Sir, do you have a license and registration?

Yes because you lost.

Whoops didn't mean to leave the name up

...

im a sovereign citizen
have you even read the articles of confederation?

>when statist bootlicker is so panty twisted he lost on such a massive objective and lagally defined scale he came back for more damage control

The lack of law regarding an action is not indication of illegal actions in itself. The lawyer op made a clear case automobiles are protected mean to travel my self propelled vehicle. Faggot.

Here they are, sir. May I ask why how you could keep up with me in that car through this heavy traffic?

I am a travelling individual sir. I have right to travel my pivate vehicles on public road without mandatory permit required. I DO not have a license, i DO NOT, have registrations. I am NOT a recognized Driver by my state. My car is NOT a commercial vehicle.

I always have everything ready and pay attention to their protocol. When they ask for the registration only, I hand them the registration only, and so forth. Also I remind myself that it's just a regular human who happens to wear a police uniform, a job like any other. Be reasonably polite, like you would be with any other human.

Never had police problems in 15 years of driving, never a drug test, even though I've smoked weed most of the years.

Yes. I'm insured on this vehicle and the registered keeper as well, before you ask. And yes, it's taxed as well. The DVLA's database will back that up.

Here's the license senpai, the registration is in fuckifiknow land but you should be able to see it from your computer nowadays. Kinda shitty that they don't even issue you registrations unless you pay for it, eh man?

AM I BEING DETAINED?

Why did thry delete it? We have can have threads about laws regarding autobiles, can't we?

Because the mods are always fags?

AM I BEING DETAINED?

Because the whole concept is fucking retarded.
The government barely even respects legitimate constitutional concerns let alone have any fucks to spare for your autistic bullshit.
If you drive without license/registration/insurance your car is getting impounded and you will never be able to drive again.
What the fuck is wrong with you guys clearly you need to stay on the bus.

Drive under which legal deffinitions car under commercial or private uses, sir? Cite your precedents supportong this stance.

sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-pubsafe-notebook-20170321-story.html

no you artist stfu clearly you basement dwellers don't interact in the real world or you'd immediately catch yourself and understand nobody fucking cares
law enforcement is gonna have fun giving you a fat fine and that's the end of that

sovern citizen

The movement is rooted in racism and anti-Semitism, though most sovereigns, many of whom are African American, are unaware of their beliefs' origins. In the early 1980s, the sovereign citizens movement mostly attracted white supremacists and anti-Semites, mainly because sovereign theories originated in groups that saw Jews as working behind the scenes to manipulate financial institutions and control the government. Most early sovereigns, and some of those who are still on the scene, believed that being white was a prerequisite to becoming a sovereign citizen. They argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed citizenship to African Americans and everyone else born on U.S. soil, also made black Americans permanently subject to federal and state governments, unlike themselves.

YOU (as in the individual DRIVER BY LEGAL TERMS BACKED BY LAWFUL PRECEDENT) do NOT have the right to drive a vehicle without registration or insurance. You(as in driver) have a privledge to do so. A TRAVELER MAY DRIVE HIS PRIVATE VEHICLES FREE OF PERMIT

How are you still ths stupid and wrong?

actics
The weapon of choice for sovereign citizens is paper. A simple traffic violation or pet-licensing case can end up provoking dozens of court filings containing hundreds of pages of pseudo-legal nonsense. For example, a sovereign was involved in 2010 in a protracted legal battle over having to pay a dog-licensing fee. She filed 10 sovereign documents in court over a two-month period and then declared victory when the harried prosecutor decided to drop the case. The battle was fought over a three-year dog license that in Pinellas County, Fla., where the sovereign lives, costs just $20. Tax cases are even worse. Sovereign filings in such legal battles can quickly exceed a thousand pages. While a normal criminal case docket might have 60 or 70 entries, many involving sovereigns have as many as 1,200. The courts are struggling to keep up, and judges, prosecutors and public defenders are being swamped.

The size of the documents is an issue, but so is the nonsensical language the documents are written in. They have a kind of special sovereign code language that judges, lawyers and other court staff simply can't understand (nor can most non-sovereigns). Sovereigns believe that if they can find just the right combination of words, punctuation, paper, ink color and timing, they can have anything they want — freedom from taxes, unlimited wealth, and life without licenses, fees or laws, are all just a few strangely worded documents away. It's the modern-day equivalent of "abracadabra."

what? stop posting please you sound retarded.
I'll be laughing when you get charged for the crime of driving without license or registration or proof of insurance

Wrong. Constitutional rights are not allowed to have a forced permit ensued. The entire point of those threads is people have been tricked into being "Drivers" when they could have identified as a "Traveler"

so when are you fags gonna be done play-pretending and actually attempt to go drive your mother's prius around town with no license?
I'm waiting with popcorn please hurry.

Calm down I know there is no freedom in America I was just posting what so called sovern citizens believe becasue they don't understand federal state and local laws. I was looking for the horese and buggy motorcar law and court case they all cite that they think gives them the right to drive something besides a bicycle on public roadways with out government approved licence registration insurance.

Which is retarded maybe if you want to ride a horse around which you cannot do either due to local codes and grazing rights. no freedom in America just ask Bundy ranch.

> 1980s, the sovereign citizens movement mostly attracted white supremacists and anti-Semites

Sounds like a great group of people to me. I dont see the problem here. :^)

Retatded based on what lawful precedent stupid? Oh let me guess
>ITS YOUR OPINION
Ahahahhaha fucking imbecile still pretending to be ignorant of american legal systems

Did you read the part where it's mostly black people now, who are dumb enough to think you don't need papers to be out in public.

I'm a bit confused do you think you are free? it's obvious to anyone besides a bus rider that you will get a cops boot up your ass eventually if you drive around rolling dirty.

It usually just ends up with the officer looking at my license (or pretending to), and doing a breathalyzer, which they don't even look at anymore

Know all the local officers personally, work together with them due to my work in the Red Cross, and they know I don't drink, do drugs or any of that

Offices from out of town will probably check the stuff a lot more thoroughly, but I've never been given any trouble

Before the 1980s

Democrates supported enslaving niggers once but now they worship them, dont they?

The Legal Gibberish of “Freeman on the Land”
Posted on October 14, 2013 by Mike Rothschild

You’re driving down the street, going as fast as you please and ignoring traffic laws you didn’t consent to. After running a red light enforcing said laws which don’t apply to you, you see the blue flashing lights of a police cruiser. While you are within your common law rights to demand any sum of money to pull over, you decide to make it easy on the government enforcer and stop. When the police officer approaches your car, you immediately ask “Under what Authority and under what law are you ACTING?”

The government enforcer can’t quote the common law statute that authorizes him to act (why would he, he’s only an agent of the state), only demand to see your license, registration and proof of insurance. However, these statutory obligations don’t apply to you, and you refuse. The officer asks what your name is, to which you reply “are you seeking a publicly registered legal personality created by the state?” The officer, predictably, orders you out of the car at gun point, arrests you and reads you your “rights.” When asked if you understand these rights, you reply “I do not stand under that statement, nor do I stand under any statement.” Then you’re led into the police car.

What does that have to do with anything other than proove to us you feel forced to be using to shame tactics like a brainless crab in his bucket?

>May I ask why how you could keep up with me in that car through this heavy traffic?
It's a Crown Vic so obviously he just used it as an icebreaker ship and plowed through all the traffic at 45mph.

What am I talking about? What does all this gibberish mean? It’s just a sampling of the standard tactics used by the “Freeman on the Land” movement. Also known as FOTL, it’s a version of the sovereign citizen movement that’s rapidly catching on with scofflaws in Canada and England, and causing an increasing amount of chaos with courts and judges who don’t know how to combat its nuisance and the belligerent arrogance of those who apply it. To detractors, it’s a jargon-laden way to pretend the laws of your country don’t apply to you. But to its advocates, it’s nothing less than grabbing freedom back from an illegal government that took it away from you at birth.

If anyone is wondering about the standing of driver/traveller distinction in law, you may wish to read canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

>Retatded based on what lawful precedent stupid?
Based on every retard who gets caught driving without a licence getting prosecuted for same. Here's a fun game for you: find a single instance of a reliable source describing a court accepting a 'sovereign citizen' argument or similar on its face and acquitting someone on that basis.

So what exactly does “freeman on the land” mean? And are any of these tactics legal? While both sovereign citizen and FOTL attempt to use common law statutes and nuisance litigation to avoid paying taxes and break laws they don’t feel apply to them, the movements go about it somewhat differently. Traditional American sovereign citizen movements, tax protestor organizations or Christian Patriots rely on debunked interpretations of various Constitutional amendments and federal laws to “prove” that they aren’t citizens of the United States but of their own state or personal country – meaning those pesky laws and taxes don’t apply to them. Many of these tactics have been around for decades, though none of them have ever been proven to work.

On the other hand, FOTL is fairly new, with the term only being coined around 2005 by Canadian tax protestor Robert-Arthur:Menard (sic) to describe a person who is literally (except not at all) a “free man” on the land where they live.

>cop boot cop boot hahaha

A cop isnt a judge. A judge will have to throw the case out because the officers action were based on unlawful and unconstitutional means.

It relies on the concept of “lawful rebellion” to assert that freemen haven’t consented to a contract with the federal government, and instead live under some nebulous combination of maritime law, common law, various 16th century statues and an obscure clause in the Magna Carta which only stood as law for three months. They view government as a corporation, one that they never agreed to be in business with, and one that uses a special, trick-laden language called “legalese” to trap citizens into surrendering their rights from birth. By refusing consent with the laws of this corporation, I break their hold on me and they don’t apply. A core tenant of FOTL is that all people have two identities: one is their flesh and blood personage, with freedoms endowed from birth and the other is their government identity, which is written out in all capital letters and used on official documents – often called a “strawman.”
A typical FOTL legal "notice." (kjfreemanontheland.wordpress.com)

A typical FOTL legal “notice.” (kjfreemanontheland.wordpress.com)

It hasn’t really caught on in the US, but is becoming a serious issue in English, Irish and Canadian courts, which are starting to become clogged by FOTL claimants who believe the government has no hold on them, that they’ve broken their consent with the laws of the land (and are therefore “free men”) and that private contracts are meaningless. They’re racking up unpaid taxes and rent while attempting to break the law at will. And while FOTL doesn’t seem to dovetail with violence the way sovereign citizen movements do, there is an inherent element of lawlessness to it.

shut up faggot nobody cares

There’s much more to FOTL, but those are the basic pillars. And if it all has the familiar patina of exquisitely detailed gibberish that all conspiracy theories have, it should. Freeman on the land relies on willful misinterpretation of a millennium of law to construct a world where anarchy reigns and anyone can do anything they want, provided they “know their rights” – rights that are entirely made up. Legalese might be a catchy way to refer to complex, jargon-laden legal language, but it is not actually a language, and jamming punctuation or capital letters into your name doesn’t have any statutory effect on it.

In fact, none of what FOTL attempts to use has any legal effect. The laws it cites have long been superseded by other statutes, and its nonsensical concepts of strawman personas, notices of intent, not “standing under” understanding, nautical gibberish and lawful rebellion have absolutely no standing in any court in any country in this century. And every FOTL attempt to use this soup of crap to get out of paying taxes, fines, rent or insurance has failed. Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics, and the only thing they’ve done is gum up the courts and frustrate judicial officials as an excuse to get out of paying debts and living under the laws that apply to everyone.

>A cop isnt a judge.
Drokk, you don't live in Mega-City 1? I knew I should've moved out years ago!

Yes the fact retards have a hard time argueing, because they are without a valid precedent, is indicator of this.

Our laws and court ruling are ALWAYS TO BE CONNECTED TO VALID PRECEDENT.

"Of course sir, let me see if I can find it... there is it!"

oh I'm sorry are you one of the idiots who thinks you have freedoms and can drive around with no licence insurance and registration?

No, can't you see I ride the fucking bus.

Holy hell youre losing it arent you, :^) not just the arguement that is. Your sanity.

Not even the guy you were arguing with, I entered this thread just to laugh at you.

Do you like sitting in jail waiting for a trial? well then don't pay your taxes and try to drive with no permit. We are a nation of laws your not special.

Sure man. You and your team of cucks objectively lost based on legal precedent and lawful deffinitions. Deal with it. Your board is in chaos now.

>if i explain the legal systems in this crude and vague manor youll surely be frightened from attempting to defend your rightsin tour legal system!

>Objectively lost
>To a guy who's spent the past three days trying to explain how a car isn't actually a motor vehicle and ignoring anybody who actually reads the SC cases he posts

blown the fuck out, lol

You have the right to remain silent while the cop arrests you takes you to jail. while you sit in jail you will wait for your arraignment where the charges against you will be read. You can plea however you like or the 5th. Then you will sit in jail awaiting your court date where you will be tried on charges brought against you by the prosecution you will have a court appointed lawyer because you are too poor to afford your own. you will be found guilty get more jail time and a fine when you get out you will be rearrested for not paying your fine and breaking your probation. you will continue this circle in the court system till your dead from suicide by cop.

Oh sorry user nope I didn't even read through all of it it's just these autists have me so aggravated it's ridiculous

>/thread

I wanted to believe I had freedoms and read through all this anti government ideas. I looked into no paying taxes and having freedoms to do as I please on my own property that I have to pay tax on. There is no way out of government and taxes except to limit your exposure to each. Don't own anything live in the woods run from authority.

>doesnt know what Title 18 is

Have fun with that one user

...

Do you like...my private automobile (my automobile )

Guess you're ready'
Cause I'm waiting for you
It's gonna be so exciting!
Got this feeling
Really deep in my soul
Let's get out I wanna go come along... get it on!

Gonna take my vehicle gonna sit in
Gonna travel alone till I get you
'Cause soverign... not a DRIVER but bootlickers hate it!
I wanna self propel for you shall I go now?

Gas gas gas!
I'm gonna step on the gas
Tonight I'll fly and be your lover
Yeah yeah yeah
I'll be so quick as a flash
And I'll be your hero

>when all user explained was a fear mongering tactic

Yes, that happens, but you get dismissed and probably compensation when you wrek that retatded cop in a court battle

kill yourself

...

Actually its the cucks that are ignoring him. The cases that say a motorvehicle is casually enterchangable was based upon unfounded precedent in todays court of law. He would destroy and cop or coty trying to revoke hos rights when he gets that aitistoabout deffinitions to the point his precedents and titles trump a precedent based on "per Incuriam" look it up. Read the threads in the archive.

Wew youre stupid if thats all you have to say.

Lol you first commercial cuck.

BTFO

>you're
I can't believe shitposting has become so beautifully complex.
A feat to challenge /b/ perhaps.

Title 18 absolutely destroys the anons quoted precedent. You can not hide from this fact.

Based cop wrote me for speeding in a different zone to avoid criminal speeding.

Yes. OBJECTIVELY.

The case is about a DRIVER INDIVIDUAL. Hemce he had a permit to be revoked, he has an account at the DMV.

second. Their judgement was based upon unfounded precedent. Title 18 prooved the word motor vehicle has a strict legal deffinition and was not brought up in case

...

>Objectively
>Past two threads were nothing but him and people making fun of him

AM I BEING DETAINED???

say here you go and hand him stuff

what's the big deal? its not like he's asking me to juggle knives or something

no
i remember the first one and ignored the others after i saw the autism in the first one

My sister was pulled over for speeding and the cop wrote her up for "disobeying signage" rather than writing her a huge ticket

Well, if I were black... I would be as uncooperative as possible until the situation escalates and turns physical, possibly leading to my untimely death. Then other black Americans will choose to completely ignore all facts and evidence so they have an excuse to exhibit violent, antisocial behavior on the streets of their own city. Meanwhile, mainstream liberal media will be enabling this behavior by running constant coverage where they push a racially-movitivated narrative.

If I were a privileged white male, I would probably just do what the officer asks so I can be on my merry way without a hole in my head.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because I have a license.

Here.

RAM
RAM
RAM
RAM
PUMP THAT ASS
PUMP THAT ASS
PUMP THAT ASS
BLERGGGGGGG
BLERGGGGGGG
BLERGGGGGGG
IM CUMING
IM CUMING
IM CUMING

>not living in a no pursuit city
>getting pulled over

Sucks to be you

I also am female but I was without makeup whilst breaking out from period, boobs were not exposed, didn't wash hair and it was tied up--and it was 90+. An ugly girl in an M3 doing 30 mph over the limit cannot get away with such leniencies as your pretty little sister. I bet she's blonde, too! I am brunette, we always get the short stick.

What is DRIVER?

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

TLD Example: The law required every driver operating a motor vehicle on the public streets and roadways to obtain a state-issued license before doing so.

For motor vehicle refer to title 18 definitions

pls be in london

>we always get the short stick
Not from ME baby

FHP (Florida Highway Patrol) pictured. Very professional and competent state police doing a very dangerous job. Comply or you get to meet Florida Man : Incarcerated Edition. Hope you brought bathsalts....

The person driving a car, of course.
Captcha: Unsuitable Drive

Willingly ignoring a paragraph backed by cited precedent won't save you cuck

Jesus christ user youre soo deep down the legal rabbit hole now you have to pretend to be retatded.

thelawdictionary.org/driver/

sorry i left my license at home. can you look me up in the goyim database?

As was noted in previous threads, responding multiple times to a single post doesn't fool people into thinking you're not one person, especially when you always have to say "cuck" at least once per sentence.

How about you go drive a car and get pulled over by a cop, then prove us all wrong by walking and winning your court case?