I like the throw a bunch of crap on the wall and see if something sticks thing. I'm always amazed when I ask someone a yes or no question and I get everything but yes or no in response.
IKR! How can basic education not include something you need to function and contribute in society? How can they vote when they don't even understand the governmental structure. It freaks me out too. Anyone who wants to become a US citizen has to take a test which includes civics.
If you like philosophy of math, I highly recommend going through The Foundations of Arithmetic by Gottlob Frege. It was the first formal attempt at creating a logical foundation for math. His brilliant way of defining the natural numbers begins with zero, which is the null set, containing no members. 1 becomes the set containing a single object, the null set. 2 becomes the set which contains the null set and the set containing the null set and so on and so forth. It seems so simple and obvious, but it's interesting and beautiful because it is the first formalization attempt in human history, and he gets so close.
I hear a lot of Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) in your videos about this whole driver license thing, and I love it. Your logic and persuasiveness must service you well in the courtroom. It keeps me coming back for more. ;-)
That was the best video EVER that you put up! I deal with similar stuff all day (IT related) where people cannot simply answer a question, but say or send me a "wall of psycho-babble" rather than answering a simple question. "My Email is not working properly. Some email's are not coming through." My response: "Can you please provide me the email address of the person that is trying to send you an email that you are not getting so I can "whitelist" it?" Answer: "I don't know, but all of them." Me: "So you are not getting ANY email?" Them: "No, just some." Me: "Give me one example of an email that you know was sent to you that you didn't get." Them: "The Bank." Me: "Which Bank and what email address?" Them: "We have 4 different banks, so I don't know for sure, but I think its all of them." Me: "So, you don't get any emails from ANY banks?" Them: "Well just some aren't coming through." This goes on and on forever. To figure it out, the person making the complaint would have to make some phone calls to the different "Banks" and have them send test emails and whichever does not come through would answer my question. But that requires WORK and TIME, which they are too lazy to do. Same thing applies to your video topic. People that send you the "Wall Of Text" don't bother reading through it all, and following explicit instructions that you gave to provide the citation. I hope that other people out there will learn from your video that if you don't have the requested information when asked, simply say nothing, or "I don't know," or "OK I understand what you are looking for and will get back to you as soon as I know." But its so much easier to shovel a bunch of crap on the wall and let someone else sort through it. Laziness..... Reminds me of people dropping off a 32 channel mixing console, with 4 sub groups, 8 monitor sends, and an insert jack for each channel including each group, with the complaint "Check all functions." Those of you in the pro-audio business will get that one!
@@Craig1967 Negatory Craigmister, I read fewer than fifty words and when I got to the READ MORE prompt, that was the end. During my career I have encountered thousand of emails and other arguments that can be described as The Wall of Text. I am pleased to now have such a succinct descriptor of that phenomenon.
@@fbauer4368 Your first name isn't Fred by chance - and did you live in the South Florida area around 1985/1986? The name is so familiar. I worked at a Radio Shack Repair Center in Cooper city with someone named Fred Bauer.
Steve, I can definitely appreciate where you are coming from. I'm not a lawyer, but I have had some college classes in business law and also tax law. I've lost count of the number of times people have stated, "The law says ----", when in fact the law says no such thing. And the number of times when people have stated, "The courts have ruled----", when in fact there was no such court decision.
I live in Canada, even here an Operator's License is required to operate any motor vehicle on the roads, highways and lanes. The only place it is not required is on privately owned farmland, operating farm vehicles or machinery that is not required to be registered.
99% of the "You don't need a license" claims seem to boil down to one or both of two sources : The USA "Right to Travel" - which guarantees the right to travel (for business or personal, for just a day or moving) between states free of fees/taxes for doing so. But it doesn't state that there may not be - in the interest of Public Safety - regulations on a given mode of transport. In fact, SCOTUS cases have found otherwise. The second is trying to say the only form of traffic the Constitution allows the government (at any level) to regulate is commercial traffic.
Foreigner here, so please bear with my ignorance. If the sovereigns claim that the federal government is bogus, shouldn't they argue that the SCOTUS is irrelevant rather than play along with the citation game?
You are more patient than I. Anyone sending me a wall of text as "proof", I would assume, they are uninformed on the subject and don't know what they're sending. Disregard email.
Steve, not sure you realized you made an inside math joke. The square root of -1 is i (short for imaginary) just like the Supreme court case example your challenge is asking for.
Here I've been spending countless (supreme!) hours of time, trying to find fault with your law, your logic, or your humor. Are you telling me that after those fruitless, SUPREME searches, I can't just bury you under a manure truckload of citations- that I can download and send for no money or thought? I am not accustomed to being held accountable for my deeply held beliefs, and it's simply not fair. How Dare You, Sir!
Steve, your $100 is safe. I just wasted one hour of my life reading the drivel "U. S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive". The reader comments after the main article are astoundingly stupid.
Every professor eventually has that same conversation about grading exams. Glad you have the same response as I do... did I make a mistake in the grading? No? Bye!
I find that often when people want to create support for a faulty claim that they will take individual arguments which are far too weak to support the claim or are unrelated, and then go about trying to add them together thinking that they created some mathematical sum that is meets or exceeds a sound argument for the claim.
While I agree that I have not found a case relating to no license traveling, an old tea party guy pointed out to me the need for an alternative to licensing because in the 1990's people in my state were losing their licenses for being behind on child support and even old tickets from other states. I knew several people who fell even further behind on their bills because of reasons not related to competency behind the wheel, including people banned for life from driving because other states had taken their driver's licenses for things that my state wouldn't have taken it for. This is the reason newspapers and churches aren't licensed or taxed because if the state raised the tax high enough, goodbye freedom. I am not a fan of not paying old debts but a guy I know lost his business over losing his license as he was a home inspector in a rural area and couldn't make a living without being able to drive. Bye the way he wasn't actually behind on his child support as it was an error in accounts. After losing his business he actually was.
I keep thinking that the whole argument about whether the ability to drive being a right is ultimately irrelevant. Even IF the SCOTUS does eventually address this and state that the ability to drive is a right, that does not mean a license isn't necessary. Even rights can be, and are, subject to regulations such as appropriate licensing requirements.
There used to be (may still be) people who sold "Sovereign Citizen" packages. (one that I know of for sure) For several hundred $$$ he would send you a packet of instructions about how to rescind your SS#, drivers license, vehicle registration, etc. Also included was a "Wall of Text" (Love that term) packet. Armed with your "Wall of Text" and enough Chutzpah, you could often bluff an officer into not citing you for not having a drivers license or registration... That was then. This is now. Most (if not all) officers have been instructed about what to do when they encounter a Chutzpah powered "Wall of Text." But, Hey! For those who are interested in that sort of thing... Send me $1,000 & I'll send you a packet about how to declare yourself a Sovereign Nation. Then you may qualify for Diplomatic Immunity wherever you go... Or send 3 easy payments of $399.95 plus S&H. Call now! Operators are standing by!
Thank you for this. I am in the middle of litigation. I have a 5 simple points, the last one being that the other side pay my legal expenses. No matter what the other side says, I have these points to simply state over and over.
...reminds me of a law school prof who asked for "2 cases that illustrate...." and he then mentioned in the exam review about how many students wrote on, and on, and on. He stopped reading after the first two cases, even if the correct case/ratio was indeed below. Lesson learned.
I have an attorney, according to her "when I talk it infuriates people" as such she has told me to keep my mouth shut when dealing with law enforcement. It would seem to me that her job would be a lot easier if she told me to shred my driver's license and just told me the Supreme Court said not to worry about it. If I got arrested for shooting video of a cop she would go to court and explain that I was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity. So why doesn't she go to the judge when I get a speeding ticket and explain that the ticket is invalid because driving is a constitutionally protected activity that does not require you to have the drivers license they are holding the ticket against? Was this a FISA court ruling that no one can find because it's top secret? Wouldn't every lawyer that handles a traffic violation risk being disbarred for failing to use this ruling to defend their clients?
I've alway wondered that if the Supreme Court has ruled that a drivers license is not required why are states still issuing them? It's not Roe V Wade where every year, state legislatures pass strange laws restricting a woman's choice and the new laws get knocked down almost as quickly.
Steve, you mentioned the square root of -1. That is so appropriate, because that is what is called an imaginary number, which is the kind of number the 'no driver's license' nuts are dealing with.
So if one of these sovereign citizen people actually could come up with a case by definition they wouldn't want the $100. Because as a sovereign citizen you are claiming no allegiance to the United States or any form of "contract" with them. The $100 bill is legal tender of the United States and therefore under it's "contract" so by definition the sovereign citizen wouldn't want any part of it. So, in reality, you'll never have to part with your $100 bill.
That's why he said he would give it silver. Still 100 bucks of anything isnt much of an incentive, but wouldnt matter dont think theyd find it if he offered a million ounces of silver
Steve, please do not open any .pdf documents that aren't from a trusted sender, as they can be used for example to run javascript on opening, or contain an embedded executable file.
I did this exact same challenge to any and all Sovereign Morons back in 2013- 2014, on multiple websites, but I was offering a bit more than $100, (ten times more to be exact, $1000 cash). I made the rules very simple, to the point that even a child could understand - to be considered as a possible "correct" answer, the answer offered must consist of ONE line, which starts with my screen name for that site, followed by the US Supreme Court citation, followed by a period. Just as you described doing. I even gave a sample "fill in the blank" answer form that could be used: "(Screen name for the website), the case citation is _________________________." Finally, I mentioned that any and all other submissions or responses would be totally ignored. Then I kicked back, and waited. You can probably guess what happened next. As expected, epic level hilarity ensued, as dozens of Sovereigns proceeded to flood the comment sections of I don't remember how many sites, with page after page of total and absolute insanity. Not a single reply I received, attempting to claim the $1000 prize, had followed my simple one-line rule, or used my sample answer form. Of course, every single one of them explained, over many, many, paragraphs, why their answer was still the correct answer, and why they should be awarded the money. In more then a few instances, replies offered directly contradicted other replies, leading to Sovereigns attacking each other, over who was right, and who would win the cash. Finally, I guess some of the site moderators of the Sovereign Citizen online community started talking to each other, and figured out what I was really up to, because over a few days all my posts offering the challenge were deleted, with my accounts being banned. But it was fun while it lasted.
Not sure if it was a Supreme Court case, but in 1918 or 1919 a court (in the US) ruled that you need a drivers license to drive a car because it wasn't the 'regular' mode of transportation. If this is true (I believe it is) that case should be reviewed and given some public attention.
THANK YOU STEVE!!! I'm so sick of these common law/sovereign citizen types. Any time you ask them to show you where xyz is written in official documentation, it's crickets or The-Big-Anger-Show & how you're the coward or ( rofl "Walmart" rofl) sheep
Minor correction. Twitter allows 280 characters in a tweet now. That means you could not only fit in the singular citation, but room to ask the 100 dollars goes to a charity instead of into their own pocket.
The problem is that they refuse to read. They find this wall of text, believe it to be true, and send it in. I've had some people tell me what a IRS case says and even send me the ??? v IRS, but nothing else. When I go to the trouble of using google to find the case, it's the opposite of what they claim. When you send a link to the actual case, and even tell them what page(s) debunk their claim, you never hear back for some reason.
Steve, got a question off topic of this video. I was watching a movie a while back (I've looked and can't find or remember what movie it was) but in it a guy never went to college of any type yet took the bar and became a lawyer. Aside from the difficulty of doing this, is this realistic; that without higher education of any type one could take the bar and become a lawyer if they pass the test?
In California (and possibly others) you can take the bar without going to lawschool but you have to do a whole bunch of other things which makes it very difficult to do. In the old days it was easier. Nowadays it is exceedingly rare.
Got some short laughs on this one Steve. But around the 15m mark I got a big laugh. It's a shame u have to go into that much detail but I'm glad u did, it was interested, informative & even funny. I have a feeling towards the end end while u were holding the wall of text print out at a certain time n your presentation u were tempted to tear it up but realized it would have been too dramatic for some people.
Thanks! My favorite video thus far. Zero is a number. Zero is not a number. Contextually both are true. Probably not law, but in practice no license is required for farm to "market" vehicles/equipment that is safely operated including trucks in one state. Stay on the market road. Be doing legitimate farm work. Stay safe. That's it...over 20 years ago. Officers in rural communities don't always strictly enforce the law to the letter. Yeah...no win. Thanks.
Lol. There isn't a case because driver licenses are state regulations not federal regulations. Federal laws protect your right to travel freely. States regulate the operation of vehicles on their roads. So you can travel freely, but need a license to be a driver.
Steve, people are confusing "travel" with "driving". If I'm not mistaken, you don't have to drive a vehicle in order to travel from Point A to Point B. Hailing a Taxi Cab, getting on a public bus, riding a bicycle ... as a passenger, you are still traveling, despite the fact that you're not operating the vehicle.
The first words I heard on the first day of college in the first class I took was "There is no one truth." Of course the entire class grade was based on four tests that contained nearly all multiple choice questions with five choices and only one possible correct answer.
Steve, you rant rather well I might say! Lol But one is the loneliest number that will ever be. And two can be as bad as one, because it's the loneliest number since the number one. A ball game wouldn't be as exciting if it was, one strike and your out. Most Americans can not say, uno, without saying dose and trece also. You can not have a party of one. One way, only, really implies that there must be another way. Two shoes that match and are a left and right make, a pair. A pair of pants is one. One is a partridge in a pair tree! Anyone having any more, feel free to add them to the list. Jpol. See ya.
I want through a three year hospital nursing school to become a RN. (They don't exist anymore, I later got a Bachelor's Degree.) We had to pass state boards which are multiple choice so our instructors gave us multiple choice exams so we would get used to that type of test. They said they rarely had any student not pass the board's compared to other schools that didn't do multiple choice. By the way you shot me. HaHa.
Steve you could have made this a very short video (I know that is not how you operate) The title should have been COMMON SENSE IS NOT COMMON ANY MORE. LOL I absolutely Love your videos. Especially when you talk about stupid people. You are speaking English as I know it but it appears most of the people watching your videos speak something else. Keep up the Great work. Brett Heller Coldwater, MI USMC 1984-1992 0311/1371
yes, zero was a later concept than counting numbers. Look at the Roman Numerals you learned as a kid, there is no zero. They also didn't have the concept of using the same digit in different positions to have different values. Zero was invented by the Mesopotamians (usually called the Arabs) sometime around 500 AD (altho they probably didn't call their calendar "AD")
This reminds me of when I hear someone say "they are saying...." referring to a weird conspiracy theory. I ask who is 'THEY'. The answer is always "I don't know".
If you can't count to 1 because you think you think too hard, try this equation. Dingleberry Factor = -square root of (e to the 0 power) * i squared (or j squared if you are so inclined), etc.
People, people, people! You're up against a trained and experienced lawyer. A former disk jockey and tow truck driver. It is like a PT boat taking on the Nimitz. Disk jockeys and tow truck drivers know how to think FAST on their feet. And being a lawyer, he likely looked for such a law case himself, in advance. You're up against a man with a Big Pizza in his pocket. Besides no half-way competent, self-respecting lawyer... would evvvvver give away $100. The man wears T-shirts, folks. He's dangerous! Plus, he loves to argue. He's specifically looking for a Supreme Court Case. A SCOTUS special. You could send him 50 state cases, it will not crack the bank. I must look for a Canadian Supreme Court Case to stump him!
Was about to reply I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Thought better, but then thought of pizza toppings such as sausage... I give up. Touche! (G)
@@debhalverson3956 Apparently, he likes pizza. MUST date back to the disk jockey days! Being a lawyer, he does not need sausage. He makes that out of his opponents!!!1
@@PierreaSweedieCat I would feel sorry for his opponents but I figure they deserve what they get. Please good Lord do not let me ever be his opponent. Not that I would deserve what I get mind you...
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 - Va: Supreme Court 1930 Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there saying that they dont have to have a license federally but they leave it up to the states individually to make the regulations
I prefer Phil Spector's Wall Of Sound over any Wall of Text!
The 1970's Grateful Dead Wall of Sound is the most impressive.
I prefer Stan Ridgway's Wall of Voodoo, heehee
Wish you were here
I like the throw a bunch of crap on the wall and see if something sticks thing. I'm always amazed when I ask someone a yes or no question and I get everything but yes or no in response.
Steve I agree. Sometimes I wonder how some people get through life. Sometimes I wonder how they get through
" 1 " Day.
This is the best comment! "one day" indeed.
Steve, hang in there, you can't fix stupid! thanks for the vids.
The hundred that haunts the dreams of countless.
I believe you are getting the "flat earthers " trying to answer your challenge.
Oh for the time when Civics & U.S. Government were required courses in High School.
IKR! How can basic education not include something you need to function and contribute in society? How can they vote when they don't even understand the governmental structure. It freaks me out too. Anyone who wants to become a US citizen has to take a test which includes civics.
If you can't dazzle Steve with brilliance, baffle him with bullsh^t.
Good idea, if it would work.
If you like philosophy of math, I highly recommend going through The Foundations of Arithmetic by Gottlob Frege. It was the first formal attempt at creating a logical foundation for math.
His brilliant way of defining the natural numbers begins with zero, which is the null set, containing no members. 1 becomes the set containing a single object, the null set. 2 becomes the set which contains the null set and the set containing the null set and so on and so forth.
It seems so simple and obvious, but it's interesting and beautiful because it is the first formalization attempt in human history, and he gets so close.
When you were counting to 1, I was watching carefully for the finger gun. Apparently in certain US states, that's illegal! ;)
You know, I think Steve really wanted to hold up that middle finger and just say, "ONE!"
"I will even pay you in silver" Like an onion, layers of comedy. lol
TheConversation, that wasn't comedy, he has silver coins, sometimes they appear in videos
@@gavnonadoroge3092 Thought he was making a reference to people who may not trust the government authority to issue currency.
One is the loneliest number - Harry Nilson
I kinda like these rants. 😂
I hear a lot of Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) in your videos about this whole driver license thing, and I love it. Your logic and persuasiveness must service you well in the courtroom. It keeps me coming back for more. ;-)
One is the loneliest number. Thanks Steve. I really enjoyed this.
That was the best video EVER that you put up! I deal with similar stuff all day (IT related) where people cannot simply answer a question, but say or send me a "wall of psycho-babble" rather than answering a simple question. "My Email is not working properly. Some email's are not coming through." My response: "Can you please provide me the email address of the person that is trying to send you an email that you are not getting so I can "whitelist" it?" Answer: "I don't know, but all of them." Me: "So you are not getting ANY email?" Them: "No, just some." Me: "Give me one example of an email that you know was sent to you that you didn't get." Them: "The Bank." Me: "Which Bank and what email address?" Them: "We have 4 different banks, so I don't know for sure, but I think its all of them." Me: "So, you don't get any emails from ANY banks?" Them: "Well just some aren't coming through." This goes on and on forever. To figure it out, the person making the complaint would have to make some phone calls to the different "Banks" and have them send test emails and whichever does not come through would answer my question. But that requires WORK and TIME, which they are too lazy to do. Same thing applies to your video topic. People that send you the "Wall Of Text" don't bother reading through it all, and following explicit instructions that you gave to provide the citation. I hope that other people out there will learn from your video that if you don't have the requested information when asked, simply say nothing, or "I don't know," or "OK I understand what you are looking for and will get back to you as soon as I know." But its so much easier to shovel a bunch of crap on the wall and let someone else sort through it. Laziness..... Reminds me of people dropping off a 32 channel mixing console, with 4 sub groups, 8 monitor sends, and an insert jack for each channel including each group, with the complaint "Check all functions." Those of you in the pro-audio business will get that one!
Damn, your rant about the wall of text is a wall of text. nobody gonna read dat.
@@fbauer4368 You did! LOL
@@Craig1967 Negatory Craigmister, I read fewer than fifty words and when I got to the READ MORE prompt, that was the end. During my career I have encountered thousand of emails and other arguments that can be described as The Wall of Text. I am pleased to now have such a succinct descriptor of that phenomenon.
@@fbauer4368 Your first name isn't Fred by chance - and did you live in the South Florida area around 1985/1986? The name is so familiar. I worked at a Radio Shack Repair Center in Cooper city with someone named Fred Bauer.
@@Craig1967 Nope not Fred. And in 85/86 I was on the left coast.
One shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be one.
"FIVE!"
Steve, I can definitely appreciate where you are coming from. I'm not a lawyer, but I have had some college classes in business law and also tax law. I've lost count of the number of times people have stated, "The law says ----", when in fact the law says no such thing. And the number of times when people have stated, "The courts have ruled----", when in fact there was no such court decision.
I live in Canada, even here an Operator's License is required to operate any motor vehicle on the roads, highways and lanes. The only place it is not required is on privately owned farmland, operating farm vehicles or machinery that is not required to be registered.
99% of the "You don't need a license" claims seem to boil down to one or both of two sources : The USA "Right to Travel" - which guarantees the right to travel (for business or personal, for just a day or moving) between states free of fees/taxes for doing so. But it doesn't state that there may not be - in the interest of Public Safety - regulations on a given mode of transport. In fact, SCOTUS cases have found otherwise. The second is trying to say the only form of traffic the Constitution allows the government (at any level) to regulate is commercial traffic.
One shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be one.
Foreigner here, so please bear with my ignorance. If the sovereigns claim that the federal government is bogus, shouldn't they argue that the SCOTUS is irrelevant rather than play along with the citation game?
That is a great observation.
That is one of the MANY reasons their arguments fail.
If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bs(the wall of text). You had me laughing at the idiots again. Thanks. Good Luck, Rick
So what you are saying is you want one case number - gee I'm no genius but I get it. :-) OK so now please tell me who has the 100 mpg carburetor?
Everybody who has found the secret to the 100 mpg carb has been 'done in' by the oil companies. How can you not know this?!? LOL
You are more patient than I. Anyone sending me a wall of text as "proof", I would assume, they are uninformed on the subject and don't know what they're sending. Disregard email.
Well, you can't fix stupid; but, you should, at least, be able to neuter it.
This is yet another time I'm so happy I'm female! {G}
You had great parents. I only had knowledge of things that started with A.
We had encyclopedias from the mid 60's. I couldn't use them for a report on space because man hadn't been to the moon yet ;)
Steve, not sure you realized you made an inside math joke. The square root of -1 is i (short for imaginary) just like the Supreme court case example your challenge is asking for.
You give good rant, Steve.
Here I've been spending countless (supreme!) hours of time, trying to find fault with your law, your logic, or your humor. Are you telling me that after those fruitless, SUPREME searches, I can't just bury you under a manure truckload of citations- that I can download and send for no money or thought? I am not accustomed to being held accountable for my deeply held beliefs, and it's simply not fair. How Dare You, Sir!
Steve, your $100 is safe. I just wasted one hour of my life reading the drivel "U. S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive". The reader comments after the main article are astoundingly stupid.
Every professor eventually has that same conversation about grading exams. Glad you have the same response as I do... did I make a mistake in the grading? No? Bye!
I find that often when people want to create support for a faulty claim that they will take individual arguments which are far too weak to support the claim or are unrelated, and then go about trying to add them together thinking that they created some mathematical sum that is meets or exceeds a sound argument for the claim.
While I agree that I have not found a case relating to no license traveling, an old tea party guy pointed out to me the need for an alternative to licensing because in the 1990's people in my state were losing their licenses for being behind on child support and even old tickets from other states. I knew several people who fell even further behind on their bills because of reasons not related to competency behind the wheel, including people banned for life from driving because other states had taken their driver's licenses for things that my state wouldn't have taken it for. This is the reason newspapers and churches aren't licensed or taxed because if the state raised the tax high enough, goodbye freedom. I am not a fan of not paying old debts but a guy I know lost his business over losing his license as he was a home inspector in a rural area and couldn't make a living without being able to drive. Bye the way he wasn't actually behind on his child support as it was an error in accounts. After losing his business he actually was.
I keep thinking that the whole argument about whether the ability to drive being a right is ultimately irrelevant. Even IF the SCOTUS does eventually address this and state that the ability to drive is a right, that does not mean a license isn't necessary. Even rights can be, and are, subject to regulations such as appropriate licensing requirements.
There used to be (may still be) people who sold "Sovereign Citizen" packages. (one that I know of for sure) For several hundred $$$ he would send you a packet of instructions about how to rescind your SS#, drivers license, vehicle registration, etc. Also included was a "Wall of Text" (Love that term) packet. Armed with your "Wall of Text" and enough Chutzpah, you could often bluff an officer into not citing you for not having a drivers license or registration... That was then. This is now. Most (if not all) officers have been instructed about what to do when they encounter a Chutzpah powered "Wall of Text."
But, Hey! For those who are interested in that sort of thing... Send me $1,000 & I'll send you a packet about how to declare yourself a Sovereign Nation. Then you may qualify for Diplomatic Immunity wherever you go... Or send 3 easy payments of $399.95 plus S&H. Call now! Operators are standing by!
Thank you for this. I am in the middle of litigation. I have a 5 simple points, the last one being that the other side pay my legal expenses.
No matter what the other side says, I have these points to simply state over and over.
Saw the title and felt intellectually intimidated.
Here, Here! {Hear, Hear?}
...reminds me of a law school prof who asked for "2 cases that illustrate...." and he then mentioned in the exam review about how many students wrote on, and on, and on. He stopped reading after the first two cases, even if the correct case/ratio was indeed below. Lesson learned.
I can see how hammering this point may have been induced.
Uh oh. Who said what now?!
I have an attorney, according to her "when I talk it infuriates people" as such she has told me to keep my mouth shut when dealing with law enforcement. It would seem to me that her job would be a lot easier if she told me to shred my driver's license and just told me the Supreme Court said not to worry about it. If I got arrested for shooting video of a cop she would go to court and explain that I was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity. So why doesn't she go to the judge when I get a speeding ticket and explain that the ticket is invalid because driving is a constitutionally protected activity that does not require you to have the drivers license they are holding the ticket against? Was this a FISA court ruling that no one can find because it's top secret? Wouldn't every lawyer that handles a traffic violation risk being disbarred for failing to use this ruling to defend their clients?
I've alway wondered that if the Supreme Court has ruled that a drivers license is not required why are states still issuing them? It's not Roe V Wade where every year, state legislatures pass strange laws restricting a woman's choice and the new laws get knocked down almost as quickly.
Steve, you mentioned the square root of -1. That is so appropriate, because that is what is called an imaginary number, which is the kind of number the 'no driver's license' nuts are dealing with.
1 is also the loneliest number, unquote. Lol
Partial credit = Participation Award!
Kinda like when somebody says something is illegal. When you ask them 'under what law', they can never answer.
Even Three Dog Night could count to 'One'...
So if one of these sovereign citizen people actually could come up with a case by definition they wouldn't want the $100. Because as a sovereign citizen you are claiming no allegiance to the United States or any form of "contract" with them. The $100 bill is legal tender of the United States and therefore under it's "contract" so by definition the sovereign citizen wouldn't want any part of it. So, in reality, you'll never have to part with your $100 bill.
That's why he said he would give it silver. Still 100 bucks of anything isnt much of an incentive, but wouldnt matter dont think theyd find it if he offered a million ounces of silver
Steve, please do not open any .pdf documents that aren't from a trusted sender, as they can be used for example to run javascript on opening, or contain an embedded executable file.
Don't stop the rant....they're enjoyable to listen to/watch.....👍👍👍
1 case to rule them all, The eternal battle of Steve Lehto vs the Internet ........
I did this exact same challenge to any and all Sovereign Morons back in 2013- 2014, on multiple websites, but I was offering a bit more than $100, (ten times more to be exact, $1000 cash). I made the rules very simple, to the point that even a child could understand - to be considered as a possible "correct" answer, the answer offered must consist of ONE line, which starts with my screen name for that site, followed by the US Supreme Court citation, followed by a period. Just as you described doing. I even gave a sample "fill in the blank" answer form that could be used:
"(Screen name for the website), the case citation is _________________________."
Finally, I mentioned that any and all other submissions or responses would be totally ignored. Then I kicked back, and waited.
You can probably guess what happened next.
As expected, epic level hilarity ensued, as dozens of Sovereigns proceeded to flood the comment sections of I don't remember how many sites, with page after page of total and absolute insanity. Not a single reply I received, attempting to claim the $1000 prize, had followed my simple one-line rule, or used my sample answer form. Of course, every single one of them explained, over many, many, paragraphs, why their answer was still the correct answer, and why they should be awarded the money. In more then a few instances, replies offered directly contradicted other replies, leading to Sovereigns attacking each other, over who was right, and who would win the cash. Finally, I guess some of the site moderators of the Sovereign Citizen online community started talking to each other, and figured out what I was really up to, because over a few days all my posts offering the challenge were deleted, with my accounts being banned.
But it was fun while it lasted.
Not sure if it was a Supreme Court case, but in 1918 or 1919 a court (in the US) ruled that you need a drivers license to drive a car because it wasn't the 'regular' mode of transportation. If this is true (I believe it is) that case should be reviewed and given some public attention.
It wasn’t me because I have never sent you anything...And because I’m not stupid.
🎶 One is the loneliest number.
THANK YOU STEVE!!!
I'm so sick of these common law/sovereign citizen types. Any time you ask them to show you where xyz is written in official documentation, it's crickets or The-Big-Anger-Show & how you're the coward or ( rofl "Walmart" rofl) sheep
Give it up Steve, you can't fix stupid. I guess I don't need a license to fly a plane either.
Minor correction.
Twitter allows 280 characters in a tweet now. That means you could not only fit in the singular citation, but room to ask the 100 dollars goes to a charity instead of into their own pocket.
Maybe they need to rewatch the Count on Sesame Street. I hear he's good at counting.
Good One! One! ah- ah- ah!! (because I love to count)
Marginally significant numbers:
e^(iπ)+1=0
DCLXVI
I love how you literally put 18 minutes into this ... and, they're so stupid that you're gonna get ... ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT!
I checked out the donkey gymnastics videos but I felt like an ass watching them.
"My Cousin Vinny," How do your clients plead? I don't even want to hear you clear your throat... Now, how do your clients plead?
Has the US Supreme Court ever even addressed the drivers license issue at all?
One is the loneliest number.
Donkey gymnastics rules! Thanks for the heads up Steve
Apparently the vast majority of those folks simply do not know how to read a US Supreme Court case number.
The problem is that they refuse to read. They find this wall of text, believe it to be true, and send it in.
I've had some people tell me what a IRS case says and even send me the ??? v IRS, but nothing else. When I go to the trouble of using google to find the case, it's the opposite of what they claim. When you send a link to the actual case, and even tell them what page(s) debunk their claim, you never hear back for some reason.
1 is the loneliest number...
I love the Tucker on your bookcase.
Steve, got a question off topic of this video. I was watching a movie a while back (I've looked and can't find or remember what movie it was) but in it a guy never went to college of any type yet took the bar and became a lawyer. Aside from the difficulty of doing this, is this realistic; that without higher education of any type one could take the bar and become a lawyer if they pass the test?
In California (and possibly others) you can take the bar without going to lawschool but you have to do a whole bunch of other things which makes it very difficult to do. In the old days it was easier. Nowadays it is exceedingly rare.
Got some short laughs on this one Steve. But around the 15m mark I got a big laugh. It's a shame u have to go into that much detail but I'm glad u did, it was interested, informative & even funny. I have a feeling towards the end end while u were holding the wall of text print out at a certain time n your presentation u were tempted to tear it up but realized it would have been too dramatic for some people.
Thanks! My favorite video thus far. Zero is a number. Zero is not a number. Contextually both are true. Probably not law, but in practice no license is required for farm to "market" vehicles/equipment that is safely operated including trucks in one state. Stay on the market road. Be doing legitimate farm work. Stay safe. That's it...over 20 years ago. Officers in rural communities don't always strictly enforce the law to the letter. Yeah...no win. Thanks.
Thank you. Hundo, unfolded, leaning on the third mic from the right on top of the cabinet. 525.
Lol. There isn't a case because driver licenses are state regulations not federal regulations. Federal laws protect your right to travel freely. States regulate the operation of vehicles on their roads. So you can travel freely, but need a license to be a driver.
Some individuals just can't seemed to follow simple instructions.... Great video.
Steve, you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true. I read that on the internet 🧐
I've done multiple searches for donkey gymnastics. They aren't a thing!
Thank you for the laugh!
I figured that out without even searching.
@@richardgates7479 👏👏👏
Steve, people are confusing "travel" with "driving". If I'm not mistaken, you don't have to drive a vehicle in order to travel from Point A to Point B. Hailing a Taxi Cab, getting on a public bus, riding a bicycle ... as a passenger, you are still traveling, despite the fact that you're not operating the vehicle.
Distinction without a difference
Can someone make a playlist of Steve's sovereign videos?
I'm pretty sure counting two one is just counting backwards.
/Dammit, it works much better as an audio joke.
The first words I heard on the first day of college in the first class I took was "There is no one truth." Of course the entire class grade was based on four tests that contained nearly all multiple choice questions with five choices and only one possible correct answer.
To quote a comedian:” Can’t fix stupid”
Donkey Gymnastics?
THAT sounds bloody awesome! :D
one IS the loneliest number....
Steve, you rant rather well I might say! Lol But one is the loneliest number that will ever be. And two can be as bad as one, because it's the loneliest number since the number one. A ball game wouldn't be as exciting if it was, one strike and your out. Most Americans can not say, uno, without saying dose and trece also. You can not have a party of one. One way, only, really implies that there must be another way. Two shoes that match and are a left and right make, a pair. A pair of pants is one. One is a partridge in a pair tree! Anyone having any more, feel free to add them to the list. Jpol. See ya.
I want through a three year hospital nursing school to become a RN. (They don't exist anymore, I later got a Bachelor's Degree.) We had to pass state boards which are multiple choice so our instructors gave us multiple choice exams so we would get used to that type of test. They said they rarely had any student not pass the board's compared to other schools that didn't do multiple choice. By the way you shot me. HaHa.
Steve you could have made this a very short video (I know that is not how you operate) The title should have been COMMON SENSE IS NOT COMMON ANY MORE. LOL I absolutely Love your videos. Especially when you talk about stupid people. You are speaking English as I know it but it appears most of the people watching your videos speak something else. Keep up the Great work.
Brett Heller
Coldwater, MI
USMC 1984-1992 0311/1371
Brett Heller Thank you for your service to our country, Brett!
yes, zero was a later concept than counting numbers. Look at the Roman Numerals you learned as a kid, there is no zero. They also didn't have the concept of using the same digit in different positions to have different values. Zero was invented by the Mesopotamians (usually called the Arabs) sometime around 500 AD (altho they probably didn't call their calendar "AD")
Pat Farrell yes and the Mayan’s (mesoamerica) invented it around 4 AD.
Well, if someone said it on TV, it must be true...
This reminds me of when I hear someone say "they are saying...." referring to a weird conspiracy theory. I ask who is 'THEY'. The answer is always "I don't know".
If you can't count to 1 because you think you think too hard, try this equation. Dingleberry Factor = -square root of (e to the 0 power) * i squared (or j squared if you are so inclined), etc.
People, people, people! You're up against a trained and experienced lawyer. A former disk jockey and tow truck driver. It is like a PT boat taking on the Nimitz. Disk jockeys and tow truck drivers know how to think FAST on their feet. And being a lawyer, he likely looked for such a law case himself, in advance. You're up against a man with a Big Pizza in his pocket.
Besides no half-way competent, self-respecting lawyer... would evvvvver give away $100. The man wears T-shirts, folks. He's dangerous! Plus, he loves to argue.
He's specifically looking for a Supreme Court Case. A SCOTUS special. You could send him 50 state cases, it will not crack the bank.
I must look for a Canadian Supreme Court Case to stump him!
I do think you covered the bases, and then some. Thank you. Well put. Forget Canada. They are smart folk, too.
Big Pizza... I need to google that one.
@@debhalverson3956 It is one of Steve's "jokes" that he has "Big Pizza" in his pocket. I wonder what kind of pizza?
Was about to reply I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Thought better, but then thought of pizza toppings such as sausage... I give up. Touche! (G)
@@debhalverson3956 Apparently, he likes pizza. MUST date back to the disk jockey days! Being a lawyer, he does not need sausage. He makes that out of his opponents!!!1
@@PierreaSweedieCat I would feel sorry for his opponents but I figure they deserve what they get. Please good Lord do not let me ever be his opponent. Not that I would deserve what I get mind you...
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 - Va: Supreme Court 1930
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there saying that they dont have to have a license federally but they leave it up to the states individually to make the regulations
Seems Harry Nilsson was right One is the loneliest Number that you'll ever do
I'm afraid that if you read that wall of text backwards, Culthulu will rise from the depths and devour us all!
🤣🤣🤣 you crack me up Steve. Love the video's, keep them coming
I don't care what anybody says, these are my favoritest episodes...
That was an intelligent, cogent argument, but unfortunately you're dealing with people who are far from that!
It is hard to learn "One" if "One" doesn't exist.