WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

711

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

Oh that's just great. More illegal immigrants driving around without car insurance. Get ready for a rise in uninsured motorist claims, which the insurance companies will inevitably pass the cost on to their customers.

[–] [deleted] 3 pts (edited )

Good point, but wrong direction of thinking. When you register your automobile with the state they own it. You are also bound to all their stupid bullshit rules. If there wasn't insurance and the damages people cause by being stupid came right out of their pockets they might not drive so stupid.

People should only have to use a license, registration and insurance when they are engaging in commerce, for example transporting goods (semis) buses, taxis etc

[–] 1 pt

Registering you automobile as a vehicle doesn't give the state that vehicle/automobile. That's not true.

Registering your automobile as a vehicle makes that automobile commercial ready. But by doing so, if you are traveling down the road and you break a law in the transportation code, the officer witnessing that infraction sees your license plate and can then assume you are engaged in transportation, which gives him probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, aka, an arrest.

Do you have your Manufacturer's Statement of Origin to prove ownership? Who do you think does?

[–] 0 pt

Can vehicle registration be avoided?

[–] 1 pt

Of course. Just don't do it. But you better brush up on the law cause that's a fight in the courts that you aren't going to win without an appeal.

If you know what you're doing, there's alot to learn. Gotta claim your legal name and try to get the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin to prove ownership.

Sovereign citizen bullshit. It doesn't matter what laws or cases you cite, if the courts don't agree with your interpretation, you are going to lose. And the courts don't agree with this interpretation.

Sovereign citizen is a oxymoron. I see you haven't done any research on this. For it is real and would be the biggest kick in the gonads on these criminals destroying our lives.

They have incorporated themselves and made us their slaves with the birth certificate.

28 U.S. Code § 3002 (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation.

[–] 1 pt

Now, you're way off base.

[–] 0 pt

No, he has a point. The United States is a corporation. You are goyem.

[–] 0 pt

28 U.S. Code § 3002 (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation.

Citing it this way is super misleading, since that particular code is about how court cases are handled against the "United States", meaning that this particular part is saying that in a court case, "a Federal corporation" when sued is listed as "United States" as the defendant/plaintiff.

[–] 0 pt

Yes. Definitions under Title 28 of the USC apply to the code within Title 28 of the USC.

Another great example is the claim corporations are people. While this is true in the commercial code and codes related to corporations, in the penal code a person is usually defined as "a living human being".

Doesn't that raise any red flags for you?

[–] 1 pt

I have been trained by a lifetime of steadily worsening liberty to outright reject that this judgement could be real. I am considering all the backdoor ways in which the cops, or whichever city in question, will effectively negate this law even if it is real.

For example, I do not need a license to operate a vehicle, but WHEN I speed by one mile per hour over, I will instantly be pulled over and my property seized as I was "jeopardizing the safety of other motorists". If I had a license the city may have "chosen" not to take that action, having an effective way of recording my previous driving record, but without those means they are "left with no choice" but to assume the worst, and therefore impound the vehicle.

Another way to fuck with people who actually try to drive without a license may simply be to arrest them, temporarily of course, while they determine whatever safety horse shit they come up with to justify inconveniencing you.

Or they could simply say you don't have to have a license to "operate a vehicle" but you do have to have a photo ID for other purposes, such as being IDed by the cops when they pull you over. You aren't going to jail because you drove without a license, you are going to jail because you didn't possess a photo ID WHILE operating that vehicle.

The ways in which this shit will be loopholed and Legalesed are endless. End of the day, big daddy gubbament don't take kindly to you trying to skirt his laws boy.

[–] [deleted] 2 pts

It doesn't help that police officers (policy officers) have a quota in traffic tickets to make. They use a loophole and just call it "productivity goals" David Lester Straight talks in-depth about the Common Law, he doesn't use a license to travel in his property and uses his passport for ID.

We need united non-compliance for this to work. I'm sure they would wage all out war to stop this since it would cut off most of their revenue. I believe this is going to keep gaining traction with all the bullshit they are forcing on us.

[–] 0 pt

Cops follow policy set by city manager. Cops do not know or understand the laws they enforce. If you put them on the stand and ask them about the law, the prosecutor will object, "objection, police are not expert witnesses and cannot offer testimony regarding the law" and the judge will sustain it.

[–] 0 pt

You absolutely need a license to "operate" a "vehicle" on the "highways and byways" of "this State".

"Driving" is a privilege regulated by the state and requires a license and adherence to the "Transportation Code".

"Traveling" in an "automobile" is a right that cannot be regulated or infringed upon.

Transportation Code. You have been confused by their Legalese. When they say highways they are including all public roads. I'm not looking to argue about every little thing i say, i want people to learn about Common Law and the corporate enslavement that is making us all miserable.

[–] 0 pt

That isn't true. In Texas, FM roads are public roads and you can travel, not drive, on them without a license. Countless farmers children have traveled, not driven, countless miles behind the wheel of a tractor. No license required.

But yes, generally speaking, the public roads that you are referring to are called "byways" in Texas and I did say, "highways and byways".

[–] 0 pt

I think it's interesting that many of these say "citizen" A citizen ID card is different than a License or asking for permission.

Well they aren't using common law. They still have to speak in legalese. Citizen definition is - a person who legally belongs to a country Person can mean a corporation in legalese.

[–] 0 pt

And this is passing is due is not needing IDs for voting or what other nefarious reason?

[–] 2 pts

It will be replaced by your COVID Pass which will be necessary for everything, except voting of course.

Voting? That's just a gimmick to make people think they have power. If you go down the rabbit hole and learn how governments are nothing but corporations owned by the elites, you will understand.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalelite177.htm

[–] 0 pt

Are toll-highways public and if so, does charging access impede this right?

[–] 0 pt

From 2015.

The article, yes. Most cases are old but still stand true. I'm trying to get people to learn about the Common Law and the corporate governments that are enslaving us with Admiralty Maritime Law (the law of the sea). They are using contracts to work on the land.

[–] 0 pt

Nothing wrong with that. Good luck. Some tutorials would be welcome.

[–] 0 pt

So you can't use a religious exception for a vaccine but you're now free to drive without a license? WTF IS HAPPENING

It's not now, it's always been that way. They have deceived us for along time. You only need a license to drive when engaging in commerce. They are using Legalese to confuse. Drive and operate a motor vehicle is Legalese. Call it traveling in private in your private automobile. There is alot to learn on this subject. I wouldn't try it without drilling it into my brain first, it's all about words, and reclaiming your property.

David Lester Straight, Christopher James and Anna von Reitz are a good place to start.

[–] 0 pt

I've heard that, about the capital letter names, etc. Thanks. I'm just commenting on how opposite the two rulings seem to be for society.

[–] 0 pt

No. You cannot "drive" without a license. "Driving" is a privilege regulated by the state.

This article is from 6 years ago.... I smell bullshit.

[–] 0 pt

This isn't accurate. It's a term. You need a license to DRIVE a VEHICLE on the HIGHWAYS and BIWAYS of THIS STATE.

You do not need a license to TRAVEL behind the wheel of an AUTOMOBILE on the PUBLIC ROADS.

There is legal definitions from "drive" "vehicle" "highways and byways" and "this state". These legal definitions are in the context of "transportation" which is a commercial act that can be regulated by the state, and therefore require a driver's license.

Right, you only need a driver's license to engage in commerce. This topic is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm trying to get people to learn the common law and the corporate enslavement we are under.

[–] 0 pt

There are a lot of legal pitfalls and bad info out there.

They slander the term sovereign citizen (which is a oxymoron). Even call them white supremacists. That alone should tell you all you need to know. I'm not trying to recruit people, i just want them to do some research.

David Lester Straight, A warrior calls and Anna von Reitz. https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalelite177.htm