+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

  1. Link to Post #41
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Sure enough, I was chewing out this guy through my Google hangouts posts that were alerting me to this guy's posts... since it was on the topic of "sovereignty" (although I am not literal "sovereign") I was offering links back to my Avalon posts. Anyhow, I had built up 3 or 4 choice responses to the local control freak on that site (you know how much I love those types :D ) I had built up a series of responses in to +WakeUpToTheNWO2: and was cleaning up (if I do say so myself... hehe) And sure enough once again... I went back today, actually looking forward to his next response... Guess what... I can't find +WakeUPTheNWO2: I can't find any of my responses to this loser.... it ALL DISAPPEARED...

    What's interesting was that he pulled the troll card in his last response... and I let him have it... I flipped IT back on HIM so fast, that he couldn't tell whether he was coming or going... Damn I should have saved all the posts... who would of thought all the correspondence of me eviscerating this turd... would be ALL GONE... HE WAS SO LOSING THE Conversation... It's not at the YOUTUBE post, except a few of my original posts... And I can't see any of the conversation anymore in my Google Hangout VAPOURIZED, DISAPPEARED, ERASED in true 1984 fashion...

    THAT TELLS ME THIS GUY WAS A REAL TROLL? HOW CAN AN ONGOING CORRESPONDENCE AND A GOOGLE NAME JUST DISAPPEAR?????????????

    If I didn't post the previous post above, I'd have absolutely NO RECORD this event took place at all!!!!

    WOW!!!

    Still searching to see if I can find him... stay tuned...


    update: I foun NWO2... he's a Santos Bonacci hater apparently, has a subscription of almost 6,000 funny thing, the entire conversation, he never contributed any information, just kept screaming, conspiracy theory is BS, so my last post I put the dictionary definition of conspiracy theory and told him he was weak minded. and that Main stream media must have made him into a weak minded fool to be afraid of the word conspiracy, when you read the post and read the definition. You would have to ask yourself. Yeah? Good question? Why are people afraid to admit to the existence of Conspiracies????...



    con·spir·a·cy

    noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
    1. the act of conspiring.

    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

    4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

    5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.



    I am trying to figure out how can a guy who goes by this name, attack "conspiracy theorists" ?????

    WHERE DID MY GOOGLE HANGOUT CONVERSATION WITH HIM DISAPPEAR TOO!!!! ???? ... MY understanding is that it is all posting back to the original Youtube Site.... and I DON'T SEE IT DAMN! DAMN!!!!!!


    If this is what I think it is.... it tells me something huge... The anti-thesis to the whole argument when someone screams Conspiracy is BS... is to read the dictionary definition and ask them what part they don't understand...

    It just exposes my whole premise. That we ARE BEING CONDITIONED TO have averse, irrational reactions to certain words.... and one of those words is conspiracy... And I have had an entire Google Hangout correspondence from that YOUTUBE Video DISSAPEAR.


    I was so TROUNCING that piece of crap too... DAMNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!

    Will keep an eye on my hangout.... maybe it has to have a response back from my friend before I can see it... But The Hangout is supposed to keep a record of all my transactions????? ....
    Last edited by sigma6; 1st June 2014 at 23:48.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014), Nasu (1st September 2017), Perdido (15th October 2017)

  3. Link to Post #42
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    OK Now I have my proof,

    This time I copied and pasted my response to this guy posted it by going directly to the website and posting it directly. Pulled up the site again. To confirm the post was posted, and then I went back and the post has MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED... His huge smear, about conspiracy theorists is still there but mine has been removed not ONCE but TWICE.

    So apparently anyone who quotes dictionary definitions and makes links to Camelot Project is going to get their posts REMOVED. Experimenting to see which part they are trying to suppress...

    Here is the second post (not anywhere near the first post... hahah) that I am now essentially posting FOR A THIRD TIME TO YOUTUBE. I just posted it a third time at the very top as a new post... this is getting interesting!!!

    This time I just posted it right at the top as a stand alone post at this link...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYUGabNgKHM


    This post is being REMOVED by some third party... (this is the third posting! read it while it stays up...) It responds to what appears to be a "professional troll? Provides a dictionary definition of CONSPIRACY. and provides a link to essays of months of research.... (YOU DECIDE WHY IT IS BEING TAKEN DOWN...??????)

    *+WakeUpToTheNWO2* What vacuous drivel... between your "Big Mac Economics" and your "expletive" posting buddy, you got ZERO?... The "mere fact"?... the "mere fact"?.... The 'mere fact' you would be afraid of a word like "CONSPIRACY" is evidence of weak mindedness. Obviously Main Stream Media has programmed your thinking to be afraid of a word. Come talk to you about what ? How to get a 50% discount on fries?

    Why would someone who purports to be a truth seeker not be looking into conspiracies? You just exposed yourself as a total hypocrite! Here... close your eyes while I type out the definition of the word you have been brainwashed to fear...

    CONSPIRACY:
    1. the act of conspiring.
    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    How on earth do you get through a day living in a fantasy where you don't think conspiracies exist??? (LOLOL)... I just gave you direct reference to a series of articles I wrote over a period of several months. It is apparent you are clueless on trust interpretation. I even told you I personally know someone who is offsetting the cost of the very toll road you are obviously too ignorant to understand how to do yourself. And he is doing this NOW in REAL TIME! Wake up man and pull your head out of your derriere.

    Not that I am trying to make you look like a complete fool... But what is becoming even more apparent is that YOU appear to act like a shill, who else but a shill would attack someone like Santos Bonacci? Or not even address a direct response to your OWN pathetic example (toll booth) ...that I know someone who does what you say is impossible? .... you never even addressed it... NOT EVEN A PEEP?

    All my cards are on the table... they make reference to court precedence, Acts, direct experiences. Deal with it... Otherwise you may give the appearance of being *EXPOSED* Buddy...

    I invite anyone to read these articles and the series of article linked to it... Thanks for the opportunity to give people an opportunity to see the difference between the manipulators and the REAL TRUTH SEEKERS...

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post832198
    Last edited by sigma6; 2nd June 2014 at 00:18.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014)

  5. Link to Post #43
    United States Avalon Member jerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th April 2014
    Posts
    905
    Thanks
    1,351
    Thanked 3,619 times in 696 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    my second time seeing this one and is one to bookmark to watch again and again

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jerry For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014), sigma6 (8th June 2014)

  7. Link to Post #44
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    RobbRyder's most recent email... once again showing... Most people don't have a CLUE what is really going on in occult courts.
    It's all about learning the occult interpretations. Or so it would appear. But I know some things that might make sense of this... read on...

    Bottom line what a lot of stupid people think is the law is not the law. It is a corporate policy administered by a commercial for profit corporation, and they are holding a contractual legal obligation over you based on your signature on documents you never even read...



    The last exchange Ro heard from the judge during a foreclosure hearing last Friday… (in her words)





    “when my husb finished ....he left and i was standing in front of judge...he was smiling ...i asked him ..''can i ask you a question ? sir'' he said ''sure''....i said '' can you tell me where is a court i can bring god into the courtroom ?''



    his smile disappeared , face expression dramatically changed ...and he shouted'' leave right now



    bailiff opened the gate, i left ...tried to find a seat...but bailiff pointed the door ...i left the courtroom”



    That is so telling… all by itself it says worlds… but now.. lets look at it along side another story….



    This involves a guy in Canada… a story I was told by “R.B.” in Montana.. I am sure a number of those that read this will know R.B. and get his verification..



    R.B. told me this on the phone about a year ago - heck maybe more.. and I had hoped and waited for the author of the story to do a talkshoe, mp3.. whatever and share it in his own words.. as far as I know that has not happened..



    What I am sure of.. is if R.B. says a guy in Canada told him the following story .. then he did.. and we should take away from it all that we can…



    So here is the story.. paraphrased of course..



    Guy in Canada is in court (no idea what court), it not being his first time at the Rodeo.. he had come up with a way to get the Judge to leave the courtroom.. had happened before… and was happening now..



    This is not uncommon to happen.. but.. what he did next is I am sure you will agree.. uncommon. …



    Judges leaves the courtroom… everybody else stays in place…. So our guy.. decides to go sit.. in the Judges Chair.. !! and does..



    Apparently he is sitting in the chair.. no one tries to stop him, bailiff did not leave his post.. nothing.. eventually the “judge” peaks out from the back room.. and sees our guy sitting in her chair…



    So..she steps out into the room, and orders the Bailiff to “arrest that Man” … the good junk yard dog that this bailiff is.. he was immediately in action.. headed to the bench… to take down our hero…



    However… and for whatever reason … but certainly guided by the Holy Spirit.. our guy Stands up and says….



    On and for the Record, I open this court in the name of the Lord….



    And with that.. Everyone … left the courtroom… , And with that.. Everyone … left the courtroom… And with that.. Everyone … left the courtroom…



    Leaving our guy.. the last man standing.. so he waited a bit… seems R.B. said for quite sometime.. like 10 minutes or more.. but.. “They” never came back…



    Now as much as I’d like to hear this from the guy it happened too.. I feel its my duty to share what I find relevant from a trustworthy source.. this isn’t the kind of story someone makes up…but that’s my opinion…



    And the Moral… As-King you give an order, not ask permission..



    What Ro did was wonderful.. she asked a question ..about bringing God in Court.. and she was told to Leave… (sort of like asking permission).



    Or man in Canada… gave an order… in the name of the Lord… and “They” had to leave… and They did so without hesitation…



    Between the 2 events … it appears “They” cannot and as much as possible will not allow God in the courtroom…



    (a few weeks earlier when Ro was talking to an Attorney at the Federal District Court.. she asked the attorney about bringing God in the CourtRoom.. and the Attorney said.. No Way.. its not allowed… and ..some months ago now ..one of the “Clerks” for the 16th judicial circuit told her…. “The Judge is god” )..



    Ok..so back to our man in Canada.. he leaves.. does not hear anymore about the matter… but soon after his younger Sister is stopped for no apparent reason, given a promise to appear.. and did…





    The assistant prosecutor.. said to the Judge.. “perhaps if (Her Nare)…. Would apologies the Crown could drop the Charges.. “



    Apparently she turned to the assistant.. and said… “I don’t bow to Satan or his minions”…… really shaking up the assistant prosecutor… ,



    Anymore.. will have to come from the source…



    That’s my story of the story.. and I’m stick’n to it..



    And if “They” ..will not allow God in the Court Room… then .. where is the Courtroom that you can..



    How hard is it to understand ..that the reason there was a Court of Chancery in the first place is .. that an English King issued a decree removing the Bishops involvement in the Hundreds (County) Court…



    Or more simply -- established an Ecclesiastic Court for matters of Faith and Sin.. Crimes against the Law of God… and the Temporal Courts of the State are only to hear non contentious property exchanges..



    If you don’t agree it’s a non contentious property exchange if you think some are conspiring to fraudulently claim your property .. then you need to take it to the Ecclesiastic Court… If ya don’t like the Catholic Church the see if your Church has a court… (any council is holding court).. so take them your petition.. point our color of law, being a crime against humanity.. now they are aware.. and either a witness or a defendant…












    If you can help keep the lights on:
    ashleyrytlewski@gmail.com (paypal)
    and thank you in advance.

    RobbRyder:
    courtofrecord@aol.com
    You can find my other research at:
    http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com
    On youtube at: Robbbryder ( 3 b's)

    Gospel of Thomas:

    11 Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass
    away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days
    when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the
    light, what will you do? 0n the day when you were one, you became two. But
    when you become two, what will you do?"
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014)

  9. Link to Post #45
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Why does the officer have the "right" This is no sloppy usage of words. This is accurate. Of course the "law" he is referring to is "statutory law" (an oxymoron really) which is aka "Corporate Policy". For all members who agreed to be party to it... (i.e. those who would rather accept "benefits and privileges" like the one this lady just got...) rather then exercise their "lawful" rights... and perhaps consider waiving the offer to contract (common law possibility) or even better accepting it for value and delivering it to the court with instruction for settlement with a copy of the BC (huh!!! yep that's what I said... that would be the trust interpretation...) And yes, there is a difference between "legal" "lawful" and "trust interpretation" ...overlap yes... but the differences are quite real. Too bad too, because she actually asked the right question... i.e. "that ticket isn't for me is it?..." How ironic...


    RCMP & POLICE are now ticketing for windows rolled down, convertible tops down & doors unlocked
    http://thercmp.com/post/89581063929/...d#.U6h9sPm-18E




    Great video, This will help illustrate the Trust Interpretation I have been trying to explain. This is why many can't understand what is going on. "Trust Interpretation" really is the hidden system, "hiding in plain sight"
    .

    Put simply, the cat is out of the bag... ALL property registered in public, means the "legal title" has passed to the REGISTRAR as holder. Think of all the property you have registered in the public; house, car, boat, license, etc (everything!) But it gets even better... The REGISTRAR (Province/State) is considered the legal title holder and you are considered the "equitable title holder" However depending on HOW you ACT. YOU could be CONSTRUED as the Legal Title holder as a form of "soft punishment" . That's right they are doing you a favour, in relation to your ignorance and "incompetence". Because in fact you have breached a trust by trying to claim "ownership", which they will construe to mean you are claiming "legal title" when there is NO WAY to prove that... (they KNOW, because they are "holding" it...duh...)

    When you claim "ownership" and "appear" to be acting as legal title holder to property registered in the public. You are considered a "de son tort trustee"... http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...t-trustee.html If you carefully read this definition, anyone who has been to court can start to get a picture of what is going on... And this definition makes a DIRECT REFERENCE to "Constructive Trust" (see post below...)

    If you understand what Constructive Trust is, then you will now begin to actually understand what is going on. This is the REALITY being hidden from you. One of the CARDINAL characteristics of Trust as discovered by CW (Christian Walters) was that no party needs to know there IS a trust for a trust interpretation to EXIST! Think of the implications!!! (btw that's why you're considered "incompetent", amongst other things...

    Also consider in legal dictionary parlance... "Constructive" is derived from the word "CONSTRUE" !!! (also discovered from the research of CW) Are you beginning to see the picture here!? Can you see what you have stepped into? when you go to court and try to "fight, argue" and how pointless it is, why it's a complete "dog and pony show" ... LOLOL...

    There is a solution....but... first understand the literal "Prison of Words" that has entrapped your mind, which makes this inconceivable to most people. But there is much research, and direct personal experience of the truth of this... You must NOT claim ownership. This is VERY difficult for people to understand. You must stop using the word "owner, ownership" until you have completely studied the legal definition. (I don't use the word at all in a court, or in legal context, unless I am pointing out who the REAL "LEGAL OWNER" is... But NEVER in reference to myself. It is a dangerous trap.

    Again none of this can make sense without "Trust Interpretation". But the key focus in this; understanding how registration splits title to property into legal and equitable title. The public courts and the whole system only "sees" "legal title" ("equitable title" is private) Constructive trust is a CONSTRUED trust, created in the court when you claim to be the NAME (haven't covered that yet) But in effect you are making yourself a de son tort trustee, forcing the court to "...immediately raise a constructive trust..." In a nutshell that means they just put the legal title (and thus the liability) on YOU! as a punishment for being so incompetent... and made the NAME the beneficiary...)

    How is that possible? Here's (one of) the kickers... The trust that has been established when you registered all the property in the public was done in the Birth Certificate NAME. And what is the Birth Certificate? (are you sitting down...?) It's another registered property! That's right... But before you get all depressed the bottom line of this is that YOU are the SUPERIOR party in this whole deal (IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON!... I think I have to add this part, otherwise I think people are getting too depressed, and repress this information out of their consciousness, because of fear and confusion... LOL!!!)

    But you have to understand the CONTEXT before you can understand the solution... and your ultimate power. This is a serious, serious thing to operate in trust... Ok, lets go back to the BC, The Criminal Code definition (in Canada, but this is a UN based document i.e. same all over the world in principle) Goes like this...

    "Every one" "person" and "owner" and similar terms, include her Majesty [a Crown Corporation?] and an organization;

    That's it. That's (a major part of) the secret. Mention that to a lawyer and they go blankety blank... and start to play stupid. Cat's out of the bag... i.e. what it is saying is "person" is a form of corporation. The BC is a registered organization. Is a property registered in the public. Almost like a recursive equation. That house, that car, that boat, was NOT ONLY registered in the public but it was registered in the NAME!!! Which is also a Sole Corporation and property itself registered in the public!! Now slow down and let that sink in... It requires contemplation. REAL contemplation. In fact it requires a diagram to sort out the dynamics of what is going on. (which I have made btw...) But for now... just know this... YOUR ONLY ROLE in all this is at ONE POINT (if you diagrammed this all out...)

    That's right, it was all setup so that YOU (the physical living man/woman) are completely OUTSIDE of this whole setup, by definition... (i.e. the world of registered corporations and property in the public... i.e. why they call it a world of fiction (doesn't mean it's not real... that is the simpleton interpretation. It was created to create a world of accounting) And this is NOT to say it is GOOD or EVIL... It is what it is... A system. In terms of liability (if YOU UNDERSTAND) ...your sole connecting point is that YOU were issued the NAME (registered organization, Property, UPPER CASE NAME) Therefore you are the recipient. That certificate is proof, indisputable in ANY court, (but it must be properly presented, or filed into the case and called forth as evidence, which will in many instances, shut down the whole trial before it even starts!!!) Point is, it is PROOF, that YOU are the Equitable title holder (in private... remember they can only see the public in the public... They might need a NOTICE from the Private (for example... i.e. be careful in your application... O.o ) In fact, if you so much as say one wrong word, or show incompetence... Which is what you have been programmed to do your entire life (get it!?.... LOLOL...) Then they will throw you back into the constructive trust interpretation ... in a heart beat...

    That's the game folks.... That's why you have NO CHOICE, if you really want to "Exercise your RIGHTS" you have to understand some basic fundamentals. Think in an entirely different way. Still have difficulty (I don't blame you...) But here is what is written on BC's in the UK. (same system of course...)

    " This extract is evidence of an event recorded in a register of births. It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person presenting it "

    You see, if you look and check it out for yourself. In NO PLACE in the public does the Government ever TELL you that the Birth Certificate is YOUR IDENTITY... It is YOUR ACTION, and YOUR INTERPRETATION... I'll bet you have never noticed this your entire life. Consider how many other things you have missed as well... But is all there, "hidden in plain sight". It requires the exercise of logic to infer it, Thus how it is

    Here is a quick update to another post... that I linked this post to... since it is such a "sparse topic" apparently some would try to "suppress" it in bizarre ways... I thought I would link them to give as much opportunity for context (much needed I believe....)

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post846924
    Last edited by sigma6; 24th June 2014 at 01:10.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    gripreaper (24th June 2014), naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014), Shikasta (23rd June 2014)

  11. Link to Post #46
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Certificate:
    A ticket:
    A warrant:
    A written assurance: of official representation that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with
    A written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge or officer.
    A statement of some fact in writing signed by the party certifying.



    c. Constructive trusts
    A constructive trust is a remedial device imposed by a court of equity to prevent a person who has obtained property by wrongful conduct or unjust enrichment from deriving the benefits thereof.
    [consistent with de sont tort trustee ?]


    (Black’s Law 4th ed, Pg 1681)
    Constructive Trust.
    A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Wherever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment.

    (i.e. you just got f***ed over by the court when they pull this one on you... which happens millions of times EVERY DAY, DAY IN and DAY OUT... )
    -----------------------------------------------

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...t-trustee.html
    De son tort trustee:
    Person who is not a party to a trust agreement (and has no authority as a trustee) but meddles with the trust property or takes upon himself or herself to carry out acts characteristic of the office of trustee. Instead of prosecuting this person, the courts may hold him or her to be a constructive trustee and, thereby, impose the liabilities of an actual trustee in accounting for his or her acts. 'De son tort' is Latin for, by his (her) own wrongdoing.

    [Question: If we are having trusteeship imposed on us via a "remedial device" Who do you think the "actual trustee" should have been or was originally?]




    The BC could be used as evidence that they are committing a fraud, so long as you don't claim ownership. i.e. if they were to continue to force and coerce and manipulate you into it (which is what they are trained to do... Who are you! Are you the owner? I need to speak to the Owner! Is this YOUR car? etc etc,
    The car is registered in the NAME. YOU are the holder of a certificate to THAT NAME. DIFFERENTIATE that in your mind (before you even consider how to apply it... and no it is more then just saying "I'm not the name! (in a whiny a** voice... LOL) even though it is the right idea... it won't cut it in court (it's not enough...)

    The BC would be clear evidence of their "fraud". They are guilty of conversion. (I'm not 100% clear, but that is what I am told, still studying that one... But it makes sense...

    Now the "what CAN you say part" (is trickier) you are the recipient, the holder of the certificate, "Which NAME are you referring to? ...the public registered NAME? or my private Christian NAME? Given to me by my mother? (...that's private and none of your business, btw... ) I like Winston Shrout's the best "I don't know my name because God hasn't revealed it to me yet" This is consistent with KJV scripture POW!!! Now that one takes understanding, but it is by far the most lethal, in my opinion for a number of reasons... (but again, I have to stress the "understanding" part... Don't be fakin' stuff you don't understand, or your liable to make yourself look like a FOOL...
    Last edited by sigma6; 24th June 2014 at 01:08.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014), Sebastion (24th June 2014)

  13. Link to Post #47
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post851636

    Another response to another post... Has to do with a big post that has been going around, btw alot of people don't, that post IS about Kate and (his/her) daughter!!
    Anyhow some synchronicity.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014)

  15. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member Snowflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th October 2013
    Location
    Front range Colorado Rockies, in wilderness
    Posts
    787
    Thanks
    272
    Thanked 4,163 times in 733 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Ok, so now what? Start using a different name?

  16. Link to Post #49
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Perhaps try and stretching past more then one sentence posts... but funny you mention it, there are occasions where people use different names, it's perfectly legitimate and perfectly legal, and even has practical application in specific contexts, the only issue is avoiding anything considered fraudulent. I guess it's a "trust interpretation thing" Meaning, the intention of the use, is what dictates the determination of type of application. So the answer would have to be: "it depends, but I doubt it..." (it's one option of many)

    I'd say the first thing to figure out in your own mind, in something that you could articulate to yourself and to others regarding "who you are" (how would you describe yourself... especially in relation to the certificate you were issued.) That changes everything. That has to be understood and expressed in a way that describes it in every way possible; legally, technically from a business contract point of view, trust interpretation point of view, what your own interpretation of it's implications mean to you.

    Even Karen Hudes admits they don't see us in court, they see an account and a debtor taking on surety, liability, by their own actions, and therefore by their own consent. (i.e they judge peoples actions as well as their words, and create their presumptions, and try to fasten it upon you... unless you know exactly what is going on... actually KNOW... as opposed to just larking, or aping, or guessing, or repeating, only half understanding, etc... hope that helps

    I'm not 100% Pro Karen, she is way too slick... but she does give out little tidbits, she is hinting at it. A court of equity btw is a direct reference to trust interpretation. And THAT is what she said we are NOT getting (but she didn't say how to get it... ) She is just "talking" about it... she is speaking cryptically...

    in one part he says sarcastically "...like we don't have ANY rights... she corrects him with response, we have to take our rights back... now that was cryptic, that avoided explaining how that all works, but it was 100% accurate... LOL...

    World Banker Karen Hudes Reveals Secret US Constitution
    Last edited by sigma6; 9th July 2014 at 09:55.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (11th November 2014)

  18. Link to Post #50
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 477 times in 195 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    sigma6,

    Below is my response to Eddie Craig's video which you praise in your comment above.

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec.
    (Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).

    THE HOAX:
    Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

    THE TRUTH:
    As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    BACKGROUND:
    Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver's license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ CLAUSE THREE (3) HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

    On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
    Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    SIMPLIFICATION:
    Under this constitutional division of powers (jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. Thus, FEDERAL law and STATE law GOVERN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (AND "OPPOSITE") LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    PURPOSE:
    The purpose of this constitutional division of powers (jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments was to actually make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the FEDERAL government to regulate STATE legal subjects and vice versa. This division of powers (jurisdiction) is precisely why conflicts between FEDERAL laws and STATE laws are so extremely rare (because FEDERAL and STATE laws regulate ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (AND "OPPOSITE") LEGAL SUBJECTS FROM ONE ANOTHER). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because (under the tenth amendment) FEDERAL law regulates driving while engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE" and STATE law regulates driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE" (the exact "OPPOSITE" legal subject).

    NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the forgoing BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970.

    CONCLUSION:
    As a result, FEDERAL driver’s license laws APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles "WHO ARE" engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. Conversely, STATE driver's license laws APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE "NOT" engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, if "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. Take your pick. The result is exactly the same either way. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    APPLICATION:
    So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you ARE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just conclusively proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF ON THIS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY ("STATE driving, licensing and registration laws do not apply to you unless you are engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE."):

    Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court!

    1). OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

    Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

    FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, and there is NOT, then under the Supremacy clause, the decision above would overrule that other decision.

    NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now OPPOSITES of one another (FEDERAL law requires drivers of motor vehicles who "ARE" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses and STATE law requires drivers of motor vehicles who ARE “NOT” engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses. EITHER WAY, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the officer who had previously arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [A FALSE CLAIM IDENTICAL TO WHAT EDDIE CRAIG FALSELY CLAIMS]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent [Translation: "The dangers of driving on public highways make regulation reasonable and necessary."]. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a town and other government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she 'HAS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF A [LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES THAT DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH.'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that he had a good faith belief he did not need a driver's license because he believed that, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case using an almost identical argument before. In discussing that earlier, almost identical case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license ... six times. After she refused to respond... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON [whether or not engaged in commerce] WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his amateur suit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The appellate court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims] BUT NOT 'TRAVELING'. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' [IN IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams [an amateur legal theorist] filed an amateur claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court convictions for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE and [for] displaying EXPIRED REGISTRATION PLATES. [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... , with three years of probation." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant appealed his conviction in the lower court. The appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL followed by supervised probation.... [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE." But, the court implicitly held that the absence of "commerce" was completely irrelevant because it affirmed the conviction of the lower court below. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Appellant [AND WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], Anthony Troy Williams, was indicted... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Appellant [Williams] was convicted by a jury and sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, Appellant... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims] AND [THAT] NO STATE CAN IMPOSE REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF TRAVEL ON THE HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS.'" But the court held otherwise and wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF [INTERSTATE] TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE.... . THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT MOTOR VEHICLE BE REGISTERED... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [INCLUDING THE PHONY "COMMERCE" ARGUMENT] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court several times [actually providing a long list of such dismissals]." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him, a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction in BOTH cases. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS and [claimed that] he was claiming diplomatic immunity. Guenther [the officer] testified that the ["Right To Travel" documents] ... contained a birth certificate and documents that stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [as if that would make any difference]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND [I]... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B.' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    "SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

    Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-...hwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/3391...by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of decisions which they use as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision to support this false claim. For example, they have come up with the following "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", LOOK ALIKE" RIGHTS:

    1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

    2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

    3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

    4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

    RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

    Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

    Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

    1. Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the right "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this court also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence again and again]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of Virginia anyway.

    2. People v. Horton,
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006
    Note: This is a CRIMINAL stop and search and seizure case, not a driver's license case. In this case, an officer stopped a car SOLELY because it contained young people. The officer found marijuana in the car and arrested the driver for possession. In holding the traffic stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to illegal stops and searches and seizures], unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of California anyway.

    3. People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. Note: This is a CRIMINAL stop and search and seizure case, not a driver's license case. In this case, the police set up a roadblock to catch an armed robber fleeing the scene of the crime. The police stopped every single car on the road. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the roadblock was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case directly above which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to illegal stops and searches and seizures], unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of California anyway.

    4. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). Note: This case is also a ROADBLOCK CASE, not a driver's license case. In this case, police set up roadblocks around a high crime area after dark and stopped every vehicle going into the high crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a legitimate reason for entering the high crime area, the police turned the driver and vehicle away. The court held that such a roadblock was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [to a particular area]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders the District Of Columbia anyway.

    5. Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT OR LIBERTY... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The right of a citizen to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER... . So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside the borders of the State of Idaho anyway.

    6. Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...nc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a certain minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides for usual and customary purposes and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the fifth case above) which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". Two paragraphs later, the same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of the alleged "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside the borders of the State of Mississippi anyway.

    The case below explains it well.

    Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION AND CONTROL... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .' (quoting the CENTURY-OLD, SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, THE VERY FIRST CASE ABOVE AT THE VERY TOP, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

    Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

    SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

    Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked). Regardless, because they conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

    In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a city commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The city commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

    A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham (in protest of racial injustice) twice attempted to apply for such a permit with the city and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject ordinance.

    The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH. The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION [not case law] guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny the LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE (9) words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] license." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] license."

    Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

    THERE IS NO CASE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT MATTER! "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS IN SUBSTITUTE RULINGS WILL NOT WORK.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 1st October 2018 at 21:18.

  19. Link to Post #51
    Finland Avalon Member rgray222's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th September 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,289
    Thanks
    8,984
    Thanked 21,003 times in 2,188 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Quote Posted by Dawn (here)
    I don't know if my post here will be welcome or not... but I still wanted to put it here. I think it is very important for EVERYONE to see and KNOW how extremely aggressive, evil, lying and generally predatory our government and TPTB are. But, interestingly, fighting them simply adds energy to the fight.
    I saw something that was an AH HA (!) for me. I saw that when you resist something, you add your energy to it and it grows even more. So... fight the government.... you add your own life force to the pattern in operation. Meanwhile, your life force is spent in the fight. All the revolutions, overthrows of past governments, and political fights have simply added more energy to the situation
    Then ... finally I realized that I needed to stop the war. And in order to do this I needed to stop the war inside myself. I needed to withdraw my energy from resisting and from disapproval and... from all forms of hate and judgement. I needed to allow ... to allow everything and everyone to be as they are... and to love them and see them as perfect.

    I have been diligently working away at this project for a large part of my life now. The result is a life that is really and truly amazing. My life is abundant, I am free of strife, I am filled with peace... and I am still going ever deeper into looking for any places within me where hate and resistance still reside.
    Dawn, I found this message very insightful and it parallels much of what I have been attempting to accomplish for many years. Adding your energy or life force to something so negative only pulls the strength from your soul. Bearing witness and leading others to the truth (with no expectation) is the smart road to follow. That said, once a tipping point of witnesses has been reached, action will become necessary.

    My AH HA moment was finally figuring out that my contribution was only adding fuel to the fire. It caused an inner resentment and anger which was difficult to deal with and at the end of the day only increased the energy of the problem I was railing against. Stepping out of the war has made my life healthier, abundant (in every sense of the word) happier and much more rewarding.

    This would be an excellent topic for a new thread.

  20. Link to Post #52
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,906
    Thanked 12,729 times in 2,903 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    When one studies equity in trust and understands the dynamic nature of usufruct... (the dynamic relationship between individual and State...) and also the back drop of hidden meaning in Biblical text regarding commercial transactions and ownership of property, jurisdiction under God, etc... it's not about going against the State... that was always set up as a trap to catch hard headed people... it's about learning enough of their 'language' which is truly 'foreign' to our every days lives (sorry but there is no number of television shows that will ever educate you on how the courts or cops operate... it's quite the contrary in fact... and intentionally so...) and consistent with the Roman saying "...Let he who would be deceived, be deceived..."

    Simply put, the idea is to essentially let the 'Roman Civil System' which is what everyone is stuck in, whether they know or accept this or not (from their limited point of view...) which is a form of martial law governed by the Libor Code. That you must let this 'Power' know that you are not an enemy, nor intending to take up resistance or arms against it/them, and that you intend to live as a peaceful inhabitant... and willing to pay some tribute, in exchange, the occupying forces maintain protection of property and peaceful relations via rule of law... on top of all these systems was the creation of a corporate entity that was issued for our use as a form of indemnification if we chose to accept this offer... it involves abandoning all 'modern' notions of outright ownership (which according to Biblical philosophy (i.e. Western Christianity) is absolute nonsense anyway (because God owns everything out right, including your life even...) and focuses strictly on "right to use" (which by the way it what "property" really means to begin with... language, media, and lack of education just simply forgot this... I could get into "title" ...how it is used as the means of establishing "property" (right) and this is why understanding trust is so important, since it controls how titles are "moved"...

    suffice it to say... as much as the Anglo/American Jesuit backed Vatican war machine freaks me out, I'd rather it be them (now that I understand their underlying modus operandi) then some purely "man ruling over other men" system, for the sake of a small elite group of men (i.e. no 'God' in the picture, thus no alternative jurisdiction, should someone choose to wish to live in peaceful co-existence or not...) i.e. like North Korea, as we all know, anyone there can be killed for any reason if Fat Man Lame Duc (sorry if I got the name wrong) wishes it or not... period, end of story... or even China and Russia, as "peaceful" as they seam to be... I believe they behave this way precisely as a response to the existence of the 'US' system, although Russia is now moving toward a Christian Orthodoxy based religious society and I am all for that for the above reasons, and there has been some kind of settlement between them and the Vatican... anyhow, sorry if this went too "big picture" but this is at the heart of what is going on...

    i.e. you are fighting the public Roman Civil commercial, admiralty, jurisdiction, an outside occupying force ultimately, (US currency is a global currency, IRS and Federal Reserve and NOT US government agencies, etc, etc...) which is a form of civilized warfare when you fight against it... this is really or people who choose to be 'Godless' (i.e. give up the jurisdiction of their own consciousness, as a men and women created in the image of God, and therefore capable of manifesting his principles here on earth, etc...aka 'true' Christian principles...) and for the critics (I can hear it now...) the Vatican is a whole other kettle of fish, even though they play an important and critical role...) And it doesn't matter to me any longer whether Jesus was this or that, non-existent, etc... that is a whole other topic again... it's the PRINCICPLES that are sacrosanct... based on universal philosophy that has scientific rationality (if you look deep enough... why it's still 'universal')

    There is another jurisdiction but you will never find it in the public, the Roman system is only obligated to maintain the covenant of Christ, not necessarily educate and spoon feed it to a world of incompetents... you have to find this yourself... you have to educate yourself... you have to exercise these very real rights yourself... in the same way (and principle) that you have to wash yourself and eat for yourself and poop for yourself... it's very private and very personal.. it's a philosophical decision you make, based on your choices (some people can't, won't or refuse to do these things, which is their right/plight, etc...) but if and when you do... in an educated and accurate and proper manner, the system is there and will be revealed... and it does serve you... because there is a trusts... and trusts never fail... and to me explains perfectly what I see going on locally, statewide, nationally and globally... stop mistaking the de-facto superficial cover for the foundation... we could go back to purely trust... but statutory couldn't exist without it... just like... what we call "material reality" can't exist without the non-material quantum foundation that it rests on... it's that fundamental in my mind...


    or to put it it all in a nutshell when getting a "ticket"... you act like a creditor, seek immediate settlement of the matter, preferably even within 3 days, at least to set appt if you can't set up a private appt, present a cert copy of BC, that has notation noticing "acceptance for value" i.e. file into case or attach to account that has ticket, etc... and consider the matter settled...

    of course if none of this makes sense... please don't try to "simulate" this by "going through the motions" you WILL be tested... in fact the whole system is testing you constantly... you either know it, or you don't... learning by trial and error isn't appreciated by the courts and can be very costly...

    As people like Sean David Morton found, he was an extreme case that was pushing it to the limit and I think there was some fundamental errors in his interpretation... but he wasn't entirely wrong, in fact he was very close... nonetheless, it's a very serious thing to breach a trust on EITHER side...
    Last edited by sigma6; 15th October 2017 at 17:54.
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (15th October 2017)

  22. Link to Post #53
    UK Avalon Member Mike Gorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Language
    English
    Age
    65
    Posts
    1,868
    Thanks
    5,827
    Thanked 13,983 times in 1,749 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Quote Posted by STR (here)
    I come from a family of law enforcement. My brothers are FEDs, my son is a FED and my other brother a chief of police, my dad was a state cop and my grandfather a game warden. I recall the disappointment when I went into something so mundane and boring as dental and the lecture of why becoming a cop was so much better blah blah blah. Looking at the situation through the eyes of this guy it makes me darn glad I went where I did.

    However, with that said, and coming from a family of several active cops including cousins not mentioned by the way, I want to add some thoughts. I realize truth is rarely thanked in conspiracy and UFO forums and that is fine but seriously I've had about all my family watch this now and the general consensus is that this guys advice is serving only the attorney, the Alex Jones and His channel and other such places. These guys, Alex and this lawyer included, in my opinion, could care less about you. Its great for them if you confront the law and it gets them ratings and you get hammered with some trauma. Most of my family feel what this guy is recommending is just going to make confrontations unnecessary by blowing out of proportion some happenings the media focuses on purposely just to gain the same types of negative ratings. IF you get in a confrontation and its on camera it really helps them while tapping you out emotionally, physically and lets not forget financially. Most of these officers have no such interpretations as this guy either and no intentions of taking rights away by these questions. However, they do actively seek signs of deception, drugs, and alcohol among others and behaviors such as those recommended by this guy are the exact red flags they are trained to detect to make them suspect you when they otherwise may not!

    Lastly, has anyone including this lawyer givin any thought or consideration to the poor people pulled over after one of the guys watching this video pulls this stuff? Talk about poking the bear! I am glad it only has six posts. At least that says something because I think this guy is giving bad advice personally. I don't see it as giving over my rights to cooperate with a law officer if I have nothing to hide at all. They won't find anything in my car illegal and I know that so to me this is needless sky is falling nonsense blown out of all proportion to profit one way or another at the expense of others. The media can at any time show you a very very small % of what is actually the 'world' lets not forget. One needlepoint segment in a small area of the US or even two or three does not constitute some threat. Texas has a high percentage of cop assaults tho so they have the issue and want to make it nation wide also which is not a fair assessment either. Again, my opinion. For the record and all!
    Why do you include Alex Jones as being a fraudulent conspiracy monger? I have seen a lot of Alex's media work, and he never willingly promotes B.S, he might exaggerate a few things for dramatic effect; the establishment wants you to consider his work as illegitimate, because it makes people think critically about their society. I would not fall into the trap of being a 'General dismisser' of anything which challenges your safe, mainstream perspectives. Alex Jones does not promote the sovereign movement.

    Most of the sovereign information is based on half truths, and plausible sounding legalese. They speak of 'Common Law' (this is a big one with them) Common Law is simply the law of precedent - it refers to cases where judgments have been handed down which challenge the established order. This is how laws get changed, 'precedent' is changed.
    There was the birth certificate, and how this represented a stock market investment on you - this was incorrect, people who make their living by selling 'alternative' information and products which challenge the establishment just get rich off of folks who are rebels at heart.
    These are the people I feel sorry for, the people who feel a general sense of outrage that their freedoms are repressed by society. The malcontents and natural rebels-they get sucked into these con men movements which kind of sound plausible-the people involved actually believe what they are teaching, but most of this sovereign movement is InValid, it is technically incorrect, it is flim flam!
    Mary Elizabeth Croft was at the heart of much of the sovereign movement This is her PDF which started off a lot of this alternative fight-it is interesting!

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Mike Gorman For This Post:

    snoop4truth (27th September 2018)

  24. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 477 times in 195 posts

    Default Re: What The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About The Driver's License

    Dear Sigma6,

    This is more that you need to know about Eddie Craig whose video you praise above.

    EDDIE CRAIG & THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:

    1). http://freeinfreedom.com/2013/04/15/...t-you-to-know/ (in the TITLE of this fraudulent article).

    2).http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/08/26/ff34/ (in the FIRST SENTENCE of this fraudulent article).

    3. https://www.lawfulpath.com/index.php...pProcedure.php (in the SECOND SECTION containing the BLUE "Info Wars Nightly News" link).

    4). http://randeastwood.com/pulled-over-...f-your-rights/ (in the SECOND PARAGRAPH).

    5). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMi...UTSbytYpXY8X6A (See the TITLE).

    6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004 (See the DESCRIPTION section BELOW THE TITLE.).

    7). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZ14PFb7AQ (click on "SHOW MORE" for "Eddie Craig's background")

    THE HOAX:
    Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, FALSELY claims to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" (a "former cop" and a "former law enforcement officer") and an "EXPERT" in the law. Specifically, Eddie Craig FALSELY claims that he was a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF", he found out that all traffic law (and all traffic-related law enforcement) was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and corrupt.

    Eddie Craig makes these intentionally fraudulent claims about himself and his background in order to deceptively "TRICK" the American people into thinking that he is a GENUINE AUTHORITY in the law. But, none of this is so.

    THE TRUTH:
    The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" for a period of TWO WEEKS in 1992, at which time, he was unceremoniously "FIRED" ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!

    That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!
    It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" for which he claims he "left the Air Force". HE IS A CHARLATAN AND A FRAUD!

    See this case. Muniz v. Davis, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Muniz [a litigant in a traffic-related case who Eddie Craig duped] also asks the Court to consider the [written] expert statement of Eddie Craig, attached as an exhibit to Muniz's First Amended Complaint... . In the statement, Craig opines that the actions of the law enforcement officers in this case were unlawful [as if Eddie Craig would know]. ALTHOUGH MUNIZ CLAIMS THAT CRAIG IS A FORMER SHERIFF'S DEPUTY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT [TO THIS EFFECT OR] OF CRAIG'S PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS [AS AN ALLEGED "EXPERT WITNESS]. Simply put, THE COURT HAS NO BASIS TO CREDIT CRAIG'S ASSERTIONS [AS AN ALLEGED "EXPERT" WITNESS]... . " (in the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 35% through the text). Note that the reason that there was "no evidence before the court" that Eddie Craig was a former Sheriff Deputy is that HE IS WAS NOT A DEPUTY SHERIFF, much less an "EXPERT WITNESS" in matters of the law.

    ANALYSIS:
    Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any "valuable inside knowledge" of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig's "EXPERIENCE" in his "CAREER" as a "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" and "DEPUTY SHERIFF".).

    OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
    EDDIE CRAIG HAS LOST ALL OF HIS OWN CASES! REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What's more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some "expert".

    NOTE:
    For more "Eddie Craig Hoaxes", see the comment below entitled, Eddie Craig & The "No Commerce, No Driver's License Needed Hoax" (SEE COMMENT DIRECTLY BELOW). It contains links to the REAL law on that subject. For more on driver's license law, see the comment entitled, the "Right To Travel Hoax" & The "No Driver's License Required Hoax" (SEE COMMENT EVEN FARTHER DOWN BELOW). It also contains links to the REAL law on that subject.

    DISCLAIMER: No person at InfoWars, its ownership, management or staff knew the forgoing FACTS about Eddie Craig. They took Eddie Craig FOR HIS WORD that he was what he claimed to be. Inforwars is NOT responsible for Eddie Craig's false claims ABOUT HIMSELF or his false claims ABOUT THE LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

    CONCLUSION:
    Sadly, Eddie Craig is just another poser, pretender and impostor who INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTS the law and the legal system in order to incite hatred and violence against the servants that "We the People" ELECT to enforce our laws which are made by the servants that "We the People" ELECT to make our laws.

    HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST EDDIE CRAIG FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
    ADVISING people what to say or do in the presence of law enforcement officers, judges and/or prosecutors (offering or providing "SCRIPTS", "TEMPLATES", oral "ADVICE") may constitute the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW in Texas. To file a COMPLAINT against Eddie Craig in Texas in connection with this illegal behavior, click here. http://www.txuplc.org/.


    PAY FOR A EDDIE CRAIG SEMINAR? YOU GET AT LEAST THREE TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK!

    If you PAID to attend ANY SEMINAR involving Eddie Craig IN RELIANCE of his fraudulent claims that: 1). He is a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF"; OR THAT 2). He knows the law; OR THAT 3). He (rather than an attorney) has EVER "won" ANY case, in ANY court, at ANY time, THEN YOU MAY RECOVER THREE (3) TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK, PLUS ATTORNEY FEES, PLUS OTHER LEGAL COSTS UNDER FEDERAL RICO, PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER STATE LAW!

    NOTE: Eddie Craig markets and solicits money for his seminars by using the "means" of "INTERSTATE commerce" (internet, email, telephone, U.S. Mail, etc.). Eddie Craig markets and solicits money for his seminars by making the fraudulent representations described above. This fraudulent conduct gives rise to FEDERAL jurisdiction, to claims under FEDERAL RICO and also gives rise to STATE law claims for fraud and misrepresentation including claims for PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

    THE LAW ON FRAUDULENT SEMINARS UNDER FEDERAL RICO:

    1). Neibel v. Trans World Assurance Co., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[THE DEFENDANT HERE] PREYED ON... AMERICANS WITH LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN THE ... LEGAL SYSTEM [exactly like Eddie Craig does]. AT HIS SEMINARS, ...[the Defendant here] PROMISED those in attendance... [he] would PROVIDE... [them with SCRIPTS AND LEGAL DOCUMENT] PREPARATION AND ADVICE... [and] LEGAL PROTECTION...[just like Eddie Craig promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "[The Defendant here described his METHODS and his DOCUMENTS as] 'TRIED AND TRUE' [just like Eddie Craig describes his own METHODS and his own SCRIPTS and DOCUMENTS to his own SEMINAR customers]" Translation: The Defendant here, like Eddie Craig, LIED to his own customers about the BENEFITS that his SEMINAR customers would receive from attending his SEMINARS, such as "WINNING their own traffic cases in court", etc. ; "...[T]he jury [here] found...[the Defendant here] LIABLE FOR VIOLATING [FEDERAL RICO] section 1962(d), AWARDING [the Plaintiffs/Seminar Customers] $259,366 in actual damages TREBLED [means "TRIPLED"] to $778,098 under [FEDERAL RICO] 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)). It [the jury] also awarded... [the Plaintiffs/Seminar Customers] $87,000 in damages for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION [under state law]. Finally, the jury awarded the... [the Plaintiff's] $500,000 in PUNITIVE DAMAGES under...[state law]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 8th full paragraph at about 25% through the text of the case.). Thus, under the law, Eddie Craig is liable to his own SEMINAR customers for TRIPLE their losses under FEDERAL RICO and is liable to his own Seminar Customers for ACTUAL and PUNITIVE DAMAGES under STATE law.

    2). Cohen v. Trump, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "Defendant [here]... offer[ed] SEMINARS... purporting [means "pretending"] to teach Defendant's 'MASTER STRATEGIES' for... SUCCESS [just like Eddie Craig promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "Learn from the MASTER [just like Eddie Craig effectively describes himself to his own SEMINAR customers while pretending to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF"]". For the law on how FEDERAL RICO law applies to Eddie Craig under these facts, read the entire "DISCUSSION" section of the case at the 16th and 17th full paragraphs, not including block indented paragraphs for quoted portions, at about 40% through the text of the case.

    3). Maida v. Sherman, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[T]he... defendants [here] held themselves out as [being] capable of 'repairing' broken credit... . The... defendants [here] gave public SEMINARS... in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee... ." (The preceding text is in the 16th full paragraph, immediately below the section entitled "B. Credit Repair Program", at about 25% through the text of the case.).; "[The defendants here] represented [to their SEMINAR customers] that, BY FOLLOWING... [their own methods which they taught their own SEMINAR customers], they had [SUCCESSFULLY] improved their [own] credit scores... . [and] that they had received many personal benefits from the... program [which they taught their own SEMINAR customers]... [similar to what Eddie Craig fraudulently represents to his own SEMINAR customers]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 17th paragraph at about 27% through the text of the case.).; "On the basis of these MISREPRESENTATIONS,... . [the defendants' customers] paid [the] defendants $1,698 in... fees [just like Eddie Craig's own SEMINAR customers pay him based on similar fraudulent MISREPRESENTATIONS]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 18th full paragraph at about 30% through the text of the case.).; "[But] no credit score improvement... occurred... . [Indeed, the defendants' own SEMINAR customer's] credit score HAS GOTTEN SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE [similar to what happens to Eddie Craig's own SEMINAR customers who rely on his advice in their own traffic court cases]." (The immediately text is in the 19th full paragraph at about 33% through the text of the case.). For an explanation of how FEDERAL RICO applies to Class under these facts, read section "V C. Civil RICO" at about 85% through the text of the case.

    NOTE: For an entire series of legal hoaxes by a similar charlatan, CLICK HERE! https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes. Read them all. They are simply unbelievable.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day.

    The message to all HOAXERS and CHARLATANS? Just tell the truth.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts