I'll watch the vids later and get into it more. But in short Hitler was trying to create the perfect race and bring in the New World Order. Eugenics, ethnic cleansing and all are the same idea's most of these nuts running our World today are involved in. Prescott Bush was involved with Hitlers financial backers. Hitler was doing what he was told to do just like Obama. And if you want to look at some similarities compare his life with Obama's. Frightening actually.

The New World order

by Adolf Hitler

http://hitlersdiaries.com/HitlersDia...ilosophy2.html

Mayabong, being a Nazi Sympathizer on a board full of Jews is insane.

YOU are the one who is brainwashed.

Here comes the name calling without anything countering my point. Typical reaction thanks for proving my point.

I'm not a nazi sympathizer or a jewish sympathizer, I am more of a historian. I have no emotional attachment to what happened 80 years go, which can have an advantage when piecing together the puzzle known as history.

I do not care if I hurt peoples feelings by asking questions.

Thanks I'll read that never knew it existed

As far as ethnic cleansing I've see absolutely no proof. Yes there were camps, people died . America also had camps.

There were jewish nazi's black nazi's indian nazi's.

Most kids are already being taught in school that bin laden wanted to wipe out america which totally isn't true.

Fear Mongering will not help...

Maybe they aren't railroading you... it's possible their is no hidden contracts and the courts are basically ignoring you.

So if we didn't have the Fed Reserve, what would replace it and how? Would you stop all funding of all programs and projects then? Because that's not a solution... it is to some problems, but not a solution. I understand what taxes are, it's a forced cycle of the money that has to happen for the corporation to keep operating - but the key is the cycle of money.

You're correct saying we are part of the system, but none of us are slaves... stop running away and ignoring the benefits of a system - built for you. Maybe instead of learning how it could be abused based on interpretation, you could learn how it can be used to benefit you. It is a two way door.


If you want to ride a bike, walk, take public transportation or hitch a ride "ie travel" a Drivers License isn't required. If you want to operate a motor vehicle of various types on public paid roads you will, much like you will need to register you car and yourself with the DMV Corporation to do so. Evil men in a dark room didn't create this, we did.

Btw, to operate a motor vehicle without a drivers license isn't a corporate policy, it's a law.

comparing Japanese inturnment camps to death camps:warning 12 million dead! The proof is there, if you truly care to look.

There is. They can't allow these things to be brought into the court.. I've had a judge state I was in "breach of contract" because there is was no injured party.. I've asked for the contract that I'm in breach of and they are ignoring the request.. You're wasting your time trying to argue this I've spent years dissecting the scheme. I know how the system came into existence and I knew before getting the judge to say it.


Going out for a drink.. No time to discuss alternatives tonight..

I'm not running anywhere. There are no benefits of the system.. None. It wasn't built for me.. I was built for a select few for control purposes and to rob a pillage everyone else. I will not leave my kids in the middle of a fascist control grid. Would you prefer that do like them and come up with a scheme so I can steal money from you or spend it figuring out how it's being stolen from us all??



Legalese.. "Motor vehicle" "registration" all a part of the scheme.. I've discussed this all here before.. As I said there are several Supreme Court decisions which back up exactly what I said.. I'll post them later I'm going out.. Drivers licenses were originally created to tax trucks doing business on the roadways and tearing them up.. They turned everyone into corporate entities doing business on the roadways.. Once again, I've spent years researching this stuff. Telling me the sky is red doesn't work.

So based off a judge saying you're in breach of contract over nobody being hurt? That now means your birth cert, driver lic, etc have hidden contracts in them?

You have a stupid judge that's ignoring you... if not, he's still a stupid judge.


I'm greatly interested in a system that can operate outside the World Banks and Corporations around the Globe and still keep our Country and Economy moving.


If you're part of the system, then it means you can use it too.

The benefits of the system are all around you.... to see what it's like without these benefits visit 2nd and 3rd world countries. Drive around, use the roads, get on a plane, drink the water. Swim in a river and let the water drip into your mouth. Go up and smack a cop, get tossed in jail/prison for a few nights. When it's all over, come back and tell me about how bad our big'ol mean system of rules and control are and how they keep you down.


You say a scheme, it's a way to cycle money back through the system. From road contractors/repairs, researchers, safety stuff, new roads and I'm sure up to the banks and the reserve. The money has to stay moving, which is the reason for "for the scheme."

Let me toss ya a thought... If everyone is a Corporation, which allows you to own Corporations. And a Corporation can't hold a public office, and we're all Corporations. Then either those people in office aren't Corporations (even the mayor) through magic or they're Natural Persons holding that position.

The door does swing both ways, it is an equal system that you can tap into in so many different ways.

Very good conversation guys, glad to see something going so far without people being at eachothers throats.

All you are doing is confirming my beliefs.. You obviously know what the fuck I'm talking about and if you're depending on it you're likely dependent on the system.. Allows me to own a corporation? Who said I need permission? And who the fuck is giving me permission? I don't need anyone's permission to do anything.. Including marriage.. Go fuck yourself with permissions.

No he confirmed just 1 thing.. He couldn't ignore me and he's not stupid. He almost leaped off the bench because of how I called him out. Now they do their best to keep me from speaking in the courtroom..:1orglaugh:1orglaugh It's fun I have to admit.. Love watching schemers squirm like the little snakes in the grass they are.. In fact I thrive on it.

Again, this does not mean have hidden contracts in your driver lic or birth cert.

We have similar beliefs and understandings of the system.... the big difference between us is you see the bad and I see the good. I understand everything has a balance.

The word permission doesn't appear any place in my text, I never said anyone gives you permission.

Owning a Corporation is a privilege that can be taken away in any Country in the world. What they can't take away is your right to do Business.

It sounds like court is moving on with or without your request.... it really sounds he ignored you and just proceeded on.

Birth certificate is a bond..


LICENSE: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.



I'll somewhat agree on that one.. Except you need a license to do business.

LICENSE: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

BTW how come an attorney doesn't have a license?


They are ignoring my motions and even the the guy stamping said motions tried to not accept them until I threatened him with obstruction. I don't give a fuck if they ignore me. I'm going to sue every single fucking one of them in a civil lawsuit when it's all over. And every one of "we" and "us" I come in contact with is getting sued until the "system" is changed.

There's my benefit. If you want me to play that game then you'll pay me to do so.. Eventually it will become too costly and the "system" will have to be changed..

brown shoots!

It's a record...


Well, you answered your own question "Who said I need permission?" I guess, you did...



I can do business with anyone without a Corporation or License. I may not be able to open a store front or get equal corporate benefits, but you can sell lawn mowers you fix without a Lic, for example.



Do you mean a drivers licenses and/or business license? Yes, of course they have them...


Good luck with trying to save us all, I hope you do. The court has the power to just ignore and do as they want, he puts his hammer down - it's done - you're playing in the system - no around it. Don't forget you're simply cycling money back into the system that funds them - it's never ending for them.

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.




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

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987




"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135



"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777




"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

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

Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75



"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516




"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489




"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163



"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579




"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516



"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82




"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864




"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

Okay...

Okay... did it happen? Are the roads monopolized nor or toll roads, not sure - it all seems about the same, other than they need to fix the damn things here.


I agree?




So I was correct, it doesn't say you can Operate a Motor Vehicle... it says you can travel upon them, which you still can today, you just can't be the driver.



Sounds logical...


That's the magic, see it does have it's benefits. You can sell whatever you want to whoever, conduct your business... you don't need a lic for it.


A corporation is part of the system, it's just the a right, ie: a priviliage...


Exactly... lots of good stuff up above, that's for sure.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784




"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."

16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987




"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit."

Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313


"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways."

Thompson vs. Smith


"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."

Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works,

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200



"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120


Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."

25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717


"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health."

Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309


"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey."

Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034




"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940




"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'"

Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658





"... Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state ... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear ..."

Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26


Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."

In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

"Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307

This is about the stupidest topic now..

Listen, whatever laws were - aren't today in many cases. If I cared, I could find quotes of random shit that say all types of random stuff too. Anyway, point is whatever local/state laws that are enforced, override any other laws or theories... the Country is setup that way.

If one law says you need a Lic to operate a Motor Vehicle and they set some standard to it... then it is. For the idea of safety, we don't have a bunch of 10 year old and 90 year olds, drunks and extreme assholes driving cars. It's not a bad thing.

It doesn't make you a slave, it doesn't mean evil men did this to you and are now taking over. It doesn't mean you're birth cert is a bond or debt or anything like that. As I said before, we have more roads and more costs than we did a 100 or even 30 years ago and it's about the cycle of money. It's a system built by the people...

Stop fearing it.

You are just making more of a fool of yourself than you already are. There is a joke among attorneys that is not really a joke but is fact. The law is whatever the judge says that it is and this is fact until...possibly...a higher judge rules differently...then the law is whatever he says that it is. Like it or not that is our system and all must abide by the system or be willing to pay whatever consequences may be applicable. BTW...what was law in yesteryear...may very well not be law today...or in a future year...so quoting things from yesteryear may or may not have any import today.

You have a real obession going for yourself.

You giving up? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh






"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort."

People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4



"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power."

Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203



"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation."

State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487

The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.

Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

1. Is there threatened danger?

2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

3. Is this regulation reasonable?

People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power"


"The automobile is not inherently dangerous."

Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876;
Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532

To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process




"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."

Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540;
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887


"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution."

Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613


"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."

Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60


"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language."

Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882

A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

"... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.



"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."

Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15


and ...

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."

Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389

Giving up over what? None of this proves any point other than you're a odd ball that collects half quotes to try and twist subjects so you're correct about your view point of something.

It's like your gideons brother or something.

To them it only has one side...

"People" state all types of random bullshit in court cases, criminals say they're innocent but it doesn't make it true. Notice the quotes don't say who said them - they're taken from a website that cut the source for a reason. For all we know these are arguments but the end result is totally different.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com..._licensing.htm

It proves everything I said. A drivers license is for commercial purposes. Everyone is turned into a corporate entity doing business on the roadways. It turns a law of the land natural right into a privilege for taxation purposes.. Police officers are therefore revenue officers. The money is hidden from the people.. You say "recycle money" I say "theft by deception"

Wrong source but thanks I like this

"Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.

"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..." Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356. "

"People" eh? lmao you and theking are becoming so obvious these days.. Ever feel like you're on the losing side?

Who pays for the roads in your world?

Gas tax..

Bernanke Admits what Caused the Great Depression

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDD...08/default.htm


hmm:1orglaugh