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: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
License aint worth a dam..A license just gives you the right to do something that THEY say is illegal. So they charge you to do it. They, the government is nothing but crooks. A license make you no better or worst to drive a car.Does a license stop a drunk? hell no.... Most people with enough sense and courage to study being a Freeman are good people and don't just do it to be different, but just to be free....Keep on gettin up Freeman......




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
If you're interested in this Tim Turner has a seminar and I'm starting the process myself. I live in New Jersey and the first document you need is the UCC-1. I tried to submit it in Trenton and it was taking too long so I went back to find out what happened and they said it got sent to the Attorney Generals office. They couldn't tell me when or if I would get it back so I asked for my money back and filed it online in Washington State. It's called a "strawman" filing and what you are doing is separating yourself "flesh and blood man" from your "corporate" entity that you use in commerce. If you look at any bills you have or a drivers license you will see your name in all capital letters. That is your "strawman." After you separate yourself then you are also listing your "strawman" as a debtor and you "the flesh and blood man" as the creditor and put a lien on your "strawman" and all "his" which is "your" property so you will be "first in line, first in time" if your "strawman" defaults. Get it? They can't take your property. There are lots of documents that you use to claim your rights from the corporation in DC that everyone thought you automatically had but in reality do not since the corporation called "THE UNITED STATES" was formed by President Lincoln. With these documents you separate yourself from the corporation and claim you Constitutional rights as a sovereign American. One more thing to understand about the corporation is that they operate under Admiralty/Maritime law that has all the statutes and codes. As a sovereign American you put the corporation on notice that you are operating under Common law that has to have a injured party for there to be a crime. All the petty laws that the police enforce on corporate "citizens" to generate money do not apply in common law.

Here is the seminar.

picasaweb.google.com...#

Here are the documents but critical parts are blacked out so it's really useless but I can't find them anywhere else.

www.scribd.com...

Tim's Talkshoe

www.talkshoe.com...




[edit on 25-6-2010 by EndtheFed]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


You are mostly all brainwashed, of course he, and we, have the god-given right to travel.

Insurance companies do not have a god-given right to profit from ours' to travel.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I wish each luck in whichever endeavors they partake. If that is challenging the government's oppressive insinuation into your life, I sincerely hope you find what it is you wish for.

I will leave this thread with an observation by Eric Hoffer, written before most at ATS were even born The True Believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements:


Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equity and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.

They who clamor the loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on the existing restraints. Actually their innermost desire is for an end to the "free for all." They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of the small minority.

Equality without freedom creates a more stable social pattern than freedom without equality.


[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

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


Yes, I understand the concept of being a free man, I just don't understand how it works legally.

He can denounce society and normal law doesn't apply any more. Can anybody just do that?

Is this a particular law or set of rights that allows for this?

I'm just curious.


I understand the confusion. I myself have issues comprehending the idea that a "society" can strip natural rights away from a sentient being.

The thing you have to realize is that Freedom is not something that is "enforced" by the state, and Governments don't "grant" rights, they merely draw up a list of rights you have had since birth on some official looking peices of paper and proclaim that they alone are the guardians of freedom.

Kind of an oxy-moron really. An establishment that exist to dominate the lives of every being on the planet, pretends to be thier liberator.

In a sense there is something that grants you the right to this. Birth.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by aravoth]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Fortunately for you, you had the camera. It's the bad things that happen to those who DONT let the officers know they're being recorded. You dont know what would have happened if the cops didn't know they were being recorded or even if they had taken the camera from you....you may have had feed going to a reciever somewhere. They didnt know, so they didnt take chances. The moral is ...... Eveyone should always carry a recorder with them in their car and record the event, just as the cops are for evidence.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Grossac
 


Originally posted by Grossac
So when it's the law to take vaccines, you're going to take it? So when it's the law to be chipped, your gonna be chipped? So when it's the law to spy on your neighbour, you're gonna be a rat? Dont you see the pattern that going on.. Our freedoms are being systematically taken away. You seem like an intelligent man. The freeman society is all about love and respect.. It's about a peacefull coexistance. The law states that they can walk in your house for no reason. Is that what you're defending?


I've followed your comments and I'm right with you.

I remember the days when...

you were not required to have insurance

there were no cameras

you could smoke in a restaurant (I don't smoke)

you could cross the border without a passport

your phone calls weren't monitored

you weren't required to carry identification

you could piss on the side of the road

you could camp out at any beach

hitchhiking was legal

satellites didn't monitor your location

there were no gps tracking units built in cars

there were no border crossings between state lines

there were no Friday night road blocks to check your sobriety

there were no drug tests for employment



I could go on and on.

Life was good back then. The economy was good back then.

Big Brother is on your back now and the economy sucks.

We must be in the end times.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Grossac
 


Yes I understand that everyone has the right to drive. Also everyone has a right to safety and that's exacltly why you need a license. It is proof that you know the rules and laws that are on the roads.


Being licensed does not mean one is a safe driver or that one knows the "laws". There are plenty of unsafe, law-ignorant drivers on the roads. If that isn't evident, i don't know what to say.



If this guy is driving around without a license then we have no idea if he is impaired or even knows how to drive. By driving without a license this guy is actually going against his own principle of not breaching anyone elses peace by endangering others.


Not at all. By stating this, you show that you do not in any way understand the concept. These 'freemen' understand that with freedom comes responsibility. They would never travel on the common way without being responsible enough to ensure they are doing so in a safe manor. They would never let their children behind the wheel without ensuring they would do so in a safe manor. Individual responsibility is the conjoined twin of freedom. You cannot have the latter without the former. They are in no way 'endangering' anyone.



Also what I don't understand is that why would there be some kind of verbal trap that he has to say the word drive? His actions speak louder than his words and if he were to say that he isn't driving he'd be lying. Do mute people get same exception to laws?


Because in law, words have very specific meanings. In law, 'driving' is a commercial activity. If he admits to 'driving', he concedes to be subject to commercial driving statutes (what you call driving laws). The exact opposite of what you claim is true. If he admits to driving, he would in fact be lying. He was not engaged in any commerical activity. So, why would he claim to be engaged in commerce when he wasn't & why would he want to subject himself to statutes that regulate a commercial activity when all he was doing was travelling?

www.pacinlaw.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Great Find!!! That guy did it right.

I would like to know if the District Atty was made aware of this event and if he filed charges later?

Hope that doesn't happen to me on my way to Campobello Island in Aug!!!!

S&F



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Did I misunderstand the video or did the guy say that he was travelling and not driving? How was he travelling? The car magically moves forward when he sits in it? You could come up with a new term and say I wasn't driving, I was sdfsdfsldf'ing. That still doesn't make the fact go away that you were driving. They have him on the police dashcam driving the car and that is way more valid than his word that he wasn't driving.


The use of language is crucial to any legal system .
It is often a game of semantics. The legal system preys on the fact that the average person , does not understanding the nuanced distinctions found in legal jargon.
Court cases are often won or lost on the meaning and interpretation of language .

Has Matlock , The Practice, Law and Order, Ally McBeal or Boston Legal not taught you anything .


Might i add , your command of the English language is fantastic. PsykoOps




[edit on 25-6-2010 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EndtheFed
If you're interested in this Tim Turner has a seminar ...


Oh boy. For those looking into the Freeman idea, AVOID this guy, Tim Turner & avoid the UCC argument. It is a hoax. You may get away with it for a while, but you eventually land yourself in jail. You cannot free yourself from thier control by using their laws & their rules. You cannot free yourself from their laws and yet remain tied to them with their laws. You cannot claim to be free of the system yet continue to use the system & benefit from the system. It violates common sense.

If you are in Canada, look up Arthur Menard & the Freeman Society.
If in the US, look up LB Bork & PACinLaw.org.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mal1970

Being licensed does not mean one is a safe driver or that one knows the "laws". There are plenty of unsafe, law-ignorant drivers on the roads. If that isn't evident, i don't know what to say.


Being licensed means that you've passed the tests so you know the law and are able to drive safely. Of course there is unsafe drivers too and that's why there is traffic police.



Not at all. By stating this, you show that you do not in any way understand the concept. These 'freemen' understand that with freedom comes responsibility. They would never travel on the common way without being responsible enough to ensure they are doing so in a safe manor. They would never let their children behind the wheel without ensuring they would do so in a safe manor. Individual responsibility is the conjoined twin of freedom. You cannot have the latter without the former. They are in no way 'endangering' anyone.


So it's not responsible to prove that you are able to drive? How do you know they're all responsible and safe drivers anyway? You make them sound like saints or something unhuman that is incabable of making mistakes or being ignorant or evil.



Because in law, words have very specific meanings. In law, 'driving' is a commercial activity. If he admits to 'driving', he concedes to be subject to commercial driving statutes (what you call driving laws). The exact opposite of what you claim is true. If he admits to driving, he would in fact be lying. He was not engaged in any commerical activity. So, why would he claim to be engaged in commerce when he wasn't & why would he want to subject himself to statutes that regulate a commercial activity when all he was doing was travelling?

www.pacinlaw.org...


That's a stupid law btw. If it's true then it should updated. There's about a million different ways you can drive without having anything to do with anything commercial.
That aside, if he wasn't travelling by method of driving then what was he doing? Even if he was just sitting in the car and it moved magically to where he wills he still would be driving. Also why would he need to admid to driving when it's a fact that is probably recorded on the dashcam of the police car. He could call it anything or say nothing but it's still a fact and the law should reflect that. The words travelling and driving aren't switchable. Driving is a method of travel.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mal1970

Originally posted by EndtheFed
If you're interested in this Tim Turner has a seminar ...


Oh boy. For those looking into the Freeman idea, AVOID this guy, Tim Turner & avoid the UCC argument. It is a hoax.

What evidence do you have of a hoax? TT is one of the guardian elders of the Restore America Plan.

www.restoreamericaplan.net...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I wonder if he is involved with the Restore America Plan.

I can't watch Youtube at work but I will comment more after I watch the video.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I'm intrigued by this so called "freeman" movement - sounds to me like a bunch of people just trying to get out of paying for licenses and car insurance.

Travelling may be a right, but driving is a priviledge. If you want to drive, you have to follow the rules of the road. It is easy to travel without driving, one does NOT require the other.

If you drive, you are admitting that you are subjugating yourself to those laws and therefore under government control. End of story.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Grossac
 


While I find myself agreeing more with your perspective, it is this sort of hyperbole that reminds me these are theories for a minority, not the masses, by definition.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
one question - which side of the road do these alleged freemen " travel " on ? and why

[edit on 25-6-2010 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I agree with the FREEMAN thing. However, I find it interesting when ppl speak about how things used to be and how they are now. Well, the primary reason things are changing so fast is because the world's population is growing exponentially. The governments are growing at the same rate to control the populations. Not that I agree with the growth of government, but it is growing to deal with exponential population growth.

If you only need 1 person to govern 1,000 people.....then you see where I am going with this. Americans ran away from England and luckily found a 'new' land. However, we are recreating that environment and then some.

These changes will not cease to happen until some force is brought upon us. Just like the laws of nature; we are not above the laws of nature. The young will see these forces acted out upon them.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


Don't think of it as free loading, because I can assure you he still pays a tax. He pays Gst/Pst or HST. And on every litre of Gasoline he buys he pays a tax, which believe it or not, is suppose to pay for the roads. I have great respect for what this man did and for the cops who played by the common law rule book.




top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join