Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So in other words, you have no freaking idea. If you don't have any idea, just say so, it's ok. I don't know everything either.

But instead of just saying that you don't know, you took the opportunity to once again indulge in buffoonery reminiscent of endisnighe.

[edit on 7/5/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

So in other words, you have no freaking idea. If you don't have any idea, just say so, it's ok. I don't know everything either.

This is precisely the kind of lying you engage in that I am talking about. I have spent pages explaining jurisdictional boundaries, providing examples of case law that explains clearly what happens when jurisdiction has been challenged, explaining the difference between contract law, and criminal law, and no matter how much credit I give you, no matter how hard I try to explain it as if you truly want to understand, you continue to play this "in other words" game.

The fact of the matter is that you have no freaking idea what you're talking about. You are afraid of freedom, and what's worse, it is not your own freedom you fear it is the freedom of others that scares the crap out of you. No matter how many members enter this thread to defend the guy in that video, both you and the other troll continue to insist that only you two have any authority on what is law, and both of you have for pages now demonstrated just how ignorant you both are of the law.

That you are so proud of your ignorance is shameful.

reply to post by whatukno


I have to agree with Jean Paul. It has been stated ad naseum why this is clearly not an anarchist group. You have made that claim over and over and it has been addressed and readdressed each and every time.

I am not familiar with the "group" that holds their own court however the fact that they do so would be evidence in and of itself that they are not an anarchist group.

I think those that have tried to explain the legal concepts that you clearly haven't grasped either don't have the ability to articulate in a way in which you can understand or maybe you just don't have the ability or don't want to understand.

Jurisdiction is a basic and fundamental legal concept. It is argued and challenged regularly (outside of the "freemen movement"). It doesn't make those that challenge jurisdiction anarchist. That idea is ridiculous.



[edit on 5-7-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by whatukno


There is no crime unless there is an injured party.
Break in your house= crime
Give you a good beating=crime
Steal from you= crime
Slash your tires= crime

Jaywalking = not a crime
Drinking under so called legal age = not a crime
Driving without a license= not a crime
Not paying income tax= not a crime (If you think it is, prove this one to me, show me the so called law that states we have to pay income tax)

reply to post by Grossac

Not paying income tax= not a crime (If you think it is, prove this one to me, show me the so called law that states we have to pay income tax)

OK here's the law, it's a Constitutional amendment.

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

www.archives.gov...

reply to post by whatukno


Dear God Wukky, you're ignorance knows no bounds. The 16th Amendment did not impose any new burden of taxation upon the people, and Congress all ready had the power to tax income prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment does not name any subject of tax, and is a response to the SCOTUS after Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. was ruled, that the entire income portion of Revenue Act of 1894 was struck down as being unconstitutional because the Pollock Court viewed that income tax as a direct tax on property without any apportionment.

The 16th Amendment was written to force future courts to view all income taxes without apportionment as an indirect tax and not a direct tax. An indirect tax is required by Constitution to be uniform across the states and of course, the so called "Personal Income Tax" is a uniform tax. Further, the 16th Amendment and its purpose was explained by two seminal Supreme Court Cases, (both of which I have all ready linked for you in a different thread months ago, clearly you ignored that then, and no doubt will ignore it now), those cases being; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., where both rulings made perfectly clear that Congress had not authorized themselves the power to pass a direct income tax on income without apportionment but instead prohibited the courts from viewing any non-apportioned income tax as a direct tax and must view it as an indirect tax not subject to the rule of apportionment.

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

...the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation...

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

The last quote is Chief Justice White explaining to Brushaber why his contention that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional is "wholly without foundation". Brushaber contended that the 16th Amendment was unconstitutional because he believed that the 16th Amendment was written to relieve Congress from the rule of apportionment in regards to income taxation. The SCOTUS is explaining that this is not what Congress did, but instead had the full on intention of "maintaining the limitations" imposed by the Constitution and "harmonizing their operation". Had Congress actually attempted to override the rule of apportionment this would have been a different story. As Chief Justice White explains it in what I all ready quoted above, I will repost it again, this time bolding a different portion:

...he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation...

The Amendment did not "overturn" the Pollock ruling:

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes

Chief Justice White actually explains the 16th Amendment better in the Stanton ruling that followed Brushaber:

by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged,

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Finally, there is this interesting little tidbit from The Congressional Record; Proceedings and Debates of the 78th Congress First Session, Volume 89--Part 2 (March 2, 1943, to April 5, 1943) on page 2580:

The income tax, is therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; It is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

Your bafoonery would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous, Wukky. I have never seen anyone as proud as their ignorance as you are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I know you just want me to agree with everything you say like a good little dog, but unfortunately I can't, it's just not in me to just go with the crowd no matter what that crowd is.

If you can't get that, then you should just put me on ignore and post your "I agree, down with government, rah!" posts with the other paranoid schizophrenics on here.

Just because YOU say that income tax is unconstitutional won't stop the IRS from garnishing your income in the event that you don't pay taxes. Sure you can get a lawyer and play their game and not pay as much tax, but there are two certainty in life, Death and Taxes.

reply to post by whatukno

Just because YOU say that income tax is unconstitutional won't stop the IRS from garnishing your income in the event that you don't pay taxes. Sure you can get a lawyer and play their game and not pay as much tax, but there are two certainty in life, Death and Taxes.

There you go again lying about what I have said, and completely ignoring the effort I just made in supplying case law that clearly explains the purpose of the 16th Amendment. I have never said the income tax is unconstitutional you fool. The two cases I linked, Brushaber and Stanton make perfectly clear that the 16th Amendment is Constitutional. It just doesn't do what you're claiming it does.

I could care less if you agree with me or not, the I.R.S. cannot garnish wages on an employee who has not signed any Form W-4 and did not supply his employer with a Social Security Number. This is what several people have been trying to explain to you about contract law.

I have no doubt that you are a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the tax code, because I have no doubt that you signed a Form W-4 and supplied your employer with a Social Security Number, and in doing so, you signed a contract authorizing your employer to withhold taxes from your paycheck, and I have no doubt that each year you file a "valid" tax return that is specifically addressed to "Dear Taxpayer" and that when you file this "valid" tax return that you sign under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct. Yet another contract you voluntarily signed and agreed to its terms.

However, just because you voluntarily signed a contract agreeing to be a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the tax code, does not give you the right to assess any other persons liability. You have no legal authority to do such a thing, and your ignorant and foolish opinion matters not in a court of law. So, keep on puffing and preening and pretending your opinions are more important than facts, it matters not to me, nor anyone else who understands the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse Wukky, and who the hell cares that you're a rebel who won't conform? So was Pee-Wee Herman.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So tell me, what did Al Capone get convicted of again?

reply to post by whatukno


So tell me, why was Nelson Rockefeller never convicted?

Originally posted 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.

I know I'm a month late. But it still has to be said. Any chance I can find I point this out.

You are correct, but you are also misinformed. Driving is not a right, however traveling in an automobile is. You would understand the difference if you looked up the legal definition of both driver and motor vehicle (explicitly commercial terms). So you are correct, commercial driving is not a right...

United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from state to state.

Our Constitutional rights are unalienable, meaning we do not need to license permission to exercise them.

The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City/State may prohibit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163.

And the one specifically referring to statutes for public safety, and why a person can't be arrested for violating a statute when there is no injured party.

For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

See this is how government works. We as Citizens grant the State certain powers. Anything not explicitly stated as being granted, is reserved by right to the people. And in turn the States with the power we granted them, grant the government certain powers and reserve those not enumerated.

Meaning, any power not specifically granted to government is reserved for the people.

So as we granted them no explicit authority to control travel, as it is a right we reserved. They have no lawful authority to place restrictions on it.


[edit on 1-8-2010 by mryanbrown]

Exactly so, this is basic Common Law and Constitution right here. Some just do not grasp the points and concepts of law, nor the application of it. They do not understand Corporate Law is not real law, and that a Statute is just a Corporate "Rule," and if you break the rule, you will pay a "fine," or suffer jail "time." And Jean Paul Zodeaux, friend, you are wasting your time on the guy, he refuses to understand. Tell them once and move on, you have a great deal to teach, and everyone needs to learn the laws. My motto? Know the Law, or be a Victim of the Law.

reply to post by autowrench


Thank you for the advice my friend, but as frustrating as Wukky can be to me, and I have no doubt I frustrate him as well, he is my friend too. I also see flashes of brilliance in Wukky, and I refuse to give up on him. I will, however, endeavor to spend less time banging my head against a wall, and just teach what I can, and learn what I can as well.

I have a feeling this is something that would do to have a nonprofit organization in every community.

Though I'm far more radical. Finecombing through laws, to see which ones these self appointed rulers have safeguarded for the people (but now are abused) is far less important to me than for us to fundamentally realize all these laws are crimes. They're slavery. Along with their banks and realtors.

I consider most of them to outrageous and a crime to support. I denounce our governments, and courthouses, they're fascist criminal. I have never and will never give them that authority of me, my children or any person, if they take that authority it is an act of violence akin to a psycho movie or Jack the Ripper.

I refuse to play games with termininology and forms. The terminology I will use is my own words, grass roots, with my defined meanings. I do not yeild my authority.

I want to get people awake, aware, denouncing all, and opting out of this criminal slave system, and taking back their inaleiable (my definition, don't need to see whats written or not written) rights to land and resources and recreate a just moneyless world, with volunteering and education, and everyone contributing to leadership with fast methods of removing someone who goofs up or acts in self interst controlling ways, like jury duty counsels.

That way if a group is fanatatical and unloving and actually believes in punitive versus healing, we can split and do our eutopia.

Nonetheless, this may be a first step of the way, because it gets people to think of the system they're in, but its far too complicated and legalistic, on both sides, even the freeman side.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Unity_99]

Originally posted by Unity_99
I have a feeling this is something that would do to have a nonprofit organization in every community.

Though I'm far more radical. Finecombing through laws, to see which ones these self appointed rulers have safeguarded for the people (but now are abused) is far less important to me than for us to fundamentally realize all these laws are crimes. They're slavery. Along with their banks and realtors.

I consider most of them to outrageous and a crime to support. I denounce our governments, and courthouses, they're fascist criminal. I have never and will never give them that authority of me, my children or any person, if they take that authority it is an act of violence akin to a psycho movie or Jack the Ripper.

I refuse to play games with termininology and forms. The terminology I will use is my own words, grass roots, with my defined meanings. I do not yeild my authority.

I want to get people awake, aware, denouncing all, and opting out of this criminal slave system, and taking back their inaleiable (my definition, don't need to see whats written or not written) rights to land and resources and recreate a just moneyless world, with volunteering and education, and everyone contributing to leadership with fast methods of removing someone who goofs up or acts in self interst controlling ways, like jury duty counsels.

That way if a group is fanatatical and unloving and actually believes in punitive versus healing, we can split and do our eutopia.

Nonetheless, this may be a first step of the way, because it gets people to think of the system they're in, but its far too complicated and legalistic, on both sides, even the freeman side.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Unity_99]

ya you're living in a dream world. a moneyless world could never exist for as long as there is needs and wants that people can't obtain on their own there will be bartering and with bartering, next comes a system of currency based on something all people want. precious resources like gold for example.

the mere fact they we are human makes a Utopia impossible because we will always have wants and needs. point and case your computer that your posting on is an unnecessary object but you wanted it so you used the currency you had obtained to purchase said computer. because i seriously doubt a computer manufacturer would take many bushels of apples(example of bartering) for a computer because they would then have to quickly trade them away or preserve them in order to keep the value.

it's human nature to act in self interest and to deny that fact is just childish naivety.

ok now that ive shot down utopia guy here's some information for everyone regarding the so called legal definition of motor vehicle. truth is, there is no such thing as a legal definition because a body of government cannot dictate language it would be a violation of rights the definitions you see everywhere in both us codes and federal and state agencies are just the definitions they are using and they are clarifying that for legal purposes.


Title 18 Part I Chapter 113 § 2311

“Motor vehicle” includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails;

Title 49 Subtitle IV Part B Chapter131

(16) Motor vehicle. The term “motor vehicle” means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in transportation, or a combination determined by the Secretary, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger transportation similar to street-railway service.

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.

and just to prove that most the statuettes involving travel in a vehicle are not unconstitutional.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, ......

"though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22

so things like seat belts requirements no speeding no cellphones etc etc. are in fact perfectly legal

and to those that think most of those are just about raising revenue think long and hard about this. how can a statuette raise a significant amount of revenue if hardly anyone violates it like the seatbelt law how can it raise revenue if almost everyone is wearing a seatbelt?

go to the following link and you will see that the statistics for injury and fatalities were alot higher in the past then were in the more recent years. just try to deny the effectiveness of the statuettes in making the roads a safer place.

www.census.gov...

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

I don't take credit for any of this information as it is what I found with a search - linked. Indeed it does appear that most of us have been lied to or kept in the dark about this subject. I know they never mentioned it in my drivers education class years ago. Why would our educational system lie to us about something so simple?

I've seen people get arrested and their car searched after not having a valid license on those reality LE TV shows where they end up doing time for drugs found during such a search.

It seems by not knowing this truth - we are all being exploited and our civil rights denied. Is indeed time to awaken ourselves to close these exploits before we lose it all here in the U.S.

If times grow hard in the future it may become necessary to use all of our rights in order to survive - as fees, licenses and taxes could prevent such free travel to more and more of the population. Our state (WA) has already added an extra $100 yearly license fee on electric cars no matter how much they are used due to their expectation of loss of fuel tax revenues.

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579


"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

This should help, I found it earlier before i decided to see what ATS had to say.

www.freebooter.com...

a reply to: harvib

What you have no clue about is the fact that if you were born in this country, your parents were born in this country, you are above the law. You are sovereign. You give up nothing to make that claim. You lack knowledge of history and an understanding of what freedom means. You have no clue what Inherent rights are. Inalienable rights. Those are rights that CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY not matter what. You are above statutory law. You can make these claims without giving up what one calls citizenship. By the way, take a moment to look up the real, legal, definition of citizen.

A citizen is below government. A sovereign which is a birthright, is above the law and is a law maker. So you buy the fraud. We need tax payers like you to fuel the greed. I say, thank you for your ignorance. Now what will you do with the new found knowledge? Probably nothing as you still don't understand what I just told you.