|
Termyn8or -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/18/2010 10:11:44 AM)
|
"Well, conduct an experiment"
I know people who have. I told them it was futile and results were mixed. I've heard a tape of an exchange between the guy and a North Royalton police officer. His words boiled down to "I am going to let you go because technically you are right, but don't expect that every time you get stopped".
They had done exactly what you describe. They actually had license plates made that said something like UCC 1-207 or some shit, which refers to a section in the UCC which states something about if rights are not waivered in a contract they remain in full force or some such. I forget the exact wording.
Practicality got in the way. Even if allowed to go on their way, they are forever getting stopped, they might as well have walked ! Like paying income taxes, for most people it is just easier to ante up and grin and bear it.
There are ups and downs to everything. Since I am illegal, they can't make a moving violation stick. Surprise surprise. I know this personally, period. Every time I go to court it is a simple matter to have all other charges thrown out summarily, as I do not have a contract with the state. The main charge of driving under suspension sticks, but that in itself is proof that I don't have a contract, in fact that is the very basis of the charge. They have to throw everything else out. Speeding, illegal left turns, the beer between my legs, all of it. All gone. Been there done that.
Now don't try this bullshit for a DUI. You only make it worse and these defenses, if you can call them that, just don't cut it. If you are too intoxicated, and your use of a car, a gun, hell even a brick can be considered a danger to society. If they get you on that, STFU, do your jail time, pay up and don't do it again.
One of the problems is that once people figure out how to fuck with the system, they take it to mean they are pretty much indemnified from any harm they may do. I saw a set of paperwork headed for the Michigan clerk of courts shooting for an abatement. For child support. I have no respect for that, you made the kid pay up. To use the law to defend against what is really rightfully your obligation does the cause no good at all, in fact is counterproductive.
Common law depends upon the support of the commoner, at least in this sense. If your kids are starving as you drive your hummer around, you do not have my support.
Now let's say you send your license back, get the UCC plate and drive. Let's say the locals know you and leave you alone. OK fine. But then you get into a car wreck. Prima facie evidence usually has the officer on scene writing a ticket. Let's say you get a ticket for failure to yield, this has happened to me. In such a case your actions caused a danger to society, so your Contitutional rights, while not out the window, will not be an adequate defense. And this is in the best case scenario.
Common law does not equal anarchy, and those who think it does only hurt the cause of returning this country to a country of laws, rather than the ogliarchy. Some people get so nuts that they think they can get away with anything. That is simply not true.
You walk into court nice and clean, you can do much with the Law. Taxes, zoning restrictions, even driving to some extent. But if you harm another, just shut the fuck up and pay up, twisting and turning the issues will only antagonize the court and make things worse.
If you are on my side, you don't try to hem and haw your way out of any real crimes you may have committed. To do so hurts us. If you hurt us, you ain't one of mine.
T
|
|
|
|
