Jump to content
NOJURISDICTION

Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

Recommended Posts

You can opt out of taxes legally and free of charge . I have 5 years ago.tax counsel are nothing but pirates .

 

No, you can’t, not legally. Every person who has tried the various schemes for that have failed to convince the courts that the schemes are legal. If there was one that worked, believe me tax lawyers would be all over it, they’d make a mint advising their clients how to avoid those tax obligations. But they don’t because the law and court decisions make it quite clear that those schemes don’t work. You might escape the notice of the tax agencies for awhile, but when they do catch up to you, it will be at a minimum very expensive with all the penalties and interest tacked on to the tax you are required to pay. At worst, you may be criminally prosecuted and spend a few years in prison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a proall attorney. Taveling

Driving on american roads is a right.if stop sign ticket without prediudice. Courts will not except this a throw ticket out ucc code is a contract opt out of it by signing a reservation of rights all other responses here are from attorneys .they know the law but will not follow it. Any question for free help . ryoufin@aol.com

 

It is obvious you are not an attorney. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has nothing to do with the rules of the road nor the laws regarding driver’s licenses, registration, and titles for vehicles. Those are mandatory laws that the public must follow; they are not contracts that you can accept or reject as you please. The arguments made that somehow the UCC governs this are losers; no appellate court has ever accepted that argument. Indeed, the decisions of the courts have been quite uniform in upholding the requirements for driver’s licenses. That’s what real attorneys know, and that’s why attorneys won’t advise you that you do not need a license to drive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526


Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the Sovereign People.


Finally, we come to the issue of public policy. It could be argued that the licensing scheme of all persons is a matter of public policy. However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:


"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution provides us protection as a FREE MAN and not a legally generated juridical person. 
There is no law that states you need a driver's license. 

 

Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.

3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DMV is a Corporation. Traveler's are not required to have a Driver license for personal use unless you are driving for commercial purposes. (i.e. Employer) The drivers license is a waiver of your RIGHT to TRAVEL, 

  STATE VS SPOKANE
The Right of a Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, In the ordinary course of life

and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his business for private gain in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

County of______________
OFFICE OF THE CLERIC

______________ , Michigan COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE

THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen_________________________: hereby Certifies, by Rights Secured under provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the several states, Common Law, Nature and Laws of Natures GOD, that these Rights are retained in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, and held and protected with special regard to Rights designated and/or set forth as follows: ALSO NOTE Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING-by the Honorable Justice LOUIS BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT.

NOTICE AND ADVISORY OF RIGHTS CLAIMED INVIOLATE: 

1) The Right to TRAVEL FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETTERED is guaranteed as a RIGHT and not a mere privilege. That the Right to TRAVEL is such a BASIC RIGHT it does NOT even need to be mentioned for it is SELF-evident by Common Sense that the Right to TRAVEL is a BASIC CONCOMMITANT of a FREE Society to come and go from length and breath FREELY UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED distinguishes the characteristic required for a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. Please See SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way canNOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. The above named Common Law Citizen listed IS NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE and as such is therebyEXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE AS SUCH. Further, the _______________ state, is FORBIDDEN BY LAW from converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and requiring a LICENSE and or a FEE CHARGED for the exercise of the BASIC RIGHT. Please SEE MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if _______________, state does ERRONIOUSLY convert BASIC RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES and require a License or FEE a Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE OR FEE WITH TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH EXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT. Please see Schuttlesworth vs. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 U.S. 262. Now if a Citizen exercises a BASIC RIGHT and a Law of ANY state is to the contrary of such exercise of that BASIC RIGHT, the said supposed Law of ANY state is a FICTION OF LAW and 100% TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD IT AND NO Citizen is REQUIRED TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR LICENSE REQUIREMENT. Please see MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, see Shephard's Citations. Now further, if a Citizen relies in good faith on the advice of Counsel and or on the Decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT that Citizen has a PERFECT DEFENSE to the element of WILLFULNESS and since the burden of proof of said WILLFULNESS is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, said task or burden being totally impossible to specifically preform there is NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF LAW. Please see U.S. vs. Bishop 412 U.S. 346 . OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASIC Right to TRAVEL for a regular Common Law Citizen NOT IN COMMERCE on the common way Public HlGHWAY. THAT IS THE LAW!!! The above named Citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTY MAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS!!! YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON THIS Common Law Citizen!!!

2) The original and Judicial jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is ALL actions in which a State may be party, thru subdivision, political or trust. This includes ALL state approved subdivisions and/or INCORPORATED Cities, Townships, Municipalities, and Villages, Et Al . Please see Article 3, Section 2, Para. (1) and (2), U.S. Constitution.

3) The undersigned has NEVER willingly and knowingly entered into ANY Contract or Contractual agreement giving up ANY Constitutional Rights which are secured by the CONSTITUTION, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. This Common Law Citizen has NOT harmed any party, has NOT threatened any party, and that includes has NOT threatened or caused any endangerment to the safety or well being of any party and would leave any claimant otherwise to their strictest proofs otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. The above named Citizen is merely exercising the BASIC RIGHT TO TRAVEL UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED on the Common public way or highway, which is their RIGHT TO SO DO!!! Please see Zobel vs. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, held the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is Constitutionally PROTECTED!!

4) Conversion of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL into a PRIVILEGE and or CRIME is A FRAUD and is in clear and direct conflict with she UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. LAWS made by any state, which are clearly in direct CONFLICT or REPUGNANCY areUNCONSTITUTIONAL and are NOT WITH STANDING IN LAW AND ARE BEING CHALLENGED AS SUCH HERE AND THEREBY ARE NULL AND VOID OF LAW ON THEIR FACE. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD SUCH FICTIONS OF LAW AND NO Citizen is bound to obey such a FICTION OF LAW. SUCH REGULATION OR LAW OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY OR FICTION OF LAW AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED IN LAW. No CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!!!

5) The payment for a privilege requires a benifit to be received As the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is already secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges without direct damage to the specific party . Nor may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the exercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. Please see Miller vs. UNITED STATES 230 F2d 486 . Nor may a Citizen be denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW or EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

6) The undersigned does hereby claim, declare, and certify ANY AND ALL their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE state wherein they abode as a SOVEREIGN, COMMON LAW CITIZEN existing and acting entirely AT THE COMMON LAW, and retains ALL BASIC RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD AND UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD THE SUPREME LAW GIVER.

7) ANY VIOLATOR OF THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND CLAIM IS CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING UPON THIS ABOVE NAMED COMMON LAW Citizen and WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT UNDER THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. BE WARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!

 

SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is signed_________________________________________

WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________

WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________

or

NOTARY PUBLIC_________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES____________________________

Form below use for County Clerk

state of MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF_______________

1, ___________________________________, CLERK of the County of

_____________________________________, thereof do hereby certify the

Citizen above named has sworn to the contents of this document and that

same is TRUE AND CORRECT. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have

hereto set my hand and affixed the SEAL of said CIRCUIT COURT, at

the City of __________________________________ , MICHIGAN this

________________day of_______________________, AD.__________

______________________________________Deputy County Clerk for

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________COUNTY CLERK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.

3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.

 

That’s hilarious. You are relying on a definition from a legal dictionary that is over 150 years old? Surely it has occurred to you that the law and legal definitions have advanced in the last century and half, hasn’t it? The most authoritative and commonly cited legal dictionary today is Black’s Law Dictionary. It’s 8th Edition (published in 2004 and much more current than what you are relying upon) defines the word “driver” simply as “A person who steers and propels a vehicle.”

 

One of the biggest problems I see from persons asserting the idea that no license is required to operate a motor vehicle on the roads is that they rely on outdated law and concepts and misinterpret case law, as you've done in this thread. At the same time, they ignore the modern law and cases that clearly show their theories to be incorrect. In short, they are blinding themselves to what the the law really says because, I suppose, they so badly wish it were not so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

County of______________

OFFICE OF THE CLERIC

______________ , Michigan COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE

CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE

 

 

 

Can you please provide the address of the "OFFICE OF THE CLERIC"?  I'd like to pay it a visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not really possible to put together a coherent legal argument by relying on random Google searches of your beliefs and cutting and pasting the things you find that some random people claim supports those beliefs.  The law does not work that way.  The actual codes that govern the citizens of the United States can be searches at the Cornell.edu site (or at pay legal search sites such as Westlaw and/or Lexis Nexis).  AND the law is not like the Bible where you can cite something out of context and claim that you are supported. 

 

There ARE some general principles of law such as come from legal principles from prior to the Constitution, but they have all be codified somewhere within our legal structure.  The principle of the 'right to travel' is one of those principles, and that right has been codified and defined within the various federal,  state and local statutes such that it is not an ambiguous notion that is open to interpretation. 

 

Every statute that governs has supporting caselaw that defines and clarifies each statute and how it applies to reality.  Of course the lawyers on this site know this and generally most Americans understand this...and the so called 'sovereign citizens' that are pushing this asinine argument will choose to ignore this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These lawyers are telling BS.....first thing you need to know about the right to travel is.......there is a BIG diffrence between driving which is a commercial term defined in the United states code service and traveling.......

 

U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 31

 

(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every

description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn
by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the
highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and
property, or property or cargo.

(10) Used for commercial purposes. - The term "used for
commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property
for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or
directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other
undertaking intended for profit.

 

Here in New Jersey they trick us into filling out a BA-8 form which registers us as corporations and then they issue us corpcodes which is the same as a drivers license number....on my car title it says DL#/corpcode and on my registration renewal form......

 

 

 

also you should know that the united states is not a landmass it is a CORPORATION located in the District of Columbia.....U.C.C 9-307 (h) location of the U.S. ......

18 U.S.C 3002 (15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
© an instrumentality of the United States.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

 

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe

conduct."

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

 

"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

DO YOU KNOW WHAT AM JURS IS? CONSTITUTIONAL LAW?thompson murdock and shuttlesworth does not matter what the case is....Its constitutional law its the right there talking about not what the case is about....did they have the right       YES.....Do we have the right?   YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO YOU KNOW WHAT AM JURS IS? CONSTITUTIONAL LAW?thompson murdock and shuttlesworth does not matter what the case is....Its constitutional law its the right there talking about not what the case is about....did they have the right       YES.....Do we have the right?   YES

 

Yes, I know what Am Jur is, but I'm not sure you do. Am Jur is short for "American Jurisprudence,” which is the name of a legal encyclopedia. It is not law. It is merely a summary of the law, and not always accurate at that. The citation you provided from Am Jur cites a very old case, and one that does not reflect the current state of the law regarding the requirement for a driver's license. I'm not surprised. Advocates for the idea that a state cannot require a driver's license for all persons using the roads (whether commercial or not) tend to cite old cases that are not on point to make their argument and yet ignore the more recent cases that are directly on point. That's simply poor legal analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO YOU KNOW WHAT AM JURS IS? CONSTITUTIONAL LAW?thompson murdock and shuttlesworth does not matter what the case is....Its constitutional law its the right there talking about not what the case is about....did they have the right       YES.....Do we have the right?   YES

Stop it! Stop the madness!  Stop embarrassing yourself on the internet!  All of your posts contain silly, off-point, out dated arguments on this subject and your interpretations and understanding of the law and legal terminology are not even on the level of a novice. 

 

In every state you are, by law required to possess a valid driver's license in order to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. There are no exceptions, there are no "Constitutional" arguments to be asserted here and you are ignorantly and naively buying into the nonsense that you are digging up as a result of Google searches. 

 

Going back to your original question: 

 

"can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?"

 

You have been provided with reliable information by some very erudite contributors in this thread as to the number of flaws and gaping holes in your research and arguments.  Unless you are thoroughly ignorant, you ought to start looking at this with objectivity and try to learn something otherwise you will be sure to encounter "major problems" should you choose to drive without a valid driver's license. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American Jurisprudence is one of the two national legal encyclopedias that dominate American legal research. AM. JUR. 2d was initially published by Lawyers Cooperative and is now owned by Thomson West. The set includes both procedural and substantive law


 


 


we look in am-jurs to make your **** is on point and if cases are in shepards citations they are still standing


 


they have videos on youtube with people getting let go with no plates on there car in 2012......the Moorish Americans proov that the Uinited States citizenship is what makes you bound to the statutes instead of living by the law of the land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
......the Moorish Americans proov that the Uinited States citizenship is what makes you bound to the statutes instead of living by the law of the land

 

Say what?

 

 

And now, back to our normally scheduled nap time...

 

Snore...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In every state you are, by law required to possess a valid driver's license in order to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. There are no exceptions, there are no "Constitutional" arguments to be asserted here

 

THIS IS 100% correct if you DRIVE a MOTOR VEHICLE you need a license but if you travel with the common law you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE......Then this guy does not even want you to here about the Moorish americans.....they are a society in america and they are sovereign men and women.....they are not bound by statute which is nothing more then a policy for the corporation we call the united states.....STOP the BS.....and they are all born on america....hahaha 14th amendment says: 

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

now you sit here and tell me how would we be born in the united states physically? If the united states is located in D.C. and why the hell is persons the plural word for person? instead of people? You people can keep most of us dumb but we are waking up world wide your court scams will end soon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

American Jurisprudence is one of the two national legal encyclopedias that dominate American legal research.

 

 

LOL!  In my 25 years in the legal field, I think I've pulled a volume of Am Jur off the shelf maybe half a dozen times (and, more often than not, only because an opponent cited it).  Legal encyclopedias might have "dominate[d] American legal research" 30-50 years ago, but they certainly have not done so since Lexis and Westlaw came into common use.

 

 

 

In every state you are, by law required to possess a valid driver's license in order to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. There are no exceptions, there are no "Constitutional" arguments to be asserted here

 

THIS IS 100% correct if you DRIVE a MOTOR VEHICLE you need a license but if you travel with the common law you DO NOT NEED A LICENSE.

 

WTF?!  Last time I checked, travelling by way of "the common law," as opposed to a motor vehicle, was extremely slow and inconvenient.  But yes, you're correct that one needs a driver's license if one wants to drive a motor vehicle.  No one in this thread has ever suggested any more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

American Jurisprudence is one of the two national legal encyclopedias that dominate American legal research. AM. JUR. 2d was initially published by Lawyers Cooperative and is now owned by Thomson West. The set includes both procedural and substantive law

 

It is a legal encyclopedia. It is not law. It provides a summary of the law. Its main use today is to provide background on an issue for someone not familiar with it, and the citations it includes can be useful. But it hardly “dominates” legal research in the U.S. With the widespread use of Westlaw (a legal service provided by the owner of this message board), Lexis, and other electronic research services, most lawyers have little need to resort to encyclopedias. They instead use treatises that go into great detail on topics in their area of practice (which Am Jur certainly does not provide) and use the services like Westlaw. The only time I ever even looked at American Jurisprudence was in my law school legal research class which introduced me to the various resources available for research. But even then, when electronic legal research was not yet available on the internet, these encyclopedias were not often used. Perhaps a half century or more ago they were more widely used. 

 

More significantly, you obviously don’t understand what you read in American Jurisprudence. Like others who assert there is no requirement for a driver’s license to opreate a car or other vehicle on the roads, you have taken quotes from cases out of context that have little or nothing to do with the issue of driver's licenses and yet ignore the cases that are right on point. And because of that, persons who argue in court the sorts of things you cite here lose when challenging a citation for driving without a license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF i dont go in court and bring up the right to travel......what for????? They got no standing to make a claim against me lmao....they will say the state(body politic) is the victim......there own statute and state constitution define victim.....its not what they want you to think lol.....then they cant do **** till i appear and before i do that i got Questions.....if they dont answer my questions im not being fully disclosed......so at the end i get my motion to dismiss with prejudice for fail to state a cause of action where relief can be granted.....no body of a crime no case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF i dont go in court and bring up the right to travel......what for????? They got no standing to make a claim against me lmao....they will say the state(body politic) is the victim......there own statute and state constitution define victim.....its not what they want you to think lol.....then they cant do **** till i appear and before i do that i got Questions.....if they dont answer my questions im not being fully disclosed......so at the end i get my motion to dismiss with prejudice for fail to state a cause of action where relief can be granted.....no body of a crime no case

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=remedial+english+grammar&oq=remedial+english+grammar&aqs=chrome..69i57.4448j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao i dont write like you want i dont dress like you want i dont shave like you want i dont cut my hair like you want sorry i dont suck the **** of the people who run the world and say do this and do that be like this be like that..everything i posted up is true

Edited by FindLaw_ZA
This post has been edited per our Community Guidelines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF i dont go in court and bring up the right to travel......what for????? They got no standing to make a claim against me lmao....they will say the state(body politic) is the victim......there own statute and state constitution define victim.....its not what they want you to think lol.....then they cant do **** till i appear and before i do that i got Questions.....if they dont answer my questions im not being fully disclosed......so at the end i get my motion to dismiss with prejudice for fail to state a cause of action where relief can be granted.....no body of a crime no case

 

If you get stopped and cited for driving without a license, you either go to court to contest the ticket or the court will find you guilty if you fail to appear. If you try contesting the ticket with this nonsense, the judge will have a good laugh and then find you guilty. I’ve seen guys try to argue this sort of thing in court before, and every single one of them lost. Why? Becasue they were all clueless about what the law really says and spout silly theories they get off the internet. Go ahead and try it if you want. You probably won't like the outcome, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get stopped and cited for driving without a license, you either go to court to contest the ticket or the court will find you guilty if you fail to appear. If you try contesting the ticket with this nonsense, the judge will have a good laugh and then find you guilty. I’ve seen guys try to argue this sort of thing in court before, and every single one of them lost. Why? Becasue they were all clueless about what the law really says and spout silly theories they get off the internet. Go ahead and try it if you want. You probably won't like the outcome, though. 

i been doing this for 2 years.......everytime i go they get me out quick......Come on really all i have to do is do a O.P.R.A. request and get anyones file i want in any court.....half of you wont have an oath of office on file.....or updated contract with the court....last time i went to court the prosecutor did not have a contract for 2014.....he was working under a year old contract....wtf you think they do?hahahahahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...