Quote:

---

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
US Supreme Court

WASHINGTON DC - In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. No one of that race had ever migrated to the United States voluntarily; all of them had been brought here as articles of merchandise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

---

Quote:

---

"Defendant is a “traveler” under the common law, and is not engaged in commercial transportation “for hire”. Defendant retains his Constitutionally protected God-given Natural Right to travel, and retains his Constitutionally protected rights to freedom from unreasonable stops, detentions, searches and seizures. Defendant makes Special Appearance to deny that a valid contract exists for Summons and Service of Process of Notice and Complaint. Defendant involuntarily signed his name to “Blount County Sheriff’s Office Multiple Offense Citation”, also known as “citation in-lieu-of-arrest”, under threats, duress and coercion from an armed employee of “Blount County Government”, identified on complaint as “JANTRAS”, a/k/a “’Josh’ Antras”. Complainant Antras declared that he would arrest Defendant immediately, if Defendant refused to sign for service of process of the complaint, notice and summons, as recorded by Plaintiff’s audio portion of “FLASHBACK DVR In-Car Digital Video Recorder” system, and preserved on digital computer recording devices, in possession of Plaintiff, located in Plaintiff’s business records. Under said threats and duress, in fear of his life and liberty from an openly armed gunman, Defendant did involuntarily sign his name, in block of complaint/summons titled “VIOLATOR’S SIGNATURE”, by crossing out the word “VIOLATOR’S”, and by including the words “under duress” after his signature. Although gunman did not brandish his firearm, he put his hand on his firearm in its holster, in preparation for “quickdraw” and summary execution of Defendant. Gunman also radioed for “backup”, and a second as yet unidentified gunman arrived, and stood within touching distance of the vehicle Defendant was traveling in, and also presumably would have participated in a summary execution of Defendant by Death Squad. Defendant’s coerced signature does not waiver his right to contest personal jurisdiction, due to improper service of process, under Rule 4 of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and Tennessee Code: TCA §47-1-207 (adopted from Uniform Commercial Code) (1) "A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient." Defendant’s “signature” on his “Tennessee Driver License” does also display the term “TCA §47-1-207” beside said signature, indicating reservation of all rights. Legislative intent acknowledges the lack of proper service of process of “traffic citations”, when a party to an action threatens criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil action, which would result in arrest and/or disbarment of a private attorney for the crime of extortion. Tennessee Code §29-9-108. "The power to punish for contempt conferred by this section may NOT be used to punish persons who fail to appear for traffic violations or parking violations." Defendant appears in this Court unwillingly, under threat, coercion and duress, in fear of summary execution by Death Squad and/or other retaliations, if he did not appear in this Court to answer this complaint. Such appearance in court to contest personal jurisdiction is not a waiver of that defense."
-State of Tennessee vs. PirateNews, SPECIAL APPEARANCE TO CONTEST PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS, WITH MOTIONS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION FOR TRIAL BY MAGISTRATE, IN THE GENERAL SESSIONS COURT FOR BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE, CASE NO. T0028053, JANUARY 2006
www.piratenews.org/state-v-lee-bcgsc-answer-to-complaint.html

"This message is for PirateNews. This is the district attorney's office in Maryville Tennessee calling you about your stop sign case. Just wanted you to know, that case is going to be dismissed today at 1:30, uh, with costs to the State. You don't have to be there, if you don't want to be there. You certainly can be there. If you have any questions, my name is Larry Holden, in the ADA's office. My number is 273-5600. Thank you."
PirateNews: "Why did you decide to dsmiss it?"
Larry Holden: "Uhhhh, we decided it was in the best interests of justice to dismiss it."
-State of Tennessee vs. PirateNews, Case No. T0028053, April 25, 2006
www.revver.com/video/196522/warning-to-bikers-and-cops-on-the-dragon/
http://radio.indymedia.org/en/node/9543
www.piratenews.org/how-to-win-in-dragon-court.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me exactly where in the Consitution it says you have the right to even drive a car, much less eat, do your makeup, talk on the phone, surf porn on the internet, watch movies on your DVD player, read the newspaper, or write The Great American Novel - all while trying to commute at 60mph?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Put down all your bullshit, hang up the goddam phone, shut the fuck up, and DRIVE!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I remember one time in a SF taxi cab, the guy seemed to be trying to catch air off of every hill.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
You should have to go through an obstacle course successfully, not just be able to parallel park.

---

Quote:

---

BYTEMITE
I've heard that where I'm at has the worst drivers.

---