Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by whatukno

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.

There is nothing inherent in having a drivers license that indicates an acceptance of responsibility for ones own actions. Indeed, there are plenty of people with drivers licenses that do not accept responsibility for their actions. Countless people have their licenses revoked for failure to appear in "traffic court", unpaid parking tickets, and even hit and run. Beyond that, there are convicted felons who pleaded not guilty who had drivers licenses. There are all sorts of people with drivers licenses who do not accept responsibility for their actions. Applying for a drivers licenses is just simply not an action in itself that constitutes accepting responsibility for ones 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.

The "court" you are speaking of is a "traffic court" and is not a constitutionally mandated court, (the lower case c in constitution is to make the distinction between federal and state constitutions). Under American Jurisprudence, a "court" that does not adhere to the rules of due process of law is not a court, and merely a kangaroo court. The possible way such a court can have any authority is by the willful and voluntary granting of jurisdiction and a waiving of ones right to due process of law.

Since you have shown, time and time again, a proclivity towards not reading posts before responding to them, it is fairly assumed that you did not read what I posted earlier when I pointed out that a "traffic court" does not function in the same way courts of law function, and there is no access to a jury of ones peers, the judge acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and there is not even a court stenographer to make the proceedings a matter of public record. The only possible way such a court can legally function in American jurisprudence is by granting that court jurisdiction, not by legislative fiat, but by each individual who appears in that court.

The granting of jurisdiction begins with the application of a license and registration. The ability of the people to waive their rights and grant jurisdiction where none existed before that granting is not accepting responsibility for ones actions, it is merely surrendering responsibility to the state. But what does difference does that make to you Wuk, you have consistently shown disregard for the rule of law and for the Supreme Law of the Land. It is you who comes off as lawless, not the freeman movement.

reply to post by whatukno

I know y'all hate the idea that you are actually responsible for your actions.

I don't know man. I have read all 16 pages of this debate and I have not read anything that indicates that anyone is against personal responsibility. It seems to be the exact opposite.

You can do pretty much what you want in your life. You have the right do do anything, it's true.

You can steal, kill someone,hurt someone,bully anyone...
You have the right to breathe under water, yes you do
But if you do that ,you gonna die right ?

Now...IF you want to live in a civilized society, those things are forbidden and punished,but again you have the right to do them.

What's the limit of your rights and what's the limit of you govs.

They dont have any limits. they make laws to forbid us to do what they do.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Since you have shown, time and time again, a proclivity towards not reading posts before responding to them, it is fairly assumed that you did not read what I posted earlier when I pointed out that a "traffic court" does not function in the same way courts of law function, and there is no access to a jury of ones peers, the judge acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and there is not even a court stenographer to make the proceedings a matter of public record. The only possible way such a court can legally function in American jurisprudence is by granting that court jurisdiction, not by legislative fiat, but by each individual who appears in that court.

Actually, I do read posts, and I don't know what traffic court you have went to, but the few times I have been to court, there has always been a DA usually an assistant DA. You can talk to him either about a plea deal, or convince him that it's in the best interest of the state to drop the charges. In my case, I had a habit of not driving with insurance, Why? Because I don't believe in paying a private company for something mandated by the state. I believe that if the state requires me to carry insurance on my car they should provide it. But that's my issue, I would get a ticket, go pay a month on a premium and go to the DA, usually the DA would just drop it.

Nowadays (in Florida) apparently (And I don't like this) the state keeps tabs on your insurance, if your insurance lapses, they will send you a letter informing you that your license has been revoked. They will reinstate your license if you get insurance. I find that bull.

Just because I don't agree with your hyperbole, doesn't mean I didn't read it or understand it.

reply to post by whatukno


What is most interesting from your last post is how you admit to you yourself defying legislation you don't agree with, and operating on your own beliefs. I actually am all for your actions in this regard, and agree with you wholeheartedly that the state has no right to impose legislation forcing someone to do business with a private company.

Of course, the point is moot since you waived your rights by applying for a driver's license to begin with, so for all intents and purposes, you are acting as an "outlaw" and willfully defying the rules you signed a contract agreeing to abide by. There is the difference between you and that freeman in the video, where you have admitted to willfully breaking the terms of the contract you signed, that freeman refused to sign such a contract, and asserted his right to not contract. Yet, you attack that person, and anyone who would agree with that person as being lawless, then admit to your own lawlessness. What a big surprise.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The difference is, I accepted the consequences of my actions. I didn't just dodge out on some lame excuse of "I don't have a license because I don't wanna!"

Nowadays, I am older, and understand that you just buy the cheapest insurance you can get. Course that point is moot right now because I don't have a car. But to these "Freemen" that probably wouldn't be a problem either would it? Just take a car from a car lot, after all, the point of the "Freemen" is to avoid any contracts right?

"I don't have to get into a contract to have a car! It's my right to travel freely!"

reply to post by whatukno


Who do you think you're kidding? You aren't accepting responsibility by playing a three card Monty game where you run and buy a month to month insurance policy only to drop it once you've satisfied a traffic court your in possession of a policy. Indeed, you have gone into that court and perjured implicitly perjured yourself by presenting this policy you have every intention of dropping the next month. You signed a contract agreeing to abide by the traffic rules in the state you live in, and you are refusing to accept responsibility for that whenever you decide you are not in agreement with their rules.

The point of the "freeman" is not to avoid any contracts, the point is they have the right to contract with who they want, and a contract means that all parties involved are in agreement with the terms of that contract. When the government requires a contract in order to find jurisdiction, this means there is an option to not contract, as opposed to murder, theft, or a myriad of other crimes where no contract need be signed in order for the government to prosecute.

You can dismiss this all as "hyperbole" but that is coming from the author of the FAZSL fantasy.

reply to post by whatukno


If you steal a car from a car lot, that car lot can show a demonstrable harm caused to them by your actions, that's a crime... A real crime, complete with a victim. Can you not see the difference between a crime and a violation? One is something that causes harm to another, one is failure to uphold an agreement or contract. If you don't have a wreck, who have you harmed by traveling in your automobile without a license or insurance?
These guys aren't above the law. After reading through your posts, I don't think you are going to be able to understand the basics here because you can't see from outside the box. It's not an easy concept to swallow because you've been led to believe that you have to abide by all these rules and regulations and statutes, but what you're not understanding is all those rules are for your corporate fiction, not your person. You are free to do as you will as long as it doesn't harm another or infringe on their rights to do the same, your corporate fiction has to abide by the agreements you probably never knew you signed onto. One of the keys to your chains is called informed consent that goes all the way back to your birth certificate.

reply to post by twitchy


I am sure that the Freemen can justify it somehow. "corporations aren't people and therefore cannot enter into contracts with freemen and so we can take cars from car dealers without paying because it's our natural right."

reply to post by whatukno


Man Wukky, this thread has become like your own personal novel. What will you call this fiction? Even the Freeman Get's the Blues? Still Life With Strawman? Here is the thing about good fiction, Wuk; a good writer will take the implausible and make it seem plausible. Keep working at it though, practice makes perfect.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sorry, but what this is, is people trying to give themselves and excuse to blow off laws.

Yes some of those laws are complete bull I will admit that. But they are laws none the less. Now when you try and pass this crap off as being ok and permissible, I just can't idly sit by and go with the crowd.

It's like gun nuts who wholly agree with the 2nd Amendment yet somehow ignore Article I Section 8. You can't just simply pick and choose what laws you want to follow, if you do, you will suffer the consequences of your actions.

reply to post by whatukno

It's like gun nuts who wholly agree with the 2nd Amendment yet somehow ignore Article I Section 8. You can't just simply pick and choose what laws you want to follow, if you do, you will suffer the consequences of your actions.

Except that is precisely what you did by refusing to go along with the insurance scheme while you were driving. So, what you really mean is that only you get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow, and not everyone else, which is probably why you think you would make a good Congressman.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Nothing wrong with playing the game by their rules my friend.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Nothing wrong with playing the game by their rules my friend.

Nothing wrong with it when you do it, but when others do it you sure seem to have a problem with it. As another member in this thread pointed out, this is precisely what the freeman movement is doing, playing by their rules. This certainly appears to be what happened in that video, and because that guy played by the rules, in this instance the peace officers acknowledged the effort and let it go.

Yes Wuk, we will probably never see eye to eye on much, but we are friends, this much is true.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The guy in the video bull [snip] (past tense) his way out of a ticket. I see that sort of thing a lot. In "the hood" it's called a hustle.

I mean there is nothing inherently wrong with obfuscating a cop until they are so well snowed they let you go. But just admit that's what it is and not say that it's your lifestyle or natural rights.

reply to post by whatukno

The guy in the video bull [snip] (past tense) his way out of a ticket. I see that sort of thing a lot. In "the hood" it's called a hustle.

Nothing wrong with playing by their rules, my friend.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That's not playing by their rules, that's making up the rules as you go along.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

That's not playing by their rules, that's making up the rules as you go along.

No, my friend, making the rules up as you go along is exactly the rules by which the government you advocate are doing. That said, when a person declines to contract with an administrative agency, they are not making up any rules but relying upon contract law, something of which you clearly know very little about, so I guess one could excuse you for this ignorance, except that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

That's not playing by their rules, that's making up the rules as you go along.

What rules? Your rules? Why are the rules of another man more valid to you than your own?

As long as you don't harm another, cause someone loss or commit fraud, why should you follow any mans rules but your own?

Edit to say: these are not rhetorical questions, I'm actually interested in hearing your answer.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Dookzor]

I think Robert Menard said it best. You have to wake up before you can get out of bed. Clearly, some people are still asleep and are confused to the deifinitions of some of the words we have been using.. It's a language of it's own. Legalese.