Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

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.

We the people that paid for the roadways own the roadways. Your personal prison seems strong. You mentioned insurance....stating the freeman needs to carry it. How about you carry your own insurance that covers you and your passengers only and if the freemen does not do the same its his problem not yours.

You have let yourself get talked into being state owned. This is only the beginning, 50 years frm now we will all be totally free if the world does not collapse beforehand.

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

 

First of all, you have to release yourself from govenment control.. As soon as you vote, you consent to be governed. You're basically giving consent to the governemt to make decisions for you.. You become part of "That society" the "law society". Therefore you have to follow their rules. You here him say the cop was reading his affidavit of truth, that's a piece of paper stating that he is not part of that society and he choses not to be governed. You do that with a notary public.

Would this guy call the police if there was a burglar in his house?

He is entitled to... he is a citizen of the state he lives in, thus he pays thier paychecks through the taxes collected from him from his in-state purchases.

He is not a citizen of the US of A, is all.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I joined up here recently because I had thought I had found a little mecca of critical thinkers.

From the looks of it, I instead found a gathering of slaves that grumble about thier condition.

Free will... look it up.

I'll admit that I didn't want the video yet, but I want to point out that "traveling" isn't limited to motor vehicles. Cars are a means of traveling. You're traveling when you're walking or riding a horse or bicycle. And also taking 3 or 4 steps before you hit a layup, but the refs never call it. What's up with that?

Like Steven Wright says: Everywhere is walking distance, if you have the time.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


I have to say "Applause" to you in your efforts and communications with Geeky_Bubbe, this conversation was extremely priceless and meaningful for me. I am only on page 5 of this thread as of this "reply", but a damned fine job!

I love it when the pushy get pushed and the domineering get domineered. Very good form indeed!





[edit on 25-6-2010 by nonnez]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


so what does a drivers license prove. it proves that you paid a $150 dollars to the government to give you a piece of plastic certifying that you can drive around the block a few times and reverse into a parking space. actually drivers license cause drinking and driving fatalities because if they didn't have a license they wouldn't have been driving, they would have taken the bus.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe


Depends on the "why." I actually support the "chipping" of dementia patients such as advanced Alzheimers sufferers. Beats the heck out of strapping them to their beds 24 hours a day.

Additionally, if chipping were more accessible I would advocate the "chipping" of my granddaughter until she reached "age of consent" at which time she has every right to have it removed - or maintain it for her safety.

So, ultimately, yes I would should I happen to develop Alzheimers I would *hope* my husband would choose to "chip" me as opposed to restrain me in modern "benign" shackles.

Those who would trade their liberty for safety deserve neither.

Perhaps your time working within the system has numbed you into accepting the tyranny that is supports? Because it is tyranny. If you disagree, study the works of your founding fathers, the genius that created our country.

Stand up. Stand against tyranny. Live free or die.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Perhaps your time working within the system has numbed you into accepting the tyranny that is supports? Because it is tyranny. If you disagree, study the works of your founding fathers, the genius that created our country.

Stand up. Stand against tyranny. Live free or die.

Would you like me to list out the books I've read regarding that moment in history, the men involved, and the documents. I assure you the list is *quite* extensive.

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe


I read that you have left the thread, but for the record for anyone else reading, I am not a failure. I have done quite well for myself.

And i don't just clamor for freedom. I demand freedom. My ancestors died for it, and i will not tolerate anything otherwise.

As an American, you or anyone else should have the same viewpoint. Not doing so is giving away the sacrifice of our forefathers and predecessors.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Perhaps your time working within the system has numbed you into accepting the tyranny that is supports? Because it is tyranny. If you disagree, study the works of your founding fathers, the genius that created our country.

Stand up. Stand against tyranny. Live free or die.

Would you like me to list out the books I've read regarding that moment in history, the men involved, and the documents. I assure you the list is *quite* extensive.

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

No, that is quite alright.

But i will point out that it could be possible that there is not the distinction made between "read" and "understand".

And that is not a slight in any way. I read books years apart and come way with completely different understandings. It has to do with frames of reference, etc. Yours is groomed highly towards the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA legal system. Were you to have a different "programming", perhaps you would have a different understanding.

But one thing, one major flaw i have noticed...you believe the differences between terms like "driving" and "travellng" are merely semantics. But in legal definitions, they are completely separate things. You are not differentiating between legalese, and common speak. Common speak will get you nowhere when "they" are trying to use technicalities to keep up the house of cards that has been erected.

No, i am not a freeman. I will be, but not yet.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And that is not a slight in any way. I read books years apart and come way with completely different understandings. It has to do with frames of reference, etc. Yours is groomed highly towards the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA legal system. Were you to have a different "programming", perhaps you would have a different understanding.

Ah, yes. You have read the works of the founding fathers and come away with the TRUE understanding that none of us mere mortal sheep could EVER understand! Clearly, your intellect is a shining beacon in this murky world! We should all bow to your intense philosophical and literary might!

Seriously, I'm getting suck of this disgusting, condescending argument by the Tea Party nutters. As someone who came to this country and had to go through the citizenship classes, it's abundantly clear that the Constitution was intentionally written in a manner that allows for different interpretations, hence the need for a Supreme Court made of many members (not just one) to interpret laws and the Constitution. To suggest any single interpretation is the ULTIMATE understanding and the SOLE intent of the founders is simply ignorant.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

 

I read that you have left the thread, but for the record for anyone else reading, I am not a failure. I have done quite well for myself.

Well, I had left the thread but when I saw your alias show up in my "MyATS" listing I wished to see what you had written since our paths had crossed previously.

But, that begs the question: You decided to address me assuming I would not read it and reply. Why? Just to "score a point" by insinuating that I was ignorant of the founding principles and history?

You should have also read in that post of mine that I wished everyone well and luck in their endeavors. My opinion differs than most who are participating in this thread. That's the way of internet forums. If we all held the same opinion it would not be any fun at all. What I say counter to the prevailing opinion in this thread makes no difference to those who disagree with me and what they say makes no difference to me. Why bother. But, your post... well...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


In the interest of Full Disclosure:

*I* am a "Tea Party Nutter." I'm just a law abiding one.

I find this whole subject fascinating. Jordan Maxwell has put out some excellent videos on the subject ie the law of the land (civil law) and God's law (the law of the sea) eg:



This video covers it further (its relevance occurs at the 15-20 min mark)





[edit on 26-6-2010 by Nonchalant]

Anyone care to explain this to me or give a link that has readable info? The link in the other thread is basically about this Norton guy's life mixed with the concept/info and I can't sort out the stuff I need to read and stuff about how he did x and blah blah. Plus it was a bad PDF. It was crooked and stuff. And I have OCD.

Question my name on my birth certificate is not all caps, it is typed just as it should be.
Does this mean I do not have strawman and can demand my name is spelled right.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Well, I had left the thread but when I saw your alias show up in my "MyATS" listing I wished to see what you had written since our paths had crossed previously.

But, that begs the question: You decided to address me assuming I would not read it and reply. Why? Just to "score a point" by insinuating that I was ignorant of the founding principles and history?

I apologize if i came across that way. As i mentioned just prior to this, you have an understanding based on a frame of reference that is within the legal system. This must, to at least some degree, influence your perspective, correct? It is kind of like, if you go to a doctor that does family medicine you are likely to be prescribed medication. But if you see a surgeon, you will be prescribed surgery. the perspective changes the judgement. And i pass no judgement on informed decisions that differ from mine. Not at all. I just disagree with you.

I posted because i was sure you were reading and wanted you to consider it. But more than that, this thread is getting a large audience. My post was primarily directed at the quiet majority, so that they would consider that your perspective will influence your understanding. In so doing, I hope to encourage them to seek the truth for themselves. As that is how it was set up. The "truths are self obvious", right?

I am currently a "law abiding citizen". I won't always be this way. But I believe in liberty. I believe in men being responsible and accountable not for appeasing a tyrant, but for causing damage to another person. But as it stands I am a law abiding citizen, and a member of charitable groups. I believe in the common good, but i believe the common good cannot trump the individual freedom.

Were we following natural law, would we really risk having DWI's? I would say it would likely end up being more that a culture of accountability and responsibility would take over, and DWI's would likely be a thing of the past. But who knows. Free people can be stupid, too.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And that is not a slight in any way. I read books years apart and come way with completely different understandings. It has to do with frames of reference, etc. Yours is groomed highly towards the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA legal system. Were you to have a different "programming", perhaps you would have a different understanding.

Ah, yes. You have read the works of the founding fathers and come away with the TRUE understanding that none of us mere mortal sheep could EVER understand! Clearly, your intellect is a shining beacon in this murky world! We should all bow to your intense philosophical and literary might!

Seriously, I'm getting suck of this disgusting, condescending argument by the Tea Party nutters. As someone who came to this country and had to go through the citizenship classes, it's abundantly clear that the Constitution was intentionally written in a manner that allows for different interpretations, hence the need for a Supreme Court made of many members (not just one) to interpret laws and the Constitution. To suggest any single interpretation is the ULTIMATE understanding and the SOLE intent of the founders is simply ignorant.

I am no "nutter" for anything other than my beautiful wife, and maybe American football. I would never align myself with a political party. Political parties demand their members to place loyalty to party ahead of loyalty to nation. I find this disgusting and a slap in the face to the sacrifices of my ancestors.

I am sorry that you think I feel superior to anyone. I can assure you that this is untrue, but I suspect that my assurances won't matter here.

I base my understandings of the constitution off of what the founding fathers stated I needed: my intellect and ability to read.

But I do use additional information, like their own writings on the subject and my understanding of the schools of thought that they followed.

Like I keep saying. Only the truth can set you free!


Most do not know of this because they do not know the truth. I now know more of the truth than I did earlier today. Now this is freedom.

Thanks for the post.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You are absolutely *correct* when you state my experiences color my perspective and my opinions. It's one of the *main* reasons I did not, nor have I withheld that detail... when it is germane to the conversation.

There are a lot of laws I find stupid. A few I find "chafing." And a smaller few I find *offensive*. But that doesn't give me the "right" to break them... no matter how much I might wish I could break them with impunity.

I enjoy an "orderly" society, if what we have nowadays could qualify for such. Since I enjoy an "orderly" society I must, if I am intellectually honest, accept that society's restraints as long as they do not infringe upon my Constitutional Rights. Thus far, they have not. Though, we are getting perilously close to that. Hence, my "Tea Party Nuttery" activities.

It's time to take the country back. Legally. Constitutionally. Peacefully.

If I have to go the route of Gandhi or Dr. King... I'm prepared to do that.

I am not prepared to thumb my nose as society though and still expect to benefit from that society. The concept just doesn't make sense to me.