Originally posted by Pauligirl
reply to post by BugByte
Full cites for the court cases will be sufficient. If they are federal, I can get them off Pacer.
I have a Black’s law Dictionary, it’s old, but so am I. The first part about”Driver” is right, but it goes on to say: “A person actually
doing driving, whether employed by owner or driving his own vehicle. Wallace v Woods, 340 MO 452, 102 SW2nd 91, 97.” Something to keep in mind,
Black’s law Dictionary is just that, a dictionary, not the law.
As far as Federal Judges I think it’s U.S. Constitution: Article III
I have pretty good idea of how the law works. I deal with it everyday.
Here’s the thing, since you are the one making the claims, you are the one that needs to provide the proof.
Now look up "Person", It's a "legal fiction" how can a legal fiction drive it's own car?
Your right Blacks Law is not the law, but if you know about law then you also know that they fallow the letter of the law which "is" blacks law.
So when you go into court and your talking about "driving" the courts go by Blacks law of what a driver means, not Websters dictionary. When a judge
needs to find out the definition of what a word mean they look it up in Blacks Law, while we look it up in an English dictionary. Try comparing a
bunch of words from the English dictionary with Blacks Law Dictionary.
Also if you go to the free man society forum that I linked to you will see many members who posted their court transcripts. No one actually wins a
case as they(courts) will try to hide the fact that the defendant in many cases are in fact right, so the judge simple will say things like... "The
crown has no evidence, case dismissed."
Also think about the Federal Income Tax Act.... It's unconstitutional right? Actual it isn't unconstitutional, because the Income Tax "only"
applies to persons, a Legal Fiction. Also ever wonder why it's called Federal Income Tax Act and not American/Canadian Income Tax Law. An Act is an
Acknowledgment, when you fill out the form and sign it, your acknowledging that you will abide by those terms and conditions.
Also I'm not going to post any court transcripts as I believe that would violate the T&C of ATS because I do not have their permission to do so. But
if you read the T&C here on ATS you will see how Simon uses the words Legal/Illegal and Lawful/unlawful and he uses them in their proper context. If
Legal and Lawful mean the same then why not just use one of the two? The Constitution in Lawful and Federal is Legal.
But I urge you to check out the Free Man Society Forums many members there have posted their court transcripts and you will start to see what is going
on. Yes some people have lost their case in court, all because they slipped up while in court, like for example if you claim to be a free man or woman
to a judge and the judge sais "Well, Mr John Smith...." and you reply as Mr John Smith(person/legal fiction) with out arguing that there is no Mr
John Smith(person/legal fiction) in the court room only the free man John Smith, then you just admitted to being a legal fiction. Mr, Mrs, Miss, is a
"Title" and only Corporations have "Titles" and as I said before, Legal laws only apply to Person/Legal Fiction, Federal Agent/Officer and
I can go on and on forever but I'm just not fast at typing to actually get into all the details, but since you say you know the law, then you should
be able to verify or disprove what I'm saying pretty easily.
But please keep me informed of your findings, I'm interested to see what you uncover. And as I said before If you can prove me wrong, I will be more
than happy to admit to it, as I do not wish to mislead anyone or propagate disinformation. I only seek to help educate. Feel Free to U2U me as well,
though I don't check my U2U's vary often, so a reply from me could take some time.