Pre-Note : THIS IS NOT LEGAL-ADVICE. IF YOU NEED LEGAL-ADVICE, THEN, SEEK YOURSELF A COMPETENT ATTORNEY OR COUNCIL, AND, SIMPLY _BE_ «ADVISED». THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT-PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN AS LEGAL-ADVICE. I DO _NOT_ OFFER LEGAL-ADVICE!!!

Note : I am providing this information for a variety of reasons and clarifications. Keep in mind, that, due to recent technical-problems (got two freaking laptops to repair now, requiring replacement-parts at this point, even though I only have historic-experience with fixing/repairing desk-top computers). Eventually, I will cover EVERYTHING that needs to be covered in as COMPREHENSIVE of a manner as possible, BUT, because Legalese is LITERALLY a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE from English, which LOOKS like English, and, SOUNDS like English, Legalese is NOT ENGLISH!!!
VERY IMPORTANT!!!

Certain things about the «Law» (as it is so-called) that have been ESTABLISHED...

One of the Tenets/Maxims of Law follows a RULE Called : STARE DECISIS

「STARE DECISIS. Lat. To stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications. 1 Kent, Comm. 477.」
Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Page 1105.

Basically, STARE DECISIS is a fundamental-maxim of Law in which, when any particular definition, case, ruling, decisions, etc., exist, it is the OLDEST one that exists which takes precedence; now, regarding that, we will go over the DEFINITIONS of a couple of words...

「DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 122 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902, § 2038; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 47 N.Y. 122, 7 Am. Rep. 418.」
Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., page 398.

One of the KEY WORDS to PAY ATTENTION to in THAT «definition» is EMPLOYED.

「EMPLOYED. This signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it. U.S. v. The Catharine, 2 Paine, 721, Fed. Cas. No. 14,755.」
Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., page 421.

ADDITIONAL Key-Words : CONTRACT. ORDERS.

「EMPLOYMENT. This word does not necessarily import and engagement or rendering services for another. A person may as well be ❝employed❞ about his own business as in the transaction of the same for a principal. State v. Canton, 43 Mo. 51.」
Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., page 422.

ADDITIONAL Key-Words : PRINCIPAL, TRANSACTION, BUSINESS, ENGAGEMENT.

「TRANSACTION. In the civil law. A transaction or compromise is an agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their differences by mutal consent, in the manner which they agree on, and which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing. This contract must be reduced into writing. Civ. Code La. art. 3071.

In common law. Whatever may be done by one person which affects another's rights, and out of which is a cause of action may arise. Scarborough v. Smith, 18 Kan. 406.
❝Transaction❞ is a broader term than ❝contract.❞ A contract is a transaction, but a transaction is not necessarily a contract. See Ter Kuile v. Marsland, 81 Hun, 420, 31 N.Y. Supp. 5; Xenia Branch Bank v. Lee, 7 Abb. Prac. (N.Y.) 372; Roberts v. Donovan, 70 Cal. 113, 11 Pac. 599.」
Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., page 1166.

And WHAT, Pray Tell, distinguishes Civil-Law from Common-Law ? Is a «Driver» a part of «Civil» Law or «Common» Law or perhaps... «ADMIRALTY» or «MARITIME» Law ? DO you NEED a «License» in order to «Drive» a «Motor-Vehicle» ? WHAT, exactly, constitutes a «Motor-Vehicle» via LEGALESE-Language ? A Motor-Vehicle in LEGALESE (NOT Common-Parlance, LEGALESE, NOT English, let me EMPHASIZE, this, LEGALESE!!!) is something akin to a Taxi, Bus, Train, Ship, etc., for which one indeed «Drives» (is EMPLOYED to do) and, yes, DOES in fact, NEED a LICENSE, due to BEING under that JURISDICTION. If one is foolish enough to be «tricked» into coming into an «agreement» and «admission» in the «court» that he was in fact «driving» (even when not engaged in commerce), then, believe it or not, there is actually a thing in law which says : «He who shall or can be deceived, then, let him be deceived.» and so the fool who has no idea that the «fine» did NOT apply to him for simply taking his personal-conveyance on the road WITHOUT a «Valid Driver's License» or who admitted to «Driving While License Suspended» was HOOD-WINKED, had the wool pulled over his eyes, and, basically, let us just say that a Fool and his Wallet are easily parted, via Legalese.

The Court-Systems have a LOT of «Hidden-Rules» and, for the unwary, they WILL LOSE; the FIRST time I started learning and researching and studying all of this «crap» (i.e. : Legalese) was from around nearly two decades ago back during 2006CE, due to first-hand-experience with... legal-incompetence. I have that Public-PRETENDER who was assigned FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH information for which it would have been EXTREMELY EASY to «dismiss the charges and drop the case» on MULTIPLE MERITS based on the FACTS of the case, some of which I will list as follows...:

I had NEVER had a Traffic-Ticket/Citation until that point for which there had been EXTREME EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES in my life at that time which FORCED me to operate «illegally» for as «temporarily» as I was WORKING MY DAMN ASS OFF so that I could become «Legal» as SOON and as QUICKLY as possible, and, not only that, I was doing this in freaking BLIZZARD CONDITIONS; in ADDITION to doing all of that in freaking BLIZZARD-CONDITIONS, I was ALSO living in the manner of a HOMELESS-ORPHAN at that time (NOT everybody can «trust» their «parents» for the record), I had NO criminal-record, I spent my WHOLE ENTIRE F****** first (or was it the second or at least the next) pay-cheque on obtaining that STATE-MONOPOLY VEHICLE-INSURANCE requirement (which in of itself is both Illegal and Unlawful by the way as it violates Anti-Monopoly Anti-Trust Law), because that was the absolute SOONEST I was even ABLE to AFFORD that SCAM (I could NOT afford to get it SOONER because I would have STARVED and also NOT been able to even GET to work since ANY $$$ that I had was EITHER going into FEEDING myself OR for re-fuelling my car; I could NOT afford to do BOTH of them AND also pay for Vehicle-Insurance, something which I had been WORKING MY DAMN ASS OFF to obtain in order to become «Legal» in the FIRST PLACE!!!). Credit-Score ? ALSO very Good, ESPECIALLY for someone who was of my age at the time, back then, not to mention an EXCELLENT Employment-Record, back then, too. Ultimately, the PUBLIC-PRETENDER made absolutely NO ATTEMPT at providing ANY «Defense» WHAT-SO-EVER, resulting in this FORMER «fool» being «tricked» into THINKING that I had to «Driving w/o Insurance» WHEN in fact I had NOT done ANY such thing!!!

«Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me !»
George W. Bush, former and 43rd President of the United States, 2001CE-2009CE

From both my experiences as well as observations and research, I have absolutely ZERO reason to trust ANY of the «court-officials» who are actively engaged in or complicit to ANY form of EXTORTION, REGARDLESS of whether anybody thinks that they are «good» or «nice» people, they ALL exhibit «Jekyll & Hyde» syndrome, and, THAT is already MORE than ENOUGH REASON for me to NOT deem them «sane» enough to make ANY «decision(s)» that affect MY (or even others') life... anything else that I may need to add to this thread eventually will have to come another day for now.

Another reason why I believe this topic matters is because the legalese links back to the clandestine families, and those families link back to the Orions. It seems to me that the Orions are not a lawless society, but they are an aggressive society that truly believes the maxims of law it espouses. For example: "he who allows himself to be deceived: let him."

When we truly find the deceptive nature in our contracts, and we uncontract, we have the power to uncontract from the orions themselves. This has to be part of the equation to planetary freedom.

"When we truly find the deceptive nature in our contracts, and we uncontract, we have the power to uncontract from the orions themselves."

It's easier than that. In natural law – which has nothing to do with what is called "legal" nowadays – you can withdraw from a contract any time. There is no law that binds you to a contract you don't understand or don't want. You cannot make slavery "legal" through any contract – that devilish idea is plain wrong.

"It seems to me that the Orions are not a lawless society, but they are an aggressive society that truly believes the maxims of law it espouses."

That's correct. The origin of that belief system is the idea that God is dead or has left the universe alone, so beings inside that universe must take the law into their own hands, while at the same time believing that God has to be a violent ruler. It's not an uncommon belief, as when going through evolution, the universe is perceived as a violent place.

Additional follow-ups : Court-Systems, Jurisdictions, Contracts, Administration, Four-Corners.

Upon the American-soil, people are typically taught that there are three branches of government, but, the reality is that there are actually FOUR branches, the fourth branch being what is essentially can be called the «Administrative» branch; the «Administrative» branch has become such that it's essentially over-taken and replaced and is now even over-riding any authority of any of the other three branches;

Illustrating the situation, the TYPES of «courts» need to be covered here, and, just about EVERY «case» and «court-hearing» being held «in the United States» are really Article I Administrative-Courts, the kind of Court-System where you are essentially deemed Guilty Until Proven Innocent, rather than being an Article III Court of Record, and, thus, Constitutional-Court where the Oaths of Offices are actually upheld, and, the principle of Innocent-until-proven-Guilty is actually upheld.

Re : «Let he who can be deceived, then, let him be deceived.»
From what I remember... this relates to what is called ROMAN-Law (for further and more in-depth and detailed information about this... look deeply into what is called : «The Club of Rome»)

Administrative-Courts are ALWAYS Courts-of-CONTRACT; IF you are in such a CONTRACT court, being charged for «driving» violations, then, LEGALESE-LANGUAGE APPLIES as your PERSON is in fact UNDER its particular «jurisdiction» and, regarding my «evidence» for this, something which anybody with Remote-Viewing capabilities or a good Remote-Viewing team CAN Remote-View (probably) and actually verify my upcoming following claim for themselves, one time, I was pulled over, even though I had ALREADY gone through the court-system experience as I had described in my first post in this thread where the Public-PRETENDER made absolutely NO attempt at putting up ANY «Defence» even though I provided him with MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION to be able to get the charge dropped AND thus for the case to have been EASILY DISMISSED (the one where I had already spent ALL of the money I had available so that I could become «legal» in/with my car).

Anyway, I kid you not, I think it was probably not even a whole entire day or two, when I was once more pulled over and then this P.I.G. was trying to get me to sign yet ANOTHER Traffic-Ticket with the SAME «charge» that I had ALREADY gone to the court-room for, said P.I.G. holding the traffic-ticket and a pen for me to sign, basically saying...:

«Signing here just means that you agree to pay the 700$US that you owe for DWLS...»

I simply kept my hands on the steering wheel at 10 & 2 o'clock, remaining still, merely glancing at the traffic-ticket and pen he was holding for me to sign and back at my steering wheel, well, only my eye-balls were moving back and forth between that and my steering wheel, anyway, keeping my head still facing forward, and, I was thinking to myself :
«Like HELL I "owe" you or even will "agree" to "pay" you EXTORIONISTS and other such P.I.G.s ANYTHING, because, for as far as I am concerned, I do NOT owe ANY of you a DAMN THING!!!»

P.I.G. : «Not going to sign...? Okay...!» (Then he wrote «refused to sign» on the traffic-ticket as he handed it to me then went back to his police-car in order to look for more suckers/victims to scam...)

KEY WORD : AGREE (this word, in Law, Administrative-Law in particular, means a CONTRACT).

Now, NORMALLY, when you get a «traffic-ticket» from a P.I.G., you WILL end up receiving what is called a «SUMMONS» to your mailing address, with a «schedule» for when you have a «Court-Case-Hearing» that you are required to attend, typically showing up within the next two weeks; for THAT particular Traffic-Ticket... absolutely NO SUMMONS EVER ARRIVED IN MY MAIL-BOX !

Now WHY, pray tell, did I NOT get «summoned to court» EVEN AFTER RECEIVING and being handed a «Traffic-Ticket» for some so-called «Traffic-Violation» (even though I was actually NOT violating any Traffic-Laws and I was especially NOT doing anything to cause STANDING) ?

KEY WORDS : STANDING, TRAFFIC, SUMMON.

「SUMMON. In practice. To serve a summons; to cite a defendant to appear in court to answer a suit which has been begun against him; to notify the defendant that an action has been instituted against him, and that he is required to answer to it at a time and place named.」
Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., page 1122.
(I will come back to all of the key-words in this particular entry another day)

「TRAFFIC. Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like. See In re Insurance Co. (D.C.) 96 Fed. 757; Levine v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 647, 34 S.W. 969; People v. Hamilton, 17 Misc. Rep. 11, 39 N.Y. Supp. 531; Merriam v. Langdon, 10 Conn. 471.」
Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., page 1166.

STANDING : This typically refers to the existence of any kind of harm or injury or suffering or damage that has been inflicted upon person or property. Some additional Key Words that relate to whether someone is a Criminal or has committed a «criminal» activity are MENS REA and CORPUS DELECTI.

Okay, BACK to the question, WHY did I NOT receive any «summons» for that Traffic-Ticket for THAT particular day ? Speaking of which, because I had ALREADY RECEIVED the SAME «citation» before, the one where the PUBLIC-PRETENDER DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE ANY DEFENSE, this is what is known as DOUBLE JEOPARDY in LAW. Remote-View it if anybody needs to in order to see for themselves that said particular Traffic-Ticket did NOT result in a «summons» to those houses of ill-repute and modern-day Dens of Thieves known as the Court-Houses.

ANSWER : I DID NOT SIGN THE «CONTRACT» (even if it is CALLED a : «Traffic-Ticket»)

For all of the experiences (that were at least kept on written-records by his own hand via what was at least preserved and not lost) that the very returned (but now-retired) Messiah went through as it relates and pertains to the court-systems they are described starting from here...
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/godslaw1.htm

P.S. : Pop-Quiz Question...
When and how and why does a «Driver» deal with «Traffic» ? And what if any is or are the differences between a «Driver» and «Traffic» in Common-Parlance English versus LEGALESE-English ?

Edit/Addendum : Forgot to cover the Four-Corners Rule... when it comes to CONTRACT-Law, any time that TEXT is surrounded by a BOX, the wording within is treated as NON-EXISTENT !

Just quickly about the pop quiz question-

The issue is usually phrased as "driving" vs "traveling". I can be driving in a motor vehicle or traveling in my motorized carriage.

But for those finding the wording to be tedious, when someone looking to contract with you (such as an officer wanting to write you a ticket) or someone wanting to declare war on you (such as an officer claiming to hold a war - rant) - the response can always be the same: "what language are you speaking?" For example: are they speaking English circa Oxford dictionary 2020, or Uniform Commercial Code? If they can't define any of it then they're basically just operating as criminals