Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

You don't actually need to MAKE yourself a freeman, the only thing that you need to understand is that you are not your person, which is your ID. The only real LAW we must abide by is to keep the peace and never infringe on another's free will. So if a Policy Enforcement officer pulls you ever, greet him as such, "Good day/evening, are you a peace officer?" Which he will respond affirmatively, to which you respond, "What peace have I disturbed? I have a common law right to travel in the Commonwealth, and this is my private property. Have I breached the peace? No? Good day." Hold your ground, it's only brute force that they may take you out of your car, but you've locked your doors, and through a crack in the window, you've slid him your affidavit of truth, which opens contract, and you refuse to give him jurisdiction over your person, as you are speaking to him as a free man, human being, and not a government created fiction. If your ID says ROBERT LAIDLAW, by all means only go by Robert, of the Laidlaw family. ONly give them your family name if it is absolutely imperative to you keeping your face in one piece. Robert, the human being has the god given right to travel any where, by any means.

See, this is where people get into trouble. We have conflicting information. I would prefer that people who don't know and are speculating not try to throw out so called facts.


State issued ID or not.


Is there anyone here who lives like this or in one of these communities? Please speak up and help me. I am obviously a product of an oppressive ideology (not by choice).

What a hypocrite!

He doesn't want to be a participant *in* society but he sure does want to *use* society's roadways! That those who *do* participate in PAY FOR.

Just another FREELOADER profiting off the labors of others.

This proves cops are not the enemy.

Some are crazy from dealing with crazy people but this shows that we cannot label all LEO's as bad...in fact most are probably altruistic in the beginning.

I would like to hear from any LEO's that are ATS members,

Do they train you guys for such "freeman on the land" encounters?

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe


What are you talking about.. He has to put gas in his car and pays tax. Everything he buys, he is taxed on.. Where do you pay extra than him.. License? 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

This info can be found here

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Grossac]

Originally posted by Grossac
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

 

Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing.

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

Further, the young gentleman in the video was not "taking responsibility" for his act of *driving* since his vehicle was NOT insured or carried a bond, or indemnified in any way. Should he cause damage to someone else's property while *driving* his vehicle, the innocent victim[s] would likely be without recourse or recompense.

Whether we like it or not the STATE *owns* the roadways, held in our *collective* interests. Our *collective* interests are properly served by ensuring those who *drive* upon our roadways are properly licensed and insured. Spoiled little snotheads not exempt. Should someone wish to disavow societal constraints and restraints, FINE. I DO NOT argue that they should not be allowed to do so. JUST STAY OFF THE ROADS WHILE DRIVING A MOTORIZED VEHICLE.

Originally posted by Grossac
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

 

What are you talking about.. He has to put gas in his car and pays tax.

Really?

So you summarily discount the possibility that he operates his motor vehicle on bio-diesel that he manufactures himself?

For those who are asking for more information on 'Freemen' , I have posted a thread that will get you started here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher


While your post shows that you have a basic understanding of the topic , this statement here : You don't actually need to MAKE yourself a freeman, " is TOTALLY FALSE .

It is that type of assumption which lands you in jail in the course of this matter .

reply to post by jeh2324


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

This is what lands people in jail .

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by Grossac
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

 

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

It the same here in Canada.. He wasnt driving, he was travelling. That's the difference. Look it up in Black's law dictionary and you will see the difference. You need permission to drive yes but that's for commercial purposes. If he has an accident, he will face the full extent of the LAW...There is LAWFULL and UNLAWFULL. You seem to be mixing it up with LEGAL (of the law society) and ILLEGAL. You've given up your rights and losing more every day... Do you think they do that for YOUR best interest. HMMM. They do that for THEIR best interest.. You are just a slave to them. The day you were born and got a birth certificate, you've become the property of the USA. There is no better slave than one who thinks he's free.

reply to post by Grossac


Pfff.

All these "little games" of finding the most advantageous twist of words. Do we not become outraged when corporations do this?

If you wish to draw upon the common law definition and practice, then would you agree that we should re-institute all common law cannon? No? Yes?

Point of fact: The law is "operating a motor vehicle," where "operating" is the legal term used to describe the vernacular term "driving."

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.

Are you a cop by any chance, a lawyer perhaps?
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine, which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Grossac

 

But as one who drives...with full documentation, I don't WANT people driving cars on the road who don't have licence and insurance! Given the number of drunks and arses-at-large who could be making it dangerous for others...not to mention lacking the ability to take financial liability for any screw-ups they cause...I want drivers licenced!

You wanna 'travel' unbeholding and unaccountable to anybody else? Try 'two feet and a heartbeat'.

Since when does license and insurance prevent drunks from driving? Most drunks I know had their license revoked years ago and still drive. Classic example of the illusion of how licensing etc. supposedly protects people LOL. All it does is generate revenue for state thugs and prevents nothing.

Insurance is as big a scam as the banking industry. Everyone is liable for the harm they cause to others. And again laws that require insurance don't prevent people from driving without it, they just protect a market for insurance companies.

My right to travel using any means I decide is nobodies damn business and I don't need anyone permission. Everyone is accountable for thier actions. If your worried about accountability then look to all the Corporations THAT LIMIT LIABILITY. They are the ones seeking to be unaccountable for thier actions. So stop assuming you have authority over others when you don't! Who are you to tell me how and by what means I can travel?


[edit on 25-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
What a hypocrite!

He doesn't want to be a participant *in* society but he sure does want to *use* society's roadways! That those who *do* participate in PAY FOR.

Just another FREELOADER profiting off the labors of others.

This is a false argument. Society is not defined by government it is defined by free people living as they please. He pays for those roads just like everyone else by paying the tax every time he buys gas. So nice try trying to label him a free loader but that dog won't hunt!

Stop assuming your sewed view of how things should be is correct and should be forced on others. Live and let live. All aspects of society should be voluntary. No one has a right to take ones stuff against thier will!

reply to post by hawkiye


Well said.. I've delt with insurance and they will do alot not to pay what is promised you. It's a business just like countries.

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.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
What a hypocrite!

He doesn't want to be a participant *in* society but he sure does want to *use* society's roadways! That those who *do* participate in PAY FOR.

Just another FREELOADER profiting off the labors of others.

This is a false argument. Society is not defined by government it is defined by free people living as they please. He pays for those roads just like everyone else by paying the tax every time he buys gas. So nice try trying to label him a free loader but that dog won't hunt!

Stop assuming your sewed view of how things should be is correct and should be forced on others. Live and let live. All aspects of society should be voluntary. No one has a right to take ones stuff against thier will!

In another thread this was put forth: An absolutely *brilliant* rebuttal IMNSHO.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

[snippet]

Our laws often have to evolve to fit the current circumstances. As our friend mentioned in his tale of his adventures in outdoor urination, the outdated laws are insufficient. Indecency is still an issue, so those laws will remain on the books, but there is a new issue now that we have plumbing. Our streets no longer HAVE to smell like pee, and so we have as an option legislating that they remain that way.

In short, just because new laws are passed, and more laws are made, does not mean we are really deviating in a substantive way from the past. As our circumstances evolve, so must our laws in order to achieve a similar end. It would be nice if we could rely on innate morality, but we decided thousands of years ago that writing law was superior to wishing everyone had a similar moral sense.

And laws that impinge upon personal freedoms, are NOT cruel and unusual. Society is an agreement, that in return for the benefits of living in a collective of other people, you will in exchange modify your own behaviors so that overall you are not harming that collective from which you seek to benefit.

Game theory (and other theories) suggest that for YOU as an individual, it is best if you can find a way to have the benefits without making the sacrifices, but only if the bulk of society plays by the rules. (If they didnt, there would be no benefit for you in being in one in the first place) And it is not surprising then that we have many, many people who try to do just this in any given society. Its called "cheating" or being a "free rider" or "kin cheater" depending what school you follow. But the same theories that predict "cheating" also predict the necessity of punishing (in our culture via laws) those who do.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

SECTION 56-3-200. Certificate of title or application therefor as prerequisite to registration.

Except as otherwise provided for in Chapter 19 of this Title, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall not register or renew the registration of a vehicle unless a certificate of title has been issued by the Department to the owner or an application therefor has been delivered by the owner to the Department.

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.