ChloeTzang
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Posts
- 11,808
The issue with driver's licenses is they don't prove citizenship. I'm not sure that Real ID proves citizenship. Does it?
All-purpose national ID card?
- Thread starter Politruk
- Start date
It's flawed from the beginning, as there's NO such thing as "free" from Govt.In the information age, it would be technically possible for the USG to issue every person in the country, free of charge, an ID card keyed to SSN, and to a central database. In that database would be a file containing every interaction with government you have ever had, federal, state or local -- scanned pdf copy of your birth certificate, school records, driving record, arrest records, tax returns -- all immediately available and visible to the cop who pulls you over.
"I hope you know this will go down in your permanent record."
It will!
The card would substitute for your DL -- that is, the database file would reflect your status as a licensed or unlicensed driver.
It would also say whether you are a citizen -- if not, it would show any applicable visa or green card.
And the card would substitute for voter registration -- if you have the card and it says you are a citizen, you can vote, in whatever jurisdiction your database file says is your current address.
This system would make things in general more efficient. It would be a boon to all law enforcement including ICE. It would put an end once and for all to bullshit about "voter fraud."
Any downside?
Govts don't EARN a dime. They TAKE $$$.
Not to mention, it would be abused by the corrupt cops/govt employees.
But, if you want your microchip, go get one.
If you want "eat ze bugs" sat them.
Personally, I'll pass on both.
As per "Blacks Law Dictionary"In the information age, it would be technically possible for the USG to issue every person in the country, free of charge, an ID card keyed to SSN, and to a central database. In that database would be a file containing every interaction with government you have ever had, federal, state or local -- scanned pdf copy of your birth certificate, school records, driving record, arrest records, tax returns -- all immediately available and visible to the cop who pulls you over.
"I hope you know this will go down in your permanent record."
It will!
The card would substitute for your DL -- that is, the database file would reflect your status as a licensed or unlicensed driver.
It would also say whether you are a citizen -- if not, it would show any applicable visa or green card.
And the card would substitute for voter registration -- if you have the card and it says you are a citizen, you can vote, in whatever jurisdiction your database file says is your current address.
This system would make things in general more efficient. It would be a boon to all law enforcement including ICE. It would put an end once and for all to bullshit about "voter fraud."
Any downside?
Driver is defined as "For hire"... Everyone else is simply exercizing their inalienable right to "move about and freely travel."
Hence, no license is needed.
No court in the country will take seriously an argument that driving unlicensed is some kind of civil right. That's some sovereign-citizen/freeman-on-the-land-level bullshit.
Yes, sovereign citizen it is.
No, bullshit it isn't.
Learn the process and one WILL BE FINISHED with the act of paying armed highwaymen to rob them.
Keep up!
It's pure pseudolaw. Pleading that kind of thing in court never did anybody any good at all -- you'll be lucky not to be jailed for contempt. And don't even try any tax protest arguments.
And really don't ever send money to anybody who offers to teach you how to make this stuff fly, to avoid paying taxes or fines or debts, or to get money supposedly being held in your name in some government account. Such a person is nothing more than scam artist.
You lack knowledge... You don't even go to court.
...unless you want to give jurisdiction of yourself to someone else.
Enjoy your Statist servitude.
I am an attorney. Everything you are saying is wrong. Jurisdiction of a court is not something you get to opt out of. If it applies legally, it applies whether you acknowledge it or not.
And you only have one legal person or identity -- you cannot change that by how you punctuate or capitalize your name. There is no strawman.
That explains volumes.
As an attorney, an officer of the court, you're FULLY vested in the facade. I understand your predicament.
There is no facade. The law is the law -- there is no hidden layer of it.
There IS a massive facade.
Does the name James Thomas Ball ring any bells with you?
Does self immolation on the courthouse steps ring any bells?
Have you read his letter?
Would you like to?
It can give you much insight, as to "the two sets of books" and "The Three PS". ... Policy, procedure and protocol, that is being enforced as "law" despite never being legislated into law.
There is a body of pseudolaw in American popular culture that seems to be based on conflating common law with natural law -- that is, the idea that common law is beyond the reach of legislatures and never changes. That's nonsense -- the common law can be changed by the ruling of any appellate court.
Contraire!
If that's ALL you can glean from his letter, you're in complete denial as to the Three Ps and the fukkery of the Black Robe Cult.
Maybe, you even long to be a "judge" or prosecutor someday...
Are you also a denier of "Jury Nullification?"
Signs of pseudolaw:
Much like pseudoscience, one of the first hints that a legal theory is pseudolaw is when it bucks against established legal consensus and precedent. However, while necessary, this is not a sufficient condition. Much of currently accepted law was once against precedent. The primary thing to look for is if the legal theory or argument has been tried before a court and whether it was rejected. If an argument has been rejected by the courts on a repeated basis, it is usually, but not invariably, the case that someone attempting to push that argument is practicing pseudolaw.
While the ultimate test of pseudolaw is how it is ultimately perceived and used in a court of law (just as with pseudoscience, the ultimate test is how it performs with predictions against empirical reality), there are many red flags that can identify pseudolaw even without a court ruling. These include, but are not limited to:
- Overreliance on technicalities such as spelling or grammar. For example, some people argue that the traditional use of all-capital letters for names in court briefings means that the documents are referring to a different entity than the actual person in the case.[3] See, for instance, David Wynn Miller.
- Overreliance on dictionary definitions, particularly definitions from outdated copies of Black's Law Dictionary – a common US claim is that driver's licenses are not necessary for most drivers, since older copies of Black's Law define driving as the transport of commercial goods, and the right to travel via conveyance (including a motor vehicle) supposedly extends to operating said vehicle as well.
- Belief in and use of common lay-person misconceptions about the law. The pseudolawyer may perpetuate the idea that a contract can only be created by a written form and signature, that you can't be convicted of murder without a body, that permission isn't necessary to upload a copyrighted work as long as you admit "I do not own this," etc.
- Quoting Supreme Court cases out of context, usually one or two sentences, or sometimes even a phrase. Tax protesters are fond of quoting Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) to argue that the income tax is illegal. However, the ruling is not saying that the 16th Amendment did not provide power to tax income, but rather that Congress already had that power. This is classic quote mining.
- Reference to other arguments that have been rejected as frivolous by courts. Pseudolaw concepts flock together and cross-pollinate.
- Arguments that refer to the United States of America as "Incorporated[4]" or to the Federal government somehow seeming to be a private enterprise or company.[5]
- Jurisdictional challenges that focus on claiming the federal government has no right to try cases in states. A favorite is to claim that any court with gold fringe on the flag is a "maritime" court and not a real court.[6]
- Arguments that the court, police, public officials, etc. have no authority over an individual unless that individual has consented to that authority. This is often phrased along the lines of "once you accept an attorney, you're bound by contract to the court, but if you refuse an attorney they have no authority." As an adjunct to these arguments, some hold the belief that it's possible to unwittingly consent to authority, such as if you sign your name on a Federal form or receive a Federal "benefit" such as receiving mail at your home's mailbox.
- Intense hatred of lawyers and the bar, reference to the bar as being run by the Illuminati or Masons, and encouraging people with little to no legal training to refuse appointed attorneys and proceed pro se.[7]
- References to the Titles of Nobility Amendment (the so-called "missing 13th Amendment" to the United States Constitution). Similarly, some pseudolawyers even argue that persons who use the title of "Esquire" (generally practicing attorneys)[note 1] are not Citizens and cannot hold public office.[8]
- Arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of "subject citizens" (lowercase c) of the Federal government, separate and distinct from the true Citizens (capital C) of the united States (lowercase u) that co-exist with them.
- References to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
in cases which do not involve private commercial transactions (for example, citing the UCC in criminal, traffic, and tax cases).[9]
- References to "admiralty law" or "maritime law" in cases which clearly do not involve any matters which occurred at sea, in navigable waters, or outside the Earth's atmosphere.
- References to "military" or "martial law" in matters that do not involve the military or members thereof.
- Made up jargon from Latin that pseudolawyers claim derive from common law and give people special rights that others do not such as juris spurious when used in filing claims.[10]
- Misuse of legal terminology, often because pseudolawyers do not have a full understanding of the concepts they are attempting to discuss.
- Extraordinary claims such as being able to get anyone out of jail, no matter what they were convicted of, in a matter of weeks.[11]
BabyBoomer50s
Capitalist
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2018
- Posts
- 12,094
Under Project 2025, cards will not be necessary. Everyone will be chipped and tracked. A DNA database and biometrics will ensure identification accuracy.
Now we're getting into Mark-of-the-Beast territory.
Is this source the same people who run Wikipedia?
"Jury nullification is a de facto power of juries to acquit a guilty defendant based on a refusal to accept the law under which the defendant is charged with a crime, or when they believe the "law" is being applied unjustly.
But it might or might not fly -- "mistrials have been called when a defense counsel attempts to persuade the jury to nullify a verdict." A mistrial means the case starts over again, with a different jury.
jomar
chillin
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Posts
- 26,950
Might not. But not a big reach to do so.
Similar threads
