So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post Reply
sonrising

So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by sonrising » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:41 am

S
Last edited by sonrising on Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Truther
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:42 pm
County: Aiken
Your State: South Carolina

Re: So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by Truther » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:02 pm

It is permissible to have a Drivers License if one so chooses. However, just because you obtain a Drivers License does not infer a surrendering of Rights. When one is traveling upon the roadways engaged in actions of Liberty nothing is required more than non interference with another's right to Travel. As noted though, if one is engaged in Commerce, i.e. business of transportation across State Lines, not wholly within a State then one must have the commercial documents (LICENSE, REGISTRATION, and INSURANCE) available for inspection! Just because one gets a license does not require him/her to register their own automobile(s) with the state in order to establish it as Property of the State, unless it is one's own automobile that is in fact being utilized in Commerce. One must remember that one might need a License because they might have to use a company/corporation motor vehicle in the course of a business day. Therefore, just because one has a License does not mean it needs to be presented to any Statute Enforcer (policy for those engaged in Commerce of the United States Corporate Entity) unless engaged in Commerce at that specific time.

sonrising

Re: So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by sonrising » Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:37 pm

T
Last edited by sonrising on Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Truther
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:42 pm
County: Aiken
Your State: South Carolina

Re: So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by Truther » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:23 am

sonrising - You must have misinterpreted what I stated! You basically tried to correct me while making the exact same claim as I did myself! My statement was as stated that even if one does have a license, it doesn't mean that it is required to use one's own automobile for traveling. However, if one is engaged in commerce then, and only then, is a license required. Likewise, it is still not required if one is using their own automobile for a company that they have started, but for which is not used for crossing a state line. Commerce is only in regards to companies/corporations engaged in business across state lines. If one is using their own automobile for say their own mom and pops garage, but are not engaged in using their own private property (automobile) to cross state lines in regards to business then they are still not engaged in COMMERCE. Commerce control in accordance with Article 1 Section 8 is only in regards to business activities across state lines, else they, the legislature, have no power to regulate nor legislate!

P.S. I was trying to keep my answer simple for what I call baby sovereigns. I myself can quote you all the laws, rules, and statutes, not to mention am knowledgeable in-depth on that of the Uniform Commerce Code., i.e. UCC

However, when one starts quoting all the legalese, or should I say legal sleaze, people get dismayed as it can get intense and overwhelming to most! I find it best to keep it simple and then after getting acquainted slowly de-indoctrinate (unprogram them) and then slowly re-educate them with the TRUTH, yet not too much too fast else it can, as stated, overwhelm them!

Likewise, for everyone out there who have mortgages with the banks, I suggest go and looking up the Jerome Daly case of Dec 9, 1968. Over 90% of South Carolina residents are paying banks monthly mortgages while there mortgages, for which were already fraud from the beginning, have sold them to Fannie Mae. However, in TRUTH Fannie Mae has already proclaimed that it owns NO ASSETS; they act as merely a middle man for the INVESTORS. Thus, the only one's who could possibly have standing to foreclose is that of the INVESTORS only, but they won't because it would take a class action lawsuit for which they would only get pennies on the dollar! Let us not also forget that Fannie Mae by having the Mortgage with the MBS (bundled Mortgage Back Securities) and yet the SERVICERS (the Bankers) have supposedly the Promissory Note. The separation of the Note from the Mortgage CANCELS the Contract (Prommissory Note) this is affirmed in U.S. Supreme Court Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 271 (1872). One must also ask how is the BANKERS who are falsely proclaiming to be the owners of the Note have any standing (as they have sold, and were paid in full by Fannie Mae); not to mention that the banks were not only paid in full but are also paid again even more by the Primary Mortgage Insurance that many are forced to buy in order to obtain these FALSE MORTGAGES, which were digitally created by their own signatures to that of the banks (Deposit) unknown by those that the banks proclaim the people to be the borrowers. The People are funding their own supposed loans, unknowingly!

Back to the LICENSE ISSUE:

By the way "A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884).

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ``household goods[.]'' U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983).

Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled
- Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20


These are but just a few cases, for which I can easily cite many more!

Sonrising - You never did respond to the Preamble that I re-wrote to reaffirm the TRUTH, rather than just regurgitating the prior Preambles that were inconclusive in the preservation of not only our Rights but also God for which are Rights are derived!

sonrising

Re: So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by sonrising » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:44 am

G
Last edited by sonrising on Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

sonrising

Re: So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by sonrising » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:51 am

T
Last edited by sonrising on Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Truther
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:42 pm
County: Aiken
Your State: South Carolina

Re: So I received my driver's license UTT OOO!

Post by Truther » Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:40 pm

I didn't see response to the Pre-Amble rewritten (glad you liked it!) - I just believed that God deserved more reverence in the establishment of a True Republic. Likewise I would love to join but I am currently fighting the South Carolina Courts for some friends in regards to corruption of the courts, clerk of courts, and Judges in regards to home foreclosures. I will also post letters that have been written to Mr. Dawes, South Carolina BAR President and to Mr. Sean Bennett in regards to Separation of Powers; not to mention I am also currently working on writing a spoof movie called "The Ticket!" in regards to Traffic Tickets (it will be off the rails!) And last but not least I am also working on preparing a presentation for an officer over here in Aiken County. This officer addressed me not having current tags (two years old, when I parked in the Police Department Parking Lot, while my son went to get a finger print card made for his job). A year later, he pulled me over and made mention that my tags were over two years old. I stated to him that it was closer to three! :) Then the first thing out of his mouth was "Are you a Sovereign?" I looked him in the face and said "Aren't you?" We then had a discussion for which I informed him of the UCC, as well as the court cases that differentiate that of an automobile verses a motor vehicle, and my favorite of all time (Enumerated Powers of Article 1 Section 8.


Much to say, he wrote me no ticket and asked if I could email him a presentation as to the TRUTH of Traffic Tickets and Sovereigns when I get it finished. I have sent correspondence to both the State Attorney General, Governor, and even the State Executive President of the DMV, for all have stated that they refuse to answer my questions. They literally responded by saying that they refused to respond! I spend my time when braindumping... i.e. refreshing my brain I sudy the Maxims of Law, Canon Laws of Ethics, the UCC, and all the Laws, Acts, and Federal Statutes on the books! Did you know that 3 Presidents denied any Federal Legislation in the creation of raods as they deemed it unconstituional from the get go? (One was the Father of the United States Constitution of Amercia himself - James Madison!)

You do have in your records that in the Commerce Clause it states that Transportation and Traffic are terms of commerce?

Well, back to the grind stone..... if you need any information in regards to Traffic, Driving, Taxes, and Proper Procedure for passing legislation as put forth in the Manual for Government by Thomas Jefferson, then drop me a note at: thetruthexposed1776@gmail.com

Post Reply

Return to “South Carolina General Chat”