2 Cops Get Red-Pilled by a Man Pulled Over "Traveling" w/ NO License plate or Driver's Lic.

If they will beat an old lady for nothing or shoot a war hero asleep in his bed, you have to assume you are dealing with unbridled evil, which you are.

And here I am with registration and license renewal pending tomorrow. It is like I was meant to see this today, goodness knows I am anti-system and respect Paul and the things AC 8950 has said. Any suggestions on guides to follow or how to proceed?

NO member of ANY "secret society" has ANY business serving in ANY capacity in ANY government function or position, elected or otherwise.


PERIOD


Now compare that with our reality

5* to you AC 8950.

You have to make a decision, either take the easy, cowardly path of "least resistance", or the hard one where you declare yourself free of their horseshit parasitism.
If you choose to buck them they are going to do everything they can to make you regret being born, and to make an example out of you to others who might be thinking the same thing.

They might even kill you.

They tried to kill me.

I have to be honest, this is sort of the only thing worth living for at this point. I am in the process of moving from a blue state to a red state, in the same profession, to basically flee from insane non sense to a lesser degree of non sense.

I watched the video(s) posted earlier from anti-terrorist on you tube about some of these things and he mentions the most sensible solution to it all is to stop participating as suggested by Arthur Cristian, create communities of like minded individuals and cut out the parasite. Which is the same as you mentioning you warrior society and what Micheal Tellinger is doing with the Ubuntu movement.

I myself have a thread on this forum about these ideas, which are called parallel structures, a term coined by Vaclav Havel. I was first introduced to the idea by Alva Kitselman in his book Hello Stupid where he suggested we should create a government based on wisdom and run it on computers. Which quite frankly always reminded me of tribal culture, where a shaman or elders would have the most say and where a chief might then be the enforcer of what those who were wisest deemed the best path forward.

But I digress, the parallel structure idea has always met with a low level of interest here and I am not attempting to derail, only point out that I always figured I would be dieing for what I know is right and that this fight or the the possibility that it may cost me is not something that I fear.

Last Edited by Questioning369 on 10/26/2021 04:46 PM

The very first thing you have to let go of is that red state blue state horseshit.

That is exactly how they can control us, by keeping us divided into two equal and opposing groups.

Neither left nor right represents FREEDOM. BOTH are dedicated to forcing their will upon everyone.

You have to let go, live and let live, and realize that transsexual pervert shit they are pushing is being used to get you to hate freedom by promulgating the very worst aspects of personal freedom and liberty as evil. NONE of them actually oppose each other, their job is to get us to.







And we end up getting the worst of both, dont we? Ever see a "republican" actually undo any of the fuckery a "democrat" foisted upon us? Me neither.

The very best way to oppose this system and get clean away with it is to cost it as much as you possibly can, while providing it with as little as possible in the form of revenue.

Money is power.



NO POCKET IS BOTTOMLESS.

My friend I am totally in tune with that. I do not support either, I have never once registered to vote and I while I am forced to pay taxes, I certainly do not file to reconcile. I have not taken a cent from the government ever, even if it is "my money" simply because I feel that by participating I am consenting and that is something I certainly do not do. The duality paradigm is a plague used against us and I am simply moving to a place where the people resonate more with my way of thinking.

I don't blame you for not actually understanding how our governance actually was implemented, so I will try as best I can to explain it.

It was a pure democracy basically, in most nations.

In our belief system it is not acceptable for one man to tell another how to live his life, or order, force or coerce him to do anything he does not wish to.


This idea of "chiefs" is also false. we had leaders whose position was most often inherited. His position was more like an an elder advisor than a dictator, and any decision he made was by mutual consent of EVERYONE affected by this decision..



If that leader lost the confidence of too many or made an unpopular decision, he was replaced. EVERYONE has an equal voice in every decision made that affected the entire nation..There are no "classes" of people some with more rights and privileges than others, everyone is a precise equal.

You will never meet any more conservative individual than an Indian elder like myself. And while I understand the desire to hold onto the ways of the past, I also understand that progress is not ALWAYS bad.

Without progress of any kind we would still be living in caves, eating meat raw, shitting in holes in the ground, and choosing our mates by rape

So this guy doesn't have to do what 99.9999% of the rest of the population has to do?

Beautiful, my ignorance at times knows no bounds. This is what I would like to see our government look like quite frankly. It is also how I saw Kitselman's government of the wise play out to a degree, where there would be no leaders but more of a weighted vote based on peer review. Thanks for sharing this and correcting my ignorance!

You dont have to do anything you dont want to do. If you do so, it's because you are a gutless coward IMO.

I have never willingly agreed to do anything I didn't want to

NOTHING, EVER

I have been physically forced, but what are they gaining out of that?

nothing.

If this was me in this situation I'd have told that cop to fuck off, and said nothing else to anyone from that point forward until I was freed.

Well said, I cant help but feel we could all learn much from you. Thanks for taking your time and responding here.

The real reason the whitelaw government found it imperative to destroy our culture is because they knew given a choice their own people would prefer our ways and they'd be shit out of luck.

You can teach the white mans ways out of a white man by raising him in an Indian village but you cannot take the Indian out of a Indian by raising him as a white man, by the white mans ways.

ANd they saw and realized this early on.

When they tried to make slaves out of us we'd slit their throats as they slept, not a very good choice for a slave.

So they just killed us instead.

One of the things I have always found infuriating is how the whites claim we were a backward, savage people deserving of extermination, when we had civilizations much more advanced than anything in Europe pre Columbus.

Yep, we did.

I think that's going to happen in the USA sooner than later. The corruption of Law Enfarcement is now a real epidemic that needs to be cured, permanently.

"when policeman break he law, there is no law, only survival"

If your registration is due, then register.
Later down the line, you can de-register and file for the 'Manufacture's Certificate of Origin'.

If you have a 'Diver's license', that is state property.
You need to figure out the agreements you singed into and keep your word.
Later down the line, you can nullify those agreements that are of no benefit.

But what do I know, It's just my opinion.

Lawful: That which is created by the People under Common Law, to uphold “right and wrong” and “justice”, and containing the precepts of Common Law: To live honourably, to hurt nobody, to render to everyone his/her due. Case Law. Trial by Jury. De jure. The Law of the Land.

Legal: That which is created by government Legislation for the purpose of governing Legal Persons of every artificial kind. The rules and regulations of Statutory Acts, forming contracts by consent. Having the “colour of law”. Commercial. De facto. The Law of the Sea.

“The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

“Speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety, and thus are not arrestable offenses.” Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905-1910

"It [The U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456.

"Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) - Justice Bronson; and State v. Simon, 2 Spears 761, 767 (1884) - Justice O'Neal.

The U.S. adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution. Coldwell v. Hill, 176 S.E. 383 (1934).

In contrast, legislated or statutory law - like the laws of Congress - are written mostly by attorneys to further their own self-interest or to favor special-interest groups with big bucks - exactly as Thomas Jefferson predicted in 1821.

"No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a government, a corporation, a legislated statute or act, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations.

The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislativemode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC IS NOT a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).


To the extent that the Act of June 25, 1948, was written and enacted to justify or otherwise foster the notion that all violations of Congressional acts predating that year can now be prosecuted in the USDC ‑‑ a legislative court that was broadcasted from the federal Territories into the several (48) States on that date ‑‑ then that Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for at least four reasons:

(1) it exhibits vagueness on this obviously important point;



(2) it violates the ex post facto prohibition;



(3) it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and elsewhere; and,



(4) it violates the well established principle that statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal courts must be strictly construed.



Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, summed it up nicely as follows:



In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name. While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.



Appellant’s Common Law Rights are expressly reserved by the Seventh and Tenth Amendments, the terms of which Congress is barred from re-defining. Thus, to suggest that Congress has abolished common law copyrights necessarily results in infringing Rights guaranteed by those Amendments, in this case. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).


“A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience.” U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338] [(9th Cir. 1984)

“… the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. … It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. … The United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a State.” in re Merriam’s Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]

[21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]





A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.



[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]



“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth “may be a government of laws and not of men.” For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886y)]

Constitution for the United States of America, Article 4, Section 4

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ….

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

“In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority. … Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact [consent]. In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.” Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

“In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.” Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)



“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652



“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579



“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.



“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.



“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land [the Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 (1905)


“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946


Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts the rule in the courts – Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years, Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which was a very similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Swift v Tyson was that in any case of this type, the Court would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. Further, since the Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins 1938 ruling, NO other law (or Supreme Court ruling) prior to 1938 can be cited in cases in court.

You must realise that the Court you are standing in is an Admiralty/Law Merchant Court under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which recognizes only two classes of entities, “Creditors” and “Debtors.”, dealing only in the terms and conditions of “Contractual Obligations.” It is NOT a Constitutional Court of proper jurisdiction



“Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.”



“…The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it [that is, if he consents], there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law.” – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.



“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” – Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.



in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45),no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

“The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” – Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

“This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” — Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851) U.S. Supreme Court





“Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” — Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)
This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” — Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…” “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” — Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

“I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” — Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land



All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

[link to www.voidjudgements.net]

[link to johnhenryhill.wordpress.com (secure)]

[link to www.abodia.com]

So you just go around breaking the law at will?

I think that you are full of shit.

I can sum this up in one sentence

Our current government has broken it's contract with the people and no longer has any legitimate mandate to oppress, tax, command or lead us. They are an enemy occupation.

Excellent links.

People need to learn the difference between Law and Policy. They're not interchangeable.

I ignore your laws. The only law I follow is my own, to do no harm to another he does not force me to..

Your law has no legitimacy over me. It is a complex fiction, a tissue of lies created to exploit and oppress me.. When I see freemasons and chosen filling the prisons then I will respect your laws.

Until then, go fuck yourself.

Police "policy" trumps law

YEP

And I can prove it to you.

Explain to me , no, to us ALL...how you concluded that because I dont do anything I do not wish to do that I "Go around breaking the law"

You are a dumb bastard.

The Law is:
Do no harm.
Keep your word.

That's it. Nothing more.
Everything else goes to agreements ans contracts.(Keep your word)

Registration for my truck is due by end of month, license renewal by early Nov. It seems if I do not renew my license, I am no longer contracted, which will have its advantages and disadvantages, depending on perspective.

I have vaguely looked into this stuff in the past but was never serious. However with the way the world is going right now, it seems this is something that needs more consideration as to a way of fighting back.

Any sort of direction is appreciated, thanks.

leave 'MrGueermo' to his own devices.
We all know "Ignorance just breeds fear".