Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

i coulda swore this was about a free man winning against oppressors. but the last two thousand posts were an argument. who gains more? someone who talks or someone who listens? and as jay-z once said "dont argue with a fool, cause from a distance you cant tell whos who." he probably stole that quote from someone but its ultra relevant in this case.

i probably really respect the person arguing on behalf of sovereigns, but really i cant tell whos who.

the facts are, therere laws and acts. common law is law. anything else was an act passed by legislation and only in effect if consented to by the person in question. this is jurisdiction. (i'm atheist) but if our souls are eternal, and our whole legal system is christian, then how can a man own you? god can be lord but man cannot. that for one turns these acts into blasphemy. our founding fathers knew men couldnt and mustnt rule over us. thats why they left the uk. because the king was acting as god.

this is all known and excersised every second of every day by countless sovereigns.

it cant even be argued, unless of course you dont really know the laws of the land. and back in the day all people were taught the law. now that we dont care, theyre changing laws while were not looking. all of these tactics used by our lawmakers are the same tactics used by every dictator ever. create division, give safety blankets, strip freedom, and massive brainwashing by the msm.

i mean, would you people argue about whether or not income tax is legal? no cause we all know its illegal, you can look for the laws. none. whoever is against sovereignty is a shill, nothing else. and whoevers arguing with this idiot isnt looking too intelligent either. shut up and go change the world!

peace

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

In my state [US] driving is NOT a "right," it is a "privilege." Agree with that or no, it's written into the law.

Really? Which state and can you cite the explicit law in question?

JUST STAY OFF THE ROADS WHILE DRIVING A MOTORIZED VEHICLE.

He was not driving a motorized vehicle. He was traveling with his personal property.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by jeh2324

 

You are absolutely correct , in that there are those posting here who are only vaguely familiar with this topic and are offering no more than speculation and conjecture .

This is what lands people in jail .

For a starter course in understanding , see my thread here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you, okbmd, and you are so right. There are many who, after reading a little, and filing some documents, think they are above the law, end up in a courtroom, and are lost for words. This becoming a Freemen is not for the easily scared, or the faint of heart, when you walk into a courtroom you have better be armed and wrapped in law, and you better know how and when to speak, and what to say to be heard and recognized. I too will help anyone who is willing to help themselves, this does require a great deal of reading and study, and a good memory too. It took me 5 years to decide I was ready to take on the powers that be in the Law Society. It was over a traffic ticket, and it was eventually dismissed, after the police officer was made to look foolish on the stand, (did not know where his authority came from) and the county had to spend a few thousand dollars to recalibrate their radar units. Since that time I have helped a lot of people, and have myself had a standing Circuit Court Judge have to stand down because I got his surety bond revoked after filling a criminal complaint to the AG of the State. In my own yard, I never get pulled over, even by State cops, I obey all traffic laws, and treat everyone with respect.

Educate yourself!

Here are some links to educate the beginner Freeman. If you are interested in this movement, read and study all of them.

Our American Common Law

The Constitution Society Homepage

Barefoot's World

Are you sure you're a "driver"?

You and the Police

THE LAWYER'S SECRET OATH

UCC: Uniform Commercial Code

The U. C. C. Connection

NOTARY PUBLIC

If you are confronted with explaining what the "UCC 1-207" does

America’s Two Constitutions (One for the Rich, One for the Poor)

Freedom Domain

Freeman-on-the-land Forum

The World Freeman Society Public Forum

reply to post by autowrench


Thanks a lot for the links as I've got some studying to do myself as I'm not as well versed in common law as I should be. I know the basics but not enough to fight my way out of a court battle and this needs to change.

I remember a lawyer talking about becoming a sovereign citizen on the G-Gordon Liddy show back in the early nineties and then nothing else ever again.

I looked high and low for this lawyer's book, but couldn't find it. It was if he dropped off the face of the planet. So, I will tear into these links and begin arming myself with this private citizen information immediately.

Thanks again.

ManBehindTheMask
Ahh I see War is up to his old tricks of being brash and ugly with posters when he doesnt agree with them......this will all soon end........

The last part of this statement sounds kind of threatening. Care to elaborate to the ATS community exactly what that's supposed to mean? Gonna snitch me out to the thought police or something?






[edit on 27-6-2010 by warequalsmurder]

Originally posted by Grossac
Obviously, by the video, you see that you ARE allowed to drive without a license if you know your rights and are prepared. The guy in questions knew his rights and answered the questions without falling into a trap.

No, watch the film again. He is not "allowed" to do anything. Allowed means someone else has the power to deny you doing it. He asserted a fundamental US Code Right as his own. The "right" means just what it says, it is not an allowance. Do not confuse the issue please?
In Law, or Contract, each word, each punctuation has meaning. A contract can hang on one word, so always have your words in order, and never substitute one word for another in Court. Go into court thinking you are "allowed" to drive, and you are getting into their ship and obeying their rules. Refuse to board the ship, you are safe on land.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by Grossac
Obviously, by the video, you see that you ARE allowed to drive without a license if you know your rights and are prepared. The guy in questions knew his rights and answered the questions without falling into a trap.

No, watch the film again. He is not "allowed" to do anything. Allowed means someone else has the power to deny you doing it. He asserted a fundamental US Code Right as his own. The "right" means just what it says, it is not an allowance. Do not confuse the issue please?

Sorry. There is no way he could have "asserted a fundamental US Code Right."

Our intrepid young crusader for the cause of the common man was in CANADA. Although not clear in the OP, I found the department he dealt with.
www.youtube.com...

A slightly different outcome. Sorry, don't know how to embed vid on ATS.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I agree but disagree at the same time.

I want people on the road to have insurance so that when they hit me, as has been done in the past, they will be able to pay for their mistake. An uninsured driver can't often pay to buy you a new car if they total yours. This is where having uninsured coverage is nice, because now my insurance will cover what damage they do to me if they dont have insurance and then my company will go after that person legally. I dont have to worry about the lawsuit or anything.

I think any adult should be able to drive a car, but what would be the age cut-off if it is a right for people. can a 10 year old drive a car because it is his right? It's not really a clear cut answer for this issue in my opinion.

Now, what I do think is that if an uninsured driver totals my car or injures my person, they should both have to pay and suffer legal ramifications if they cant. A labor camp where they work until they make enough money to pay for the damage would make sense. Maybe people would be more careful if they knew that vehicular homicide carried the same penalty as murder, period.

reply to post by okbmd


Hey,

Most of the time I disagree with you to a point of just getting furious, but i must admit that the freeman stuff you are mentioning has me VERY intrigued.

Is this something you are interested in yourself or you are simply aware of as it is a growing movement?

'The law here in the UK gets round this by requiring you to tax your car, and to get a tax disc you need to provide a curent insurance certificate and MOT certificate.

So no insurance, no tax disc for your car window...law broken straight away if you drive on a public road.

Basicaly whilst this is a nice idea, it wouldn't work over here.

Great vid though, cheers for posting it.'

no your wrong you just get a tex exemtp like a vw combie or beatle sorry but it would work in the uk

These vids will give you an idea what it's about.
General Goodshafting on "Court Tactics" in Great Britain (similar here)
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

TheAntiTerrorist on the Freeman\Strawman\Man

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The Antiterrorist on "Standing in court"

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Grossac
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

First of all, you have to release yourself from govenment control.. As soon as you vote, you consent to be governed. You're basically giving consent to the governemt to make decisions for you.. You become part of "That society" the "law society". Therefore you have to follow their rules. You here him say the cop was reading his affidavit of truth, that's a piece of paper stating that he is not part of that society and he choses not to be governed. You do that with a notary public.

Would this guy call the police if there was a burglar in his house?

I don't know about him, but I don't. I just deal with it instead of waiting on a police presence, which, after all, may arrive too late.

Had a burglar that broke into my house call the police on ME once, though, for "brandishing a firearm". True story. Some folks are just too dumb to live.

I hope he enjoyed his stay in the crossbar hotel.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
I did not even know about the Freeman group other than the police standoff back in the 90's with a group in the US. Their ideology is "foreign" to me. And, it will almost assuredly stay that way. I do wish them well though... so long as their ideology is not foisted upon me. But that would be a form of tyranny if they attempted to do so.............

Since their ideology is based entirely on 'freedom', hence the moniker "Freemen", this thought equates to "Freedom is Tyranny".

Now, where have I heard something like THAT before...?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
I did not even know about the Freeman group other than the police standoff back in the 90's with a group in the US. Their ideology is "foreign" to me. And, it will almost assuredly stay that way. I do wish them well though... so long as their ideology is not foisted upon me. But that would be a form of tyranny if they attempted to do so.............

Since their ideology is based entirely on 'freedom', hence the moniker "Freemen", this thought equates to "Freedom is Tyranny".

Now, where have I heard something like THAT before...?

Hi!

You make an extremely valid point-observation. I based my comment on two points as I gleaned them from this thread:

1) They base their beliefs on some concept of Rights granted by [their] god. I do not believe in this god and I doubt I would agree with the definitions of what they feel these rights so granted by this [supposed] deity are/aren't.

and...

2) Their "rights" must by necessity "stop at my nose." In the case of the OP and our young Freeman he was driving on a public roadway. If I were driving on that same roadway I have a certain expectation that the drivers on it with me are properly licensed and insured. Now, the licensed bit is really nothing more than a silly little piece of [legal paper] and has nothing to do with safety. But, the insurance, well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Should our young gentleman hit me, causing grievous damage to my vehicle and my person I would be financially *damaged*. My insurance, being on a completely paid for vehicle, is only liability insurance. It only covers damage I might do to *someone else's* property/person - NOT my own. IOW: His presumed "rights" "DAMAGED MY NOSE" in this hypothetical thought experiment.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
I did not even know about the Freeman group other than the police standoff back in the 90's with a group in the US. Their ideology is "foreign" to me. And, it will almost assuredly stay that way. I do wish them well though... so long as their ideology is not foisted upon me. But that would be a form of tyranny if they attempted to do so.............

Since their ideology is based entirely on 'freedom', hence the moniker "Freemen", this thought equates to "Freedom is Tyranny".

Now, where have I heard something like THAT before...?

Hi!

You make an extremely valid point-observation. I based my comment on two points as I gleaned them from this thread:

1) They base their beliefs on some concept of Rights granted by [their] god. I do not believe in this god and I doubt I would agree with the definitions of what they feel these rights so granted by this [supposed] deity are/aren't.

and...

2) Their "rights" must by necessity "stop at my nose." In the case of the OP and our young Freeman he was driving on a public roadway. If I were driving on that same roadway I have a certain expectation that the drivers on it with me are properly licensed and insured. Now, the licensed bit is really nothing more than a silly little piece of [legal paper] and has nothing to do with safety. But, the insurance, well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Should our young gentleman hit me, causing grievous damage to my vehicle and my person I would be financially *damaged*. My insurance, being on a completely paid for vehicle, is only liability insurance. It only covers damage I might do to *someone else's* property/person - NOT my own. IOW: His presumed "rights" "DAMAGED MY NOSE" in this hypothetical thought experiment.

I had addressed the atheism a few pages back. To summarize:

- there is an obvious creative force. Be it sentient, or not. There is a creative force in the universe.

- this creative force is what i call "God", being a deist. I believe that the Christian concept of God contains this abstract viewpoint within its own concept of "God", but in that case it is so much more. So to not overcomoplicate it, we will leave the word "God" to be, in this case, "creative force".

- This creative force uses its own laws, such as "The Universal Law Of Consequence" (an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, etc). The laws of thermodynamics also are an example of the laws that the creative force has built into the universe.

- we were not created within a system of tyranny. We were created free, able to roam our planet as needed. The things that the creative force left open for us to do, these are our "rights".

- it is obvious that the creative force gave us a mind that is able to bring about its own creation. as long as our creations are within the guidelines, all is well. move outside the natural law, and we have tragedy. like, when you move into a hurricane zone. you assume those risks.

You don't have to be theologically active to understand the concept of "God given rights". they are merely the 'rights" that come built into the natural law...the way things were created on our planet.

Charging for water is another problem of mine. i think it violates natural law, as well. but i ihave to stop short, as i understand the cost and work put into delivery. But it is another issue that i am sure you can understand my concern over, as the creative force provided this water for use by all animals on the planet.

RE: your expectation of insurance and licensing...that is an artifact of your expectation being groomed by the corporate law. people who are not within corporate law are not bound by such. they should be bonded...but that is more for their own protection, not yours.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Hi!

You make an extremely valid point-observation. I based my comment on two points as I gleaned them from this thread:

1) They base their beliefs on some concept of Rights granted by [their] god. I do not believe in this god and I doubt I would agree with the definitions of what they feel these rights so granted by this [supposed] deity are/aren't.

I may have misinterpreted that, then. I thought they were asserting 'Natural Rights', which would not necessarily be dependent on a deity for issuance, but would be perceived as coming from their respective deity by those so inclined. For those NOT so inclined, one would presume that their rights are no less guaranteed by virtue of their being human, and presumably natural-born, thus having 'Natural Rights'. I missed the part where belief in a deity was required.

and...

2) Their "rights" must by necessity "stop at my nose."

Yes, I believe that IS their ideal. The converse would necessarily be so, as well, which is what their gripe seems to me to be. It appears, and I could be wrong here, but it APPEARS that they are perfectly willing to recognize the rights of others, and are merely insisting that their own rights be recognized as well.

In the case of the OP and our young Freeman he was driving on a public roadway. If I were driving on that same roadway I have a certain expectation that the drivers on it with me are properly licensed and insured.

I'm curious as to WHY? You do have your own insurance, don't you? Back when I was fooling with such trivialities, I was required to have insurance not only for myself, my vehicle, and my passengers, I was also required to have 'uninsured motorist' coverage.

No, I'm not a member of this movement - I just sent my license back in disgust, and elected to never drive again. They can keep their permissions, as far as I'm concerned, and I'll keep what would otherwise have been fees paid to them.

When I WAS driving, I NEVER expected the 'other guy' to be licensed, insured, or even sober for that matter. I saw plenty of folks ignoring laws, so licensing was a triviality as far as I could tell. It was a means for the state to fleece the taxpayer even more, and had no discernible bearing on ability or inclination to obey.

Now, the licensed bit is really nothing more than a silly little piece of [legal paper] and has nothing to do with safety.

Precisely.

But, the insurance, well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Should our young gentleman hit me, causing grievous damage to my vehicle and my person I would be financially *damaged*. My insurance, being on a completely paid for vehicle, is only liability insurance. It only covers damage I might do to *someone else's* property/person - NOT my own. IOW: His presumed "rights" "DAMAGED MY NOSE" in this hypothetical thought experiment.

Ah then. It boils down to an interpretation of what 'personal responsibility' means. It appears that, in your interpretation, the 'other guy' can be expected to play fair, and you're perfectly willing to rely on HIS exercise of responsibility. In my interpretation, I don't put myself in harms way without knowing that I have adequate recourse.

I've not found 'the other guy' to be terribly reliable, and I tend to lean towards looking out for my own.

Insurance is another matter entirely. I personally no longer play that lottery for any reason, all those years I DID play it, I never hit it once, but I think I put a couple of someone else's kids through college playing the game!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Actually, to be honest, I have never - ever - met someone who has as widely an encompassing belief of what *should* be none of the government's *or* society's business [generally defined by me as either liberals who presume to know what I *should* do or conservatives who presume to know what I *shouldn't* do]. And these "god given...." things just *smack* and *drip* about what others *presume*.

If one wishes to denounce society, I have no quibble with it. I just find it the height of hypocrisy to "denounce" something one remains within.

An observation: One of the advocates in this thread of the Freeman way is living off of Social Security disability payments. Society, and those who are "slaves" to it, are paying his way and yet he is denouncing that very society's rules and laws.

Natural Law is a law of nature that covers man and nature in a state of nature. Once a person cloaks himself/herself in society, that person no longer exists in a "state of nature."

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Sorry. There is no way he could have "asserted a fundamental US Code Right."

Our intrepid young crusader for the cause of the common man was in CANADA. Although not clear in the OP, I found the department he dealt with.
www.youtube.com...

A slightly different outcome. Sorry, don't know how to embed vid on ATS.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. The patch on the officer's jacket said "London", which, unless I miss my guess, is in Ontario, Canada. They sure weren't Bobbies.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Natural Law is a law of nature that covers man and nature in a state of nature. Once a person cloaks himself/herself in society, that person no longer exists in a "state of nature."

I would dispute that as being a choice that you could make, or that you could choose not to make.

You know, if we followed nature a little more, imagine how much better off we could be? Houses, for example....where else in nature do you see structures that come up in square, rectilinear shapes? And the way we construct them? If we want a cool, stable temperature, why are we not building underground?

Us ignoring natural law, thinking that we can live on this planet outside of nature, is the very definition of hubris. There is nothing in history that would intimate that we, a species of this planet, would already be wise enough to second guess it using our own logic, instead of the logic contained within the laws governing the planet...natural law.

Societal inclinations are part of who we are. Our nation was founded on principles put in place by the Indians in the northeast. The things we chose to ignore are concepts that have stolen liberty. Things like land ownership. etc. It was a culture that made every attemnpt to understand the laws of nature, and to live within them, and while respecting them.

The greatest minds of human history...mental giants like Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates...they all had a belief that observing nature was the key to discovering the way to live. This was the basis of the teachings of these great men, and the basis of the esoteric teachings of The mysteries. It is the concept that gave Bacon the impetus to write The New Atlantis. And the secret behind the greatest scientific breakthroughs.

Natural law is the only way to live, peacefully and while eliminating strife.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Natural Law is a law of nature that covers man and nature in a state of nature. Once a person cloaks himself/herself in society, that person no longer exists in a "state of nature."

I would dispute that as being a choice that you could make, or that you could choose not to make.

You know, if we followed nature a little more, imagine how much better off we could be? Houses, for example....where else in nature do you see structures that come up in square, rectilinear shapes? And the way we construct them? If we want a cool, stable temperature, why are we not building underground?

See. You interject what you believe is the "right" way we, the collective we, should live. What if my idea of ideal was to live in as artificial and aseptic environment as I could possibly construct? What if 90% percent of the world's population agreed with me? More importantly, what if *no one* agreed with me? Would I still be *allowed* under this Natural Law system?

Us ignoring natural law, thinking that we can live on this planet outside of nature, is the very definition of hubris. There is nothing in history that would intimate that we, a species of this planet, would already be wise enough to second guess it using our own logic, instead of the logic contained within the laws governing the planet...natural law.

I disagree with your premise. I am a *part* of nature, being 100% natural with no artificial "bits" accrued [as yet ]. How can I be a *part* of nature, being a natural organism, and a product of nature, and be "outside of nature," as if I could actually divorce myself from being a natural organism?

Societal inclinations are part of who we are. Our nation was founded on principles put in place by the Indians in the northeast. The things we chose to ignore are concepts that have stolen liberty. Things like land ownership. etc. It was a culture that made every attemnpt to understand the laws of nature, and to live within them, and while respecting them.

Forgive me this bit of "quibbling," but are you not presuming to say how we should all live? What you propose as your vision of perfection is, in all sincerity, a harsh and brutal - short lived - life. One I wish NO part of, that you very much.

I have a lot of free time because of my "buying into" my society's division of labors. I do not have to provide for everything I utilize and enjoy by the sweat of my brow and exertion of my muscle. I do not have to draw my own well water, chop my own wood, hunt my own food, grow my own crops, tan my own leather, weave my own cloth, sew my own clothing, cobble my own shoes, etc., etc. And I am profoundly *grateful* for it.

The greatest minds of human history...mental giants like Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates...they all had a belief that observing nature was the key to discovering the way to live. This was the basis of the teachings of these great men, and the basis of the esoteric teachings of The mysteries. It is the concept that gave Bacon the impetus to write The New Atlantis. And the secret behind the greatest scientific breakthroughs.

Yes. Technically true. But these great men you list had no other means of understanding beside passive observation. Do you honestly think, really, that Pythagoras would not have hitched a ride on one of the shuttle missions to space if he had had the opportunity? Do you honestly believe these great men [and they truly were] would have restricted themselves to "passive observation" had they had a alternative route to understanding?

Natural law is the only way to live, peacefully and while eliminating strife.

You seem to be extremely intelligent and very thoughtful. I cannot credit the image of such a person, intelligent and thoughtful, believing that nature is *peaceful* and *without strife*. Goodness... our closest "cousins," the great apes, are extremely violent, territorial, and situationally cannibalistic. THAT'S "Nature" for you.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

See. You interject what you believe is the "right" way we, the collective we, should live. What if my idea of ideal was to live in as artificial and aseptic environment as I could possibly construct? What if 90% percent of the world's population agreed with me? More importantly, what if *no one* agreed with me? Would I still be *allowed* under this Natural Law system?

Why would you NOT be "allowed" that? In your statement, YOU have constructed your environment. Why should anyone else be allowed to regulate what you can and cannot do with your own creation?

Regarding the "collective we", you've no doubt already noticed my signature. Let's not, however, confuse 'society', or 'A society' with a government instituted to promote it's own version of 'the collective' by abrogating the rights of the individuals that make up society at large. In other words, lets not confuse 'society' with 'government'. While they may have certain points of intersection, and certain points of friction, they are not the same thing. It may just be a matter of semantics. While I view a 'society' as a COLLECTION (of individuals), governing entities, unrestrained, tend towards viewing society as a COLLECTIVE, and subvert individuality and liberty thereto.

Forgive me this bit of "quibbling," but are you not presuming to say how we should all live? What you propose as your vision of perfection is, in all sincerity, a harsh and brutal - short lived - life. One I wish NO part of, that you very much.

But should those who don't mind such an existence, as the price for their individual liberty, be denied it by your sort of society? Myself, for example - I noticed quite some time ago that no one gets out of this life alive. I, for one, am absolutely unwilling to extend life at the price of servitude. Should I be forced by your "collective 'we'" to forego my inclinations, and subsume into the collective? If so, how does that differ, in your mind, from the other way around - you being forced into MY existence? Should each not be allowed to live in what he can (and desires to - for I CAN do a considerable number of things I have no DESIRE to do) build?

I have a lot of free time because of my "buying into" my society's division of labors. I do not have to provide for everything I utilize and enjoy by the sweat of my brow and exertion of my muscle. I do not have to draw my own well water, chop my own wood, hunt my own food, grow my own crops, tan my own leather, weave my own cloth, sew my own clothing, cobble my own shoes, etc., etc. And I am profoundly *grateful* for it.

See, this is where we begin mixing 'society' and government up. 'Society', as a collection of individuals, provides these things, which I tend towards not taking full advantage of as a personal choice. Those things which I can do for myself, I do. The rest, I either take advantage of, and pay my way to do so, or live without. 'Government', on the other hand, increasingly exists to perpetuate itself, at the expense of that society, that collection of individuals.

Government is increasingly becoming a parasite on society. A certain degree of governance is of course necessary, but when it gets to the unwieldy degree of restriction we have now, making laws simply to justify it's own existence, or to further fleece the society it lives off of, then there is a problem developing. This is why, so far, no government has lasted forever. It always increases itself to the point that it collapses under it's own weight, and the ire of the individuals it seeks to subjugate.