That is the old version, I have a newer version but my main focus has been on my other documents such as my independence declaration, right to travel supporting affidavit, discovery, tax affidavit. I want to put said documents up on KZbin but afraid those videos could cause a strike or delete my channel

@@tallcamaroguy can you email 📧 it to me

Can give you my email 📧 and you can send it my way

Channels I suggest for similar information youtube.com/@thebadwolf?si=GrtnwXSD5ymZSea9 youtube.com/@tjmarrs?si=FxCNtMKkPTqMxTA6

@@tallcamaroguy man i really want a copy of that paper

I did that mission on the day the video was uploaded

Ocelote virtue is my favorite supercar

You get $500,000 for the finale as the leader, I believe you get $50,000 for finale as crew

That is strange because I remember getting $20,000 for the other set up missions, maybe the game glitched

No.idea what ld is, this is what happens when you initialize something which only causes confusion

I have changed this document since then,. You can just listen and type it up. I have many other documents I have been working on, some over 7 years. When I get enough subscribers I will make videos on those documents which are good enough the courts will not respond

youtube.com/@onestupidfuck?si=vULMbhTow18-qbvn

I found another media stick at the arcade eight but arcade on west vinewood eclipse Blvd which is at the north part of the city right next to the giant space monkey advertisement, the media stick is in the first room at the end of the counter

You on GTA too ?

Unfortunately manufacturers do some stupid stuff sometimes to make it harder to change parts, I know this from my 20 plus years experience, had to change the feed fuel line on the same truck around August 2022 which I did a video on and could not get the original part so I had to buy alternative parts. Thanks for subscribing

I have made changes since I made that version so I don't have that version anymore, I have been focusing on the other documents like my independence declaration, right to travel supporting affidavit, tax affidavit, demand for proof of claim jurisdiction and Discovery, default notice, commerce clause, second amendment, which I will be making videos on at some point

I have not been focusing on this document, I have been working on a independence declaration, right to travel supporting affidavit, demand for proof of claim jurisdiction and Discovery to put the burden of proof on these foreign agents, I will uploads videos of those documents at some point, I suggest you watch videos from you are Law KZbin channel youtube.com/@TJMarrs and high frequency radio KZbin channel youtube.com/@HighFrequencyRadio

They assume you are a citizen slave subject to government job rules that is why I have been working on my independence declaration, right to travel supporting affidavit, tax affidavit, demand for proof of claim jurisdiction and Discovery to let them know there is no United States citizen slave and I'm not one of the slaves

The U. S.Supreme Court on jurisdiction: [A] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (U. S. Supreme Court,1877), at 722 (emphasis added): "... The several States of the Union are not, it is true, in every respect independent, many of the right and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred are applicable to them. One of these principles is, that EVERY STATE POSSESS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY WITHIN ITS TERRITORY...." [B] International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), at 316 (emphasis added): "....Historically, the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence, his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 733. But now that the capias ad respondendum has given way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES ONLY THAT, IN ORDER TO SUBJECT A DEFENDANT TO A JUDGMENT in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, HE HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM CONTACTS with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 311 U. S. 463. See Holmes, J., in McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90, 243 U. S. 91. Compare Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, 318 U. S. 316, 318 U. S. 319. See Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352; Young v. Masci, 289 U. S. 253...."

Just hate I bumped the camera

That is actually 4 videos I put together with a open shot video editor

Glad I didn't have all that trouble, just had to clean bolt holes

@@tallcamaroguy I envy you bro, had a nightmare with my car, thought at some point I messed it up for good, i'm no mechanic, but everything worked out good

@@dunnoboah when I first got that car and tried to change thermostat the right bold broke so I drilled 3 holes in the bolt to get the bolt out, now after watching videos the next bolt I try to get out I will probably use welder and nut because that seems to be the easiest way

@@tallcamaroguy yup, most online stuff i've seen points to the welded nut being a great solution, I didn't go for it because I never really welded anything (just soldered some led's together 🤣) but honestly, drilling the holes is a long drawn out process that involves a lot of stress and a few broken drill bits! I needed a lot of faith and patience in the end...

I have the same issue on 2010 maxima but I can’t the the bit in the tight space to drill the broken bolt out, just put it back together with 2 bolts and it still leaks, not sure where to go from here.

Oh yes, I didn't see it as a big deal so I just went to the courthouse and asked for another court date

I didn't create a link because I never made a digital copy, I have also changed that paper since then, I have been working on 6 other documents

@@tallcamaroguy rn im working with 3 citations, suspended license, no insurance, and expired tag. But im confident i can win against these fradulent statues

@@YaelLorenz do you know what the definition is for a statute and the structure for these "government job rules"?

@@tallcamaroguy yes sir

Im working on a police bill as a deterrent, also working on other documents

I will make some videos for the documents i been working on which includes my independence declaration affidavit, right to travel supporting affidavit, demand for proof of claim, jurisdiction and discovery, all 3 are to challenge jurisdiction.

• _Kent v. Dulles,_ 357 US 116 (1958), was a US Supreme Court ruling about the denial of a passport to Mr. Kent by the US Dept. of State. Mr. Kent was denied a passport because he was a COMMUNIST and had "a consistent and prolonged adherence to the Communist Party line." He was appealing a US Court of Appeals D.C. decision that had upheld the passport denial. The majority found that there were valid reasons for refusing to issue a passport. These included (1) citizenship and allegiance a country other than the US and (2) conduct that would violate the laws of the US. They however ruled that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to deny a passport on the basis of being a Communist Party member or holding views consistent with Communist Party ideals. The day you are denied a driver's licence because of your political views is the day this case might be relevant to the subject of driver's licences. But its use as part of an basis for the argument that driver's licence laws are unconstitutional has been rejected in court decisions such as _Naff v. State,_ 946 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. App. 1997) • _United States v. Wheeler,_ 254 U.S. 281 (1920), had absolutely nothing to do with a state's authority to require possession of a driver's licence by a person physically controlling an automobile on public roads. The Industrial Workers of the World, Local 800 had gone on strike at a number of mining companies in Bisbee, Arizona. Approximately 3000 miners were on strike. The executives of the Phelps Dodge Corporation, wanting to break the strike, conspired with the county sheriff to arrest the striking workers and forcibly transport them several hundred miles from Bisbee by rail to another state. The sheriff recruited some 2200 men as a posse to round up the strikers and put most of them on rail cars to be deported. Approximately 2000 strikers were arrested and 1,286 of put on the rail cars which took them some 200 miles away to Tres Hernandez, New Mexico. A 16 hour trip through the desert during which the men went without food or water. The sheriff established armed guards at all entrances to Bisbee and Douglas. Any citizen seeking to exit or enter the town over the next several months had to have a "passport" issued by Wheeler. Any adult male in town who was not known to the sheriff's men was brought before a secret sheriff's kangaroo court. Hundreds of citizens were tried, and most of them deported and threatened with lynching if they returned. The US Dept. of Justice ordered the arrested 21 mining company executives and several Bisbee and Cochise County elected leaders and law enforcement officers. It attempted to prosecute these men in US district court but the court eventually through out the charges since there was at the time no federal law making kidnapping a federal crime and the charges brought against the men relied on a rather dubious claim of of an implied federal power. The US Supreme Court sided with the US district court holding that,under the circumstances, only the State of Arizona could prosecute the 21 men for an criminal acts that allegedly had taken place. It took the Lindbergh Kidnapping in 1932 for Congress to enact a federal kidnapping law. Mr. Charles Evens Hughes was NOT a justice on the US Supreme Court at the time this case was heard but rather was lead counsel representing the mining executives et al. for the US Supreme Court hearing. The US Supreme Court has ruled that state has the authority to enact laws regulating the use of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. For example, the Court wrote the following in 1979: _“We agree that the States have a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed. Automobile licenses are issued periodically to evidence that the drivers holding them are sufficiently familiar with the rules of the road and are physically qualified to operate a motor vehicle. The registration requirement and, more pointedly, the related annual inspection requirement in Delaware, are designed to keep dangerous automobiles off the road. Unquestionably, these provisions, properly administered, are essential elements in a highway safety program. Furthermore, we note that the State of Delaware requires a minimum amount of insurance coverage as a condition to automobile registration, implementing its legitimate interest in seeing to it that its citizens have protection when involved in a motor vehicle accident.”_ - _Delaware v. Prouse,_ 440 U. S. 648, 658 (1979) It repeated its position in 2020 when it upheld the conviction of a man for driving with a revoked licence: _"We have previously recognized that States have a 'vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles [and] that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed.' Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648, 658, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)."_ - _Kansas v. Glover,_ 140 S. Ct. 1183, 1188 (2020)

@@blackprince7510 I am all for training and safety but I'm against buying slave permission with license, permit, registration. Keep in mind the constitutional authority to create license, permit, registration is to make rules for government jobs clauses such as United States constitution article 1 section 8 clause 14 to make rules for government and land and navel forces. There is no constitutional authority to apply government job rules outside government jobs, on top of that applying government job rules without a valid contract with all requirements full disclosure, knowing, willing consent, valuable compensation gold/silver and wet ink autograph from both parties is slavery which goes against the 13th amendment. Are you for or against slavery???

@Black Prince When did I put forth any arguement for or against, let alone use the terms licensing, Motor vehicles, operating, registration, regulation.. I'm talking about vehicular traffic and to use the public highway as a matter of right. No motor vehicle operation is taking place because (at least where I'm from) a implements of husbandry, farm vehicles, mobile equipment, recreational vehicles, other vehicles, modes and to some extent the uses of conveyances don't fall within the statutory regulations or requirements. There are exceptions and exemptions and even within the context or without the context exclude or include. That which is included excludes everything else. None of it applies If you don't operate a motor vehicle as defined in the laws of the jurisdiction ones in. So don't fall into regulation/provisions/requirements/prohibitive language of the law. I'd argue even if something fell withing certain aspects, as to use of the Highways, Its Racketeering to charge a tax, duty, or impost for the Right to vehicular traffic and right to travel. Conspiracy against rights protected by the federal constitution. Also interestingly they always classify licenses with maximun gross vehicle weight. Wholly unconstitutional for states to impose duties of tonnage let alone for them to conspire with each other being each has members of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and creating the Drivers license compact among other collaborative activities. Nobody's consented to being charged for a right they didn't know they had because how could they have given consent without having known of the right. The highways are public property and which under the Law of Nations everyone may pass over public ways and easements. You're a tool and shill with malicious intentions. Good day.

@@tallcamaroguy So who do you think should pay for the system that keeps track of who is and isn't actually qualified to physically control an automobile on public roads? You are the one who benefits from being allowed to use public roads by actually driving an automobile on them and not me or anyone else. Article One, Section 8 enumerates the power of CONGRESS. Any legislative powers not reserved to CONGRESS or prohibited to the states by the US Constitution belong to those states and the People (14th Amendment). The People of every state have granted their elected representatives in the respective state legislative assemblies the authority to enact laws regulating, among other things, the use of the public roads. If the People of a state did not want laws requiring a person to meet some minimum standard of knowledge of the laws for driving an automobile on public roads and competency in complying with those laws, they have had anywhere from 50 years (South Dakota) to 120 years (Massachusetts and Missouri) to have those elected representatives repeal the laws. You do not have to have a contract with a state to be subject to a state's laws. That is not how the law works outside of contract law, which state motor vehicle law definitely is not. It merely requires you to be within the territorial boundaries of a state. The sooner you realize that, the less disappointment you are going to experience when the law is enforced against you. Being required to comply with constitutionally valid laws does not make you a slave. Only idiots believe such a nonsensical notion. But then most people who believe they can pick and choose which laws they will comply with without any consequences are idiots.

I have made changes so this video is the only copy. I am working on other documents, discovery, independence declaration, right to travel supporting affidavit, dismiss motion.

Maybe something like jb weld, why would you not try to use a gasket that fits?

Just put a new gasket on there, no sealant

I'm trying to make useful videos, tried to do another video today but something strange happened with video quality

The rust was in the bottom not in the threads in my situation

Have you checked driver's side under dash and look under hood on driver's side there could be fuse box

I found the turn signal flasher driver’s side under dash. But I didn’t check the fuse box under hood. is that really could be there? i’ll check lt and let you know. thanks anyway for your help

It is a new vacuum pump

Typical response from those lacking any valid arguments or court ruling to support their BS claims. They are always amazed that anyone could point out the BS they are spewing without have been paid to do so. Sad really.

I have made changes so this video is the only copy for this version, I have been working on my independence declaration, right to travel supporting affidavit which is different than the video on this document, tax affidavit and second amendment conflict, I do plan on doing videos on those I just listed, and I would like to see the information you have found

You should read 49 U.S. Code § 31301 - Definitions 7 and 8 which gives enough information to tell us license is government job rules

Stop talking bloody daft .I don;t want a ton of metal coming toward me ,driven by someone who;s never driven ;which is what you,and the other retards on here ,are suggesting .

Black's Law Dictionary has actually been used by various courts, including the US Supreme Court, but the courts certainly are not obligated to use it and definitely won't if a word has been defined in the law relevant to the controversy.

And actually in deciding cases courts use conventional dictionaries far more frequently than Black's. The general rule is that when interpreting something words take their normal, everyday meaning unless they are specially defined in a particular statute. In the latter case, when applying that statute the special definition is used. But otherwise, the normal, everyday definition is uses. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...” Searching a comprehensive law database to which I subscribe for all court decisions in which either "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" or "American Heritage Dictionary" were mentioned, I got 10,306 hits. (Expanding that conventional dictionary search to include court decisions mentioning "Oxford English Dictionary", I got 15,982 hits.) But searching for all court decisions in which either "Bouvier's Law Dictionary" or "Black's Law Dictionary" were mentioned, I got only 507 hits. (And searching for all court decisions in which either "Bouvier's Legal Dictionary" or "Black's Legal Dictionary" were mentioned, I got only one hit.) for

@@fiddletown2002 Very well put and nicely researched.

@@fiddletown2002 Well put ,Fiddle . The use of the word ,"Employed " ,was unfortunate .