Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

To Mr. Frog Farmer, from Officer Wimpy "Just doin' my job" Schlemeel.

Expand Messages
  • Paul Lowery
    ... Okay, Mr. Frog Farmer, Sir. This is just a friendly courtesy stop. I was thinkin bout what you said and it made me wonder about a couple things. I think
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      >>> aegis9@... 2/28/2005 12:09:41 PM >>>
      Okay, Mr. Frog Farmer, Sir. This is just a friendly courtesy stop. I was thinkin' bout what you said and it made me wonder about a couple things. I think it highly unlikely that any court would let you traverse the public highways without a drivers license, registration, or proof of insurance. aegis9 I have not had a drivers license since I sent it back years ago. I have liability
      issurance and proof of ownership of my automobile, I have not cause any panic, I have not injured another citizen
      and obey the rules of the road. So not having a commercial motor vehicle license makes me less of a person?


      I mean, that's preposterous! It is not preposterous is your natural right to use the highways as they were intended.
      Remember aegis9 if someone tells a lie so many times * the truth then sounds preposterous.

      What would happen if other motorists got hold of this same information and defense. You're a dangerous man,
      aegis9 your the dangerous man, a citizen without a clue.

      Mr. Frog Farmer and it just isn't right (it is your right that you should be allowed out here when everyone else is obeying the law.
      Obeying the law or clueless of the law?
      Just remember who has the guns, radios, low profile, fast and stealthy Camarro pursuit vehicles, keys to the jail, and the judges on our side.

      Who is our side? The government agents who enforce commercial motor vehicle laws unlawfully? Do you aegis9 have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle code or a law dictionary? Have you ever read the motor vehicle code. Do you know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?

      Why, look at all the taxpayers out there who pay me to keep the likes of you from breakin' the law, I mean, well, we just can't have a convoy of whacko renegade cowboys glutting the highways without drivers licenses.

      aegis9 there is only one kind of license a commerical motor vehicle license in three catagories, read your code.

      Who do you think you are anyway? Now, be a good citizen and go get yourself a proper license like everyone else.

      How preposterous you now sound to those of us who know the codes, rules and regulations.

      You've got thirty days to comply! And remember to fix those broken tail lights too! If you don't like it then I suggest you petition your lawmaker, or the governator. I'm just doin' my job and it don't matter if I don't have no constitutional oath. I wear the badge around here and this is my watch! Did you hear me...Sir?

      Please Sir; where is it you are domicled? I want to come to your socialist land and kick your ass, take a bunch of your money and see you humilitated by the folks you claim to protect and serve, in the law of course. Please Sir, your the tough guy with the gun, I'm just the Sovereign Political Power, servant to none. Don't believe me, read the constitution of your state * In Texas it is article I, section II.

      Just for grins, the penal code does not apply to the citizens but the government thugs only. So there, bub, your a fraud and a felon (I suspect serial felon) who violates the rights of citizens so you can stuff the coffers of your agency. Hmmm, f***s a citizen, takes his money, and passes it on to his pimp. Sounds like violations of the RICO statutes to me.

      Just for vibrant conversation;

      Paul
    • Frog Farmer
      ... You could make an inquiry first, and surprise yourself! ... I got it from government publications, but then I can read. ... That s rich! Just the other
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Feb 28, 2005, at 10:09 AM, David-Allin: Sautter wrote:

        > I think it highly unlikely that any court would let you traverse the
        > public highways without a drivers license, registration, or proof of
        > insurance. 

        You could make an inquiry first, and surprise yourself!

        > What would happen if other motorists got hold of this same
        > information and defense. 

        I got it from government publications, but then I can read.

        > You're a dangerous man, Mr. Frog Farmer and it just isn't right that
        > you should be allowed out here when everyone else is obeying the law.

        That's rich! Just the other day it was officially announced that there
        are over 1 MILLION illegal Mexicans driving without your Big Three in
        California alone! That doesn't count the Russians or Chinese or
        Arabs! Tell you what! Ask your leader for a briefing!

        >   Just remember who has the guns, radios, low profile, fast and
        > stealthy Camarro pursuit vehicles, keys to the jail, and the judges on
        > our side. 

        Who is that? Is there an impersonator's union or something?

        > Why, look at all the taxpayers out there who pay me to keep the likes
        > of you from breakin' the law,

        Lots of false conclusions there...too many to bother with.

        >   I mean, well, we just can't have a convoy of whacko renegade cowboys
        > glutting the highways without drivers licenses.

        It's lucky that all those Mexicans aren't following each other!

        >   Who do you think you are anyway?

        I'm vying for Last Free American, but the competiton is stiff in my
        county alone!

        > Now, be a good citizen and go get yourself a proper license like
        > everyone else.

        I once was in line to try to do so, when I was somehow recognized in a
        place I had never been before (a DMV office in another locale). A
        voice shouted out from behind the security partition, "Frog Farmer,
        you have no possible business here! Get out!" How did they know?

        >   You've got thirty days to comply!  And remember to fix those broken
        > tail lights too!  If you don't like it then I suggest you petition
        > your lawmaker, or the governator.  I'm just doin' my job and it don't
        > matter if I don't have no constitutional oath.  I wear the badge
        > around here and this is my watch!  Did you hear me...Sir?

        I'll request a briefing for you, if you won't. Unfortunately, 30 days
        will not permit you to correct your status. Maybe the statute of
        limitations on impersonation will, I don't know. Adios, Muchacho!
      • Frog Farmer
        ... CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Feb 28, 2005, at 12:03 PM, tthor.geo wrote:
          >
          > {There is NO "friendly courtesy stop" when the stopper is armed with
          > lethal force [since the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and 9th Circuit "courts"
          > have determined that California Citizens do NOT have the right of
          > armed self-defense because California has no 2nd Amendment-equivalent
          > in its Constitution

          CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
          ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

          SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent
          on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
          ...
          This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
          others retained by the people.

          > ; it is absurd to believe that STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          > employees magically have a right its Citizens do not {that's called
          > "oppression"}] and believes that he/she has the discretion to use it
          > against ANY Citizen! That is an act of Robbery, Piracy, or WAR.}

          Of course it's absurd, but how many people will accept the absurd
          without objection?!

          > OK, "officer" Obie. Let's assume you're right [ha, ha, ha].
          > I'm not going to play the Huff-and-Puff game. You have already
          > commited a crime by threatening me.
          > So, go ahead and shoot me right now! Make sure you kill me DEAD!
          > Now, every time you look in the mirror, you can say to yourself, "You
          > know, I think I just murdered a man because I did not understand what
          > he said."
          > Unless you are ready to do that RIGHT NOW, go away.... I do not want
          > to talk to you.... Do not EVER approach me again.

          That's unique but perfectly logical proposal, but I think it's a BIG
          mistake to refer to Obie as Officer. He and other witnesses cannot see
          your little quaotation marks around the word "officer". Testimony will
          show you knew you were confronting an officer.

          Have you seen Luis Ewing's little flyers to hand to impersonators? I
          like the idea, but dislike automatically making the presumption that
          they are officers. Now, if indeed they are shown to be officers, then
          handing them a flyer calling them officers is okay. I had to quit
          using my Public Servant Questionnaire when I learned that there are no
          longer any such creatures. When I find one though, I'll use it again!
        • Frog Farmer
          ... These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once had at the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I wasn t disqualifying him
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mar 1, 2005, at 6:34 AM, Paul Lowery wrote:

            > Do you aegis9 have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears
            > in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle code
            > or a law dictionary? Have you ever read the motor vehicle code. Do you
            > know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?

            These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once had at
            the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I wasn't
            disqualifying him was that I needed someone to make record of what I
            was going to do. I then questioned the DMV's own "expert witness" (who
            held the top position in the local office) and by her lack of answers I
            got the hearing officer to dismiss her as an incompetent witness,
            leaving the DMV with no one to speak for them. So I won. No one could
            prove that my car was a vehicle subject to regulation!

            > aegis9 there is only one kind of license a commerical motor vehicle
            > license in three catagories, read your code.

            California conveniently "omitted" several key provisions from the
            currently printed code. They are still good, but you have to be
            looking hard for them in old books. The code didn't get so screwed up
            that an ordinary reading would make one believe that private
            non-commercial owners needed licenses or registration until after 1957.
            They really count on the people receiving a poor education and being
            nearly illiterate.
          • hobot
            SNIP} ... Frogfarmer the snake charmer, Enjoying this banter as its not mere academics to me. What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV? hobot
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              SNIP}
              > > know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?
              >
              > These questions remind me of an administrative hearing I once
              > had at
              > the DMV. I told the hearing officer that the only reason I
              > wasn't
              > disqualifying him was that I needed someone to make record of
              > what I
              > was going to do. I then questioned the DMV's own "expert
              > witness" (who
              > held the top position in the local office) and by her lack of
              > answers I
              > got the hearing officer to dismiss her as an incompetent
              > witness,
              > leaving the DMV with no one to speak for them. So I won. No
              > one could
              > prove that my car was a vehicle subject to regulation!

              Frogfarmer the snake charmer,

              Enjoying this banter as its not mere academics to me.
              What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV?

              hobot
            • Frog Farmer
              ... I don t have my notes handy as it was many years ago, but they were questions pertinent to registration since that was the issue. The one which booted her
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mar 1, 2005, at 6:27 PM, hobot wrote:

                > What sorta of questions did you ask the DMV?
                >

                I don't have my notes handy as it was many years ago, but they were
                questions pertinent to registration since that was the issue.

                The one which booted her was, "what evidence does the DMV have that my
                car is a vehicle of the type subject to registration?"

                Note I had at that time won 3 cases on the driver's license,
                registration and proof of insurance.

                I remember having a witness testify to something but what it was I
                cannot remember. Maybe it was whether or not I chrged him a fee for
                giving him a ride. Something like that.

                After the hearing was over, the man portraying a hearing officer sat
                for another hour as I diagrammed how the law worked between him and me
                on a blackboard. It was a gas. Never heard from them again.
              • Michael Pf
                PAUL WROTE: Do you have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle code or a law
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  PAUL WROTE:
                   
                  Do you have the ability to define motor vehicle as it appears in the code? Are you able to define driver in the motor vehicle  code or a law dictionary? Have you ever read the motor vehicle code. Do you know the differnce between a motor vehicle and an automobile?
                   
                  Paul,
                   
                  No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California Vehicle Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile".  PLEASE - show me the reference or at least paint some footprints on the path.  I can quote the code definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle", neither of which are defined as having anything to do with commerce, but I can't find a legal definition of "automobile" anywhere in the California Vehicle Code.  So, how does it differ?  By the way, the term "operator" is no longer defined or used in the current code in reference to "driving".


                   


                  Michael
                  Laguna Niguel, CA
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... But now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of the superior law of the state s own constitution over mere statutes, you can go home
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 7, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Michael Pf wrote:
                    > No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California Vehicle
                    > Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is
                    > between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile". 

                    But now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of
                    the superior law of the state's own constitution over mere statutes,
                    you can go home and forget about it, right? Isn't life too short to go
                    around wondering what the difference is between "motor vehicle" and
                    "automobile" ? Who cares about it? Do you? I did until I discovered
                    how to make the bogey man disappear...you have to stop giving
                    impersonators credence. You only have to deal with officers as per
                    Art. XX sec. 3 therein.

                    > PLEASE - show me the reference or at least paint some footprints on
                    > the path.

                    Have you really read the code? And going back to say around 1935? Try
                    it - it's fascinating. Back then people still read, so they understood
                    the plain language of the code, which mad eit abundantly clear that
                    only commercial traffic was being regulated. So, you might at least
                    use the normal "street definition" as a starting place, and then let
                    your adversary articulate, using his code that he says he obeys, how
                    you err in doing so.

                    I see a difference in the terms right on their face.

                    I don't have time to take anyone through the code anymore now that I
                    don't have to. Life is too short. Especially because few if any have
                    commented upon the lack of oaths here and there. Here a more
                    foundational defense is being ignored. I find it fascinating, don't
                    you?

                    > I can quote the code definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle",
                    > neither of which are defined as having anything to do with commerce

                    That's because the code is and was only for the regulation of commerce
                    from Day One. If the shoes don't fit, why wear them?

                    I loved it when I first saw the old code sections that recognized the
                    concept of non-commercial uses. There were only two licenses then, the
                    "operator's" and the "chauffuer's" licenses, and those were all the
                    "code" EVER regulated, as you could read it if you were inclined to do
                    so. But then a stroke of brilliance caused them to blend the two
                    licenses, without changing who or what was being regulated, and they
                    named this combination license, "the drivers license" (because it
                    combined the two commercial drivers classes). And then they set out to
                    make teenagers want them! Hahahaha! What an easy to obtain status
                    symbol, eh?! Trapped like monkeys with their fists in coconuts.

                    > , but I can't find a legal definition of "automobile" anywhere in the
                    > California Vehicle Code.

                    Must mean they aren't regulated then, doesn't it? I can't find
                    "interplanetary magnetocraft" anywhere in there either! Some people
                    think there must be a statute that says when it rains on you, you get
                    wet. I personally don't think the politicians in the capitol have had
                    time to thoroughly legislate to permit all the possible actions that
                    man might conceive of as the universe expands.

                    If I was paid enough in advance I'd take the few hours or days
                    necessary to find the word "automobile" in the old code for you. It'd
                    be at least a couple of hundred bux in silver, and I'd bet you could do
                    it yourself with a few days or less of looking. Isn't it great how
                    this stuff works? Should we really be spending all our time looking
                    this stuff up just to be able to live as a free American? I don't
                    think so, so I like to cut to the chase ASAP, and the oath thingie is
                    hard for these people, officious-acting neighbors of mine, to get over,
                    especially when I remind them of the two additional concepts of the
                    crime of impersonation of an officer and the ages-old "citizens
                    arrest". I'm wondering if it's easy for impersonators to pull the wool
                    over the eyes of the folks out in the hinterlands, away from this land
                    of fruits and nuts where bumperstickers say, "F%*! YOU! This is
                    Mexico!"

                    >   So, how does it differ?

                    Well, a "motor" has "windings". "Vehicles" move "entities". Auto
                    means "self" and mobile means "to move".

                    If you're stuck in the code, you'd best ask, "how'd I get here?" What
                    is the name of the officious-acting neighbor whose impersonation was so
                    successful that it forced you there, OR did you enter voluntarily?

                    I entered voluntarily in ignorance and had to fight my way out over
                    three years. I didn't have to change them - I had to change my own
                    perspective.

                    >   By the way, the term "operator" is no longer defined or used in the
                    > current code in reference to "driving".

                    I haven't looked at the code in years because the last time I beat
                    them, they made it a condition of my win that the DMV would notify me
                    if there ever were anything done to diminish my rights as they existed
                    then and presumably still exist now since I never received any such
                    notification. But as I recall, they had quit using "operator" even
                    then, because the word only covered half of the regulated pair of
                    classes of persons. They found higher revenue enhancement occurred
                    when they permitted people to apply for licenses they really didn't
                    need for their own private purposes, but which were important status
                    symbols in each other's eyes. Today people ask for your driver's
                    license when you go to buy food and do many other things that have
                    nothing to do with driving. Does anyone think to present a fishing
                    license instead?

                    Some people still know that they have the right to fish too, and they
                    do not get fishing licenses either.
                    >
                    > Michael
                    > Laguna Niguel, CA

                    Mike, people aren't capable of living in "CA". That's an imaginary
                    jurisdiction for other entities.
                    For rights, move into California! (Warning: Avoid the STATE OF
                    CALIFORNIA).

                    Hope this helps.
                  • tthor.geo
                    We are all, to some extent, either ignorant or grossly ignorant about various facets of law . [Admittedly, some of the following is speculation, but it is
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 8, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      We are all, to some extent, either ignorant or grossly ignorant about
                      various facets of "law". [Admittedly, some of the following is
                      speculation, but it is INFORMED and KNOWLEDGABLE speculation.]

                      If one wishes to become less ignorant about Official Oaths of Office
                      [at least in California] read this:

                      http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/oathofoffice.html

                      If one wishes to become less ignorant about driver's licenses [at
                      least in California] read this:

                      http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/driverlicense.html

                      If one wishes to become less ignorant about the vehicle registration
                      process [at least in California], read this:

                      http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/vehiclereg.html

                      If one doesn't live in California and wants to duplicate this process
                      in one's own state, get off your butt, find your state's Statutes and
                      Codes [going as far back as is necessary], and DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

                      If one wishes to STAY ignorant, there is nothing I can do to stop you;
                      enjoy your"bliss".

                      Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...> wrote:

                      > On Mar 3, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Michael Pf wrote:
                      > > No, I don't know, and can't find anywhere in the California Vehicle
                      > > Code or the chaptered bill Statutes, exactly what the difference is
                      > > between a "motor vehicle" and an "automobile".
                      >
                      > But now that you know there are no officers to deal with, because of
                      > the superior law of the state's own constitution over mere statutes,
                    • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
                      For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law library and read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs. 1918-1931
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 8, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law library and
                        read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs.
                        1918-1931 (1937), pgs 590-605 (1941) and pgs. 116-117, 1514-1515
                        (1956-1957))

                        Do yourself a favor and read them for yourself and you will see that they
                        ALL related to the COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.

                        P.S.. Make a copy of them while your there, they will be invaluable if you
                        are ever pulled over.



                        --
                        No virus found in this outgoing message.
                        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                        Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.0 - Release Date: 3/8/2005
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... Note that proof of commercial use is when more than one party share equitible interests in the conveyance. This is the case for everyone who has a
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 9, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Mar 8, 2005, at 6:32 PM, <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:

                          > For those of you still looking for PROOF, go to your local law library
                          > and
                          > read the California statutes for yourself : pgs 833-839 (1925), pgs.
                          > 1918-1931 (1937), pgs 590-605 (1941) and pgs. 116-117, 1514-1515
                          > (1956-1957))
                          >
                          > Do yourself a favor and read them for yourself and you will see that
                          > they
                          > ALL related to the COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.

                          Note that proof of commercial use is when more than one party share
                          equitible interests in the conveyance.

                          This is the case for everyone who has a "certificate of title" because
                          getting such a certificate involves giving an equitible interest to the
                          state.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.