Jump to content
NOJURISDICTION

Right to "travel" without a licence on hwy

Recommended Posts

So let me get this str8......You guys are saying the United States is not a corporation?????The president is not a CEO of the corporation????The act of feb 21 1871 did not do anything?

Yes, the United Sates is not a corporation.  Accordingly, the president is not its CEO.  

 

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, provides that the District of Columbia is “constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may ... have a seal, and exercise all the powers of a municipal corporation”.  

 

It's not clear how you could possibly interpret this to mean the United States is a corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and take a look at an old SSC it says employee signature....employee is synonymous with servant.....employer is sysnonymous with master(US).......WE ARE SLAVES......i got cases and cases......Get in your law library and take a look at the books words and phrases permanent edition from 1865 to Date. They give you understanding of the words we use so commonly in the langauge legalese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

title 28 usc 3002 (15)

 

NEED I SAY MORE?

 

No.  We require no further evidence that you are an idiot who lacks the reading comprehension and writing skills that even a fourth grader possesses.  We (well...at least I) also understand that no amount of logical reasoning will change your mind.  Nevertheless:  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=remedial+reading+comprehension+strategies&gbv=2&oq=remedial+reading+comprehension+&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3.3.0j0i22i30l5.796.5477.0.9339.21.17.0.4.4.0.166.1809.10j7.17.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.21.1853.k_pabjgF9h8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

title 28 usc 3002 (15)

 

NEED I SAY MORE?

And, yet again your argument is unavailing and I agree with pg1067's prior response.

 

You may want to stop embarrassing yourself on the internet as you clearly have zero abilities to properly research and analyze the law.  Also, you severely lack basic English grammar and spelling skills, so not only are your posts illogical, way off point and out of context, they are difficult to read and comprehend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

title 28 usc 3002 (15)

 

NEED I SAY MORE?

 

You really shouldn’t say more. The more you post, the more you show you haven't really got a clue about what the law says. You are reading without understanding what you read. The definition you quoted does not prove the U.S. is a corporation, as I think you are trying to say. It doesn't even come close. That definition means that solely for the purposes of Chapter 176 of Title 28 (which relates to debt collection by the federal government), the term United States means the following:

(A ) a Federal corporation;
(B ) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C ) an instrumentality of the United States.
 
The reference to federal corporation in (A) means a corporation owned by the federal government. It does not mean the United States government itself is a corporation. The use of the word “or” tells you that this is a list of various parts of the government that are included in the term “United States,” just one type of which are federal corporations. That other types of units, like agencies, etc., are listed tells you those other units are not corporations. Federal corporations are just one part of the United States government. The U.S. government owns a number of corporations, and the rules for debt collection in Chapter 176 apply to those corporations, as well as agencies, departments, commissions, boards, or other entities of the U.S. and any instrumentality of the U.S. These are all types of subdivisions of the U.S. that would be collecting debts, only some of which are corporations. Nothing about this definition tells you, as you contend, that the United States as a whole is a corporation. It simply tells you that when the term "United States” is used in Chapter 176, it means any of those units of the federal government listed in (A). It is, in short, just a short hand way of referring to those various units, nothing more.
 
Moreover, that definition in § 3002 applies only for purposes of Chapter 176, as the preface to that section tells you. It has no relevance to anything outside of that Chapter.
 
And in any event, none of this has anything to do with whether the states may require you to have a license to operate your automobile on the roads. It is completely irrelevant to that, something you evidently don’t get.
 
Clearly, you are not skilled in reading the law or applying logic to what you read. You are simply parroting the mistaken arguments you've seen on websites or wherever that spew this nonesense, and in the process you embarass yourself. You won’t win arguments on the licensing issue in court with this sort of drivel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a 'Moorish American", btw? The 'Moors' were the name given to the Muslims by the Christians in Andalusia (Spain) when Christian Spain unified and drove them out in the 1400s.  never heard of the demographic in the United States called "Moorish American" though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a 'Moorish American", btw? The 'Moors' were the name given to the Muslims by the Christians in Andalusia (Spain) when Christian Spain unified and drove them out in the 1400s.  never heard of the demographic in the United States called "Moorish American" though

 

Well...they must've gone somewhere when they were driven out....  I'm sure this has some connection to the United States being controlled by freemasons and templars, blah, blah....  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PENHALLOW VS. DOANE

3 DALL 55

 

"GOVERNMENTS ARE CORPORATIONS."

 

LMFAO!  First of all, you've mis-cited the case.  Second, that case is from the 18th freaking century and pre-dates anything that resembles the modern concept of a corporation.  Third, you've cited a case for a quote that isn't actually in the opinionSee https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/54/case.html.  In other words, you're just making s**t up!

 

As for the Maurice case, at least the quote is accurate, but the case is nearly as old as Penhallow, and your citation of it provides further support that you just have no clue what you're talking about.

 

But, you -- like the rest of us -- are anonymous here, so I guess it doesn't matter a whole bunch if you keep embarrassing yourself with this garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UNITED STATES VS. MAURICE  

26 FED CASE#15,

2 brock 96

 

"THE UNITED STATES IS A GOVERNMENT,AND CONSEQUENTLY A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE. THIS GREAT CORPORATION WAS ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."

 

 

Those old cases use the phrases “body politic and corporate” and “corporation” in sense much different than we use the term corporation today.  I've said before that one of the failings of people making arguments like yours is that they rely on old outdated cases and definitions of terms. The law, language, and the world has changed much in 200 years. If you want to make legal arguments, you argue based on what the law is today, not what it was centuries ago. 

 

And, again, it doesn't matter anyway. Whether the federal government is a “corporation” in the modern sense of the term is irrelevant to the issue of whether a state may require you to have a driver’s license. If you cannot understand that, then you lack the logical reasoning ability necessary to do good legal analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cannot understand that, then you lack the logical reasoning ability necessary to do good legal analysis. 

 

Why do you think that the poster is even interested in legal analysis?    :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those old cases use the phrases “body politic and corporate” and “corporation” in sense much different than we use the term corporation today.  I've said before that one of the failings of people making arguments like yours is that they rely on old outdated cases and definitions of terms. The law, language, and the world has changed much in 200 years. If you want to make legal arguments, you argue based on what the law is today, not what it was centuries ago. 

 

And, again, it doesn't matter anyway. Whether the federal government is a “corporation” in the modern sense of the term is irrelevant to the issue of whether a state may require you to have a driver’s license. If you cannot understand that, then you lack the logical reasoning ability necessary to do good legal analysis. 

so the United States Code Service is outdated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...they must've gone somewhere when they were driven out....  I'm sure this has some connection to the United States being controlled by freemasons and templars, blah, blah....  :-)

Google moorish science temple of america and they have temples all over america.....if i wanted i can ditch the US citizenship and claim my moorish nationality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMFAO!  First of all, you've mis-cited the case.  Second, that case is from the 18th freaking century and pre-dates anything that resembles the modern concept of a corporation.  Third, you've cited a case for a quote that isn't actually in the opinionSee https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/54/case.html.  In other words, you're just making s**t up!

 

As for the Maurice case, at least the quote is accurate, but the case is nearly as old as Penhallow, and your citation of it provides further support that you just have no clue what you're talking about.

 

But, you -- like the rest of us -- are anonymous here, so I guess it doesn't matter a whole bunch if you keep embarrassing yourself with this garbage.

So a corporation is not a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment equal protection and due process provisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they even said the US is a corporation on fox news hahahahaha where not dumb a county is a corporation. MANTA.com

What does, "where not dumb a county is a corporation" mean?  This statement is as idiotic as the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing throughout this forum.  Legal research and analysis doesn't boil down to mindlessly finding the terms "United States" and "corporation" used in close proximity and then saying, "see, the U.S. is a corporation".  

 

Performing legal research and analysis is a skill that requires years of training to acquire.  You lack basic reading comprehension and writing skills which indicates that you are poorly educated and not up to the task of performing good legal research and providing intelligent, articulate and persuasive analysis.  

 

For example, here is another one of your brilliant statements, "well i will go and take a look in shepards citations and see if the are standing".  Once again, you have made a statement that says nothing meaningful other than the fact that you are poorly educated and that you wouldn't know how to Shepardize a case if your life depended on it.

 

How about this one, "i dont even plea when i go in court and the judge wont pratice law and sit a bench by putting one in for me......damn quassi garbage.....aint gonna run that on me"?  This is just another garbled, inarticulate, incoherent statement from you that, guess what, indicates that you are poorly educated. 

 

I can go through this entire, rather lengthy thread, read all of  your posts and find an inordinate number of silly, incomprehensible, meaningless statements just like the ones I've cited here.  

 

You have almost  zero writing abilities, you can't spell,  you don't know how to formulate an intelligible sentence or use proper capitalization and are clueless to even the most basic rules of English grammar.  

 

However, the point is that because you are so poorly educated you are entirely ignorant to the fact that you do not know what you are doing when it comes to researching and analyzing the law.  You demonstrate a complete lack of an understanding  of American jurisprudence. You certainly do not know how to cite the law and you aren't capable of asserting an intelligent legal argument to support your position.    

 

Repeatedly, your legal arguments (and I use that term very loosely) have had huge, gaping holes poked in them by the skilled attorneys and other legal professionals that participate in these forums.  They, including myself, have tried to help you understand why your position is flawed.  Yet, because of your ignorance and lack of intelligence you continue to spew your idiotic legal theories and interpretations of the law.  

 

Are there others like you?  Do you associate with like-minded people?  Have you ever persuaded anyone to agree with your positions? Or, do most people just laugh at you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what the Moors teach......They have videos here in my town.....They make the police look stupid lol......We know the game

Please see my prior response for commentary on this statement.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...