Again not those 3 parts are derived from the Constitution, but that guy doesn't believe under his own argument that the Constitution would exist, it's just another "philosophy doctrine"
Again not those 3 parts are derived from the Constitution, but that guy doesn't believe under his own argument that the Constitution would exist, it's just another "philosophy doctrine" ---
He has never said that those 3 parts derive from the constitution. They derive from common law which is the jurisdiction of this country.
A violation of legal rights: I, along with everyone else who drives a legal vehicle on the road in a safe manner, has a legal right to be exposed to only other safe, legal drivers, who are also insured, so that if an accident would occur, both parties could feel comfortable that the insurance will take care of its part. Driving a vehicle that is required to have insurance without having it insured infringes on my legal rights to a safe and unrestricted use of the highway system. ---
Hmmm, sounds a bit communist to me. This isn't Minority Report and we don't do pre-crime here. In your ways of thinking everyone who drives with a license, insurance and registration is a safe driver? That's laughable considering the kind of drivers on the road today.
Damage or injury: A traffic accident would count, but we will not discuss that on this point. However damages to the state exist, not only is using the illegal vehicle on the roadways is causing damage to the roads, which must be repaired, and that that money in part will come from the registration/inspection process and if you avoid them then you would be refusing to pay for your part of the damage, but the state must also pay police officers to stop you for driving illegally, and since they did their job if they pull you over, then you must pay for them to have done it. So arguably, you owe the state money, refusing to pay is damaging to the state as a whole. ----
WRONG! Those DMV fees you are talking about only go to the DMV, not for the roads. That's what the GAS TAXES are for. Ever take a look at a State's CAFR report? I really don't see them hurting much.
All in all, the website will not be able to get this guy's bike out from an impound lot, which is probably what would happen in an absolute worse case scenario, because impound lots have physical barriers like fences, guards, barbed wire, and scary dogs, which cannot just be argued away into the recesses of your mind. Sorry, world doesn't work like that. But I know the law, when used correctly, can grant an insurance policy for cheap, with a license plate, and registration, which PHYSICALLY DETERS POLICE FROM PULLING YOU OVER AND IMPOUNDING YOUR BIKE! ---
You're right. Filing a counter suit will based on an invalid cause of action. I assume you have a motorized bicycle with no license plate, insurance or registration??? If that is a correct assumption than you are contradicting yourself.
Again I will mention how this guy hasn't got a unsuccessful stories section, the people who send him their failures get the email sent to a trash can and he continues to uphold his "right" to free speech, and his right not incriminate himself, and only posts the "winners" when all it really is is a list of how flawed our court system really can be at times. ---
Could you provide some verifiable evidence of this?
On the other hand, many judges don't actually care, often they are forced to take on these cases just because it's how the judicial system works, much like how lawyers in certain systems MUST do some kind of public work once in a while, such as being a court appointed lawyer, they get paid to do it and if they don't, they can get fired. So a judge is usually meeting his quota by just getting through the petty ticket and then can focus on his actual career. ---
Evidence please.
Get what I'm saying here? He's playing the game rather well, not that he's right, it's just that 99% of his "victories" are because no judge can feel that they are doing the right thing by keeping the case open and letting a crazy man argue that the law doesn't actually behave in a physical way like cats and birds do, and therefor the law doesn't exist and nor can a traffic ticket physically exist if it's based on an idea. The judge is saying, quite frankly, f*** that, and not wasting time, and then tossing the ticket and getting onto more important things. Mostly because it costs more for a judge to stretch out a ruling on a 50 dollar ticket, rather than getting rid of it. ---
You haven't really read any of the successes on that page have you? And you know all of this first hand, do you? Need evidence that you know these are facts.
This is why a stray cat can break into my house can kill my pet bird, because the law doesn't apply to the cat since the cat doesn't understand how laws work, and to the cat laws don't physically exist that can stop the cat from committing burglary and murder. Therefore if the cat can do it then so can he. On the other side of the argument, it's generally not accepted that cats break into my house and kill my animals, so the "law" that exists is that I kill the cat, or at the very least trap it, and have it imprisoned in a jail made for cats and other unruly animals. ---
We're aren't talking about murder / Burglary, we are talking about registration, insurance and tags.
He's basically using the "earth is earth" argument, under the idea that no law or constitution (along with your constitutional rights) actually exists. Funny thing is if the cops pulled him over, then beat him with sticks, spray painted him with red and gold paint, took him to a jail and beat him more, then locked him up forever with no trial, no phone calls, no anything, and let him starve to death then that would be OK. This is because they can argue the same case where just because he's in America it doesn't actually mean he has any American rights, being those rights are just "generally accepted" in America as being real, without physically existing. Then it's also alright to beat him and starve him to death because human rights aren't actually real either, it was "made up by the man" and given a global status as the bare minimum rights of a human being. But remember that he can't prove that his human rights exist on this planet because they are totally philosophical. ---
NO, he is going on that there is no duty for a cop to protect the individual (of which there is plenty of case law to support) and since there is no duty to protect there is no duty of allegiance to the State therefore no citizens thus no rights etc. Which is true to some extent. Here is where he explains this: Marc Stevens with Agie Nost
Success Stories Page:
http://marcstevens.net/successes
You will disagree, but I am giving myself a Check Mate on this one.
