It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

page: 16
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





however, someone in your Freeman anarchy society could easily give your name as his, escape from the non custody in your society, and the lack of authorities would go after you. You might be held liable for the crime, and be judged by a jury of your piers guilty.


Your hypothetical can not even begin to match the horror story I have experienced in reality when a roommate who left myself and another roommate stuck with paying his portion of back rent, stole my Social Security Number. I did not know he did this until roughly nine months later when I received a bill from the phone company threatening to turn off my phone if I did not pay them the amount of over $1000 they claimed I owed them.

I called the phone company and told them they made a mistake. They asked me if I was, (real name here), and then asked if my, (Social Security Number here), and I said yes. They then asked if my address was, (address here), of which I said no. They then told me that I had put a phone in my name at, (a residential address, but the phone was a business phone account), I assured them I never did any such thing, and told them that my address was the address they sent the bill to.

To make a long story short, it took some investigation on my part, but I discovered that the address where this business phone was put in under my name was rented by my ex-roommate, who had moved on owing the land lord money in back rent. I had to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to get my Social Security Number changed, and there was no remedy or any opportunity for a redress of grievances. Further, I was held liable not just for that phone bill, but my ex-roommate had used my name and Social Security for a few other things as well, of which I discovered when I decided to have a credit check done.

Because there was no opportunity for a redress of grievances, and because my ex-roommate has never been convicted for this crime, (although the last time I checked, the police told me they thought he was living in another state), I began looking into the law and how such a thing could work against me the way it did. I have learned much since that time, not only about Social Security Numbers, but drivers licenses and other licensing schemes.

While this experience may give you a feeling of vindication in terms of how you view people, I have had many roommates in my lifetime, and while they weren't all angels, this was the only criminal I had an experience with. He did not take my Social Security Number because I trusted him, and I assure you, long before he moved out he had removed all doubt in to who he was, I did not trust him at all. I can only guess as to how he got my Social Security Number, which my guess was he sneaked into my room and took the information from my wallet, but this didn't happen because I was "too trusting" of this clown.

Your arguments just don't hold water:




Also onto the basic point of this thread, without licensing, how would one be determined competent to drive? What about DUIs? Obviously because you are in transit and not actually driving, you couldn't possibly get a DUI, you therefore under this Freeman anarchy society would open up the flood gates for every would be drunk in the world to get tanked in a bar and go out mowing down people and smashing into other cars with zero liability at all.


The level of incompetency of drivers in the city I live in is astounding. I know several people who have drivers license that are terrible drivers and a few I refuse to ride with as a passenger when they are driving. In fact, I know a girl who anytime we go somewhere in her car, she has to relinquish the keys and allow me to drive because I am not willing to ride with her as a passenger. She is always glad to do so, because what makes her such as bad driver is she loves to talk, and feels compelled to look at who she is talking to, which does not work at all when she is driving. Of course, she often gets mad at me for my terseness and reticence to talk back when I am driving. Sigh.

The question of DUI brings up another point. Driving under the influence is not a crime per se, and cannot be a crime until a victim is presented. However, reasonable people are always willing to consider the prudence of an act, and it is reasonable to suggest that driving drunk is a really bad idea, but drivers licenses do nothing to prevent this, and there are thousands upon thousands of people who have been caught driving drunk that had a license, and when there license is revoked, many get caught driving drunk still. So again, you necessarily have to ignore these facts in order to make your argument. Facts are not your favorite bits of data are they?




So it boils down to that your freeman anarchy society is a freeman anarchy zero liability society . (FAZLS) Where everyone can do as they please, with no repercussions, zero liability, no identification, and nothing anyone can do about anything.


There you go with the deceptions again, but in fairness to you I have read and seen some crazy Youtube video's with people claiming to not be subject to laws. If there is legislation that acts to abrogate and derogate a persons right, then no one is subject to those statutes or codes, whether they claim freeman status or not, as the legislation itself is illegal, but all people are subject to law, whether they like it or not. We are as subject to the law of murder as we are to the law of gravity. Possessing a state sanctioned id does not change that, and not possessing one doesn't change it either.




So it boils down to that your freeman anarchy society is a freeman anarchy zero liability society . (FAZLS) Where everyone can do as they please, with no repercussions, zero liability, no identification, and nothing anyone can do about anything.


I am beginning to think you think you would make a good politician because of your persistence in repeating falsehoods over and over again. I am not of the mind that politicians who persist in repeating falsehoods are good politicians. Your zero liability game is your game, and while it may also be the game of crackpots who claim this zero liability, it is a crackpots game whether it is you playing it, or them. You are no different from them in this regard. People are liable for exactly what they are liable for, and not a thing more. If a person murders someone they hare liable to the law, if a person acts on a right, and has not signed any contract waiving that right, they do not have any liability to so called "laws" that require a signature on a contract in order to be liable. That my friend is the law, and has nothing to do with freeman movements, and certainly not anarchy.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


As you can plainly see by your own example a FAZLS does not work at all even in such a small group as your own house. There will always be those that will take advantage of trust and because you trusted, you got violated.

And while you are correct that licenses do not do anything to prevent crime, that isn't their purpose either. The drivers license only purpose is to show that you have basic knowledge of how to operate a motor vehicle, the other thing they do is provide positive identification.

In your FAZLS it would be that much easier for a would be bad roommate to assume your identity, because without any identification whatsoever you can assume the identity of anyone you wish. Without the basic ability for any law enforcement officers to determine positive id, there is no real way to convict anyone if they commit a crime.

I know, your going to go back and argue that there are no crimes and no one can possibly do anything that is a crime because of natural law prevents anyone from committing a crime, but you also disprove that by citing as an example your roommate who stole your identity.






[edit on 6/28/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





As you can plainly see by your own example a FAZLS does not work at all even in such a small group as your own house. There will always be those that will take advantage of trust and because you trusted, you got violated.


First of all, this acronym you are using is new to me, is this your invention? Secondly, the example I gave illustrates all that is wrong with the system you are advocating. Had I not had a Social Security Number to begin with the identity theft I suffered from could never have happened. Further, where I insisted I did not trust this guy, you turn around and insist on framing it as if I did trust him. I moved into this apartment as the third roommate so it was not as if I trusted this guy and had him move in with me, I moved in to an apartment he and the other occupied. Do you do that on purpose, and willfully misrepresent what others write?




And while you are correct that licenses do not do anything to prevent crime, that isn't their purpose either. The drivers license only purpose is to show that you have basic knowledge of how to operate a motor vehicle, the other thing they do is provide positive identification.


www.bodyshopbusiness.com...

This next link is particularly telling on how wrong you are:

www.dds.ga.gov...


The State of Georgia considers dangerous, negligent, or incompetent drivers to be a menace to the safety of the general public; therefore, you must not abuse your privilege to drive or you may lose it. As long as you remain a resident of Georgia, your driving record will be on file with the Department of Driver Services.


And here is how they deal with dangerous, negligent, or incompetent drivers:


Reckless Driving 4 points

Unlawful passing school bus 6 points

Improper passing on hill or curve 4 points

Speeding 15 mph but less than 19 mph 19 mph but less than 24 mph 24 mph but less than 34 mph 34 mph or more 2 points 3 points 4 points 6 points

Disobedience of any traffic-control device or traffic officer 3 points

Possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage while driving 2 points

Failure to adequately secure a load 2 points

All other moving violations 3 points

Child restraint - 1st offense 1 point Child restraint - 2nd and subsequent offense 2 points

Aggressive driving (A conviction of aggressive driving by a person under 21 years of age will result in a suspension of the driver's license.) 6 points

HOV lane violation - 4th and subsequent offense.


Clearly from this we can see that not only do drivers licenses fail to keep incompetent drivers off of the roads, but the point system indicates a level of tolerance for incompetent drivers.

www.drdriving.org...

And consider this, from this link:

www.voluntaryist.com...


Although there is no comprehensive history of the establishment of automobile drivers licenses, personal anecdotes, government legislative records, and histories of the automobile offer many details about early licenses. (By a drivers license, I refer to the requirement that motor vehicle drivers have a valid, state-issued piece of paper in order to legally drive; and by driver license examination, I mean the operator has passed a state-administered written and/or oral test about driving rules, a vision test, and a state-administered driving test proving his skills.) One thing is clear from the historical record: While the justification for government licensing of automobile operators was sometimes a safety issue, in a majority of the states, driver competency examinations were not imposed until years after the initial licensing regulations were adopted.


and from the same link:


Our contemporary belief that drivers licenses were instituted to keep incompetent drivers off the road is a false one. The vast majority of Americans who drove already knew how to drive safely. Why the state governments demanded that they have a state-issued license and pass a government test appears to be more a matter of "control" than of public safety. Why early 20th Century Americans did not resist licensure and did not see where it might lead is another question.


And particularly pay attention to this from that link:


As the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety noted in February 1968:

... the average adult American citizen [has] more direct dealings with government through licensing and regulation of the automobile than through any other single public activity. Not all of these dealings [are] especially uplifting, and some [have] acquired implications all the more ominous because they so quickly came to be regarded as natural. Thus in the course of the regulation of highway traffic, the incidence of arrest [for violation of motor vehicle laws] by armed police in the United States has undoubtedly reached the highest point for any civilization, democratic or totalitarian, in recorded history. While ours is assuredly a free society, it has nonetheless become commonplace for an American citizen to be arrested by an armed officer of the law. Indeed, so frequent have such arrests become - in 1965 the California Highway Patrol alone made 1 million - that experience has ceased to be regarded for what it is at law and has come to be looked on as a rather routine accompaniment of modern life. One may well question whether the instincts of a free people will not one day be impaired by the habit of being arrested without protest; certainly the pervasiveness of automobile-related regulatory activity is a matter about which we must all agree.





In your FAZLS it would be that much easier for a would be bad roommate to assume your identity, because without any identification whatsoever you can assume the identity of anyone you wish. Without the basic ability for any law enforcement officers to determine positive id, there is no real way to convict anyone if they commit a crime.


In this hypothetical you just presented I would have been much better off as I could easily prove I never lived at the residence of which the phone company claimed I ordered a phone. The phone company was able to destroy my credit based on a Social Security Number system, and their insistence that it didn't matter that I never lived at the residence of which this debt was incurred, all that mattered was that it was incurred under my Social Security Number. Further, you are way off base with the contention that there is no way to convict someone of a crime without id, that contention is ludicrous. So, once again you are wrong. Do you like being wrong all the time?




I know, your going to go back and argue that there are no crimes and no one can possibly do anything that is a crime because of natural law prevents anyone from committing a crime, but you also disprove that by citing as an example your roommate who stole your identity.


See? You do this intentionally, don't you? It doesn't matter how many times I say that if there is a victim, then there is crime, you will proudly lie, and insist I have made some other argument, but the fact remains, I keep insisting that crimes have victims, and if there is a victim, there is a crime. Your level of comprehension is tragically inept.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Freeman Anarchist Zero Liability Society (FAZLS or fassls if you prefer) Yep an invention all my own to describe this nonsense and at the same time try and stave off the carpel tunnel syndrome I will undoubtedly get for having to write all that out over and over again.

Now, what you want is a society devoid of any identification whatsoever. You see that the only crimes in existence has a victim. Am I correct?

Now, as far as your first link goes, how odd, now you are saying that we need some sort of system to track drivers records, is that correct? Everyone starts on an equal footing, and through their behavior, the state determines whether or not someone can drive? Do I understand you correctly?

Now in a society devoid of any identification whatsoever, how on earth would the state be able to track how well or how poorly someone drives?

Obviously we cannot trust that the person will be honest when giving their name after an infraction, and the authorities won't have any recourse but to accept whatever bs name the person gives as their own identity.

Of course there will be no infractions because in the FAZLS land, no victim, no crime, which means that there are no driving infractions either, as long as you don't wreck into another car or kill someone it's all good. So speeding through residential zones, blowing through red lights, street racing, all good according to the FAZLS ideology.

I am just showing you how flawed this FAZLS argument really is. A country without any form of identification especially when there are this many people in the country offers no hope of keeping people honest.

Let's not forget that in a society that has no identification, how are you going to make sure that the people in your society are legal citizens? Can you give the argument that all people who enter your society belong there? The people that are against illegal immigration may have some issue with your plan to remove all identification from the people. Thereby legitimizing absolutely every previously illegal alien, some may have a problem with that.

And what about hotels? Are you presuming that when I check someone in that they will give me their honest name? There honest address? Do I take their word for it when they hand over their credit card that it's actually theirs and not some schmuck they just mugged? I mean cmon, this entire FAZLS idea is completely pie eyed and makes the assumption that everyone is always on the up and up about everything.

[edit on 6/28/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





Now, what you want is a society devoid of any identification whatsoever. You see that the only crimes in existence has a victim. Am I correct?


Thank you Wuk for attempting to understand what I am saying, you are correct on the second point, but not on the first. I do not argue for a world devoid of identification what-so-ever, I argue against the imposition of identification as "law", and even a passport, of which functions as identification and is necessary to travel across the world, should not be imposed as some sort of fiat national id, and yet, as far as id's go, the passport is a better route than the efforts by Congress to nationalize state id driver's licenses. In fact, that Congress is attempting to do this only underscores how much those licenses are about control, and have nothing to do with the competency of a driver.




Now, as far as your first link goes, how odd, now you are saying that we need some sort of system to track drivers records, is that correct? Everyone starts on an equal footing, and through their behavior, the state determines whether or not someone can drive? Do I understand you correctly?


No that is not correct, I did not provide those links to advocate any tracking system what-so-ever, but merely to refute your claim that drivers licenses are to ensure competent drivers. They are not and accomplish no such thing. You do not understand me correctly, and I do not at all advocate the state determining who can and cannot drive. As I have consistently stated, a crime only exists when there is a victim. If that victim became so due to someone's driving, then and only then should the state step in and act. To act prior to the crime, based upon an assumption that a crime might happen is not a function of the government, only to act once a crime has been committed.




Now in a society devoid of any identification whatsoever, how on earth would the state be able to track how well or how poorly someone drives?


Again, it is not the responsibility of the state to determine how poorly someone drives, and given they license so many poor drivers, it is arguable they lack the ability to make such a determination anyway. Further, I fail to see how identification would give the state any ability to make this determination anyway. The way to determine a persons ability to drive is to witness that ability first hand. Licenses do not speak to a person's ability to drive, and really only speak to a persons ability to stand in line for hours on end before they finally walk up to the counter to be abused by some civil servant, and I use the term servant loosely here.




Obviously we cannot trust that the person will be honest when giving their name after an infraction, and the authorities won't have any recourse but to accept whatever bs name the person gives as their own identity.


There is nothing at all obvious about what you are arguing. Some people can be trusted, some cannot, but a licensing scheme does nothing to make people that cannot be trusted any more trustworthy. Your argument is essentially, (and it should be noted that it tends to change), that we need to have drivers licensed so that traffic courts can be assured those charged with a violation will appear. I wonder if you've ever been to a traffic court? If you have perhaps you have noticed that there is no prosecuting attorney there, and it is the judge that acts as both prosecutor and judge. There is no court stenographer to make the proceedings a matter of public record, there is simply a judge who acts as both prosecutor and judge, and this is not due process of law.

I'll tell you what Wuk, I'll agree to identification for the purposes of driving if you agree that we need to overhaul the system, and instead of licenses being issued, since licenses is a grant to do something that would otherwise be illegal, we have simply identification cards issued that acknowledge that all people have the right to drive but that reasonable people have agreed an identification process is necessary in order to ensure traffic violations are taken seriously. Then any violation written up as a charge, gets sent to the district attorney's office where that D.A. has discretion to either drop the charges or pursue them, and finally when appearing in court, depending upon the fine, and if that fine is over a certain amount, the defendant has a right to a jury, and certainly assistance of counsel, and the judge acts solely as a judge, not as both a prosecutor and judge, and finally that there is a court stenographer available to make the proceedings a matter of public record.

If you can agree on that, I can agree on identification that is not a license, but merely identification, and any registration process should not demand that the owner of a vehicle surrender the bill of sale in exchange for a title, allowing the DMV possession of the bill of sale, but merely a registration of vehicle to facilitate the process of enforcing traffic violations. As that Handbook I suspect you still have refused to read explains, the purpose of traffic laws is to protect rights. A person who parks their car in a spot that blocks other peoples right of way is a violation of that right, and no person has a right to do that. So, yes as long as traffic laws are being enforced to protect rights, they are a good thing, but this is not what is happening in states today, and the licensing scheme has become a way to circumvent the due process of law, and this is inexcusable.




Of course there will be no infractions because in the FAZLS land, no victim, no crime, which means that there are no driving infractions either, as long as you don't wreck into another car or kill someone it's all good. So speeding through residential zones, blowing through red lights, street racing, all good according to the FAZLS ideology.


Well, so much for you trying to understand what I am arguing, right? There you go again making your wild ass claims, that have nothing to do with what I am arguing. As I have just stated above, a person who blocks the right of way with their vehicle creates victims, and thus, there is a crime. However, this does not justify tyranny of the state. Look, rape exists but at least at this point the state isn't insisting that all people get a license to have sex.




I am just showing you how flawed this FAZLS argument really is. A country without any form of identification especially when there are this many people in the country offers no hope of keeping people honest.


Well, since you invented FAZLS, and it is you making up all the rules of FAZLS, no one would no better the flaws of your own creation than you I guess, but FAZLS has nothing to do with reality, and I have all ready told you that I am not a part of the freeman movement, nor am I an anarchist, so if you ever find any interest in actually arguing the points I am making feel free to do so, but so far you have spent several pages ignoring the points I make and instead are having an argument with FAZLS your own imaginary little friend there. The beauty of arguing with yourself is that you can never loose, the annoyance for me is that you keep pressing the reply button to my posts in order to have this argument with yourself. Sigh.




Let's not forget that in a society that has no identification, how are you going to make sure that the people in your society are legal citizens? Can you give the argument that all people who enter your society belong there? The people that are against illegal immigration may have some issue with your plan to remove all identification from the people.


Here is an interesting thing about this argument. On the one hand you keep attempting rights to be something that can only belong to a citizen, but it should be noted that you and I barely spoke to each other for a time because of a thread about the Arizona law of which you erroneously assumed I was in support of, and of course, you were attempting to heroically argue rights in that matter. This is your whimsical nature Wuk, when it serves your purpose to reduce rights to civil rights only belonging to citizens you make those arguments, but when it comes to "illegal immigrants" you suddenly change your stance and argue for natural rights.




And what about hotels? Are you presuming that when I check someone in that they will give me their honest name? There honest address? Do I take their word for it when they hand over their credit card that it's actually theirs and not some schmuck they just mugged? I mean cmon, this entire FAZLS idea is completely pie eyed and makes the assumption that everyone is always on the up and up about everything.


What about hotels? How did hotels manage to operate prior to licensing schemes? What difference does it make if the name given is honest or not?
I have seen countless movies made before drivers licenses was the norm where people checked in under aliases. Hotels, motels, and Inns have been around for quite some time Wuk. You're not going to argue that it wasn't a problem in the past because there was less people are you? A hotel is profitable by maximizing its occupancy. As to the whole question of knowing if a credit card actually belongs to the person giving it a hotel clerk is moot, as it is not a hotel clerks responsibility to make sure that some poor schmuck wasn't mugged. Certainly if a hotel clerk sees a mugging, there is some responsibility, but beyond that hotel clerks are not government agents tasked with spying on the public. Although, I suppose in your overactive imagination you fancy yourself the James Bond of hotel clerks.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You've based your entire argument against this perspective on falsehoods. Whether this is intentional or through an inability to understand the subject matter, I don't know.

Freemen are governed by the COMMON LAW. Thus meaning causing harm, loss (through theft etc) or committing fraud in your contracts is still against the "LAW". How exactly does this equate to a lawless society?

In a common law jurisidiction, everyone has the right to withold contract. Why then, are we bound by an organisation (government) that creates its own legal system seperate from the common law? You're not unless you contract with them.

Statutory legislation (Acts/Statutes) are legislatory, meaning consent only, through contracts.

I find when trying to explain this perspective to people, they instinctively focus on certain issues like "OMG no ID?!" and "so you don't have a drivers license??" when it is about so much more than just those tiny little points.

IT IS ABOUT YOUR RIGHT TO BE FREE AND NOT CONTRACT WITH ANY ORGANISATION/INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

The fact that driving ("driving" is a commercial term that doesn't encompass private travel) without a government-sponsored license comes of this is just an issue that can and should be addressed. However that can be done AFTER we release ourselves from these imaginary chains placed on us by words with double-meanings and silver-tongued politicians.

So in short; please stop arguing a strawman. It is not "lawless" by any stretch of the imagination.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I've been away for a couple of days and I must say the post got a little more attention than I expected.. You're saying I can travel with my own 2 feet? Well, I know that jaywalking is a crime? What of that? No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do as long as I dont harm anyone. It's all about peace, love and compassion. I'm not consenting to be governed by an oppressive government that doesnt even follow it's own foolish laws. How is it if you have diplomatic immunity, you can get away with anything? How is that person worth more than any one else?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

however, someone in your Freeman anarchy society could easily give your name as his, escape from the non custody in your society, and the lack of authorities would go after you. You might be held liable for the crime, and be judged by a jury of your piers guilty.


Wuk, your misdirected attacks on those folks tell me two things: 1) that you have NO understanding of their movement, and can't be bothered to research it, and 2) have an abject fear of liberty in others, and so by extension you don't trust YOURSELF with liberty, either. You see, to the rest of us, you ARE one of those 'others' who can't be trusted to enjoy freedom responsibly.

You demonstrate a lack of understanding of these 'freemen' by making the attacks that it's a 'lawless' society, without repercussions. That is absolutely untrue, as you would know if you could be troubled to educate yourself about what you attack, before you attack it. From all that I've been able to find on the subject, these freemen are far and away OVERLY legalistic. They obey laws, from what I can find, that don't even EXIST. One is the odd reverence and stress on funny name spellings. I've yet to find a legal basis for that. Nothing to indicate the mythos which has been built around it has any sort of factual basis. Another is this notion that birth certificates are bought and sold as if they were living slaves, and that somehow living people are responsible for the 'actions' of those fictional characters. I've read the claim in place after place, but no one can direct me to a basis for those strange assumptions in law.

I would think that you would have better luck attacking there, than in attacking against a fictional 'lawlessness', and putting YOURSELF in the category of making it up as you go along, as they appear to have been doing. The argumentum ad absurtio is wearing thin.

The fact that instead you feel a drive to attack freedom itself as 'lawlessness' rather than the people promoting a false sense of freedom by hiding behind apparently non-existent laws and convoluted misunderstandings of laws and non-laws.

Convoluted misunderstandings... precisely like the notions that murderers are only breaking civil law or contract law (which is what this movement is for the most part all about), and are somehow apprehended by a piece of cardstock engaged in a licensing and taxation scheme.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Freeman Anarchist Zero Liability Society (FAZLS or fassls if you prefer) Yep an invention all my own to describe this nonsense and at the same time try and stave off the carpel tunnel syndrome I will undoubtedly get for having to write all that out over and over again.


Not to mention that by using this acronym, you mask the fact that you are accusing these folks of being anarchistic and zero-liability, neither of which they are. It's more difficult to argue against masked facts, since the majority of people loose knowledge of what the facts are over time. Every politician I've ever met is acutely aware of that fact, and always applies it to his own advantage, and the detriment of society.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I know y'all hate the idea that you are actually responsible for your actions. And all this Freeman garbage is, is bull [snip] designed to try and fool people into thinking they can go ahead and do whatever they want and they can just use doublespeak to tell the authorities that they don't have to be responsible for their actions.

By sitting there and saying, "I don't have to have a state issued drivers license to drive a car because I am just traveling". All you are doing is avoiding responsibility for your actions.

By saying that you don't have to accept the courts decision because "that is a contract and you don't have to agree with a contract", all you are doing is avoiding responsibility for your actions.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Either way, whatever you believe doesnt change the fact. You are mixing up "legal and illegal" with "Lawfull and Unlawfull" Living proof that ignorance is bliss and the greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


You know, I tend towards "rule following" myself. However, I am very sympathetic to their cause, and I admire their dedication to freedom even though I am not so bold and knowledgeable myself about how to extricate myself from this mess we have allowed to enslave us.

If you have any doubt that you are condsidered a piece of property, or an asset of your nation, try to emigrate to England. What they are doing is deciding whether or not you are worth allowing into their country as an asset. It is essentially a acquisition. (I know because I had a very good friend try to emigrate to England, as one of his parents was English and he had family there.)

Its rather a rather dehumanizing procedure, where you are considered from an economic angle almost entirely. Are you an educated slave? A young one? Healthy? It was rather enlightening, for me.

I am for the Freemen, personally. I dont feel at all like they are freeloading off other people, I feel that other people are being freeloaded off by our "betters" and when some escape, we are like crabs in a bucket trying to pull them back into the bucket with us from envy.

We resent the conditions we are in, but we resent those who escape them to any degree even more. The solution seems to me not to enslave them again, but to seek greater freedom ourselves. If we dare.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by Grossac
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A. 2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle' 251 P. 120.

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile’.” City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 N.E. 2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in United State Code, Title 18, §31:

“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.


Title 56 - Motor Vehicles

CHAPTER 3.

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING

ARTICLE 1.

SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS

SECTION 56-3-10. Short title.

This chapter shall be known and cited as the "South Carolina Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing Act."

SECTION 56-3-20. Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:

(1) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

(2) "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self- propelled, except mopeds, and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails.


(3) "Motorcycle" means every motorcycle having no more than two permanent functional wheels in contact with the ground or trailer and having a saddle for the use of the rider, but excluding a tractor.

(4) "Motor-driven cycle" means every motorcycle, including every motor scooter, with a motor which produces not to exceed five horsepower.

...definitions continue at link.

ARTICLE 3.

REGISTRATION AND LICENSING GENERALLY

SECTION 56-3-110. Vehicles required to be registered and licensed.

Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer and special mobile equipment vehicle driven, operated or moved upon a highway in this State shall be registered and licensed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to drive, operate or move upon a highway or for the owner knowingly to permit to be driven, operated or moved upon a highway any such vehicle which is not registered and licensed and the required fee paid as provided for in this chapter.

Continues at link.


Are you a cop by any chance, a lawyer perhaps?


In a "previous life," yes.




What you aren't getting is the FACT you have a CHOICE to
either contract with the DMV (or) NOT contract with them.

IF you do contract (and it sounds like you DO)
you WILL be bound to their codes, statutes...

Please do not mince words.
Codes and statues are NOT law, nor are they lawful.


It is truly saddening that you choose to argue, use archaic/childish tones
in each of your posts to convey truths YOU think are accurately implemented
and more importantly: Constitutional.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 



Not being familiar with SC laws and just skimming through the link you posted here is one out right here and there is probably others but I don't have time to go through it all. When you buy a new car the Dealer usually sends the MCO (Manufacturers Certificate of Origin) to the county or state where the car is to be registered. Then they issue a certificate of Title. Note a certificate of title is not the title it is a document stating there is a title. The real proof of ownership is the MCO. So who hold the MCO now? The County. So you are given permission to drive THEIR vehicle as long as you follow their rules. The Key is to get the MCO. Then you are not subject to the corporate rules. IOW if they do not have the MCO they cannot issue a COT because they do not have jurisdiction unless you voluntarily give it to them.

If the car is used then there are procedures you can go through to get the car out of the system but you are dealing with ignorant brainwashed bureaucrats so it can be a lot of work, and of course having no license plates or unusual license plates makes you a magnet for getting pulled over. Some people choose to do it on principle and have been quite successful. It depends on your area also some areas of more tolerant then others but it can be done by anyone who is determined and willing to preserver.


No. You just have to take the proper documentation to the highway department and show that it exists and is in order.

Both of our vehicles are paid in full and we "own the titles" for each. Should we sell one of them, say for $1.00, the new owner would own the vehicle and the title. He would then take that title to the Dept of Motor Vehicles proving ownership, along with proof of having paid the taxes, or current taxes on a license plate his is simply transferring to his brand new $1.00 vehicle, and of course, proof of insurance. The state does not maintain any of these documents, nor "own" them in any way. Showing proof that they exist and are in order is all that is required.

Restating: Have a free and clear title does not magically allow you to operate your paid for private property on the public roadways without having the proper license.



If you *think* you own your car...
Why do you pay a registration fee (EACH YEAR???)
Once a vehicle is registered, it is done.

You are paying it because you are allowed to drive it, while the silent
co-owner (the state) gives you permission to.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbereply to


I conscientiously advocate and *work*, and financially support efforts to advocate and ensure the ideals America was founded upon. It's *easy* to complain in an anonymous internet forum and fantasize about being a "free anarchist." It's a whole other world to put your *face*, *name*, *reputation*, and *money* to guard our rights. I know what I do.... what do YOU do?



You only think you are.
Your arrogance in most of your posts seem to purport you are
a *man* in that you put your face, name and reputation (and money)
to guard our rights when in TRUTH the only thing you've done is perpetuate a
system designed to enslave us, and our rights...


Nobody needs to dignify your questions with a response.
WE all pay taxes;

Sales Tax, Property Tax (this one is illegal)
Fishing, marriage, cigarettes, alcohol, tolls....(and MANY more)
are ways the state/federal gov't received monies to pay for
-the military
-infrastructure
-schools/education
-every other *ideal* you feel you are a major contributor to.


Being anonymous is EVERYONE'S right.
You keep being an ignorant slave sir...

I have no issue with that.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


I was not directing that to you I was directing the question to Grossac who has consistently told me that *I* have not either engaged in my freedoms or defended them. When one makes that sort of challenge, let alone both, one should be willing to step up and *say* what the challenger has done.



One who is so bold as to demand information as the type you've
demanded should have the integrity to ALSO post the same information
of himself.

The fact you see it as a challenge conveys your mental limitations
to think outside of the proverbial box. This isn't a personal issue.

If I were you I'd try NOT to associate myself with my beLIEfs.
Unless you feel they define you?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
To get a license you have to know the rules and know how to drive. If you go by the logic of some of the people here then just because there is roads blind people and others who shouldn't drive can hop into a car and go for a joyride. Not to mention go against the mutually agreed rules on the road.



Incorrect.

To get a license (from the state or other entity that does not have authority over you) you have to know THEIR rules and know how to operate an automobile.

A Free-man knows he can do (almost) whatever he pleases so long as
he does NOT infringe upon someone else's rights, which means damaging someone else's property, or harming another (see natural laws)

Since it is obvious the speed limits were created for each road/highway...
and regardless of what each individual deems as *safe* where speed is concerned... if most cars on the highway are averaging 65-70 would it be intelligent to travel 90+ around these cars?


This is why common sense is a requisite and why
I feel the truly bad people of society wouldn't have the fortutude
to actually read and research the matter just so they could claim their
sovereignty and drive however they pleased in the name of being free.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Forgive me if this was covered in the last few pages; I've only read up to page 12 so far.

If the legal definition of driving means being used for commercial purposes, then a Freeman can't "travel" to work in a car; he'd be "driving". Also, what about "travelling" to the gas station or supermarket?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dlifesjrny
 


Forget about the "Driving-Travelling". You can take your car out as long as you are not using it for business. You're not making money with it... Not tax deductible. Ex Taxi, Truck driver etc. You're not making money GOING to work, but when you ARE at work.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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.



It doesn't matter that you don't believe in *their* god...
As it is, every American born HAS rights endowed by their CREATOR.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join