Comment: But does it work?

(See in situ)


But does it work?

THAT is what people want to know.

The more I look into this stuff, the more I realize that people like Carl Miller are right in the law, but ALSO that cops, bureaucrats, and judges are uninformed or don't care.

Also, they force certain things on people, like driver's licenses. Theoretically, a person can go without one, but since it is used as universal ID in non-government transactions, it is not possible to live a "normal" live without it.

Since they use deception to get people to do things that they then claim are giving up of one's rights, it seems like it should be possible to have "one foot in, one foot out" of the system.

For example, the driver's license is really for permission to use the public highways FOR COMMERCE. From that standpoint, it could be said that it is a privilege. But, it does NOT necessarily follow that when one gets into a car and motors down the highway that the person IS engaged in interstate commerce.

So, WE should be able to determine when we are and when we are not engaged in this privilege, and let THEM prove otherwise.

We SHOULD be able to come up with something to tell cops that does not seem confrontational, and yet can potentially get us on with our day without further hassle. Same for dealing with bureaucrats and judges.

That is the sort of thing I'm looking for.

Let's say I get stopped by a cop for speeding. Let's assume I have a driver's license, plates, insurance, etc. When the cops as for license & registration (& insurance), I *SHOULD* be able to say something that asserts my rights, but is not confrontational, and MIGHT allow the stop to end with me being on my way.

If I could tell the cop:
- I realize he is doing his job
- His job is defined by the police department, the state laws, the state constitution, and the US Constitution, that he is sworn to uphold
- Whether he was ever told this at the police academy or by his supervisors or not, that all Americans have the right to travel, and the courts have defended that time and time again
- That drivers licenses are required for using the roads for commerce, but that I am not engaged in commerce
- That the statute that he suspects I may have violated does not apply when one is not engaged in commerce on the public roads
- That he, as a cop, only has authority to detain me if he has reason to believe I have committed a crime, and since he now knows that I have not, and that I am not engaged in commerce, I should be free to go
- DOES HE AGREE?

At this point, it becomes either an education process, or a battle, in which case maybe the supervisor can be called, maybe a camera could be used ... I dunno.

In a court case, I *SHOULD* be able to file papers with the court that shows how the judge works for the state, build a chain of logical statements that shows the judge must uphold the Constitution, and the court cases that show that he has no jurisdiction, and the file a Motion to Dismiss.

That is how it SHOULD work. These UCC arguments seem to muddy the waters more than necessary.

It SHOULD simply be citing constitutional limitations on government powers, individual rights recognized by courts superior to the person I am dealing with, and then a quiet end to the situation (traffic stop, legal case, etc.)

This all assumes that we're not talking about a crime or violation of another's rights, but merely "laws" that only exist because politicians say so.

Anybody have nuts-and-bolts methods that have worked in the real world?