Status #5692

I joined this circle because I was excited about peoples' [...]

Lake Stevens, Washington
via FCP - United States - Pacific NW
I joined this circle because I was excited about peoples' interest in law (government, justice, peace, etc.). I am going to post questions on occasion, for the purpose of addressing misconceptions in law. I find that more often than not, people are trying to get to the same end, but rarely see that fact because their view of the means is so radically different. The fact is, law dictates every element of our life, and people almost always agree that rule of law is a necessary end, while the means is rarely agreed on universally. I believe that by understanding law, and thereby reaching a common understanding of law, we can finally agree on the means...and this starts by recognizing misconceptions in law. So...thank you in advance for your responses, comments, etc.
First question: what immediately comes to your when asked what "traffic means"?
Tuesday 12 January 2016, 18:37:33
[deleted user]
too many cars for capacity causing gridlock
Tuesday 12 January 2016, 20:53:57
True that Fred!
Tuesday 12 January 2016, 23:08:14
"traffic" -verb- what the CIA does between Columbia and the USA
Thursday 14 January 2016, 02:05:58
LOL Paul.
Thursday 14 January 2016, 10:27:58
traffic makes me think of state statutes, where it is a description of a commercial action taken on the public roadways, for the purposes of the state establishing jurisdiction over you.
Thursday 14 January 2016, 10:31:11
Thanks for the replies, and sorry for the delayed follow up on this one. I always thought that traffic meant cars on the road, because it is so often associated with that in the news and general conversation. When I discovered that "traffic" means "commerce", is when I realized that it is our own ignorance (individually and collectively, including myself), that allows for us to get trapped (pay fines and fees) in man's (civil) law. In the eyes of civil law, which dictates your life by threat of violence and extortion, we are all engaged in commerce when traveling on the public highway...even as a pedestrian. However, I was confused for a long time because most statutes "define" "traffic" as "including" cars, motor vehicles, pedestrians, etc. It wasn't until I read "Statutes" by James De Witt Andrews (link below), that I was able to really challenge a "legal authority" as to the discrepancy between the two definitions, and get a judge to admit that the statutory definition doesn't change the general meaning, but only narrows it meaning for the purposes of the specific statutes by classifying ways in which traffic is regulated by the statutes being enforced.…
Friday 22 January 2016, 23:45:58
The next time someone has to deal with a "traffic" ticket, just let the officer know that you are not engaged in traffic, let him write the ticket, and ask him/her to put that statement on the ticket. Thank him/her and do your best to muster up all of the love in your heart to have the most positive interaction possible with the officer. In the eyes of the law, the officer is incompetent to argue the issue because it requires a "conclusion of law". When you show up in court just start asking innocent questions with the same peace and love in your heart.
Friday 22 January 2016, 23:53:01
Have you tried this?
Friday 22 January 2016, 23:57:06
Me: "Gee your honor, I don't believe I was engaged in traffic, unless I'm misunderstanding..." Judge: "Of course you were engaged in traffic" Me: "Oh...but, isn't true that traffic means commerce?" Judge: "It takes on the common meaning." *this is their first dodge...they do not want to have this conversation, but can't get angry at someone who is being truly honest and innocent* Me: "Well doesn't it only take on the common meaning, unless it is otherwise defined?" Judge: "...grumble, grumble...yes." "Well, has it been defined for the purposes of this statute." Judge: "Yes...statute such and such defines it as 'traffic includes any motor vehicle, pedestrian...', so it means cars on the road and not commerce" Me: "Oh, but isn't it true that this definition doesn't change the general meaning of the word, rather only specifies the classes of traffic which can be regulated by this statute?" This is where they might try to get scary and I act scared and intimidated. Me: "I am genuinely confused, because every supreme court case and other authority I've ever read, states that the general meaning of traffic is commerce. Is there some authority I am unaware of, which specifically says that traffic does NOT mean commerce?" *there is none* Judge: "Well case law such and such says it's cars on the road." Me: "But does it specifically say that it does not mean commerce?" Judge: "No, but this is what it says it means." "Oh, does that case address whether or not legislature intended to change the general meaning of traffic?" Judge: "No, but..." Me: "Well isn't it true that in law a word retains it's general meaning, unless legislature explicitly intended to change the general meaning?" At this point, they know they are pinned in, and are going to figure out how to get the case out of the court. Even to the extent of telling or strongly urging a prosecutor to drop it! Now, at any point in time they will try to avoid answering questions, to which I say, "Well your honor, I need the court's determination on the issue, in order to adequately defend myself, but if you would prefer to pass the buck, let's take it upstairs, and ask the higher court to make the determination." A simple "traffic" ticket is actually a very safe and effective opportunity for passive aggressive (if you will), civil dissent. Once I experienced judges vigorously duck and dodge this and similar lines of questions, I began to feel empowered. Finally, I could protect myself from this punitive government.
Saturday 23 January 2016, 00:35:17
eaf, you are amazing! The situation I envision-Judge: (pulling out his .357) You farking with me? Let's start over or you just signed up for the judicial darwin awards.
Saturday 23 January 2016, 01:14:06
Lol...I once had a judge who was a grumpy old man. He was really harsh on everyone in the court every time I had him as a judge. At the time I was testing single premises, while defending myself in multiple right to travel cases. I was asking whether it was necessary for me to have a license, when I wasn't engaged in commerce, and I could prove competence through other means, such as a certificate of competence. His argument was that a certificate was too big big to fit in my wallet. I challenged him on this, and he just got grumpy and set trial. He set it for a different date than the prosecutor requested, and I stated I was open to any. He then mean mugged me and said, well if you don't do it then, then your gonna have me for a trial judge. To which I smiled at him and genuinely said, "I'm okay with that your honor, I like you." He just looked down and set it on another judges calendar. Then he just left, because of course people who stand up for their rights in court have to go last every time.
Saturday 23 January 2016, 01:36:53
He's the guy I figured would have a sidearm under the bench. He tried the hardest of all of them
to scare me into getting a lawyer.
Saturday 23 January 2016, 01:41:33
Have you ever seen the video where the judge takes the public defender into his chambers, and kicked his ass? Lol...gotta love Florida...pretty sure it was Florida.
Saturday 23 January 2016, 01:43:23
AH HA! A Sovereign ....That's why you’re so well informed. I’ve met two guys over the years
here in Nevada that took that approach and succeeded after a couple of early mishaps. Ya gotta know your stuff! I'm sure running into the most interesting people here on FCP!
Saturday 23 January 2016, 01:54:13
Florida is a different country. The only job I had for more than a month was there. My DL expired and I got called in and was told I had to take the driving test again. The test was in an undevo
Saturday 23 January 2016, 01:59:35
gotta stop hitting the return key! anyway, tested in an area with nothing around. Parallel park between orange cones 100 feet apart. That is frightening...
Saturday 23 January 2016, 02:03:12
Found the video. Priceless!!
Saturday 23 January 2016, 02:12:20
Lol. The best comedy is when we look back and laugh at ourselves.
Tuesday 26 January 2016, 04:21:33
"Sovereign" is a relative term, and is very important as well. The word has been demonized by media by associating it with militant "sovereign citizens". Just like people think traffic means cars on the road by means of association and deception, they similarly misplace their understanding of the word "sovereign". In relation to man, one could only say that they are sovereign over their own material body. In relation to government, the only way to be sovereign is by acting in the capacity of the "People". The People are the first "person" in law. The People is a person, because it is a group of men acting as one via compact/contract, and is therefore not a man. People is not synonymous with man, just as "person" is not. People is a specific class of "person", and is construed in any statute or constitution, as being sovereign, as well as being specifically excluded from the "persons" referred to in statutory law. People is a "political class", and persons referred to in civil law is a "civil class". When used in reference to "political", the word "civil" is used in opposition. Just like "civil" and "natural"; "civil" and "foreign"; "civil" and "military". Acting in a civil capacity, necessarily means you cannot be acting in a natural capacity, or as one of the People...a political capacity. So, other than in respect to one's self, I don't think any living man (original gender neutral meaning) has ever acted in a sovereign capacity, and even the exercise of "self-sovereignty" is extremely limited and rare.
Tuesday 26 January 2016, 04:55:54
It looks like the law distinguishes itself from the real world by playing on the denotation and connotation of words. Most people have some basic understanding of word usage, but when the law gets it's claws in a word it puts an extremely sharp edge on it. A word is left with such a specialized and specific denotation that all other uses are just connotation. “depends on what you definition of 'is' is”! These weaponized words are used by the high priests of legaldom to steal wealth, labor, and Life from the unwary.
Communications within the legal world is effectively a different language and cannot be used in the world of man and nature. Its a Black Hole where what is inside stays inside and people that stray too close get sucked in.
I see the law as an evil self-contained and disposable (OH Please!) entity existing within a near infinite universe that the rest of us play in!
So when I say 'sovereign' I mean it in every sense except the legal one. When I look around I see billions of sovereigns going about their ways, including you!
Thursday 28 January 2016, 22:59:01
Cheers to that!
Sunday 31 January 2016, 08:47:58
Please login to make a comment

© 2014 - 2020 Collective Evolution
Collective Evolution is powered by Coeō © 2014 - 2020 Coeō (Matthew Dowle) | Designed and developed by Matthew Dowle | Coeō Terms and Conditions / Legal | Sitemap