Well ok I should correct myself a bit. It's true that failure to understand the mechanism of taxation will prevent one from unconning themselves.

But I also want to dispel the myth that the veil of deception is this insurmountable barrier demanding endless study and meditation. Both the legal veil and the psionic veil are almost paper thin, not iron clad. I would very much like to see someone pierce both veils. That is to say: a state National whom remote views.

Ummm - what's curious about it??

Did you actually bother to read (and understand) this "bankruptcy case"??? Given your description above, I have to presume you didn't.... you've obviously just read something on some website and gone with it.... Let me clarify things for you...

Here's the first link for you.... (not the actual case, but gives the general information regarding it and the judges opinion)

https://ecf.flnb.uscourts.gov/opinions/Opinion.aspx?id=337

Please note the use of "Alleged Debtor" in this filing!!! (also here https://www.inforuptcy.com/browse-filings/florida-northern-bankruptcy-court/4:20-bk-40375/bankruptcy-case-united-states-corporation-company)

It is NOT in any way, shape or form suggesting that a) there is such a legal entity as "United States Corporation Company", let alone b) that such an entity is equated to the US government, and that c) it somehow filed for bankruptcy. (I'll just add, that their crap claim was against:

As “Defendants” in the Counter-Affidavit the Submitters named:
• United States Corporation Company [Alleged Debtor];
• Karen K. Specie, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge [the undersigned];
• United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Florida;
• International Monetary Fund;
• United States Treasury;
• Internal Revenue Service;
• Depository Trust Company;
• Department of State;
• Department of Defense;
• Department of Commerce; and
• United Nations, et. al.

What that case number does show is that some pain in the arse sovereign citizen by the name of “Highly Favored Shekinah El,” “Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El,” and “Maalik Rahshe El” who listed themselves as:

• “Minister of Defense for the Asiatic Nation of North America, under the jurisdictional authority of The MOORISH SCIENCE
TEMPLE OF AMERICA, d/b/a Sheik, Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El, Trustee . . . .;”

• “Sheikess, Highly Favored El, Moorish American National . . . and Citizen of foreign Nation State . . . i.e., Asiatic Nation of North America;” and

• “Sheik, Maalik Rahshe Moorish American National . . . and Citizen of the Asiatic nation of North America Nation/State, i.e.
Asiatic Nation of North America

Who tried to BRING a case of bankruptcy (involuntary) to the courts in Florida (they failed, by the way, as there was nothing to support the claims being made!)

What also happened is that the judge a) wanted them to show why the case shouldn't be thrown out as being filed "in bad faith", and b) that they can no longer file such cases, as they are considered "vexatious litigant(s)''.

The judgement includes "Much of that paper consists of virtually incomprehensible and overall irrelevant assertions, including: portions of federal admiralty, antitrust and other statutes; excerpts from Articles of the U.S. Constitution and District of Columbia Code; and declarations regarding “the Asiatic Nation of North America” and the “MOORISH SCIENCE
TEMPLE OF AMERICA . . . As de jure Republican form of Constitutionally sanctioned Government . . . .”"

I'll repeat - "virtually incomprehensible and overall irrelevant assertions" (with the standard, "admiralty law" BS that is common to SC movements - that have failed in every case it's been attempted in, both in the US and in other countries, such as Canada and Australia, usually getting the plaintiff in jail for wasting the court's time (and contempt of court), or just thrown out (ie, NOT actually winning the case!)

To continue...

When the Court asked Sheik, Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El if he was a licensed attorney authorized to practice law, he replied: “No, I do not practice law, I am law.”

"After explaining that only licensed attorneys may represent parties, the Court permitted Sheik, Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El to listen in on the hearing as a non-participant. The Court warned Sheik, Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El that if he disrupted the proceedings he would be removed. Despite this warning, Sheik, Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El continued to interrupt. For that reason, the Court instructed the CourtCall operator to mute or disconnect the telephone line on which Sheik, Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El was speaking, which she did."

That is - your bullshit interpretations of what you think are law are meaningless in these here real law courts!!!

Finally:

For the reasons stated, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Papers submitted are meritless, abusive, frivolous, scandalous, and impertinent.

Here's another paper referring to the same case: https://ecf.flnb.uscourts.gov/opinions/Opinion.aspx?id=331

And I love this bit in it... "None of the testimony at the Show Cause hearing reflects a scintilla of legal or factual support"

Here's her records with the Florida Northwest District Court,.,, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33990531/IN_RE_HEPHZIBAH

You probably really don't want to dive too deep into it..... when you realise this person has been in prison for fraud, and is trying to make numerous claims against any and everyone that they think they can (including *every* judge who rules against them...), you'll find yourself in a *very* embarrassing situation..... sort of like a Clinton on Epstein Island....

(please note that in writing this, I went through a number of actual documents from various official sources regarding a number of the aspects of the case(s), including reading bits of the original filings... ("international war crimes" ???? In a bankruptcy filing???)

We've been through this before - you post something, I look it up. I find there's no actual evidence to support your claims, and I find LOTS of evidence saying your claim is crap... I then ask you to provide *any* evidence (good or not!) to support your claims, and then you tell me some crap about "do it yourself"... and then silence.

So, what's it going to be this time??? Do you want her (Syteria Hephzibah - the plaintiff in the case you linked) criminal record??? Would it make any difference?

I commend your scrutiny in regards to the case, but, I made no specific claims about this specific case other than to call it a curious one; the description was also quoted (not my own words). Now that you've dug up a portion of the case where he was asked if he is authorised to practice law, but, answered with a statement, you are probably not yet aware of this obscure rule with the court-systems, but, his responding as a statement, rather than in the form of a question, was his mistake;

See, when it comes to «winning» (or losing) in the court-rooms, the number one thing that determines who gains the «creditor» (rather than debtor) status revolves around what they call «staying in honour» (I will need some time to dig back up my records, for, which, unfortunately, much of which was lost from a thumb-drive-failure nearly a year ago, but, I will be sure to make significant-efforts towards trying to retrieve them so that I can provide you with the various hidden/obscure rules of the court-systems that you can examine for yourself; one thing that's related is a publication known as Corpus Juris Secundum which would probably make you fierce enough in the court-rooms and court-systems after you've read through it to be able to win just about any «case» against any lawyers you might ever need to «play» against).

For now, I can only retrieve what I know or have learned from memory, some of which are as follows, and, you should be able to find LCDs (Lowest Common Denominators) behind why «Sovereign Citizens» lose their cases which match one or more of this list...:

① He who creates an argument creates a controversy
② He who creates a controversy goes into dishonour
③ He who goes into dishonour has no «standing»
④ The one who does the «asking» is «as» the «king»

Then there are various others, such as how/why it is a mistake to make statements (rather than asking questions), some sort of law of three (e.g. : one needs to repeat the reservation of rights at least three times before any rights take any actual effect or before any public-servant working in the capacity of a LEO rather than a Peace-Officer will acknowledge said right, etc), etc. Anyway, you should be able to see common themes related to the above (and in this paragraph) for all cases where someone has «lost» the «case» and it should also be noted that the word «opinion» is not the same as «fact» and the courts only deal with «opinions» even if it is worded as being based on the «facts of the case...»

Once I can figure out where all of my files are, most of the text-based ones which do seem to have been successfully recovered (probably), just that their names are all jumbled up now so I have to literally manually go through each and every one of them individually in order to determine which file they originally were, and, get then re-named and re-organised to be able to find all of the information related to and pertinent to «law» materials, I should be able to respond much more quickly with relevant information in the future, but, keep in mind that we do live in a somewhat modern-day 1984 where «Antifa» protests were called «peaceful» whilst the 6th January event was called «terroristic» so I do tend to be skeptical of the language used by «judges» and court-systems (and, question for you, have you looked up the judges themselves ? Do you know who Anthony Scalia was ? What if a «judge» like Anthony Scalia were «hearing» the case rather than any of those other «judges» ?).

Terence, the returned Messiah, himself, had submitted a 400-page «defense» in the past, towards which the «judge(s)» who «over-saw» his case(s) responded in /clearly/ «treasonous» manners by both ignoring and saying that the «constitution» was irrelevant and that there were other cases that have over-rode the constitution with latter-day legislation as-if though that were something that a country or its citizens should be «proud» of (also, note, each and _every_ «constitution» in /existence/ *should* have a clause which reads : «The Constitution shall be the *Supreme Law* of the Land»)

You know I am willing to respond, and, will even make efforts to take responsibility for any of my mistakes or errors if I am proven incorrect, and, for any errors that you have pointed out elsewhere (threads other than this one), any silence on my part is probably because you did not ask any follow-up questions or I simply had not respond yet or some combination thereof; I do acknowledge that you have and do make corrections which I do very much appreciate, but, any response would simply be an acknowledgement that you were/are correct, such as correcting the definitions of words or how to properly use a word-definition, but, many of those in the other threads I already considered to be clear and obvious enough as to not warrant nor need any «argument» from me in response.

Anyway, you have already more-than-proven to me that you are a very thorough researcher, one with a truly and genuinely scientific-mind, and, you have my thanks for being an extremely valuable-member of this on-line forum-community with Far-Sight. For your last question, regarding the «criminal record» for the Plaintiff, just keep in mind that I adhere more to the «Court of God» (a term I am borrowing from The Messiah) in regards to the «legitimacy» as to whether a «crime» is an /actual/ «crime» or not, rather than what «man-made» law simply «criminalised» (it's apparently now a «jailable criminal-offense» to «mis-gender» someone or will offend people if you insist that there are only two gendres).

" but, I made no specific claims about this specific case other than to call it a curious one; the description was also quoted (not my own words)."

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that...The "basic description" looks like a C&P, but also comes across as though you fully agree with it, especially with the last clause/sentence/paragraph at the end. So, it appears as though you fully endorse the text - which, as I've indicated, does *not* effect what is in the description.

" a portion of the case where he was asked if he is authorised to practice law, but, answered with a statement, you are probably not yet aware of this obscure rule with the court-systems, but, his responding as a statement, rather than in the form of a question, was his mistake;"

I can't say I know all the intricacies of US law, but if that BS was tried in my home country, they'd be done for contempt of court! If a question is asked, a direct answer is required.. otherwise, it's clearly trying to obfuscate the situation - *especially* with such a simple and direct (and legally important) piece of information. If you're not going to co-operate with the court, then don't expect the court to be even slightly lenient towards you.

"Corpus Juris Secundum is an encyclopedia of United States law at the federal and state levels. It is arranged alphabetically, into over 430 topics, ." Yep, got it!

(BTW, I'm not registering with PACER, nor any other thing that requires any real data to be given... I do use an anonymous email account though).

"why «Sovereign Citizens» lose their cases"

Ummmm.... it's because they don't know the law, and try to BS their way out of things by speaking crap... such as "Oh, look at your flag, you *MUST* be using admiralty law, and therefore you *HAVE* to abide by what I think it means...", or "Well, in 1215, this document was signed... and I only accept what's written on that as being real and valid". Yeah... not going to win any cases here! (yes, I spent a few hours watching SC video fails... even a couple where the SC claimed no such law exists... and then searched and found said law).

" but, keep in mind that we do live in a somewhat modern-day 1984 "

I certainly don't disagree that a LOT of bullshit is going on, and that the systems are gamed so that we generally lose to the elites. (but... there WERE peaceful ANTIFA protests (and some which turned violent, for one reason or another... state actors, anti-ANTIFA, renegades, etc...), and yes, storming the White House should be seen as an act of terrorism (at least, by definition). Although, whether that's actually a 'bad' thing or not is a different matter...)

"you are a very thorough researcher,"

Honestly, not really.... I only put in about 30 mins... (but, I am educated to post-graduate level, and have had to write numerous papers... so, it's not that much for me).

" in regards to the «legitimacy» as to whether a «crime» is an /actual/ «crime» or not, rather than what «man-made» law simply «criminalised»"

While I can empathise, it's not stopping people from going to jail.

A different word for 'law' should be used then.

"genuinely scientific-mind,"

I'm getting sick and tired of being wrong with some of my beliefs.... and by reading about others who don't bother to do any critical thinking or research.... "Follow the evidence"

"You have my thanks for being an extremely valuable-member of this on-line forum-community with Far-Sight."

thank you! I do hope that I provide some value. Although I'm often going to be seen as a nay-sayer, it's genuinely because I want to see improvement... And try to see things from the sceptics (which I often am) perspective - which is the rest of the world.

I am compelled to ask : Do you trust in and believe in those who run and own and operate the court-systems ? Anybody over here on the land-mass that is often mistaken as being called the «U.S.» who has ever had to personally deal with being forced into the court-systems, even when they had not caused nor inflicted any amount of injury nor suffering nor damage nor harm to either person or property, who «complied» with EVERYTHING that they were ordered or instructed, yet, got «screwed over» and «charged» anyway, even when falsely accused of so-called «crimes» that they did not actually commit, who has any semblance of a functional moral-compass, will NOT view it as a «legitimate» system nor operations. Are you telling me that there is NO «corruption» to be found in the court-systems or practices of court-officials of your home-country or even any country in existence ?

I am also compelled to ask : You mention having watched various «sovereign-citizen» videos. May I ask which sources and/or channels and/or web-sites have uploaded the videos in which you have watched ? And if those sources were scrutinised, then, would they be found to be «objective» fact-tellers ? Are they in the category of «liberal» media ? Are those sources themselves and people involved in them completely corruption-free ? The whole issue with /why/ people «fight» the «court-system» is /because/ there is NO «remedy» to be found even when you are FALSELY ACCUSED (and, whether you can fathom this or not, government-officials over here are indeed committing various treasons and felonies on a daily basis in violation of their own laws and rules, particularly that of the various statutes listed within Title 18, such as Title 18 §§242-3).

The U.S. is also THE. MOST. ASBOLUTE. LITIGOUS. COUNTRY. IN. THE. ENTIRE. WORLD. Consisting of literally MORE than 50% of ALL of the ENTIRE WORLD's lawyers; there's a reason for all of the «challenges» against these CORRUPT courts, CORRUPT lawyers, CORRUPT judges, and, the extremely suspicious «died of natural causes» death (more like murdered and followed up by a cover-up) of former Chief-Justice Anthony Scalia; speaking of former Chief-Justices... : «At least 75% to 90% of all lawyers are either corrupt or incompetent if not both...» -Former Chief Justice Earl Warren (I really should have collected and kept screen-shots of when it was actually possible to find evidence of this quote on-line before the search-engine-cabal-controllers scrubbed it off, but, I guess we still have the tool of Remote-Viewing to be able to determine whether these so-called judges and lawyers and so-forth are truly free of any «skeletons in their closets» and, DMP the mind of Former Chief-Justice Earl Warren himself to confirm his sentiments/dispositions towards lawyers and attorneys, even find out the real cause of death of Anthony Scalia, for which plenty of evidence exists to put the MSM-Narrative into serious question).

Re : Beliefs
Most people aren't willing to question their own beliefs, especially their most-strongly held beliefs, but, this is a literal exercise that I have done on myself for already many years now, and, thus, whilst I am comfortable with many of the conclusions I have come to and arrived at, I am not opposed to having my views and paradigm-grid scrutinised; you are probably amongst one of those whom are the most-aware on these forums that I do make an effort to try to fill any gaps in my paradigm-grid.

Finally, you and I both agree that the «system(s)» are «rigged» such that you will most-certainly just about ALWAYS «lose to the elite(s)» and, that seems to be the main issue in contention brought up by those whom are «fighting against the system» so-to-speak; I should also note, that, even in Legalese, the term «sovereign» is not the same thing as a «sovereign citizen» which is also not the same thing as a «secured party creditor» but, they each operate under different «rule-sets» and, quite ironically, the «police» often act and behave EXACTLY like the «sovereign-citizens» whom they claim are such an existential-threat to society, sovereigns (not to be confused with SC) typically operate in accordance to what is often termed Natural-Law (some call it or interpret it as God's Law), then there are the Secured Party Creditors whom are so absurdly well-versed in the matters of the Legalese-systems that they know exactly when and where to cross their T's and dot their I's, but, the amount of paper-work that they put together is such, that, I guess the best way to describe it is that they sort of have their own EULA or TOS, where-end the End-User (from EULA) are put to the government and its officials themselves, something like how you are bound by the terms of a contract when you sign a contract, but, they have it set-up in such a way as to where the government is required to follow the terms of the contract, to the benefit of the SPC, perhaps this will be the «closest thing» that you would actually be able to find «on record» in regards to anybody being able to «win» their «cases» against government-entities. Once more, Sovereigns and SCPs are similar to one another, but, not the same, and, Sovereign-Citizens (not to be confused with either SCPs or Sovereigns) are just people who are «doing it wrong» as defined by Encyclopaedia-Dramatica.

Yes, I do value your contributions, although, for all intents and purposes, things are already actually pretty good around here, considering that it is actually possible to discuss a variety of topics, including those that are considered to be in the categories of both religion(s) and politics, without the result being 5000+ view count threads by the end of the week being full of everybody throwing tantrums at each other like a bunch of spoiled little children; perhaps the demographics here must just be that a large percentage of the forum-population are probably older people who've managed to evolve past emotional-adolescence, and, that could be a factor, but, the younger generations really need to learn a lot of the stuff that we cover here, otherwise, future-generations are potentially doomed to be a lost cause...

" Do you trust in and believe in those who run and own and operate the court-systems ?"

I 'trust' and 'believe in' those who try to operate the court systems to do what they believe to be the correct, legal thing to do (although, how well they choose to do that - whether it's with 100% commitment, or obviously bad days of barely 5% - is a different matter). those further up the chain, like in politics, who actually have the means of control, I obviously don't think they have the best interests of people in their hearts (if they have the metaphorical one) or minds.

But, your average court official - including judges - generally yes, I do think that they aren't as corrupt as you believe. (corruptED - by the system they went through [like doctors these days**] - is different). They interpret the law and the precedents in a way that is, for the most part, appropriate, logical, relevant (although, quite obviously, there are biases and political aspects involved - hence, higher incarceration rates for some demographics than others... or fully shit sentences for some crimes compared to others... e.g., 3 years for aggravated rape and assault - 30 years for tax fraud... that type of thing).

So, when your typical SC goes into a court spewing stuff about 'admiralty law', and 'trying to ascertain jurisdiction' - the judge is going to do what is most appropriate - throw that shit out. (bearing in mind that the vast majority of SCs who go to these cases actually have NO background in law, let alone actual Constitutional law, nor apparently how the laws came into effect, nor how they exist now).

As for the videos I watched - just compilations of FIRST HAND videos - some are from police cams, some court cams, some are from the SCs themselves. Granted, there may well be some issues of bias in what gets to stay on the YTs or other sites - but the actual videos themselves are pretty clear.

"The USA is the most litigious country in the world". Well, yes... that's because of the civil laws that are in place. (and because of the lawyers who keep on promoting them). It says a LOT about the American psyche (and unwillingness to take personal responsibility for accidents. Someone is always looking to blame someone else (and get paid a HUGE amount for it ... IMNSHO). It's like the way guns are treated... It, in itself, does not in any way suggest that it's "corrupt". One aspect of this is the way payments are set for winning plaintiffs... (Tens of) millions of dollars for fairly minor upsets.

Does that mean there aren't other issues that compound the problems? Absolutely not. The wealth inequality - especially the way it's distributed along racial lines, and the still overt racism in the country (not to say other countries aren't worse).

"Finally, you and I both agree that the «system(s)» are «rigged» such that you will most-certainly just about ALWAYS «lose to the elite(s)» and, that seems to be the main issue in contention brought up by those whom are «fighting against the system» so-to-speak;"

Well, yes.. but that's not going to change by having people who know nothing about the law (except a couple of clips off YT - with ZERO evidence to actually support it... let alone any critical thinking to go with it (and, here, *especially* not a willingness to investigate further to see if there's any counter points which blow those things out of the water)). There are, and have been, attempts to change things through courts (including your Supreme Court)... granted, some of which go nowhere because (for some reason I can't explain, they get to decide what they'll hear!!!) The right of the state to impose income tax is one of them...

However, losing to the elites isn't usually because of corruption. It's because they have the money to throw at lawyers to keep things wrangled up in the court system to far beyond the financial means of the opponents. And, yes, I won't deny that there certainly have been (and, no doubt, are) other corrupting factors at work... pressures applied, words in ears, etc etc. However, I also think that's in their personal vested interests, not in a general "I have a right to travel" or "I don't have to pay income tax" type of thing.

"«At least 75% to 90% of all lawyers are either corrupt or incompetent if not both...»"

part of your problem there is equating 'competent' with 'has 100% full knowledge of every single (relevant) law, article, and precedent... Certainly, no lawyer is going to know or remember everything. Or even that the computer systems they use are going to cough them all up. But, yes, lawyers are (apparently) still human, and they make mistakes. And there's different levels of competency - just like every other field. (the other problem with your statement is there's no evidence to back it up... like I occasionally say, 86.3% of statistics are made up on the spot... (noting that, by making it 86.3%, it magically makes it sound more believable!))

Speaking of which... if these SCs who don't want to pay tax, or somehow think that the word 'travel' equates to using any and all means of transportation (Spoiler alert: it doesn't!), then they'll need to pay the lawyers to fight the fight... not do it themselves. (yes, it's rigged like that). OR, spend a few years studying *ALL* of the laws (fortunately, the internet makes that a LOT easier!) - which does make me wonder how AI and the law will change things!

(** Considering that the whole virus thing is still a 'theory' and has never been categorically proven, and yet 99% of doctors will treat based on it being a proven fact... (Now, I'm not saying that viruses don't exist... just that it's a paradigm that's been entrenched in the medical profession. It doesn't mean they're all Big Pharma shills. It doesn't mean they're corrupt, or in on the game... it just means that they have agreed to go along with the narrative. And, given that we have drugs which are 'anti-viral', and they work a large percentage of the time, it's actually understandable that they would accept this paradigm. Much like the way a religious, economic or political system is accepted with no actual evidence - in any part of the world!)

"Yes, I do value your contributions,"

Again, thank you!
Yes, we have a very small crowd here, which is good in one way.

A few years ago, I decided to change my career path (not that I really had one :p) when I discovered the International Baccalaureate subject of Theory of Knowledge - which is basically an applied epistemology (and philosophy of science, and ethics, arts, etc.). Its' about how we construe 'knowledge', what is 'truth', why we value some 'knowledge' over others, how much and what type of evidence is sufficient for any claims (and why that amount differs depending on those claims) etc etc etc... I LOVE it!!! I think it's the best subject in any school , and absolutely EVERY school should teach it! I also love saying that there are rarely any 'right' answers, and tends to bring up far more questions than it even gets close to answering... :D :D :D

I do think - definitely - there's a big issue on the sovereignty of any government, and its supposed right to make laws that affect people in the land... but, that's something that lawyers and governments aren't going to poke a 50' pole towards... they must *assume* that they have those rights, and that their pieces of paper actually validate that stance...

" We were conned"

Yes... yes you were........

Sorry about that earlier post; I high-lighted whole entire document of my records for this thread rather than just this response which is supposed to be the actual current response.

Yeah, fair to start a new post... could go a whole new thread, but....

So, going to be long.... (naturally :p)

"the two words are literally mutually exclusive in definition,"....

" the Citizen being the Slave or the Subject who MUST FOLLOW THE ABSOLUTE COMMANDS AND ORDERS of the King or Sovereign"

Ummmm... no!

In no definition is this idea included. You may imply that, but it's not actually a part of the definition, which only states that there are certain rights and obligations by virtue of being a citizen of a country (ie. generally born or naturalised as such).

" the Sovereign being the rightful-decision-maker"

Again, no. The definition is one that has supreme authority (in a given situation). So, not quite the same.

It should also be noticed that sovereigns are also citizens of the country they were born in (depending on the country and the applicable laws ).

Also, remember that the word 'sovereign' is both a noun and an adjective

So, Sovereign Citizen is not necessarily an oxymoron... (so suppressing the urge to not write something else here!)

'Did you know that...."

Did you know that 86.3% of claims are made up on the spot with zero evidence to support them....

"Are you even aware that MOST «lawyers» (and attorneys) also do NOT know anything about «constitutional-law» ?"

Not surprised - it's a very specialised area of law, and is largely irrelevant in the vast majority of cases - as most cases are not about whether the Constitution (for a given country) has actually been breached or not, but about whether specific enacted laws (and their interpretations) have been violated. Now, whether lawyers should be *required* to study it - that's a different matter entirely! Largely dependant, I would think, on how relevant study of it would be. (remember, Constitutional Law is not the same as 'study/knowledge of the constitution', but about the trials where laws have been questioned as to whether they have breached the constitution, the decisions thereof, the reasonings for them, etc etc.)

"«Mention that C word and I'll hold you in contempt of court» and WHY do you think that is ?"

I think this is because the people who keep harping on about it have ZERO knowledge of Constitutional Law.... That is, as mentioned above, the cases in which laws were questioned in relation to the constitution... And, therefore, the person screaming this C word out don't get that they're simply not the first person to do so. Basically put, just saying "it's against the constitution" if usually fairly meaningless - UNLESS it can be adequately proven to do so (and, that's not going to happen in your typical case - and certainly isn't going to be accepted by someone without a law degree, or can demonstrate YEARS of study of ALL of the cases that have been brought which question laws/claims in this regard).

They seem especially ignorant of the very first Article, and first Section, in the Constitution - that there is a Legislative branch that has the RIGHT to make laws! (You're choosing to agree to abide by those laws is an entirely separate matter... but, if you're going to scream "it's against the Constitution", then it seems pretty hypocritical to blindly ignore that very first one!)

Also,

" Courts have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any laws passed by Congress."

So, it's been given to the courts to decide whether invoking the "It's in the constitution" is a valid claim or not... and, obviously, they think not! (fortunately for you, the law gives you the right to appeal! AND you can even take it to a constitutional lawyer to see if your claims fall within the boundaries of breaches of the constitution).

Your bits about the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments don't really mean anything without context.... So, there's not really anything that I can say about them.... In any way at all (for or against).

'BUT, the answer needs to be responded to in the form of a question, otherwise, the «sovereign» changes his «status» into that of a «citizen» and WILL LOSE the «case» due to going into «dishonour» as I have explained in a previous response.'

I have no idea what you're going on about... I have seen something about answering a question with a question - but haven't gone into it....

"Note : In Legal-Rules, the first question would normally be OBJECTED to, due to being what is called a «Leading Question» which would make/render any answers obtained from such questioning invalid)."

Ummm... yes - I would have pointed that out.... A better way to answer would be "You are posing a leading question, to which I object, and thus will not answer".

However, that's a very specific aspect of lawyers' tactics, which doesn't really represent or say anything about changing one's apparent position... so, I'm again failing to see relevance.

"18 USC section 2381 : States are NOT allowed to pass «laws» AGAINST the constitution (yet they do anyway : THIS. IS. TREASON!!!)"

Ummm - evidence?

And, even if this were so, that's what Constitutional lawyers and hearings are for... and Congress etc... and the whole raft of other institutions and organisations.

And, if you do, and they don't stop them - what are you going to do?

And, how much of an apparent breach of the constitution does it take for you to decide you don't have to follow any laws? (which, I think, is largely what is being attempted here).

"you would NOT be viewing people who CHALLENGE the «jurisdiction» of police"

Yeah - I would - and do! VERY rarely does jurisdiction of the police become a question.

Being pulled over is not a jurisdictional issue. It may be about 'reasonable cause' - but that's obviously a vastly different issue.

("unlike you people over at Europe"... Ummm, where do you get the idea I'm in Europe?? FTR, I'm not!)

Now, specifically about the license thing.... Your argument seems to simply come down to cherry-picking certain cases and quotes therefrom, while completely ignoring any other case which runs contrary to your agenda. Here's a nice bit on the contrary view - https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26420/legal-to-drive-without-a-license

I do urge you to read through it. This person has done the same thing you have - quote other cases and the courts' opinions.

Here's an example:

" A restriction on one method of travel does not violate a person's constitutional rights. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no constitutional right to the “most convenient form of travel.” City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir. 1982).

*4 The constitutional right to travel does not include a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. Duncan v. Cone, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); Miller, 176 F.3d at 1206 (9th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court has recognized a state's power to “prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles.” Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622 (1915). That includes passing legislation requiring drivers to have licenses. Id. Such a regulation is “but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens.” Id."

Obviously, you will disagree...

You do know that Thompson v Smith is from 1930, yes???

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009... ummm, this is *actually* about a police check on all vehicles trying to enter an area that had been cordoned off due to high violence, and 3 women weren't allowed in (because they didn't give good enough reasons or some such). I haven't managed to find your quote on this yet, so I'd be interested to see a link (actually, it would be good if you would link all the cases you mention!)

Arguing that there have been corrupt government officials in the past - and even present - is completely irrelevant to arguing that all laws that you don't like or agree with are fundamentally unconstitutional. Your arguments, like the laws, should be addressed specifically. It's a logical fallacy not to.

Complaining about the costs of things also isn't about the law, and whether it's unconstitutional or not.

RE: your last paragraph... ummm - while your very last idea is quite valid, I don't think you can reasonably argue that the constitution is important and you have certain inalienable rights - whilst also stating that there wasn't really anything other than insanity to suggest that putting flags or markers on the land gave people the 'right' to create a constitution...

Is your constitution a valid document? Or is it not? (I'm reminded of the Monty Python scene - "watery tarts throwing swords about is no way to decide a system of government" (misquote, yeah yeah))