stop there, what does the source you claim to pull from say about it?
An Invention or contrivance; any result of desigu; as iu the phrase”gambling device,” which means a machine or contrivance of any kind for the playing ofan unlawful game of chance or hazard. State v. Blackstoue, 115 Mo. 424, 22 S. W. 370.Also, a plan or project; a scheme to trick or deceive; a stratagem or artifice; as in thelaws relating to fraud and cheating. State v. Smith, 82 Minn. 342, 85 N. W. 12. Also anemblem, pictorial representation, or distinguishing mark or sign of any kind; as in thelaws prohibiting the marking of ballots used in public elections with “any device.” Baxterv. Ellis, 111 N. C. 124, 15 S. E. 938, 17 L. R. A. 382; Owens v. State, 04 Tex. 509;Steele v. Calhoun, 61 Miss. 556.In a statute against gaming devices, this term is to be understood as meaningsomething formed by design, a contrivance, an invention. It is to be distinguished from”substitute,” which means something put in the place of another tiling, or used insteadof something else. Henderson v. State, 59 Ala. 91.In patent law. A plan or contrivance, or an application, adjustment, shaping, or combinationof materials or members, for the purpose of accomplishing a particular resultor serving a particular use, chiefly by mechanical means and usually simple in characteror not highly complex, but involving the exercise of the Inventive faculty.
Hmmm, where's that rubbish you posted at the start? This is also from Black's Law Dictionary...
From Webster's Law Dictionary
The definition of a device is a tool or technique used to do a task.
The task in this case is to convey person and/or property, the tool would be the vehicle.
As I stated prior, by all means, be an ignorant fool and tempt fate with the CHP. Post the results on YouTube; I hope you have an account that can be monetized because it will likely be hilarious and might even cover the cost of your tow and incarceration.
-
What does Black use as a definition for vehicle, while we're at it?
What is VEHICLE?
The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4).
Yeah, you travel alright. In a vehicle, that requires a license plate, registration, proof of insurance, and with a valid driver's license while residing in the state of California. Just like everybody else. By all means, pretend the laws don't apply to you and eventually your luck will run out.
-
Can you describe the maneuver required to enter a freeway and transition to the #4 lane?
When do you accelerate? For how long?
If you do it wrong you will crash! Twerps!
It is impossible to exit the freeway and return home.
Visit his popular website: www.N30demonstratesFelatio.com
-
I would just like to point out that opinions do not matter in regards to the law and the majority of opposing arguments in this thread are opinion.
I have posted definitions from the most widely used legal dictionary in the US which is backed by case law.
If I have made a mistake in my interpretations, please, point them out, rather than tell me over and over that I need a license to operate, drive, or use a vehicle, because as I have admitted, such statements are correct. Such activities do require a license, and doing so without one is breaking the law.
However, I do not drive, operate, or use a vehicle as defined by the law.
I do not transport, deliver, or carry persons or property with a vehicle.
I travel in my car for my own private needs using the public roads that are there primarily for such purposes.
Up until 1957 driver was defined by law simply as "one employed", and it still is today, but now it is hidden from the layman through a series of legalese terms.
https://thelawdictionary.org/driver/
The above link is from the 1910 edition of Blacks Law dictionary, but the definition remained unchanged until 1957.
But I have pointed them out and you have ignored them. You choose one of several definitions and pretend like that is the only possible one. You ignore all the others. You ignore the fact that this has been tried and failed numerous times.
And the law is literally all about opinion. It's why we have courts. The courts give their opinion of what the law is supposed to mean.
-
A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.
"Is in actual physical control of a vehicle." That would be you.
Actually, control is defined in law as the direct or indirect power to direct management or policies.
Which people do when they register their car as a vehicle at the DMV.
Their car becomes paperwork because they signed a contract and therefore they are able to control its policies and management.
I rescinded my contract and no longer control a vehicle.
I travel in my car.
-
What does Black use as a definition for vehicle, while we're at it?
What is VEHICLE?
The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4).
Yeah, you travel alright. In a vehicle, that requires a license plate, registration, proof of insurance, and with a valid driver's license while residing in the state of California. Just like everybody else. By all means, pretend the laws don't apply to you and eventually your luck will run out.
Transportation is defined in the US code and by Blacks law as trade or commerce.
If my car is not capable of being used for commerce, since it is not registered, it is not a vehicle.
-
What does Black use as a definition for vehicle, while we're at it?
What is VEHICLE?
The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4).
Yeah, you travel alright. In a vehicle, that requires a license plate, registration, proof of insurance, and with a valid driver's license while residing in the state of California. Just like everybody else. By all means, pretend the laws don't apply to you and eventually your luck will run out.
Transportation is defined in the US code and by Blacks law as trade or commerce.
If my car is not capable of being used for commerce, since it is not registered, it is not a vehicle.
You are picking one of several definitions. There are others that apply to you. Again, this has been tried and does not hold up.
-
Lol Again the crux of my argument is totally ignored.
My car is not a vehicle and I am not a driver.
As I posted in my original post, the California vehicle code defines a vehicle as a device.
No, I'm pretty sure that there's more to the definition than that.
It also defines a person as a person... or a business or corporation etc.
Are you saying that you aren't a person?
What is a device?
A device is a mechanical invention that is newly discovered that embraces the concept of non obviousness.
Not according to Merriam-Webster.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/device
So, my car is not a device, and therefore not a vehicle.
Incorrect.
Unless I register it as a vehicle which is required by law in order to drive.
But its a good thing I do not drive.
I travel.
Traveling and driving are not mutually exclusive activities.
-
What does Black use as a definition for vehicle, while we're at it?
What is VEHICLE?
The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4).
Yeah, you travel alright. In a vehicle, that requires a license plate, registration, proof of insurance, and with a valid driver's license while residing in the state of California. Just like everybody else. By all means, pretend the laws don't apply to you and eventually your luck will run out.
Transportation is defined in the US code and by Blacks law as trade or commerce.
If my car is not capable of being used for commerce, since it is not registered, it is not a vehicle.
If your car isn't registered, then it isn't allowed to travel on public roads either.
-
There is no reason to believe that N30 is anything more than a self-imagined wannabe rebel who likes to boast falsely about things he doesn't do but wishes he has the courage to do.
Mildly entertaining at best.
-
Lol Again the crux of my argument is totally ignored.
My car is not a vehicle and I am not a driver.
As I posted in my original post, the California vehicle code defines a vehicle as a device.
It also defines a person as a person... or a business or corporation etc.
What is a device?
A device is a mechanical invention that is newly discovered that embraces the concept of non obviousness.
What is an invention?
A patentable device!
WELL, my car that I built is not patentable, nor is it newly discovered.
So, my car is not a device, and therefore not a vehicle.
Unless I register it as a vehicle which is required by law in order to drive.
But its a good thing I do not drive.
I travel.
Again, you cherry pick one definition among many. Your car is absolutely a device and if you operate it, you are a driver.
-
There is no reason to believe that N30 is anything more than a self-imagined wannabe rebel who likes to boast falsely about things he doesn't do but wishes he has the courage to do.
Mildly entertaining at best.
I disagree.
It is quite entertaining.
-
There is no reason to believe that N30 is anything more than a self-imagined wannabe rebel who likes to boast falsely about things he doesn't do but wishes he has the courage to do.
Mildly entertaining at best.
My money is on multiple D.U.I. infractions.
His license is revoked.
-
Lol Again the crux of my argument is totally ignored.
My car is not a vehicle and I am not a driver.
As I posted in my original post, the California vehicle code defines a vehicle as a device.
It also defines a person as a person... or a business or corporation etc.
What is a device?
A device is a mechanical invention that is newly discovered that embraces the concept of non obviousness.
What is an invention?
A patentable device!
WELL, my car that I built is not patentable, nor is it newly discovered.
So, my car is not a device, and therefore not a vehicle.
Unless I register it as a vehicle which is required by law in order to drive.
But its a good thing I do not drive.
I travel.
What about my previous post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74650.msg2042195#msg2042195
You stated "Case law IS law” in your first post. My post provided more recent case law directly applicable to you as a car owner in California. What doesn't that apply to you?
Mike
-
I would just like to point out that opinions do not matter in regards to the law
Wow! Now, that statement says a lot!
All advice and decisions in legal matters are opinions. Many are clear cut, but some are based on very narrowly defined and sometimes convoluted interpretations of words. They are all opinions.
Just, wow!
and the majority of opposing arguments in this thread are opinion.
More than that, all of them are.
So are all of your assertions.
I have posted definitions from the most widely used legal dictionary in the US which is backed by case law.
I can post text out of context that I don't understand, too. I, at least, try not to do that.
<stuff>
The above link is from the 1910 edition of Blacks Law dictionary, but the definition remained unchanged until 1957.
Cool! Have you looked at a calendar showing today's date recently?
There is absolutely no evidence that you're doing, much less getting away with, any of these things you say you are. None.
I don't wish ill on anyone. It's one thing to assume a swaggering persona that purports to know more than everyone else, but, because of that, God help anyone that actually believes you and acts on what you claim they should do.
-
The problem is that there's no proof he's telling the truth.
Actually there's no proof he's a he.
Or that he's not an internet troll.
-
There is no reason to believe that N30 is anything more than a self-imagined wannabe rebel who likes to boast falsely about things he doesn't do but wishes he has the courage to do.
Mildly entertaining at best.
My money is on multiple D.U.I. infractions.
His license is revoked.
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Somewhat related: I wonder how many ”sovereign citizens” and flat Earthers there are amongst Ivy Leaguers? Seems to me these things are usually embraced more by the, ahem, ”freer thinkers”.
-
There's no way this is true.
-
There's no way this is true.
Most likely not, or he just hasn't been pulled over yet.
When he will, it will be comedy gold.
-
California Vehicle Code 21052
The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.
California Vehicle Code 260
(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
---
File DMV form DL 142 and create a trust for the ownership of your car.
You have the right to travel.
-
California Vehicle Code 21052
The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.
California Vehicle Code 260
(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
---
File DMV form DL 142 and create a trust for the ownership of your car.
You have the right to travel.
Right. They are not commercial vehicles. They are still vehicles though. Commercial vehicles require a seperate license.
You do have the right to travel. But if you are going to operate a vehicle it needs to be registered and you need to be licensed. That's the law. You picking and choosing specific parts of definitions and ignoring other parts doesn't change that.
-
The vehicle code very clearly states that it applies to the drivers of vehicles under the employment of the state. When you register your car as a vehicle and pay for your license, you then begin working for the state.
To claim your right to travel on public property, and not fall under the jurisdiction of this private code, onforced only upon those who contract under it, simply cancel all contracts and give ownership of the car to a private trust and not the state.
-
California Vehicle Code 21052
The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code.
California Vehicle Code 260
(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
---
File DMV form DL 142 and create a trust for the ownership of your car.
You have the right to travel.
So, you’re going to ignore the case law that states that States can have “registration and licensing requirements, which are within the State's police power to impose.”
You’ll just ignore the inconvenient case law that contradicts your claims?
Figures.
Mike
-
The vehicle code very clearly states that it applies to the drivers of vehicles under the employment of the state. When you register your car as a vehicle and pay for your license, you then begin working for the state.
To claim your right to travel on public property, and not fall under the jurisdiction of this private code, onforced only upon those who contract under it, simply cancel all contracts and give ownership of the car to a private trust and not the state.
No it doesn't very clearly state that. You are only looking at one of many definitions. Again, this has been tried in.courts and has failed.
-
The vehicle code very clearly states that it applies to the drivers of vehicles under the employment of the state. When you register your car as a vehicle and pay for your license, you then begin working for the state.
To claim your right to travel on public property, and not fall under the jurisdiction of this private code, onforced only upon those who contract under it, simply cancel all contracts and give ownership of the car to a private trust and not the state.
No it doesn't very clearly state that. You are only looking at one of many definitions. Again, this has been tried in.courts and has failed.
Looks to me like that part is saying it applies to employees of the state as well as in they are not exempt.
-
The vehicle code very clearly states that it applies to the drivers of vehicles under the employment of the state. When you register your car as a vehicle and pay for your license, you then begin working for the state.
To claim your right to travel on public property, and not fall under the jurisdiction of this private code, onforced only upon those who contract under it, simply cancel all contracts and give ownership of the car to a private trust and not the state.
No it doesn't very clearly state that. You are only looking at one of many definitions. Again, this has been tried in.courts and has failed.
Looks to me like that part is saying it applies to employees of the state as well as in they are not exempt.
Yeah. He tends to find one part of the law and then think that all the other parts don't count.
-
The vehicle code very clearly states that it applies to the drivers of vehicles under the employment of the state. When you register your car as a vehicle and pay for your license, you then begin working for the state.
To claim your right to travel on public property, and not fall under the jurisdiction of this private code, onforced only upon those who contract under it, simply cancel all contracts and give ownership of the car to a private trust and not the state.
No, that code states that State Employees are subject to Division 11. Rules of Road and are not exempt. Chapter 1 Article 2 of Division 11, provides specific instances of exemption and application such as the case of State Employees. State Employees are not above State Law, which is the reason for such a provision. Read the other codes within Chapter 1 Article 2 of Division 11 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=2.).
Additionally, vehicle registration is found under Division 3 Registration of Vehicles and Certificates of Title of the California Vehicle Code. You can read specifically about which vehicles must be registered and which are exempt from registration within Chapter 1 Article 1 of Division 3 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=1.).
-
To claim your right to travel on public property, and not fall under the jurisdiction of this private code, onforced only upon those who contract under it, simply cancel all contracts and give ownership of the car to a private trust and not the state.
Traveling on public property is not the issue and neither is the ownership of the motor vehicle. It's when you operate a motor vehicle to travel on public property that it becomes an issue. You still need a driver's license to operate a rental or borrowed motor vehicle and that motor vehicle still needs to be properly registered.
-
This "advice" can only get you into trouble.
The state vehicular statutes (pretty much the same in every state) have their own definitions for the crucial terms - which are used rather than the partial definitions taken from various dictionaries. Whoever is in physical control of a vehicle on the public road is a driver, no matter if he's doing it for fun or for money. An automobile or a truck is a motor vehicle - again, without regard as to whether it's being used for fun or for money. In every state, without exception, a motor vehicle used on the public roads must have state-issued license plates; and whoever is operating the motor vehicle on the public road must have a driver's license, must have it with him while motoring, and must show his driver's license to any policeman who stops him and asks to see it.
Putting a vehicle on the public road without a license plate is a crime (not a mere traffic infraction), motoring with a driver's license is also a crime, refusing/failing to present one's driver's license to police who asked for it is also a crime. Any of these crimes can bring a motor trip to an abrupt end - a vehicle without a license plate cannot be driven away, a person without a driver's license cannot be allowed to drive himself (even to drive himself straight home). In the absence of a license plate or a licensed motorist the vehicle will be impounded by the police, its contents inventoried - and any contraband found inside the car may be used as evidence in a further criminal charge. At the very least, a ride in the back of a police car, wearing handcuffs, and hours killed in a police station. But it can get worse with fines and jail.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently upheld the authority - and duty - of the states to require that only licensed motorists operate motor vehicles on the public roads. It has upheld this requirement even for obviously "non-commercial" motoring. You won't find a court decision in the last 90 years allowing for unlicensed motoring.
-
The California Vehicle Act of 1915 was the precursor to the California Vehicle Code of today and they are almost identical.
The Vehicle Act of 1915 states it is "An act to regulate the use and operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide for the registration and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment and registration fees therefor; to provide the licensing of persons operating motor vehicles;
Sounds like a vehicle code in any of the united States so far, right?
Well, lets define what a "PERSON" is that they say must be license to operate a motor vehicle.
According to the Vehicle Act of 1915 a "PERSON" is...
"Person shall include any corporation, association, co-partnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals."
I did not read that a person means a man or woman.
Therefor one must assume that a person is NOT a man or woman, and instead of a FICTIONAL legal person.
The government cannot require a license to engage in a right protected by the Constitution.
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement. We are not slaves that can be obligated to acquire a license and pay fees in order to travel within our free country. This is America, not Nazi Germany. Our papers do not have to be in order to jump in a car and motor down to the grocery store, or commute to work. We are not subservients to our government, they are subservient to us! We make the rules that they enforce! However the people throwing patriots in jail, and calling militia members terrorists are not the government. They are a corporation. They are a secret society. They are an illegal gang of mobsters that twist the facts and lie through their teeth. They have employed the police force. Deadly force is their authority now. Only together, as the people of America, can we stop these brutes before they erase even the memory of the freedom we Americans once enjoyed.
-
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b5001505;view=1up;seq=5
I forgot the link to the 1915 Vehicle act.
Read it yourself!
Try to figure out exactly when in the 100 years between 1915 and 2015 that "PERSON" magically became defined as every man and woman in America.
-
Did they define "include" in the 1915 Vehicle Act?
-
"Person shall include any corporation, association, co-partnership, company, firm, or other aggregation of individuals."
Shall INCLUDE means in addition to an individual person.
-
No. "Include" is not defined.
When a word is not defined, you would use a standard dictionary definition, and not the definitions provided that are to be used in place of a dictionary definition.
A person is not a man or woman.
A person is a business or fictitious legal person.
-
No. "Include" is not defined.
Neither is 'Shall'. ::)
-
No. "Include" is not defined.
When a word is not defined, you would use a standard dictionary definition, and not the definitions provided that are to be used in place of a dictionary definition.
A person is not a man or woman.
A person is a business or fictitious legal person.
Where are you getting your definition of person?
I pulled up the Merriam-Webster Dictionary,Oxford English Dictionary, and Dictionary.com and they all define a person as a human being; individual.
The Vehicle Act of 1915 "definition" of Person uses the set of words "shall include". This implies an addition to the original definition. It doesn't say a Person IS. IS and SHALL INCLUDE do not mean the same thing.
Are you one these sovereign citizens?
-
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement.
That road you're zooming down in your car to get a loaf of bread, how did it get there? Who maintains it? Where did that stop sign come from?
What gives a gov't the right to place a stop sign and demand you to stop? Maybe you should be protesting stop signs. Freedom!
-
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement.
Yes we do, but we can't endanger others while "traveling". There are laws setup to ensure safe conditions for all when "traveling". Those include having your motor vehicle registered (which requires the motor vehicle to pass an inspection), having insurance (incase you are involved in an accident), and you having a driver's license (making sure you are proficient in operating the motor vehicle).
Stop being an idiot.
Are you going to tell us that traffic infractions are not crimes, next?
-
There is no reason to believe that N30 is anything more than a self-imagined wannabe rebel who likes to boast falsely about things he doesn't do but wishes he has the courage to do.
Mildly entertaining at best.
I disagree.
I agree, and it is "mildly" entertaining.
Maybe the whole thing is just a hoax ,or his idea of a joke, and he is just another troll ?
As regards the subject title , there are those of us , who work , or have worked , in our daily jobs, that :
"The Round Earth Directly Benefits My Daily Life".
-
Just out of curiosity, why isn't this thread in PR&S where it belongs?
-
Just out of curiosity, why isn't this thread in PR&S where it belongs?
No this belongs in AR so Legba can comment about how roads are racist.
-
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement.
Yes we do, but we can't endanger others while "traveling". There are laws setup to ensure safe conditions for all when "traveling". Those include having your motor vehicle registered (which requires the motor vehicle to pass an inspection), having insurance (incase you are involved in an accident), and you having a driver's license (making sure you are proficient in operating the motor vehicle).
Stop being an idiot.
Good luck with that request. The best we can hope for is that he's blowing hot air, and that no one gets hurt because some nitwit actually believes him.
Are you going to tell us that traffic infractions are not crimes, next?
Too late. He already has (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74650.msg2037140#msg2037140).
-
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement.
Yes we do, but we can't endanger others while "traveling". There are laws setup to ensure safe conditions for all when "traveling". Those include having your motor vehicle registered (which requires the motor vehicle to pass an inspection), having insurance (incase you are involved in an accident), and you having a driver's license (making sure you are proficient in operating the motor vehicle).
Stop being an idiot.
Good luck with that request. The best we can hope for is that he's blowing hot air, and that no one gets hurt because some nitwit actually believes him.
Are you going to tell us that traffic infractions are not crimes, next?
Too late. He already has (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74650.msg2037140#msg2037140).
I personally enjoy watching sovereign citizens or "freeman" getting owned by the Police for being stupid.
Well Traffic Violations are not Federal Crimes, so his point is moot. I was referring more to the US vs Battle defense that idiots like to use.
-
Just out of curiosity, why isn't this thread in PR&S where it belongs?
Did you read the description for Flat Earth General?
"For example, if you want to ask questions about The Conspiracy, flat earth believers and their beliefs, or anything else not related to Flat Earth Theory, this is the place for it."
Also I began this thread by commenting that I would never have freed myself from the ridiculous codes and statutes masquerading as the laws of the land if I had never questioned the shape of the Earth.
-
The episode is better than the article.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10942860/sovereign-citizens-movement
-
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement.
Yes we do, but we can't endanger others while "traveling". There are laws setup to ensure safe conditions for all when "traveling". Those include having your motor vehicle registered (which requires the motor vehicle to pass an inspection), having insurance (incase you are involved in an accident), and you having a driver's license (making sure you are proficient in operating the motor vehicle).
Stop being an idiot.
Good luck with that request. The best we can hope for is that he's blowing hot air, and that no one gets hurt because some nitwit actually believes him.
Are you going to tell us that traffic infractions are not crimes, next?
Too late. He already has (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74650.msg2037140#msg2037140).
I personally enjoy watching sovereign citizens or "freeman" getting owned by the Police for being stupid.
Well Traffic Violations are not Federal Crimes, so his point is moot. I was referring more to the US vs Battle defense that idiots like to use.
Have you seen the other videos where police are reprimanded for breaking the laws they supposedly enforce?
Did you know cops can be subpoenaed once they break the law as they are no longer protected by qualified immunity?
Police do not know the law.
Police have no idea how the legal system works.
Police just follow orders, kinda like Nazi Gestapo.
Its funny, I was once asked if I was a sovereign citizen by a cop, and I said "Did you know that sovereignty and liberty are synonyms?" and he just stood there like an idiot. Because we all have the right to liberty and sovereignty over our lives. But now people are mocked for claiming their rights. I live in California, and here it is illegal to even carry an unloaded firearm in public. But the Constitution clearly states I have the right to keep and BEAR arms. Things are getting out of hand. Next we wont be able to speak about the government in a bad connotation. If you love America, speak up! If you love your freedom, get involved! Do your research, learn what has been hidden from you and fight against tyranny.
-
Argue all you want, but we as Americans have the right to travel, be it walking, riding a horse, or zooming down the road in a car, that is our right. The freedom of movement.
Yes we do, but we can't endanger others while "traveling". There are laws setup to ensure safe conditions for all when "traveling". Those include having your motor vehicle registered (which requires the motor vehicle to pass an inspection), having insurance (incase you are involved in an accident), and you having a driver's license (making sure you are proficient in operating the motor vehicle).
Stop being an idiot.
Good luck with that request. The best we can hope for is that he's blowing hot air, and that no one gets hurt because some nitwit actually believes him.
Are you going to tell us that traffic infractions are not crimes, next?
Too late. He already has (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74650.msg2037140#msg2037140).
I personally enjoy watching sovereign citizens or "freeman" getting owned by the Police for being stupid.
Well Traffic Violations are not Federal Crimes, so his point is moot. I was referring more to the US vs Battle defense that idiots like to use.
Have you seen the other videos where police are reprimanded for breaking the laws they supposedly enforce?
Nope.
Did you know cops can be subpoenaed once they break the law as they are no longer protected by qualified immunity?
Yes.
Police do not know the law.
Most have a working knowledge of the law. I'm sure some don't.
Police have no idea how the legal system works.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Police just follow orders...
I would hope they do; they're authorized to use deadly force when necessary, but not whenever they feel like it. Some do get away with using deadly force under questionable circumstances, anyway.
Its funny, I was once asked if I was a sovereign citizen by a cop, and I said "Did you know that sovereignty and liberty are synonyms?" and he just stood there like an idiot.
Yeah, sure. Do you have a video of that?
I live in California, and here it is illegal to even carry an unloaded firearm in public. But the Constitution clearly states I have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
... to be available for a well regulated militia.
I thought about suggesting you strut around with a firearm in public so you get arrested and can argue your case up to the Supreme Court, but thought better of it because you may be dumb enough to try. Please don't.
I think you're totally bluffing about all the crap you're promoting in this conversation, and not nearly as idiotic as you sound, but can't be sure.
-
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b5001505;view=1up;seq=5
I forgot the link to the 1915 Vehicle act.
Read it yourself!
Try to figure out exactly when in the 100 years between 1915 and 2015 that "PERSON" magically became defined as every man and woman in America.
Do you really want us to believe that the 1915 Vehicle act specifically excludes people from the definition of "PERSON"?
-
Have you seen the other videos where police are reprimanded for breaking the laws they supposedly enforce?
Sure, and on TV and in the papers. Police are human too and sometimes over-reach their authority.
Did you know cops can be subpoenaed once they break the law as they are no longer protected by qualified immunity?
Sure.
Police do not know the law.
Some "Police do not know" as much of "the law" as they should.
Police have no idea how the legal system works.
Some "Police do not know" as much of "how the legal system works" as they should.
Police just follow orders, kinda like Nazi Gestapo.
But you are the one that claimed that "police are reprimanded for breaking the laws they supposedly enforce".
I live in California, and here it is illegal to even carry an unloaded firearm in public.
Sounds a good idea. We have similar laws and far less gun crime than you do, though still too much.
But the Constitution clearly states I have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
But your Constitution was written in the days of pistols like this (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Ketland1.jpg/220px-Ketland1.jpg) not like (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/HKUSP.png/220px-HKUSP.png).
And I imagine the "keep and BEAR arms" was intended for the defence of the country, not for shooting each other in the street.
If you want to live in a country you abide by its rules. If you don't like it bug out!
-
I wondered how long it would be before a sovereign citizen showed up here.
Is it your person or legal entity that typed your posts that appear on this forum, N30?
Police know what they need to know, and that is the Maritime Law, Sovereign citizens carry on with, has been superseded. Sovereign d__ckheads truly think they can drive around unlicensed in unregistered motor vehicles as 'travellers', and Police can't stop them.
-
Its funny, I was once asked if I was a sovereign citizen by a cop, and I said "Did you know that sovereignty and liberty are synonyms?" and he just stood there like an idiot.
He was probably having a hard time processing that level of stupidity. Sovereignty and liberty are not synonyms. Liberty refers to freedom while sovereignty refers to authority. They are related, but not they are not the same.
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/relationship-between-liberty-sovereignty-authority-and-law/278
-
From some of the flat earth comments on the old thread on the measurement of the distance from the earth to the moon by radio waves, I suppose if he got stopped for speeding by being clocked by a cop with a radar gun , he would tell him.:
"You can't arrest me ! You checked my speed with that radar gun and we know that radio waves do not exist or that the speed of radio waves is highly inaccurate - because someone from the Flat Earth Society said so - and you say that radar gun of yours uses radio waves to track speeds ! "
-
From some of the flat earth comments on the old thread on the measurement of the distance from the earth to the moon by radio waves, I suppose if he got stopped for speeding by being clocked by a cop with a radar gun , he would tell him.:
"You can't arrest me ! You checked my speed with that radar gun and we know that radio waves do not exist or that the speed of radio waves is highly inaccurate - because someone from the Flat Earth Society said so - and you say that radar gun of yours uses radio waves to track speeds ! "
I was wondering where N30 was during his recent 4-month absence. Maybe he tried something like that, tried to defend himself using his "superior knowledge of the law", or just declined to show up for court, and was in the slammer.
-
If you (n30) openly carry a gun thats not loaded, how does anyone know its not loaded or that you dont have a clip ready to go once you potentially reach a potential victim that you are not intending to shoot?
-
If "defense" is your claim it would make more sense for you to walk around in a bullproof vest.
Possibly a helmet too.
-
If you (n30) openly carry a gun thats not loaded, how does anyone know its not loaded or that you dont have a clip ready to go once you potentially reach a potential victim that you are not intending to shoot?
What if my plan is to defend myself against terrorists? That IS why we HAVE the second amendment. So We the People do not HAVE to rely on the stupid government to protect us. WE are supposed to be the government anyway. In fact, anyone who tries to deny me my constitutional right to self defense which includes the right to keep and BEAR arms is in my opinion a treasonous criminal! And do you know that DEATH is the punishment for a treasonous criminal? I do not wish death upon anyone, however, that is how serious a crime such an act is. And in these times of WAR, I would say making sure that the American population cannot defend itself is an act of TREASON.
But I digress, this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel, ad not self defense.
However I think they are closely connected since those impeding our right to travel are the same ones impeding our right to self defense. It sounds very similar to an ENEMY OCCUPATION.
So who are the terrorists exactly? The ones we are at war with? The ones who blew up those building on 9/11.
Officially whoever blew up the towers! And officially they are names simply "The Terrorists".
The way I see it, after all the research the American people have done about the LIES the GOVERNMENT has spewed about 9/11 makes it seem like THEY are the ones that blew up the towers!
Who does that make America at war with?
All signs point to an internal threat, and my job as an American is to protect my People from any threat, foreign and domestic.
This is a war of information and thought rather than muscle and gunpowder.
If all US soldiers and police simultaneously became aware of the truth, then our war against evil is won.
Because those pretending to be Americans government, whom are the terrorists, has captured the world in order to enslave it all.
-
If you (n30) openly carry a gun thats not loaded, how does anyone know its not loaded or that you dont have a clip ready to go once you potentially reach a potential victim that you are not intending to shoot?
What if my plan is to defend myself against terrorists? That IS why we HAVE the second amendment. So We the People do not HAVE to rely on the stupid government to protect us. WE are supposed to be the government anyway. In fact, anyone who tries to deny me my constitutional right to self defense which includes the right to keep and BEAR arms is in my opinion a treasonous criminal! And do you know that DEATH is the punishment for a treasonous criminal? I do not wish death upon anyone, however, that is how serious a crime such an act is. And in these times of WAR, I would say making sure that the American population cannot defend itself is an act of TREASON.
Yaaa. Ok so anyone who opposes you, you will kill?
How do you know that a brown guy or korean guy or russian named guy is not also on the lookout for terrorists?
Who decides whos a terrorist and whos a bad guy?
-
In fact, anyone who tries to deny me my constitutional right to self defense which includes the right to keep and BEAR arms is in my opinion a treasonous criminal!
And from your previous posts, we all know the value of your opinion.
-
If you (n30) openly carry a gun thats not loaded, how does anyone know its not loaded or that you dont have a clip ready to go once you potentially reach a potential victim that you are not intending to shoot?
What if my plan is to defend myself against terrorists? That IS why we HAVE the second amendment. So We the People do not HAVE to rely on the stupid government to protect us. WE are supposed to be the government anyway. In fact, anyone who tries to deny me my constitutional right to self defense which includes the right to keep and BEAR arms is in my opinion a treasonous criminal! And do you know that DEATH is the punishment for a treasonous criminal? I do not wish death upon anyone, however, that is how serious a crime such an act is. And in these times of WAR, I would say making sure that the American population cannot defend itself is an act of TREASON.
Yaaa. Ok so anyone who opposes you, you will kill?
How do you know that a brown guy or korean guy or russian named guy is not also on the lookout for terrorists?
Who decides whos a terrorist and whos a bad guy?
If every American was on the lookout for terrorists, how hard would it be to commit an act of terror?
-
And do you know that DEATH is the punishment for a treasonous criminal? I do not wish death upon anyone, however, that is how serious a crime such an act is. And in these times of WAR, I would say making sure that the American population cannot defend itself is an act of TREASON.
First of all, any of the wars military operations that the US is currently engaged in are overseas. Secondly, do you know how many traitors against the US have actually been executed, even during a time of war? I'll give you a hint, not as many as you might think.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/people-convicted-treason-us-ones-executed/
-
However I think they are closely connected since those impeding our right to travel are the same ones impeding our right to self defense. It sounds very similar to an ENEMY OCCUPATION.
How does requiring a driver's license and vehicle registration constitute impeding your right to travel? ???
Also, who says that a gun is the only way (or even the best way) to defend yourself?
-
... this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel...
Where, specifically, do you think the right to travel is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States?
-
So, is the cost of gasoline, required for you to travel in your car, considered a treasonous tax in your little world?
-
If you (n30) openly carry a gun thats not loaded, how does anyone know its not loaded or that you dont have a clip ready to go once you potentially reach a potential victim that you are not intending to shoot?
What if my plan is to defend myself against terrorists? That IS why we HAVE the second amendment. So We the People do not HAVE to rely on the stupid government to protect us. WE are supposed to be the government anyway. In fact, anyone who tries to deny me my constitutional right to self defense which includes the right to keep and BEAR arms is in my opinion a treasonous criminal! And do you know that DEATH is the punishment for a treasonous criminal? I do not wish death upon anyone, however, that is how serious a crime such an act is. And in these times of WAR, I would say making sure that the American population cannot defend itself is an act of TREASON.
Yaaa. Ok so anyone who opposes you, you will kill?
How do you know that a brown guy or korean guy or russian named guy is not also on the lookout for terrorists?
Who decides whos a terrorist and whos a bad guy?
If every American was on the lookout for terrorists, how hard would it be to commit an act of terror?
What if i say you not paying your taxes is treasonous and by spreading your anti police anti govt retoric is a verbal/ mental "terrorism".
Who says my version isnt anymore right than yours?
Who says one day you wont physically rebel with your gun and start killing people?
If we met on the street and you were walking about with your gun, i would fear you as another white guy nut with a gun.
Pretty sure your demographic has been in the news lately - white guy, anti govt, gun loving, conspiracist, socially isolated, off his meds,
So -
How do you propose every american be on the lookout for terroism?
By what defininiton would everyone be following the rule to?
Who gets to define the rules?
-
... this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel...
Where, specifically, do you think the right to travel is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States?
Like all of his misinterpreted synonyms, I think he's confusing 'travel' with 'assemble'. But hey, maybe one has to travel to 'peaceably assemble' somewhere.
-
... this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel...
Where, specifically, do you think the right to travel is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States?
Apparently the framers of the constitution thought that freedom to travel was such a fundamental right that it didn't need to be enumerated. There have been several Supreme Court cases on the subject, notably Crandall v. Nevada.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Crandall does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), the appellant asked the Court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom to movement. The Court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."
-
Jesus! I was this close to burning my registration, canceling my GEICO autopay and halfway through making my own license plate with a piece of cardboard and a sharpie.
-
... this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel...
Where, specifically, do you think the right to travel is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States?
Apparently the framers of the constitution thought that freedom to travel was such a fundamental right that it didn't need to be enumerated. There have been several Supreme Court cases on the subject, notably Crandall v. Nevada.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Crandall does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), the appellant asked the Court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom to movement. The Court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."
Not that it matters. The California code N30 keeps quoting has been superseded several times in the last century and hasn't existed as the state's vehicle code since it was first superseded in 1923. It doesn't matter what the Vehicle Act of 1915 says because it simply does not exist as law.
Not to mention all of the case law from State and Supreme Court rulings that completely contradict everything he's posted on the subject...including what you've already mentioned.
He's free to believe what he wants but there isn't a court in the land that will agree with him today.
Mike
-
... this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel...
Where, specifically, do you think the right to travel is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States?
Apparently the framers of the constitution thought that freedom to travel was such a fundamental right that it didn't need to be enumerated. There have been several Supreme Court cases on the subject, notably Crandall v. Nevada.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Crandall does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), the appellant asked the Court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom to movement. The Court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."
Not that it matters. The California code N30 keeps quoting has been superseded several times in the last century and hasn't existed as the state's vehicle code since it was first superseded in 1923. It doesn't matter what the Vehicle Act of 1915 says because it simply does not exist as law.
Not to mention all of the case law from State and Supreme Court rulings that completely contradict everything he's posted on the subject...including what you've already mentioned.
He's free to believe what he wants but there isn't a court in the land that will agree with him today.
Mike
That's alright, N30 probably doesn't think that any court in the land has any authority over him anyway.
-
That's alright, N30 probably doesn't think that any court in the land has any authority over him anyway.
Probably. The idiots that think all the protections provided by the Constitution apply to them, but non of the laws. There are some great youtube videos of these idiots.
-
Motor vehicle laws pertain to the ownership and operation of a machine.
The fact the machine can be used for "travel" is irrelevant.
-
... this thread is more about our Constitutional right to travel...
Where, specifically, do you think the right to travel is enumerated in the Constitution of the United States?
Apparently the framers of the constitution thought that freedom to travel was such a fundamental right that it didn't need to be enumerated. There have been several Supreme Court cases on the subject, notably Crandall v. Nevada.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that Crandall does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), the appellant asked the Court to void Maryland's motor vehicle statute as a violation of the freedom to movement. The Court found "no solid foundation" for the appellant's argument and unanimously held that "in the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."
Not that it matters. The California code N30 keeps quoting has been superseded several times in the last century and hasn't existed as the state's vehicle code since it was first superseded in 1923. It doesn't matter what the Vehicle Act of 1915 says because it simply does not exist as law.
Not to mention all of the case law from State and Supreme Court rulings that completely contradict everything he's posted on the subject...including what you've already mentioned.
He's free to believe what he wants but there isn't a court in the land that will agree with him today.
Mike
That's alright, N30 probably doesn't think that any court in the land has any authority over him anyway.
I don’t thing N30 thinks that. N30 presented case law in support of his premise and clearly states...
<snip> Case law IS law... <snip>
Although, he seems to ignore the case law that proves him wrong. One could argue that would be hypocritical.
Mike
-
I think the settler, agent, and individual for N30, (not necessarily the person, but maybe the corporation, and not quite the legal entity) is keen to return to the big house on more traffic violations? Earth must look flat from inside the big house. Actually, all those walls, floors, and ceilings, in the big house would be very flat, and maybe that's where N30's confusion comes from? So, is it N block, cell 30?
-
If I never looked in to how deep the deception of NASA went I would never have come to do the things I do today.
I no longer pay vehicle registration, licensing, or insurance, because I am not required to.
I travel, and I do not drive, and it is because the Flat Earth movement opened my eyes to lies.
To those who think this is nonsense, I was at a red light with a police SUV loaded with shotguns and a criminal cage manned by two men in sunglasses right behind me who did absolutely nothing as they stared at my paper plate that I made on my computer with my cars manufacturer logo and a few other icons as well.
I have been traveling like this for quite some time, and have saved loads of money.
You can do this too, make sure to remove your license plates, as they display intent to "drive" and that you are a licensed "driver".
I hope that in the future, they monitor your internet usage at the funny farm.
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
And police will realize that they are enforcing the laws of satan and embrace the truth of God and true life itself.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe all the terror anguish pain death and war the world is facing is just coincidence.
Nevertheless I persist because if I am right than I am fighting the worlds most cruel evil vile SOB's alive.
Everyday they subject little babies to poisonous fluoride and market it as healthy.
Oh yes, there is a hidden world faction; They hide in plain sight; They profit from your pain.
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
Prove it!
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
Prove it!
My bet would be on electricity.
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
Prove it!
My bet would be on electricity.
Do they make mopeds that run solely on electricity?
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
Prove it!
My bet would be on electricity.
Do they make mopeds that run solely on electricity?
What do you think?
https://electrek.co/2018/06/07/electric-mopeds-use-is-booming-around-the-world-here-are-the-options-available-in-the-usa/
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
Prove it!
My bet would be on electricity.
Do they make mopeds that run solely on electricity?
What do you think?
https://electrek.co/2018/06/07/electric-mopeds-use-is-booming-around-the-world-here-are-the-options-available-in-the-usa/
Well then I guess N30 will be driving on electric. But the real question is, can his crystal cells power it?
-
In the future my car will run on either water or pure electricity.
Prove it!
My bet would be on electricity.
Do they make mopeds that run solely on electricity?
What do you think?
https://electrek.co/2018/06/07/electric-mopeds-use-is-booming-around-the-world-here-are-the-options-available-in-the-usa/
Well then I guess N30 will be driving on electric. But the real question is, can his crystal cells power it?
Maybe the headlight.