franklin
Forum Replies Created
You might contact some of those folks in NH to associate with them (under the First Amendment) for some tips that work.
There was also a video (which I watched but did not bookmark) about an old woman who got a traffic ticket. She was advised by her son to petition (not “move”) the court (under the petition the government clause) before the trial, as a matter of due process, to provide, not an attorney (who works for the court), but to provide her with a court reporter in the event she had to appeal the court's decision.
They hemmed and hawed and made fun of her to discourage the spectators and defendants present in the court room from doing the same thing. But, then they did two interesting things according to the son's report on the video, they moved her to another court room, with no one present except the court personnel and a court reporter. Without her knowing about it, they also asked the officer who ticketed her to leave the court house and wait outside. Thus, the complaining party did not appear and the case was dismissed (all to avoid a court record).
When the woman and her son left the court, she saw the cop sitting on his motorcycle and she laughed and said she wished she had a camera so she could take his picture. Reportedly, the cop laughed as well.
The best videos however are not the ones which only tell the story of what happened in court. The best ones are those that were actually filmed in the court room so the viewer can see what actually has worked and how the 'defendant' went about it.
There are apparently many ways to throw a monkey wrench into the commercial activity of the courts if you get on solid common law ground…and stay there (the hardest part for most patriots because they often talk too much to show how smart they are and move the burden of proof onto their own shoulders by the things they say).
Have fun.
Hi Prollins:
You raise an interesting point.
I don't know if the videos are still available on you tube but there were several that demonstrated how the shadows of the men and machine were not correct, among other things.
Also there was a series of videos (I may be wrong but I think it was Michael Moore) where the astronauts were pursued in public and asked if they would swear under oath that they landed on the moon.
It was shocking and funny to see how they scrambled like roaches to flee from the camera and the interviewer.
Might want to look those up in conjunction with your post.
(As my wise old grandma said when she heard the news about the alleged moon landing: “I don't believe it for a minute!! If God had wanted us on the moon, he would have put us there.” And with that, she resumed her nap.) 🙂
There are plenty of videos on u tube about NH traffic court cases (You can film a trial in NH)
On one of those–posted on this site–a young man got a speeding ticket. Very quietly he invoked the common law
Some questions to ponder and ask in court.
Will I get a fair and impartial trial? (The judge will say yes but it is not possible because both he and the cop have the same boss)
In describing the situation the cop lied. The young man brought this out in his own testimony
In cross-examining the cop the young man asked him if he was the complaining party? Yes?
Was I in control of my car? Yes?
Was anyone injured? No?
Were you injured? No?
The young man then announced that he would gladly pay the fine to any injured party in the court (he did not dishonor the presentment). No one claimed to be such an injured party.
He then announced that he COULD NOT pay the fine, as there was no one claiming to be an injured party.
Case dismissed for “lack of evidence” (No injured party, no evidence).
When you signed “All Rights Reserved” you were retaining your rights under the common law. And under the common law you need a corpus delecti, someone who suffered a material injury because of your action (your failure to wear a seat belt).
Good luck,and have fun.
Thornton has to be considered as someone not to follow…because he is merely a guru. He says things “like there are court cases saying that people are sovereigns” but he doesn't cite them. He says he is litigating but won't give the court or the style “to protect the guilty”. He also says that when you object in court, and the judge asks for the foundation of your objection you reply “Because I don't wish it”.
Thornton should be used as a source of inspiration, but he documents nothing that he says is working for him in real court rooms.
Buyer beware.
This is a report on taxpayers who reduce their liability to zero.
I wonder what the percentage of non-taxpayers rises to when you include the non-taxpayer/non-filers which (I'm going from memory here), the IRS once calculated for Congress to be in the tens of millions.
Interesting.
The pope was Julius II, a great warrior who wore armor instead of red patent leather pumps ^_^ .
One of the best reads, or movies, about this period is Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy. The best preparation for a visit to Florence.
Admin's suggestion is good and proper.
You might also push the “Start Here” button on the opening page of SEDM.ORG and take the steps to the Path to Freedom
Have you downloaded the Great IRS Hoax book?
As you read and learn new material, it is always useful to organize and develop your knowledge with questions in mind. Here are some…
Is constitutional due process required of a non-government entity?
Is there a statutory definition of frivolous?
Is the IRS right that my (meaning your) request was frivolous?
What is suspicious about your post
Here's the text of the Georgia House Bill
http://www.rense.com/general92/drive.htm
GA To Allow Right To Drive Without A License?
10-4-10
10 LC 34 2350
House Bill 875
By: Representative Franklin of the 43rd
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Right to Travel Act.”
SECTION 2.
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;
(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.
(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;
(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel;
(5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel “is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association…it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;
(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and
(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
SECTION 3.
Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.
SECTION 4.
This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 5.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
With all due respect Riverway, I believe there is a fundamental flaw in your answer to your question “Can a good muslim be a good American?”
The flaw is that there is no religious litmus test for being a good American.
Under the American Republic system, one may have any religious belief one likes and still be a good American, one characteristic being respecting the right of other Americans to believe in whatever gods or goddesses they wish.
And so we have in America satan-worshippers, wiccans, atheists, agnostics, government-controlled Christians, the revered Talmud, read daily by pious Jews like Bader-Ginsburg, which authorizes sexual intercourse with young children…and considers the Virgin Mary a whore and Jesus a bastard. Etc.
So what! They all may believe what they like as long as they do not subvert the law of the land with those beliefs.
Muslims can indeed be good Americans as long as they abide by the law of the land.
If they take their beliefs, turn them into a political weapon and use them to subvert and supplant the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the states and for the federal government, then that is a different matter.
No one who does that is a good American and you just have to look into the US Congress to see hundreds of treasonous Americans who by no reckoning can be considered good Americans.
History helps to make my point.
Henry the 8th had two daughters, Mary Tudor (known in history as Bloody Mary), the Roman Catholic daughter of Henry's first wife Catherine of Aragon…who was the daughter of Isabella and who…with her husband Ferdinand…was the foundress of the Inquisition.
His second daughter, a protestant, was Elizabeth Tudor (Elizabeth I) who followed Mary on the English throne.
Bloody Mary set fire to protestants on a daily basis by politicizing her religion. Elizabeth, advised to follow Mary's policy, said that she would have to execute half the people in England if she did. She made the point that the people would be punished for their actions, not their beliefs.
Elizabeth did execute catholics, and rightly so, but not for being catholics.
She executed them for politicizing their beliefs and committing treason against her. (The pope declared that no catholic owed her allegiance and that anyone who assassinated her would go immediately to heaven). Executions under Elizabeth were for crimes, not for religious beliefs.
So a muslim may have any belief he or she likes.
The danger would only be if they politicized their beliefs to undermine the American republic.
And that danger is very great because if Islamic organizations had treasonous designs on America, they would have willing accomplices in all three branches of American government, which is rife with anti-Republic Constitution haters.
So your answer doesn't really apply to the question, and that is the flaw in my reading of it.
However, you answer does fit the question: “If Islam wanted to replace our Republic with Sharia law, would they find accomplices in the American Congress, Executive Branch and Judiciary?”
The answer is a resounding yes and then the matter becomes dangerous to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. And the reasons you give in your answer spell out the extent of the danger clearly if those beliefs and doctrines were to become public policy.
It's a great idea especially since it only talks in millions when the government now talks in trillions.
However, there is a fatal flaw, not in the logic, but in its delivery.
This inexpensive, effective idea, is targeted at people who have a vested interest in not solving problems that are profitable to them and to the lobbyists that control them.
Borrowing trillions to solve simple problems (the simplest being get the government out of its unlawful activities entirely) fulfills the agenda of those who control the executive, the judiciary and the congresscritters (not to mention the media).
IT KEEPS THE PEOPLE IN SLAVERY TO THOSE FEW WHO WOULD CONTROL THE WORLD AND ALL ITS RESOURCES.
So, the original post is a great and simple idea under the PRESUMPTION that the government is actually trying to solve the problems it creates.
The second idea that problems are to be created and never solved is a great and simple idea under the PRESUMPTION that Americans are to be enslaved to foreign owners.
The first plan cannot be presented, with the expectation of being accepted with a “Why didn't I think of that?”, to a usurper non-American executive who is forced by his handlers to operate in the universe of discourse that requires expensive non-solutions to problems created by the government.
The second plan of throwing trillions of dollars at artificially created problems that MUST NOT be solved cannot be presented to a Jeffersonian-type strict constitutionalist and with the expectation that it will be supported.
Solutions have to be relevant to the mindset of the one considering the problem.
Mindset #1. How can I solve this problem? (Original post presents a solution to a government that abhors this mindset).
Mindset #2. How can I avoid solving this problem and create even bigger ones? (Original post presented to a government with this mindset).
The mind to which a solution is presented must first be a mind, and not something mindless (as in “War is Peace” (Bush#2), “You have to pass the Health Care Reform Bill so you can find out what's in it” (Pelosi with mind pumped up artificially on botax)).
Secondly, if a mind is present, it must be ready and willing to receive a solution that is presented timely.
Thanks for the original post, its a fine solution, but there is no mind to receive it.
Moral of story: Develop a good administrative record that demonstrates in law and fact that you are not a taxpayer under 26 USC), including giving SSA back its property and resigning as trustee. Don't just go AWOL. 🙂
Second moral of story: Don't violate other people's rights by stalking them, or committing other crimes against them, or heaven may punish you by sending the IRS after you. :ph34r: (Maybe if he had left 50K in the envelop with his poem, the stalkee never would have complained and all of this could have been prevented. Everyone, I've heard it said, has their price. Look at what most people put up with for a few paltry gov. “benefits” :huh: )
Third moral of story: Never ever talk to the police 😛 , never ever consent to warrantless searches, 😛 especially when they have warned you in language an 8th grader can understand that ANYTHING you say (and in this case the things that WEREN'T said) will be used AGAINST (never FOR) you in a court of law.
Fourth moral of story: Just agree to do the time after you've convicted yourself before you were ever arrested. Don't waste time and create unsavory case law by arguing that you are not a taxpayer when there is nothing in the record to support you, do not argue that the court has erred when the court knows exactly and precisely and, oh yes, precisely, what to do with a taxpayer who doesn't give the government back its property each year.
Fifth moral of story: When you have knowingly CONSENTED to, and willfully put yourself in the jurisdiction of the police, after you have directed them to the evidence against you when they warned you not to, after you have entered the jurisdiction of a territorial court whose sole function is to protect government property, just shut up (finally) and plan to help your inmates with their tax returns.
Hate to say it but the stalkee, the police, the district court and the appeals court were all on solid ground (which lawyers define as making inferences from circumstantial evidence).
- Quote:So appointing a lawyer is the only truly civilized thing to do…But getting convictions by depriving the accused of competent counsel is a disgrace
Appointing lawyers and providing competent counsel is a contradiction in terms. One way to consent to undermine due process of law is to hire or accept a lawyer to represent you…given the attorney's massive conflict of interest. It is also a contradiction to declare an attorney client as a mentally incompetent ward of the court. How can a mentally incompetent person contract with a lawyer and also be legally bound to pay the attorney's fees? That's the contradiction.
More to the point. Everyone, including N@ncy P., H@rry R, B@r@k O, Hill and Bill, T0ny B, Dubya, and many others should have a scrupulously fair trial (hopefully soon). And they should have access to competent counsel and an impartial judge and fact-finder. The jury, of course, is the actual judge in a criminal trial…ruling on both fact and law. The lawyer in the black robe's job is to make sure the procedures that ensure due process of law are followed scrupulously.
No question…due process of law is the Right of all rights. Without it the rest is nothing but empty rhetoric.
You might want to take note of all of the naked children on each side of the windows and the many naked youths as well. It's all there — creation, judgment, images of naked children, etc.
This is where all those old men in red dresses meet to elect the one who will wear the white dress accessorized with the white stockings, red patent leather pumps, red cape, red wide brimmed hat. And who will become infallible (in matters of dress that is).
The things the human heart aspires to <_<
What's amazing about this is that the actors (judges, lawyers) know the commercial scam they are running. When a sovereign, the source of law, confronts them by trashing their game rules (“You are either him, or you are his agent [i.e. strawman]” the 'judge' says. Keith insists that he only administers the “account”) they cannot prevail.
Instead of going psychotic, this 'judge' did the right thing. He should be acknowledged on every patriot and sovereignty website as “Judge of the Year”
. He put his tail between his legs, bowed to his sovereign and abandoned his kangaroo court…without indicating that it would, or could be reconvened. The armed thugs also did the right thing, when they moved back when told to do so by the sovereign.Ignorance + belligerence is a losing strategy (Schiff's, Rose's and the Brown's complete ignorance of how they gave their consent to the jurisdiction of the court are good examples. Rose even publicly demanded their jurisdiction
).)Jurisdiction is everything. No court exists without it. It should be the first thing on the list to deal with in any defense. Keith asserted his jurisdiction then brought the judge and his lackeys into his jurisdiction and then dismissed their action with prejudice.
Knowledge + belligerence is the winning combination.
GentleStrength
You wrote…
Quote:David-Parker: Williams has been in the forefront of the Sovereign Movement for over 10 years. He has tested the Global legal system in the U.S. Federal Courts, the US Supreme Court, the UN, and the World Court at The Hague. David gained valuable practical experience and inside information, not just through book knowledge and education, but hands-on experience that came from writing and submitting Admiralty Claims involving 4 US federal judges, 1 superior court judge in NC, 4 US federal clerks, 1 NC superior court clerk, 5 financial institutions (including MetLife, Prudential, Wachovia, and First Union Bank, now Wells Fargo), 12 North Carolina attorneys, the IRS, and 1 “U.S. citizen.”You leave us to PRESUME that David-Parker: Williams passed all of these legal “tests” with flying colors. If that's the case, your support of his efforts would be more credible if you posted what the legal issues in these “tests” were and what the outcome was. Or do you simply take it on faith that he prevailed?
People can be highly experienced at litigation and wind up in jail.
How many hits, runs and errors are in the record?
. He put his tail between his legs, bowed to his sovereign and abandoned his kangaroo court…without indicating that it would, or could be reconvened. The armed thugs also did the right thing, when they moved back when told to do so by the sovereign.
).)