Convo With A Judge About “Driving”
Me: “Your honor, I’d like to remind you that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, that ‘driving’ is an occupational action and a commercial term for someone who is for hire to provide a service of transportation like a taxi or a person who is transporting merchandise to be sold, like a truck driver. Since nothing that I was doing while operating my personal private automobile was considered commercial, by definition, I was not driving because I was not involved in traffic. Going from point A to point be, even driving to work, is not considered driving if I’m not operating in a public commercial status, which is also known as traffic. I was merely traveling privately. Just because I use the same roadways, doesn’t mean I was operating in the same capacity. This is federal law, decided by the supreme court. I was traveling lawfully and need no license to do so. Licensing liberty law also says that my right to travel cannot be converted into a license and charged for a fee and that if such a litigation is written, which would be a violation of my right and infringe on my enjoyment of said right, then it charges no offense for me to not acquire a licence, ignore the litigation and proceed with impunity. I have no contract as a driver, no hours logged and am on no corporate payroll as such.”
Judge: “the definitions of the UCC aren’t valid in this situation, you have to have a license to operate a motored vehicle in the state of Ohio.”
Me: “what about what I said was unclear? Federal jurisdiction trumps your statutory jurisdiction as well. A motored vehicle is used for commercial purposes, which I defined for you previously. My personal automobile is household goods. And how are they not valid? Do you collect a revenue using federal reserve Notes in this court?”
Judge: “yes we do.”
Me: “that validates the federal jurisdiction of the UCC over this court. If you use federal money, then you have to abide by federal law and code… unless, of course, you’re saying you’re going to break federal law and code to extort me… Does the USC Title 18 part 1 chapter 13 subsection 241 and 242 apply to you if you infringe upon my rights and do me harm in the process? Hypothetically speaking of course…”
Judge: “hypothetically if that situation were to occur, yes.
Me: “If that federal code applies, then so does the UCC. You cannot pick and choose sir. You, yourself, are operating commercially on behalf of the court as an administrator of this municipality. So the UCC applies to you. I didn’t write the laws, I just found them. And, if we’re being honest, the officer, who brought this claim against me, should actually have state plates on his car since he is acting in a public capacity AND operating commercially to collect a revenue. But he doesn’t, he has private plates with police decals on them. You are allowing unlawful litigations to be enforced and do damage upon me financially and infringe upon my rights. Neither the state, nor the city, this municipality, nor you would have any standing in a federal court if you passed judgment on me over this while ignoring and violating federal law causing damage to me. Please have the bondsman bring forward the proper documents so that I can see who will indemnify me.”
Judge: “I will waive these charges and dismiss this case due to lack of evidence.”