Hey Semper, thanks for taking your time in this way! Unfortunately, we can't just waltz into a police department and ask questions about why they do
things the way they do, so this is really a rare opportunity!
The questions you have received so far concerning common law and contracts have to do with the whole subject of lawful jurisdiction and governments
operating under the color of law.
Please allow me to ask a couple questions in this regard and to also give a brief explanation with each question. This may clear some things up for
people in this regard.
1) My first question is this...did you know that every town, city, county, state, court (including the supreme court), and department of the federal
government (including the federal government itself), are all CORPORATIONS, and not operating as duly authorized government entities?
Dun and Bradstreet
IMPORTANT: If you look on the Dun & Bradstreet website, which lists every corporation in America, you will find EVERY town, city, county, state,
and department of the federal government, including the company known as "The United States," and every court as well, including a company called
"The Supreme Court of the United States" registered in each of the 50 states.
Over the last hundred or so years, every constitutionally authorized government entity has been supplanted by a similarly named company (CORPORATION),
which gives it the corporate rights of a PERSON as determined by the federal government, and also replaces the duly authorized institutions of the
Constitution, which are States and Counties.
So, in reality, no police officer actually works for a government entity, but is in reality a hired security officer, employed by a corporation for
the enforcement of the corporation's bylaws, otherwise known as ordinances and statutes. As you stated, the police now work for the corporation to
protect the corporation from the people who are within its borders by enforcing the corporate "laws."
2) Did you know that according to the principles of law, licenses are only needed for actions that are considered immoral or against public policy?
Because roads are part of the land that belong to the state/county/city corporation, the corporation requires a license to drive on the road, due to
the potential dangers involved with operating an auto. Technically, a car is considered a personal conveyance and the right to drive one falls under
the freedom to travel, and is in keeping with the RIGHT to "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness."
But, because the car is now operating within the boundaries of a corporation's land holdings, the rights of travel become subject to the
corporation's right to safety within their borders, converting the right into a privilege.
As stated, under the law a license is only needed when doing something against public policy, something that is considered licentious. Originally,
only cars engaging in business on public roads required a license because they were using public land for personal financial gain. That business
travel was called TRAFFIC, which means to buy/sell (as in trafficking drugs). Over time, however, the state corporations ruled that everyone needed a
license since it was too hard to prove who was really engaged in business and also there were so many cars/trucks on the road that the dangers
warranted tighter controls.