Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
FAKE CASE LAW ON "THE RIGHT TO DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE HOAX"
Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". [url=[url=https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/;https://www.scribd.com/document/339121150/Right-to-Travel-by-Jack-McLambhttps://www.scribd.com/document/339121150/Right-to-Travel-by-Jack-McLamb]https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/;[/url]https://www.scribd.com/document/339121150/Right-to-Travel-by-Jack-McLambhttps://www.scribd.com/document/339121150/Right-to-Travel-by-Jack-McLamb[/url]. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of "SUBSTITUTE" decisions which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK LIKE", "SIMILAR TO" "RIGHTS":
1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE").Schecter v. Killingsworth, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10017950490896899680&q="schecter+v.+Killingsworth"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10017950490896899680&q=%22schecter+v.+Killingsworth%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).
2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7126151699700902691&q="Escobedo+v.+State"+20902+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7126151699700902691&q=%22Escobedo+v.+State%22+20902+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Berberian v. Lussier, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10003377642086162533&q="Berberian+v.+Lussier"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10003377642086162533&q=%22Berberian+v.+Lussier%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14665237934868993736&q="Holland+v.+Shackelford"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14665237934868993736&q=%22Holland+v.+Shackelford%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.
3. The right "TO TRAVEL" INTERNATIONALLY (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10692694480240175303&q="Kent+v.+Dulles"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10692694480240175303&q=%22Kent+v.+Dulles%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.
4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7020999794525483771&q="In+re+Barbara+White"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7020999794525483771&q=%22In+re+Barbara+White%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through the text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.
RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:
Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.
>Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.
1). Thompson v Smith, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366&q="Thompson+v.+Smith"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366&q=%22Thompson+v.+Smith%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url]. This case recognized the RIGHT "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this case also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through the text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the very same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence AGAIN and AGAIN]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Virginia anyway.
2). Adams v. City of Pocatello, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10311383113122069229&q="adams+v+City+of+Pocatello"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10311383113122069229&q=%22adams+v+City+of+Pocatello%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url]. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The RIGHT of a citizen TO OPERATE a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER [citing Thompson v. Smith (directly above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right".]... ." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Idaho anyway.
3). Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, [url=[url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3544987/teche-lines-inc-v-danforth/]https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3544987/teche-lines-inc-v-danforth/[/url][/url]. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a specified minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off their customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides "for usual and customary purposes" and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the third case above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". But, TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER, this very same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of this so-called "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Mississippi anyway.
"CRIMINAL STOPS" v. "TRAFFIC STOPS":
AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE THAT AN OFFICER MUST ACTUALLY WITNESS A "CRIME" BEFORE HE/SHE MAY LAWFULLY MAKE A ROUTINE "TRAFFIC" STOP. But, this is not so.
Unknown to amateur legal theorists, THERE ARE TWO (2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF STOPS INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES There are"CRIMINAL" stops and there are "TRAFFIC" stops. "CRIMINAL" stops involve "CRIMES" (like selling illegal drugs or possessing stolen property) which are NOT MERE "TRAFFIC" VIOLATIONS. On the other hand, "TRAFFIC" stops involve "TRAFFIC" violations (like speeding or having expired tags) which ARE NOT "CRIMES". So, while both types of stops involve motor vehicles and officers, "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" stops are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The law on "CRIMINAL" stops DOES NOT apply to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. Instead, "CRIMINAL" law applies to "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" law applies to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. So, while a "CRIME" is necessary in a "CRIMINAL" stop, no "CRIME" is necessary for a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (only a TRAFFIC violation is). But, amateur legal theorists get these TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT legal subjects CONFUSED and therefore mistakenly conclude that an officer must actually witness a "CRIME" (like selling illegal drugs) to lawfully stop a driver for a "TRAFFIC" violation (like having an expired tag). But, this is not so. See the cases below.
4). People v. Horton, [url=
In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like speeding or having an expired tag) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the officer here made a "CRIMINAL" stop of a car SOLELY BECAUSE IT CONTAINED YOUNG PEOPLE. The officer saw marijuana in the car (REFLECTING THE "CRIME" OF POSSESSION) and arrested the occupants. In holding the "CRIMINAL" stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL"CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of California anyway.
5). People v. Glover, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q=%22People+v.+Horton%22+%22with+freedom+from%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url]. NOTE: This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does NOT apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".
In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like running a stop sign or driving the wrong way on one-way street) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the police here set up a roadblock SOLELY TO CATCH AN ARMED ROBBER (a "CRIMINAL") fleeing the scene of the "CRIME". The police made a "CRIMINAL" stop of every single car. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the "CRIMINAL" stop was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case (directly above) which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL "CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."(in the 15th paragraph at about 85% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of California anyway.
6. Mills v. District Of Columbia, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q="People+v.+Horton"+"with+freedom+from"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527070150017086940&q=%22People+v.+Horton%22+%22with+freedom+from%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url] (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (like speeding). Instead, the police here set up roadblocks around a HIGH CRIME AREA after dark and effectively made "CRIMINAL" stops of every driver seeking to enter the high crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a satisfactory reason for entering the area, the police DENIED THE DRIVER ACCESS TO THE AREA. The court held that such a practice was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE UPON [ALL OF] THE PUBLIC STREETS... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF PUBLIC STREETS]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of the District Of Columbia anyway.
The case below explains it well.
Spokane v. Port, [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15753721215922597120&q="Spokane+v.+port"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15753721215922597120&q=%22Spokane+v.+port%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url]. "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION ... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .'" (quoting the SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland. (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).
Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!
SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:
Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked, OR what most courts characterize as a "PRIVILEGE"). Regardless, because they mistakenly conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." [url=[url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422&q="Shuttlesworth+v.+Birmingham"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4301182542008304422&q=%22Shuttlesworth+v.+Birmingham%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url][/url]. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this quote below.
In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a City Commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The City Commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.
A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham in protest of racial injustice twice attempted to apply for such a permit and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject LICENSE law.
The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH (not "driving"/"operating" a motor vehicle). The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted)....[A] person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] LICENSE." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" (not the alleged "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE".
Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."
THERE IS NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT LEGALLY MATTER. "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS AND "SUBSTITUTE" RULINGS AND "SUBSTITUTE" CASES WILL NOT WORK.
BEWARE OF THESE FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when attempting to represent others).
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion
For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\
For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
