@@cmotherofpirl you do know all the man has to do is claim that he is an idiot *an idiot is someone outside of the written policies rules regulations of a society in which he is no part of, therefore he is not obliged to having to carry out any duties obligations nor responsibilities to that society which he did not voluntarily enter into* 🤔🤔🤔
@@cmotherofpirl Latin idiota "ordinary person, layman; outsider," in Late Latin "uneducated or ignorant person," from Greek idiotes "layman, person lacking professional skill" (opposed to writer, soldier, skilled workman), literally "private person" (as opposed to one taking part in public affairs), used patronizingly for "ignorant person," from idios "one's own"
I saw the whole clip...this sovcit was so determined to push his argument he totally lost the plot. I don't know why they insist on making themselves look so pig-ignorant
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
@@kathynewey6513 you know all the man has to do is claim before the court is that he's an idiot 🤔 *an idiot is someone outside of the written policies rules regulations of a society in which he is no part of, therefore he is not obliged to having to carry out any duties obligations nor responsibilities to that society which he did not voluntarily enter into* 🤔🤔🤔
It insane that there is so much negativity into breaking away from the corporation that is your social security and stepping into your own corporation. Benefits are; You don’t fall in to the Maritime laws. You get more assistance from banks when taking out a loan. Your home or automobile (not more vehicle) is YOURS and not a registered (borrowed) item of the state which is why police can tow your automobile. I searched up “How To Become Sovereign” and every single video is talking against it, without factual evidence or statements. What is going on? Why don’t they want us knowing the benefits? And I don’t mean, being radical and/or not being a stand up “citizen”. Just because you want to be sovereign does not mean you are a bad person. It means that you recognize the oppression of the system and want to break free. Paying taxes is against the constitution. PS - please do not delete this comment, I’m all about peace, love, and truth. Let’s have a discussion and learn more. 🙏🏽
This guy believes what he believes---ain't nobody going to change his mind. He believes you do not need a driver license to "travel" in the United States.
I recently watched Team Skeptic cover this hearing. What the defendant says is so incredibly stupid with how many times he is told how the court works. This judge is patient. He could have held him in contempt more times than he did.
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
@@nickersonsherrillc what argument am I defending? *You are saying that as it's a bad thing?* In that courtroom somebody gave him the designation of that of a legal person or defendant, why did he not just ASK, who gave him the title of defendant, what leads anyone to believe he is a legal person, or Rebut and state before the court that there is only [a]man standing, before the court, involuntarily dragged into here, not a member of your legal society, there is no defendant standing here there's no legal person standing here, he can simply say *"there could be a legal person here, I could be a defendant standing here if the price is right because I'm an innocent man (not proven guilty), certainly, not a slave and I don't have to take on ANY designations, titles, duties obligations nor responsibilities for free, I owe a debt to whom? A debt to society? Whose society? , is there a victim? Are there damages? Is this a quasi-crime?"* 🤔
@@loreman4849 Ok, now tell me what difference that makes when you are in court charged with an offense. Spoiler: None. Spout this in court and get laughed at. Also, this is 100% sovereign citizen rhetoric.
The worst part about these sovereign citizens as they use the same same same arguments that each one of them use in court...... They use more very versatile Madison they use the two cases from Alabama to use the cases from Pennsylvania none of them have anything to do with driving none of them have anything to do with driver's licenses none of them have anything to do with what they think the ultimate ruling is lol lol lol they just follow what they see in The sovereign citizen Bibles and that's it...... And then get angry when people don't agree with it Judge Simpson out of Detroit gets really angry when African Americans use cases such as the one in Alabama which has nothing to do with driving at all and I can't remember it off the top of my head which has to do with a group of people wanting to walk or travel across a bridge come and they are being denied that right...... And it has to do with civil rights and this war on it was an African-American is trying to use it as a driver's license in there like you don't even know what you're saying you're using it in a way that has nothing to do with what you think it is
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
License is just permission, if he owns the car he doesn't need anybody's permission to take it down the road He also doesn't need anybody's license to go down the road Google the word license, license means permission This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
@@Strel-il7vj why don't you ask SCOTUS Clarence Thomas or nominee Robert Bork (RIP), when they said "no man has ever been in a US prison nor will there ever will be"
@Strel-il7vj not according to the Supreme Court, The Declaration of Independence and Common Law. Common Sense also should help y'all out. The statutes you think apply are written to regulate commerce and cannot legally apply to anyone conducting personal business on public property. You can't turn a right into a privilege. No rule, policy, executive order, statue or law can legally restrict it. Only commerce can be regulated and that is done too much as well.
@@davidbobo1803 Cite the case and I'll tell you exactly why you are citing it and presenting it incorrectly. This has been debunked to hell and back. Ever single thing you claim in this post is just plain wrong. You have been misinformed. Badly. For example: The Declaration of Independence is not law nor a source of law. Common lay misconception.
@Strel-il7vj liberty has been debunked... OK, you win. I always thought Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness were rights. Thanks for correcting me. I didn't know you had to have a law to codify a right. Also, even though they're are several district and Supreme Court rulings, i don't care much for them as they get things wrong most of the time... separate but equal, roe v Wade, Terry v Ohio just to name a few. So be a sheeple if you so choose, it's not what I choose.
Travel IS a right. Travel means to move from one place to another. The means of travel, driving/operating a vehicle is NOT a right. I can't just jump into an airplane, or train, and take off without a license indicating that I have the knowledge/training to operate those VEHICLES without endangering the populace. The law supports the means of travel.
But do any of yall actually read the law; or do yall just take rebellious behavior as wrong ?? Also if they are idiots; can u provide where in law that they are idiots?
They do. The right to travel law they all cite has been debunked countless times. Also, as the judge points out, he can appeal the decision. He can't just keep arguing with the judge. There is a process for challenging court rulings. He would rather throw a tantrum then do what is required
@@thebardslament5337 You have to have supported evidence to make such claims. It’s what everyone isn’t doing now of days. Just say it and believe it. Go back to them college and late high school days… cite that information if you want to make a claim.
@@ishy2raw972he sites Thompson vs smith. Uses the first part of the ruling and ignores the second paragraph stating that states have the right to require license and registration before you can drive
This judge was the kindest, most patient elementary school teacher I've ever heard!
🤡
Judge Oakley is a rock star!!❤
Woke gender binary all bullshit
Kids are confused I wonder why
Hes the best
Judge Oakley literally tells it like no one else 😂
This judge has the patience of a saint.
Wahhh I don’t get the justice system to side with me. Loll
Tell it like it is judge.
Everybody needs to watch the entire clip. :) pure gold.
@@cmotherofpirl you do know all the man has to do is claim that he is an idiot
*an idiot is someone outside of the written policies rules regulations of a society in which he is no part of, therefore he is not obliged to having to carry out any duties obligations nor responsibilities to that society which he did not voluntarily enter into* 🤔🤔🤔
@@loreman4849 😂😂😂
@@loreman4849😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@cmotherofpirl oooooookay?
@@cmotherofpirl Latin idiota "ordinary person, layman; outsider," in Late Latin "uneducated or ignorant person," from Greek idiotes "layman, person lacking professional skill" (opposed to writer, soldier, skilled workman), literally "private person" (as opposed to one taking part in public affairs), used patronizingly for "ignorant person," from idios "one's own"
I saw the whole clip...this sovcit was so determined to push his argument he totally lost the plot. I don't know why they insist on making themselves look so pig-ignorant
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
@@loreman4849 That is 100% sovcit rhetoric.
Say it like it is Judge 🤣
😊
I agree with the judge.
Then you are wrong too.
@@davidbobo1803 No, you are wrong. Misinformed and uneducated.
@@kathynewey6513 you know all the man has to do is claim before the court is that he's an idiot 🤔 *an idiot is someone outside of the written policies rules regulations of a society in which he is no part of, therefore he is not obliged to having to carry out any duties obligations nor responsibilities to that society which he did not voluntarily enter into* 🤔🤔🤔
@@loreman4849 Nope. You don't get to "opt out" of the law. Your consent is irrelevant.
@@Strel-il7vj *is law , voluntary?* 🤔 ( *Ooh and We are just talking about the people here in the united States of America? )*
It insane that there is so much negativity into breaking away from the corporation that is your social security and stepping into your own corporation.
Benefits are;
You don’t fall in to the Maritime laws.
You get more assistance from banks when taking out a loan.
Your home or automobile (not more vehicle) is YOURS and not a registered (borrowed) item of the state which is why police can tow your automobile.
I searched up “How To Become Sovereign” and every single video is talking against it, without factual evidence or statements.
What is going on? Why don’t they want us knowing the benefits? And I don’t mean, being radical and/or not being a stand up “citizen”. Just because you want to be sovereign does not mean you are a bad person. It means that you recognize the oppression of the system and want to break free.
Paying taxes is against the constitution.
PS - please do not delete this comment, I’m all about peace, love, and truth. Let’s have a discussion and learn more. 🙏🏽
You're all about spreading misinformation. Everything in your post is false.
I could not be the judge and I would still think your argument is 💩!! Because it is 😂
Love the way this judge handles Sovcits...
If everyone on earth spoke with this much bluntness… I’m pretty sure sovcits would still be a thing. 🤣
But Judge Oakley... How do you REALLY FEEL? 😂
This guy believes what he believes---ain't nobody going to change his mind. He believes you do not need a driver license to "travel" in the United States.
I recently watched Team Skeptic cover this hearing. What the defendant says is so incredibly stupid with how many times he is told how the court works. This judge is patient. He could have held him in contempt more times than he did.
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
You are creating designations and then presenting them as fact to defend an argument.
@@nickersonsherrillc what argument am I defending? *You are saying that as it's a bad thing?* In that courtroom somebody gave him the designation of that of a legal person or defendant, why did he not just ASK, who gave him the title of defendant, what leads anyone to believe he is a legal person, or Rebut and state before the court that there is only [a]man standing, before the court, involuntarily dragged into here, not a member of your legal society, there is no defendant standing here there's no legal person standing here, he can simply say *"there could be a legal person here, I could be a defendant standing here if the price is right because I'm an innocent man (not proven guilty), certainly, not a slave and I don't have to take on ANY designations, titles, duties obligations nor responsibilities for free, I owe a debt to whom? A debt to society? Whose society? , is there a victim? Are there damages? Is this a quasi-crime?"* 🤔
@@loreman4849 Ok, now tell me what difference that makes when you are in court charged with an offense.
Spoiler: None. Spout this in court and get laughed at. Also, this is 100% sovereign citizen rhetoric.
Based on the time Judge Oakley spent talking with the defendant, he was biased toward them if anything 😂
😂
Someone tell me what a sovereign citizen is
A moron that gets their legal education from UA-cam and TikTok and thinks using magic words in court will guarantee you a win.
The worst part about these sovereign citizens as they use the same same same arguments that each one of them use in court...... They use more very versatile Madison they use the two cases from Alabama to use the cases from Pennsylvania none of them have anything to do with driving none of them have anything to do with driver's licenses none of them have anything to do with what they think the ultimate ruling is lol lol lol they just follow what they see in The sovereign citizen Bibles and that's it...... And then get angry when people don't agree with it
Judge Simpson out of Detroit gets really angry when African Americans use cases such as the one in Alabama which has nothing to do with driving at all and I can't remember it off the top of my head which has to do with a group of people wanting to walk or travel across a bridge come and they are being denied that right...... And it has to do with civil rights and this war on it was an African-American is trying to use it as a driver's license in there like you don't even know what you're saying you're using it in a way that has nothing to do with what you think it is
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
License is just permission, if he owns the car he doesn't need anybody's permission to take it down the road
He also doesn't need anybody's license to go down the road
Google the word license, license means permission
This is not sovereign citizen rhetoric... This is... *Is she looking for the man or the legal person* ? In a legal proceeding, the jurisdiction is only over the legal person
@@loreman4849 That is 100% sovcit rhetoric, and also bullshit.
@@loreman4849 "Is she looking for the man or the legal person"
It makes no actual difference, it is still your ass going to jail.
@@Strel-il7vj why don't you ask SCOTUS Clarence Thomas or nominee Robert Bork (RIP), when they said "no man has ever been in a US prison nor will there ever will be"
BAR attorneys need to learn law 😊
You need to learn to reject misinformation.
@@Strel-il7vj I just rejected you
@@bluesky6985 If you think "Bar" is an acronym, then you are an idiot.
@@bluesky6985 Do you think "Bar" is an acronym? Do tell.
@@Strel-il7vj Look it up yourself
Travel is a right. This judge can be as nice as sugar and still be wrong. The law supports the one traveling.
You are most sadly mistaken.
@Strel-il7vj not according to the Supreme Court, The Declaration of Independence and Common Law. Common Sense also should help y'all out. The statutes you think apply are written to regulate commerce and cannot legally apply to anyone conducting personal business on public property. You can't turn a right into a privilege. No rule, policy, executive order, statue or law can legally restrict it. Only commerce can be regulated and that is done too much as well.
@@davidbobo1803 Cite the case and I'll tell you exactly why you are citing it and presenting it incorrectly. This has been debunked to hell and back. Ever single thing you claim in this post is just plain wrong. You have been misinformed. Badly.
For example: The Declaration of Independence is not law nor a source of law. Common lay misconception.
@Strel-il7vj liberty has been debunked... OK, you win. I always thought Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness were rights. Thanks for correcting me. I didn't know you had to have a law to codify a right. Also, even though they're are several district and Supreme Court rulings, i don't care much for them as they get things wrong most of the time... separate but equal, roe v Wade, Terry v Ohio just to name a few. So be a sheeple if you so choose, it's not what I choose.
Travel IS a right. Travel means to move from one place to another. The means of travel, driving/operating a vehicle is NOT a right. I can't just jump into an airplane, or train, and take off without a license indicating that I have the knowledge/training to operate those VEHICLES without endangering the populace. The law supports the means of travel.
But do any of yall actually read the law; or do yall just take rebellious behavior as wrong ?? Also if they are idiots; can u provide where in law that they are idiots?
They do. The right to travel law they all cite has been debunked countless times. Also, as the judge points out, he can appeal the decision. He can't just keep arguing with the judge. There is a process for challenging court rulings. He would rather throw a tantrum then do what is required
@@thebardslament5337 can you provide the diss proof of what he cites;
And also the video where he cites it.
@@thebardslament5337 You have to have supported evidence to make such claims. It’s what everyone isn’t doing now of days. Just say it and believe it. Go back to them college and late high school days… cite that information if you want to make a claim.
@ishy2raw972 I disagree. The problem nowadays is people like you expecting free labor when you can do your own research.
@@ishy2raw972he sites Thompson vs smith.
Uses the first part of the ruling and ignores the second paragraph stating that states have the right to require license and registration before you can drive