PDA

View Full Version : Consent to Service of Process



Keith Alan
01-12-14, 10:23 PM
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE DIVISION 9 SECTION 17460.

"The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver’s license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state."

The other sections close to this one that are also about consenting to service of process.

Anyway, I find a lot of interesting things about these sections, beginning with the fact that service of process is consensual, but also when reading through them the Legislature continually switches back and forth from 'this state' and 'this State', so much that it's very confusing. I'm finding that the code applies only to residents and some nonresidents in certain situations. But what about inhabitants?

From what I'm gathering, if someone surrenders his driver's license, and otherwise manages to avoid consenting to process, then I think for all intents and purposes he becomes invisible to the state, or State, at least in connection with the vehicle code.

I've also been poking around all the other California Codes, and finding the same situation with other activities. It appears a person can withdraw consent to receive process of service for just about anything.

Anthony Joseph
01-12-14, 10:44 PM
Ask a question of the man in the uniform when he/she demands a DL or anything else from you, "Is that an order?" If he/she says no, "I'll be on my way then, have a nice day." If he/she says yes, "I'll be happy to fill your order, i must inform you however, that i will send a bill for that order."

If you were ordered to do something by another man, then be compensated accordingly for it.

I was not operating under the license at that time, who will come forward and testify under oath that i was.

"Why do have a tag on your car and DL then?" this is supposed evidence of operating under contract.

Let me ask you this...

Do you use the windshield wipers every time you move your car?

Do you remove the headlights from the car in the day time and put them back on at night?

A tool can be used whenever you deem it necessary. Think about it.

Keith Alan
01-12-14, 11:09 PM
My thinking is that if done properly, being stopped in traffic would turn out just fine. If I were to be issued a summons I could forward it to the Secretary of State or Governor.

Now if my car happened to be paid for with lawful money, no duty to register it would exist either. The state's claim on it would be voidable.

Anthony Joseph
01-12-14, 11:25 PM
Will anyone verify in open court that he/she/it has a vested interest in your property (car) regardless of registration or what type of "money" was used to "pay" for it? Has anyone heard any verifiable testimony from anyone of such a claim? Has "the state" ever notified anyone of its vested interest in your car? Or, do we actually have evidence of letters sent that deny any such thing?

If someone hands you a summons (ticket), consider it a present and give it back. Find out immediately who is prosecuting a case against you and notify him/her that you believe the summons was issued in error. Offer to settle the matter by requiring to speak with the injured party.

I don't know Mr. or Mrs. STATE OF XXXXX, i don't believe we ever met. If you choose to pursue this case, i will require the accuser ['Plaintiff'] appear and verify the claim against me on the record in open court. Is this not a common law land? Do i not have a right to face and question my accuser?

Form and keep the record of your good faith effort to settle out of court on the private side. Notify the prosecutor that you will file a claim against him/her for trespass [barratry] if he/she pursues the case and does not produce the 'Plaintiff' to verify the claim in open court.

Keith Alan
01-12-14, 11:50 PM
Will anyone verify in open court that he/she/it has a vested interest in your property (car) regardless of registration or what type of "money" was used to "pay" for it? Has anyone heard any verifiable testimony from anyone of such a claim? Has "the state" ever notified anyone of its vested interest in your car? Or, do we actually have evidence of letters sent that deny any such thing?

If someone hands you a summons (ticket), consider it a present and give it back. Find out immediately who is prosecuting a case against you and notify him/her that you believe the summons was issued in error. Offer to settle the matter by requiring to speak with the injured party.

I don't know Mr. or Mrs. STATE OF XXXXX, i don't believe we ever met. If you choose to pursue this case, i will require the accuser ['Plaintiff'] appear and verify the claim against me on the record in open court. Is this not a common law land? Do i not have a right to face and question my accuser?

Form and keep the record of your good faith effort to settle out of court on the private side. Notify the prosecutor that you will file a claim against him/her for trespass [barratry] if he/she pursues the case and does not produce the 'Plaintiff' to verify the claim in open court.
I'm not interested in fighting with these people. I'm finding in the state's own code how to resign from any agencies I might be party to. If I resign as agent, then I return to being an inhabitant, and no longer would be a resident.

If I'm subsequently stopped, my expectation would be to simply refer the officer to the person authorized to accept the services being offered.

David Merrill
01-13-14, 01:56 AM
This might be interesting. (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/914/ownyourcarlawfultitletr.pdf)

Going around without plates limits you. Even if you get your point across you cannot drive to other cities and enjoy your immunity.

My suggestion is to avoid the ownership (property) tax on the vehicle as evidence you own it outright. Then if you get any citations utilize your posture as outside the Federal Reserve Districts to establish a proper court setting. They will always dismiss, usually for no witness, meaning that the officer will not be at arraignment and other preparatory hearings. Then again if they set up a proper court for your constitutional style of administration of justice; proper oaths and procedures you will be responsible for restoring our intended justice system to America, or at least educating the local administrators of the process they are doing by rote.

Keith Alan
01-13-14, 02:34 AM
Yeah plates can be a problem:

17459.**The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.(Amended by Stats. 1971, Ch. 622.)**

But it occurs to me, that the certificate of ownership and registration should be held by the Secretary of State.

Edit -- Maybe they'll let me have an exempt plate. Hahaha

ag maniac
01-13-14, 05:56 AM
From another forum (http://www.suijurisforum.com/post23365.html?hilit=certificate%20of%20title#p233 65) -- February 2013


Re: Being paid to drive
postby KnowLaw » Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:16 pm


That's because the State doesn't own all vehicles, as long as the true owner realizes the scam and cancels the contract/agreement. And that's as easy as canceling the CoT and returning it to the DOT. No contract, no legal ownership (on the State's part, that is).

When in contract with the State DOT, the true owner (i.e. whomever bought the product) becomes the equitable owner only, and legal ownership is switched to the State which acts as a Trustee over the property entrusted to its limited liability benefit and safety program.

If you want to retain "legal" ownership of your property, take it back by cancelling the certificate of title and returning said document to it's issuer.

Keith Alan
01-13-14, 01:40 PM
**CORPORATIONS CODE - CORP

TITLE 3. UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS [18000 - 24001.5]

**( Title 3 enacted by Stats. 1947, Ch. 1038. )

PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS [18000 - 18420]

**( Part 1 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 178, Sec. 10. )18200. *(a)*An agent designated by an unincorporated association for the service of process may file with the Secretary of State a signed and acknowledged written statement of resignation as agent of the unincorporated association. The resignation is effective when filed. The Secretary of State shall mail written notice of the filing to the unincorporated association at its address set out in the statement filed by the association.(b)*An unincorporated association may at any time file with the Secretary of State a revocation of a designation of an agent for service of process. The revocation is effective when filed.(c)*Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), service made on an agent designated by an unincorporated association for service of process in the manner provided in subdivision (e) of Section 18200 is effective if made within 30 days after the statement of resignation or the revocation is filed with the Secretary of State.**

So between returning the the driver's license, certificate of title, and registration, all that remains is to resign or revoke the agency for the unincorporated association, which my guess is the THE NAME.

I don't know how to prove it though.

Anthony Joseph
01-13-14, 02:05 PM
I'm not interested in fighting with these people. I'm finding in the state's own code how to resign from any agencies I might be party to. If I resign as agent, then I return to being an inhabitant, and no longer would be a resident.

If I'm subsequently stopped, my expectation would be to simply refer the officer to the person authorized to accept the services being offered.

Which part do you consider "fighting with these people" from what i wrote?

If you try to decipher codes which you did not create or write, you will be deemed competent in the code (legal) world; and, you will be liable for "violating" said codes.

How many statutes and codes are "out there" now? Tens of thousands; maybe more?

I do not wish to know or learn them, since that effort is futile anyway; but, more importantly, i do not believe said statutes/codes have anything to do with i; a man. Who will make a verifiable claim that i; a man, am subject to said statutes/codes?

If you believe a contract you entered into now does you more harm than good, simply present a notice of rescission - "short and sweet". Always stay in honor; and, offer to make whole any man you do wrong or harm to the best of your ability.

A man has no obligation to a 2-dimensional entity; a mistake can be corrected at any time.

Keith Alan
01-13-14, 03:56 PM
@Anthony Joseph

Anthony, my thinking is that the entities in place are as you say, fictional, but directed by flesh and blood people. Some of them have taken oaths and made bonds to perform certain obligations in the offices they represent. Others are simply members of various social organizations.

The entities created are tools people use in order to accomplish certain goals and purposes in society.

Lately I've been focusing on birth certificates, because I believe the organization NAMED thereon is one of those fictional legal entities, established ostensibly for my benefit.

I've investigated extensively the commercial process you were describing, and to me, it seems premature to begin seeking private remedy for public error. I think it should be the last course of action taken, after all other avenues have been explored and exhausted.

THE NAME is a public organization, and it should be possible to turn it off or have it redirected to better serve the public. Even though I'm not the one who created it, it does exist in law for my benefit and society's.

However, I've been playing trustee/agent, and consenting to service of process, out of ignorance. If I begin acting in the private, without first clearly defining the line between public and private, I can hardly blame public servants for overstepping their authority.

I also realize that I don't have a legal obligation to train these people in their jobs, since I'm not the one who created this situation. But I also realize - by way of analogy - that I have no obligation to use an umbrella when it rains.

It seems better to seek peace with these people, and use the processes already in place, before going to battle in court.

Anthony Joseph
01-13-14, 05:12 PM
If someone serves you, it is someone else wanting to battle you in court, no? What i suggest is to attempt to settle the matter on the private side before court with the moving party who serves you; that is what man does, try to work it out privately before bringing into a public forum. If the server of process will not deal with you privately, what then?

A public meeting in court is what follows when a private settlement is not made. Do you not believe you have a right to face your accuser? Do you not believe you have a right to move your court according to your rules if you believe someone is moving a false claim against you? Without an appearance by the accuser to verify what is claimed against you, there is no case.

The process i am describing is not commercial; it is moving, holding and keeping one's court of record at common law as an inherent right of man.

Why do you believe that is either commercial or "fighting with these people"? If anything, it is you trying to avoid a fight.

Keith Alan
01-13-14, 06:49 PM
If someone serves you, it is someone else wanting to battle you in court, no? What i suggest is to attempt to settle the matter on the private side before court with the moving party who serves you; that is what man does, try to work it out privately before bringing into a public forum. If the server of process will not deal with you privately, what then?

A public meeting in court is what follows when a private settlement is not made. Do you not believe you have a right to face your accuser? Do you not believe you have a right to move your court according to your rules if you believe someone is moving a false claim against you? Without an appearance by the accuser to verify what is claimed against you, there is no case.

The process i am describing is not commercial; it is moving, holding and keeping one's court of record at common law as an inherent right of man.

Why do you believe that is either commercial or "fighting with these people"? If anything, it is you trying to avoid a fight.
I think it is commercial because there are commercial presentments being made and responded to. It's fighting because court begins upon the presentment being made, and court is where civilized battles are fought.

The person being presented has some options: accept, refuse, counter, acquiesce. But no matter what, he is being made to respond.

In the case of a law enforcement officer making a presentment, a man is forced to respond. There is a fight being made against him.

Now let me say I agree with you that attempting to deal with these presentments in the way you suggest is reasonable. But it's not for me. Even when demanding lawful money, a person receives commercial presentments in the form of banking credit or Federal reserve notes. When he makes his demand for lawful money, he's making a counter offer that the issuing authority must accept according to the statutes.

I've received agencies from various governments, but I have the ability to counter offer according to the statutes that the issuing authorities must accept.

Freed Gerdes
01-13-14, 09:09 PM
Interesting session you guys have going on. I agree with AJ that when someone serves process on you, they are offering to fight. Keith, you are correct that you can fight back, concede, or abandon your position. AJ is just making a counter-offer to select the weapons (which under code duello, was always in honor - you challenge, I get to select the weapons). The state of NC says common law is valid in the state; I suspect most states have a statute admitting that. So AJ is just invoking his best weapon of common law, under which the SC has already ruled in Rodriguez v Ray Donovan (1985) that: "all codes, rules, and regulations are for federal officers and employees only, and not for natural humans/Creators; they lack Constitutional protections and due process, and raise serious questions about separation of powers." So AJ's position is that he obeys common law, and thus Lex Mercatoria does not apply to him, whether he has filed any documents to that effect or not. This position already incorporates the argument under UCC 1-308 that 'I have not knowingly and voluntarily surrendered any of my Constitutional rights.' And I agree that one should always attempt to settle disagreements man to man in private, rather than take the squabble into the public forum, so let me fix your prior comment: "and court is the last place where civilized battles are fought."

As to the nature of the fight being offered by service of process, it is commercial because it is based on Lex Mercatoria, because the state claims that it has some beneficial interest in your body and your estate, and thus has a right to supervise your actions so as to protect their beneficial interest. This translates to Big Daddy Government, benevolent parent to all its citizen children, demanding: "as long as you live in the government's basement, you will obey all house rules." So government has usurped your Constitutional rights by this claim of beneficial interest (because you have volunteered to pledge your labor and assets as collateral for the national debt, through use of their debt money). Now AJ is just invoking his unalienable rights to contract, and starts by claiming that there is no contract, thus no basis for a challenge, and thus no reason for us to fight. It is an intelligent and honorable way to respond to a challenge: "Peace, brother. No one has been injured yet, so let's keep it that way. Now leave me alone."


Keith, as to your suggestion that you return your drivers license, title, and registration, and resign from your agency for the NAME, you have included too much in one sentence. The state of NC has a statute which demands that you have and carry a license to drive:

§ 20-7. (See notes) Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
(a) License Required. - To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle.

Now this is not a Constitutional requirement, so what is the basis of the law? Remember that the authority of government derives from the consent of the governed. The basis of the law is in the commercial contract by which you accept the paternal benevolence of Big Daddy Government, the Great Society, ie your acceptance to be a 14th Amendment citizen (see SC statement above about statutes). Now you are the lawful owner of YOUR NAME, and the accommodation agent for it. You give life and energy to YOUR NAME, as nothing is done in YOUR NAME without you actually doing it, as the legal PERSON is a fictional entity. If you deny that you are agent for the fictional entity, it is trapped in limbo and cannot contract (it has only your hand to sign a contract), thus denying you the benefits of having a legal entity to use for public purposes. So it is not in your interest to deny that you are the agent for your legal entity. Now by returning your drivers license, you are serving process on the state, claiming that you are not subject to their statutes. Vehicle registration is conceding that the state owns your vehicle, and that due to the pledge you made (or Sec of Treasury presumed for you and you did not rebut), the state gets to hold legal title, and you get only equitable title (right to use), and you will be paying property taxes on the vehicle yearly like a good little debt slave. David suggested that the best route here is to clarify your private ownership status by refusing to pay the property tax when the registration comes up for renewal. Vehicle registration is actually done by a private corporation, it provides a public service by maintaining a uniform title transfer system and recording database, so it is reasonable that you would pay something for that service. So the correct approach is to register the vehicle as privately owned, not on the state's tax rolls. I will approach the DMV and discuss with them man to man how to get the state to drop their claim of beneficial interest in my privately owned vehicle.

Freed

Michael Joseph
01-13-14, 09:39 PM
Years ago I wrote the JAG and demanded that they perform their duty under military rule to squash the attempt of a private association [BAR] attempting to wage war upon an ignorant people by and thru the United States Post Office. A lawsuit is a Declaration of War. There is no other way to look at it. But it is war waged in a virtual space - not with bullets but with Estates.

And as long as the Grantor is alive anything he does is considered to be a part of his or her estate. Again years ago a huge law firm 2500 + lawyers tried to get service upon my person - but that of course would require me to identify me. I have written exhaustively concerning identity but few seem to get it. I am the only one who can identify me and in fact - I really can't identify me because I am not sure each morning if I am actually me. If you just stop for a moment and think - throw out all the crap you THINK you know and just meditate on that issue and you hopefully will begin to see.

There is no way for me to identify you - absolutely zero way. However, I can identify your fruits - which will tell me where your trust lies - which tells me which Kingdom you serve. 'And ye shall know them by their fruits'.....'Faith absent deeds is dead'....

Getting service upon one who is wise is impossible. I just love to watch the faces turn beat red when some angry marshall yells but I know who you are - my simple response - "prove it". Roflmao.

Consider these words carefully: Meditate on them and you will hopefully begin to see:

Luk 11:53 And as He was saying these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urgently press upon Him, and to provoke Him to speak of many things:

Luk 11:54 Watching Him, and seeking to catch something out of His mouth, that they might accuse him.

====

Psa_49:10 For it must be seen that wise men die, Likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, They leave their wealth to others.

Pro_18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, And his mouth calleth for strokes.

Pro_18:7 A fool's mouth is his destruction, And his lips are the snare of his soul.

Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-13-14, 09:45 PM
"... 'saving to suitors', in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it..." - 1789

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Bill of Rights, Article 9

Not only do i believe i have these rights, you will find your law agrees with me [for your benefit see xxxxxxxxxxxxx, etc].

Michael Joseph
01-13-14, 11:39 PM
speaking of the State of NC - You should check out THIS LINK (ftp://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_39/Article_8.PDF)

I have spent many an hour in the State archives - and when I really started getting close, the custodian told me that information was secret and could not be disclosed to the public. This, my friend tells me that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence [of Trust] is written in a manner that cannot be understood without the keys to unlock all of the capitalized nouns.

In my opinion, if you think you can decode those documents without those keys, then you are just fooling yourself.

Property Rights are for those who have taken dominion. If you have failed to do so - then simply put - you have not established any rights. And what you consider to be agreement is nothing but civil rights and privileges extended to a citizenry.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S. There is a HUGE difference between "freedman" and "freeman". And "man" BECAME a "living soul".

Anthony Joseph
01-14-14, 12:16 AM
What do you define as "taking dominion" as it relates to claiming property and/or rights?

Keith Alan
01-14-14, 12:53 AM
@Freed

I think I may have led you to think I was disassembling or deconstructing THE NAME, which was not my intention. Please notice that the California Corporations Code offers two options: resign as agent of the unincorporated association, or revoke the designation of an agent previously designated. These options, along with returning the driver's license and registration should definitely make the line between THE NAME and myself very clear.

I'm still reading and contemplating these options. It may be that I decide to forego either option and pursue another course of action.

At any rate, I would only be refusing to consent to service of process.

Now it just so happens the same Corporations code also provides the opportunity to designate another agent. My thinking is the Governor would be the proper person to designate to receive services of process. Who else?

Now about property ownership; it seems to me that this state, and the State, do indeed have security interests in the property I presently hold, since I obtained nearly all of it by using banking credit and/or Federal reserve notes. There are in existence running accounts of all income and expenses made by THE NAME, so the accounts are still open, awaiting settlement and closure.

Finally, you mentioned a vehicle code that requires drivers to have driver's licenses. California also has a code section stating that drivers must have a driver's license. But I also note that the code only applies to residents, which THE NAME surely is. But I am an inhabitant. So if I, the inhabitant, withdraw consent to receive service of process, and further designate the Governor as my agent, then all the bases are covered. I think.

Keith Alan
01-14-14, 01:01 AM
speaking of the State of NC - You should check out THIS LINK (ftp://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_39/Article_8.PDF)

I have spent many an hour in the State archives - and when I really started getting close, the custodian told me that information was secret and could not be disclosed to the public. This, my friend tells me that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence [of Trust] is written in a manner that cannot be understood without the keys to unlock all of the capitalized nouns.

In my opinion, if you think you can decode those documents without those keys, then you are just fooling yourself.

Property Rights are for those who have taken dominion. If you have failed to do so - then simply put - you have not established any rights. And what you consider to be agreement is nothing but civil rights and privileges extended to a citizenry.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S. There is a HUGE difference between "freedman" and "freeman". And "man" BECAME a "living soul".
I think that is a very astute observation and conclusion. I'm beginning to see that 'we the people' is an unincorporated association, to which residents can never fully belong. The 1789 Constitution proclaims it is for the benefit of the signatories and their posterity, almost completely ignoring everyone else except for government officials.

Anthony Joseph
01-14-14, 01:13 AM
the people are mankind

i; a man, am one of the people

i; a man, have rights that only i can claim; and, that i believe are inherent

no man has a right to interfere with another man's claimed rights

the laws that bind the United States government in no way disparages or denies this

Keith Alan
01-14-14, 01:19 AM
the people are mankind

i; a man, am one of the people

i; a man, have rights that only i can claim; and, that i believe are inherent

no man has a right to interfere with another man's claimed rights

the laws that bind the United States government in no way disparages or denies this
Yes, but most people declare themselves to be residents of the State, which is somewhat less permanent than inhabitants, and not necessarily citizens (although the 14th is invoked for them, ie they enjoy civil rights).

Anthony Joseph
01-14-14, 01:24 AM
don't be "most people"

Keith Alan
01-14-14, 01:31 AM
@Anthony Joseph

Haha indeed!

Freed Gerdes
01-14-14, 07:43 PM
MJ, I checked out the link you provided, but I didn't get much out of it. It just recognizes that business trusts can hold property, which just means that a business trust has the same status in the fictional world of legal entities as any other legal fictional entity. If you have found further hidden meaning there, please elaborate. And if you were approaching some veil imposed by a librarian within the state archives, suggesting some vein of secret information, please provide its approximate location, so that others might go there and try to mine it.

As to the huge difference between freedman and freeman, are you going all ad hominem here? I see only the difference in the path taken. If you are making a play on my screen name, please note that I use many variations on my name when asked for screen names at web sites which require one. I have used Freid, Frad, Fraud, Freud, Ferd, etc. (this practice allows me to determine which sites sell their subscribers lists to advertisers). I just happened to select Freed for this web site as a little internal sarcasm. I define free as being able to select at will which laws I will agree to be subject to. My purpose in visiting this site is to explore the means and methods by which I can convey to others in a non-violent way the status I have selected for myself. Due to the invasive and pervasive reach of the statutory government, most of this pursuit involves steps taken to shed the load of implied contracts imposed by our regulated and brainwashed society. For example, on my last visit to a nearby craft beer bar, I offered to pay in silver, which was violently rejected since 'silver isn't money.' But the bartender and several patrons informed me violently that FRN's are money... a society can only advance when a significant percentage (generally thought to be about 10%) understand how the social contract should be constructed for the benefit of all members. This requires that some/many members of society have accepted their duty to become informed about their responsibilities as citizens. US society is failing in this regard, as a majority of its members have chosen the false security of slavery. I try to offer guidance to those who seem to be seeking it, but otherwise keep my own counsel.

Freed

ag maniac
01-14-14, 08:30 PM
Well Freed, your guidance is well received !!

Keith Alan
01-14-14, 09:35 PM
FWIW, my definition of free is: having the power to do what is right.

froze25
01-15-14, 07:17 PM
FWIW, my definition of free is: having the power to do what is right.

Mine is having the ability to say "NO" without some type of recourse or force used against you.

David Merrill
01-15-14, 10:05 PM
I like the right of ownership, but especially including being free of the conditioning that there are certain things you are required to have:

I have no DoB.
I have no SSN.
I have no Last Name.
I have no Birth Certificate.

Freed Gerdes
01-15-14, 10:26 PM
The key is ownership, starting with yourself. All government actions start with a claim of ownership of you, the citizen. See this web link:

http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/government-slavery/

Our mission is to locate the specific claims the government has made and rebut as many as possible. No man can own another man, and no fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person. So we continue to learn how these various frauds were perpetrated, so they can be unwound, exposed, rebutted. The US has a Constitution, which limits how the government can make claims and demands on its citizens (who created the government). Once all the claims that are based on debt servitude are rebutted, the citizen can approach those freedoms identified in the Constitution.

Freed

froze25
01-16-14, 07:33 PM
So AJ is just invoking his best weapon of common law, under which the SC has already ruled in Rodriguez v Ray Donovan (1985) that: "all codes, rules, and regulations are for federal officers and employees only, and not for natural humans/Creators; they lack Constitutional protections and due process, and raise serious questions about separation of powers."

This is great, if its real. Does anyone have a link to the source so we can verify it and get a certified copy of it and file it into our evidence repository?

Anthony Joseph
01-16-14, 10:16 PM
This is great, if its real. Does anyone have a link to the source so we can verify it and get a certified copy of it and file it into our evidence repository?

I would not rely on any opinion of the Supreme Court (or any court) or on case law. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned at any moment; if your claim relies upon it, then it falls apart. All case law is for attorneys who cannot move claims as men so they require case law as precedent and then pray to the court that it allows them to use it as support for the complaint they bring before it.

A man prays to no court; a man does not require opinions of others to move a claim; a man does not rely on other cases/instances to verify what he claims to be true.

If you wish to use any opinion, case law, code, statute or other supporting information, use it as an exhibit only, NOT as a part of your claim, as a comparison for others benefit [cf. 'saving to suitors' clause 1789] in four corner brackets on your document. If it doesn't help you, who cares - it's just an exhibit.

You cannot verify any SC ruling because you did not rule on it; only the one who ruled can verify it. A certified copy means nothing unless the creator or writer of the document/law/code/statute/etc. comes forth and verifies it on and for the record.

Keith Alan
01-17-14, 04:06 AM
http://openjurist.org/769/f2d/1344/rodrigues-v-j-donovan#fn3 x

I haven't read it, but this might be it.

Freed Gerdes
01-17-14, 07:33 AM
I collect a lot of what I perceive might be useful quotes in my reading, but you have challenged this one and I will have to do some more research to confirm its validity.
Here's one cite for you at this link: Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). This is actually a Word doc of an affidavit filed in Middle Pennsylvania District Court by one Denny Ray Hardin. I don't know Denny, but he presents a pretty strong case, with a number of supporting cites, among which is this exact quote from Rodriguez v Donovan. Denny (and I) may be somewhat misinformed, however, as Leagle.com (at this link: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19852113769F2d1344_11903) cites the case as having been heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the quote. The link Keith provided contains text identical to the text in the Leagle.com site (no doubt the sanitized version). Thus until I find the complete record and confirm that the court actually stated the subject quote, I will have to withdraw it. Although it is possible, as the case is about when courts have jurisdiction over agency rules, and Rodriguez' claim was that he was denied due process.

Blacks Law Dictionary states that codes are compilations of statutes, rules are guidelines for federal agents to interpret codes, and regulations are additional guidelines promulgated by agencies to guide how the statute will be implemented, and do not have the force of law. The Magna Carta made one major demand on the king: that he could not promulgate any statutes that were counter to common law. That principle still stands, although the federal government is trying to reverse the priority through their concept of 'public policy.' Public policy is shorthand for using democracy as an excuse for tyranny. AJ is right that SC rulings can be reversed, although that process moves slowly, and past SC rulings are an excellent guide to legal principles. Since 1933 the courts have been turning to the political left, trying to weaken common law. Many statutes are now based on Lex Mercatoria, bankers law, based on contracts. Since most of federal law violates the Constitution, it is clearly intended to apply only to US citizens, those bonded to the federal government by security agreements predicated on the liens arising from the use of Federal Reserve debt instruments (FRN's). These are not valid debt instruments, since they do not carry a promise to pay, but they circulate like non-endorsed (bearer instruments) bills of exchange. Since the creation of a lien (secondary liability claim) is concurrent with endorsing (the endorser guarantees payment in case the maker dishonors the bill), the actual bonding to the debt occurs when endorsing other bills of exchange, such as checks. Using currency conveys no liability, since the bill does not have to be endorsed to be negotiated. See Chitty at this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=L-oDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
[The book is 700 pages, but you can get the gist by reading the first five pages of each chapter...]

Article I courts in the US now operate under color of admiralty (the Constitution only allows criminal proceedings under admiralty or common law, and they sure aren't common law because there are no Constitutional protections). The courts are administrative, and are based on Roman law, Lex Mercatoria, now codified as the Unified Commercial Code. This is contract law, and it presumes that 'you' are under contract with the Federal government, through your use of FRN's, and thus they have jurisdiction, and you are a 14th Amendment citizen, with no Constitutional rights. So the actual quote from Rodriguez v Donovan is trying to recognize that all these federal rules, codes, and regulations only apply to citizens who have volunteered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate government. They do not apply to American citizens.

Freed

JohnnyCash
01-18-14, 04:22 PM
MJ, I checked out the link you provided, but I didn't get much out of it.
Thanks for that revelation. I'll start paying closer attention to everything Michael Joseph has posted now. That business trust strikes me as something very useful to hold property, and to start a bank account with.

Anthony Joseph
01-18-14, 04:42 PM
when a man learns to be, and act as, a man at all times, he will not require a new 'business trust' creation to claim and hold property

i; a man, am on this journey and getting close

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 06:04 PM
(Thinking out loud)

I'm having a new understanding about how consenting to service of process works, and also how the courts look at litigants. Since THE NAME is a creature of the State, it remains for the man to act as its agent, because the fiction can do nothing on its own. Same thing with pro se and pro per litigants representing themselves; they are representing THE NAME as attorneys.

So withdrawing consent to service of process is tantamount to abandoning THE NAME in the sea of Commerce, unless he assumes - or designates to another - the role of executor.

It's tempting to do just that - abandon THE NAME without appointing or designating a new trustee, but then the real life practicality of surviving in a commercial world becomes more daunting.

Anthony Joseph
01-18-14, 06:27 PM
i believe the 'Name' is a gift; and, my person; and, my property
who will come forward with a verifiable claim on the 'Name'; or, to disparage and/or deny my beliefs and/or my claimed property?

if someone serves your person process, that someone is required to bring forth an injured party to verify (in living voice) what is being claimed
if that does not happen, and someone continues to pursue the case, that is trespass [barratry] against your property which causes a man harm
bring your own case and claim in your court and sue for trespass/damages; use what was used against you falsely as the evidence of trespass and the starting point of calculating compensatory damages

you falsely claimed i owe you XXX, i now require the same XXX from you for injury to my person and property which did and does cause me harm

doug555
01-18-14, 06:59 PM
i believe the 'Name' is a gift; and, my person; and, my property
who will come forward with a verifiable claim on the 'Name'; or, to disparage and/or deny my beliefs and/or my claimed property?

if someone serves your person process, that someone is required to bring forth an injured party to verify (in living voice) what is being claimed
if that does not happen, and someone continues to pursue the case, that is trespass against your property which causes a man harm
bring your own case and claim in your court and sue for trespass/damages; use what was used against you falsely as the evidence of trespass and [B]the starting point of calculating compensatory damages you falsely claimed i owe you XXX, i now require the same XXX from you for injury to my person and property which did and does cause me harm

Click the starting point of calculating compensatory damages (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_WTNfVF9XMGlwbTg&usp=sharing) - see "Certified County Record" folder, in particular, ORDER FEE SCHEDULE- Schedule A (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_WHpVMWN1NXYzbzg/edit?usp=sharing), as an example of what I have done to calculate "compensatory damages" as instead fees for performing anyone's "orders", to provide NOTICE of a public act and record that must be given "full faith a credit" by those sworn to uphold their Constitution per Article IV. See more here (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/claim/).

Then click cards (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_QWlhNHBVX1VUS2M&usp=sharing&tid=0B8BdR0w2oZY_WTNfVF9XMGlwbTg) - print these cards to carry with you in your wallet for giving NOTICE when given "orders" that if they proceed in the instant matter, they, by their actions/ORDERS, knowing and intentionally stipulate to the terms of said ORDER FEE SCHEDULE. (Just like eating in a restaurant... an implied contract occurs when you "order" a dinner, that requires you to pay for it.) Notice that Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of their Constitution, says no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contract.

I believe that as more jurists arise (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/grand-jury/), that they will need such a "deterrent" as this.

Please consider becoming a jurist in your county. Watch the video at http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 07:04 PM
i believe the 'Name' is a gift; and, my person; and, my property
who will come forward with a verifiable claim on the 'Name'; or, to disparage and/or deny my beliefs and/or my claimed property?

if someone serves your person process, that someone is required to bring forth an injured party to verify (in living voice) what is being claimed
if that does not happen, and someone continues to pursue the case, that is trespass [barratry] against your property which causes a man harm
bring your own case and claim in your court and sue for trespass/damages; use what was used against you falsely as the evidence of trespass and the starting point of calculating compensatory damages

you falsely claimed i owe you XXX, i now require the same XXX from you for injury to my person and property which did and does cause me harm

Good points. Now what about the situation with the driver's license? Holding one is presumed to be consent to service of process. Yet going without one is sure to end up having the car impounded, whether lawfully or not.

I'm looking for a way to avoid all that. I'm trying to formulate a strategy that allows me to operate as a man, yet avoids getting entangled in their silly game.

I'm thinking that a man who refuses service is automatically grandfathered into a jurisdiction foreign to the US corporate. If that's the case, it should be possible to acquire diplomatic plates, or .

I'm still thinking out loud.

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 07:31 PM
*doug555

Say, about the implied contact; isn't there an implied contact when driving? Are implied contacts derived from public policy?

Anthony Joseph
01-18-14, 07:44 PM
presumption is not fact; someone is required to verify what he/she presumes to be true if he/she wishes

the DL is a license to either use or not use according to one's own choice; simply because you hold a DL, doesn't mean you are operating under it at that time

if someone presumes you are, require that someone verify that claim on the record with full liability

doug555
01-18-14, 07:45 PM
*doug555

Say, about the implied contact; isn't there an implied contact when driving? Are implied contacts derived from public policy?

BUT, "Is there probable cause to believe that I was driving, instead of just traveling by right?"

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 07:53 PM
Yes, I know what presumption is, and what the proper method of defeating it is. What if a way we're found to establish the presumption that I wasn't driving, but rather traveling or moving?

I don't want to battle with these people. I want to change their presumptions before they even get to me.

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 08:01 PM
BUT, "Is there probable cause to believe that I was driving, instead of just traveling by right?"

Yes, I think there might be, if only because the presumption has existed for so many years.

I look in California's vehicle code, and find their definition of driving means being physically in control of a vehicle. But I also find the code applies only to residents, either of "this" jurisdiction, or another.

If a person is an agent of the US or other instrumentality foreign to the State of California, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he is operating as a foreign agent, doing business in the State of California? Doesn't that validate the presumption?

Edit -- Really, it seems to me the entire question goes to residency. By definition, a resident has the intention of one day departing, returning to his domicile. United States citizens (14th Amendment citizens) manifest by their appearance in a foreign state their intention to return to their domicile. That status resides in THE NAME. As THE NAME'S agent, we consent to service of process either by presumption or by the act of registering to vote, applying for a driver's license, etc.

doug555
01-18-14, 08:12 PM
Yes, I know what presumption is, and what the proper method of defeating it is. What if a way we're found to establish the presumption that I want driving?

I don't want to battle with these people. I want to change their presumptions before they even get to me.

Don't battle... You will do any of their "orders" per your ORDER FEE SCHEDULE (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_U2RVSHdnRjByVWs&usp=sharing&tid=0B8BdR0w2oZY_WTNfVF9XMGlwbTg) as fair fees for your performance under your unimpaired right to contract.

Like in the "Pirates of the Caribbean", "It's all business".

Listen to Karls Lentz's Talkshoe call of 1/11/14 (http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-127469/TS-820356.mp3)... at about 1 hr 40 min mark it gets very interesting...
at 2 hr 14 min mark he talks about "driving"...
at 2 hr 25 min mark, Karl talks about loving to get "orders"... "but who is going to compensate me for carrying out your orders?"...

Karl says "I love taking orders... That's how I make money!"

at 2 hr 28 min mark, Karl says for big orders, "Put up a bond before I carry out this order, and put the money in escrow..."
at 2 hr 30 min mark, Karl says "It's all business!"

Hope this clarifies the power of contract that one has...

doug555
01-18-14, 08:16 PM
Yes, I think there might be, if only because the presumption has existed for so many years.

I look in California's vehicle code, and find their definition of driving means being physically in control of a vehicle. But I also find the code applies only to residents, either of "this" jurisdiction, or another.

If a person is an agent of the US or other instrumentality foreign to the State of California, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he is operating as a foreign agent, doing business in the State of California? Doesn't that validate the presumption?

One must rebut every presumption... look up the word "vehicle". Are you going to agree to that definition?

Anthony Joseph
01-18-14, 08:30 PM
if you try to decipher any code, you already lost

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 08:32 PM
One must rebut every presumption... look up the word "vehicle". Are you going to agree to that definition?

By accepting a driver's license, yes I would be agreeing. But if I don't have a license, I still think they would make the presumption in other ways. "Are you a US citizen? Are you a resident of the State of California?"

Never the less, I do see value in the process you are advocating. I am simply exploring another way, that's all. What if I have withdrawn consent? At that point they can't even talk to me. Yet there is still the problem of keeping my property in my custody (which I realize brings in yet another subject, my belief that I have a God granted usufruct in worldly possessions).

I've been thinking, and my goal would be to end up with some kind of plate or emblem being affixed to my car that the State would recognize.

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 08:51 PM
presumption is not fact; someone is required to verify what he/she presumes to be true if he/she wishes

the DL is a license to either use or not use according to one's own choice; simply because you hold a DL, doesn't mean you are operating under it at that time

if someone presumes you are, require that someone verify that claim on the record with full liability

I missed your point earlier. I already think of the DL in that way. In case I'm pulled over, I already know what I plan to do - refuse for cause on the presentment and return the instrument to its proper place. In the event that doesn't fly, I have another plan in place.

doug555
01-18-14, 09:00 PM
By accepting a driver's license, yes I would be agreeing. But if I don't have a license, I still think they would make the presumption in other ways. "Are you a US citizen? Are you a resident of the State of California?"

Never the less, I do see value in the process you are advocating. I am simply exploring another way, that's all. What if I have withdrawn consent? At that point they can't even talk to me. Yet there is still the problem of keeping my property in my custody (which I realize brings in yet another subject, my belief that I have a God granted usufruct in worldly possessions).

I've been thinking, and my goal would be to end up with some kind of plate or emblem being affixed to my car that the State would recognize.

I am keeping the D/L in the event at some point in time, I may want to "drive", that is, hire myself out to "transport" "passengers" or "car-go" in their "vehicle".

It also is a convenient instrument that they accept as identification of the "Estate" that i, a man, am heir to, just as the "Birth Certificate" is.

IMO, their Jurisdiction attaches by a "cognizable event", I believe, and not until then, or else by your consent by agreeing with their adhesion trap-words.

But I see your dilemma, and cannot presume to tell anyone what to do in a particular situation, really. Just do the best you can with the knowledge you have so far. And there is so much to learn.. This BT is a good resource to share/leverage that knowledge though, and I wish more would participate.

Keith Alan
01-18-14, 09:27 PM
I'm beginning to think the BC contains the State's legal fiction, and by deceit and conditioning everyone is thinking it's their estate.

But really it's being used to put everyone in this 14th Amendment citizen status, and we go and use the thing as trustee or beneficiary, when in reality it's not ours at all. We've been acting as its agent, and nothing more.

What if everyone withdrew consent to service? The fictions would all fall away, and we'd be left dealing man to man with each other, our common law would resurrect, and the money would be real.

doug555
01-19-14, 12:22 AM
See this folder (https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B8BdR0w2oZY_SU1UajlLMXRxVk0) and especially read this document (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_eS1DejFuelFIVWc/edit?usp=sharing) to see another dimension the to the BC issue...

Keith Alan
01-19-14, 04:12 AM
See this folder (https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B8BdR0w2oZY_SU1UajlLMXRxVk0) and especially read this document (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_eS1DejFuelFIVWc/edit?usp=sharing) to see another dimension the to the BC issue...

Thanks for the very interesting information. Here is Black's 2d definition:

What is*USUFRUCTUARY?

In the civil law. One who has the usufruct or right of enjoying anything in which he has no property, Cartwright v. Cartwright, 18 Tex. 628Law

I think it might be prudent to ask which party to the BC trust is the usufructuary interest. So let's dissect the trust.

What is the res? THE NAME as an organization under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, and all the rights, duties, and obligations running with that organization.

Earlier in the thread I made mention that I thought I was the beneficiary of the trust, since I thought it was my mother's intention as settlor. But wait, that's not what the certificate application says. Rather the mother or other person is the informant. So mom was a hostile witness.

What if I am the settlor who is creating an intervivos trust for the benefit of THE NAME, which has at least three parties? Wouldn't the usufructuary interest then lie with THE NAME, and not with me? And wouldn't there be two other settlors/secured parties?

Now I realize I was an infant, but mom appeared as an hostile informant, and made an affidavit stating to the facts. But all men are created equal, and contracts with infants are voidABLE, not void.

Note the second part of the following definition:

What is*CHILD?

This word has two meanings in law: (1) In the law of the domestic relations, and as to descent and*distribution, it is used strictly as the*correlative*of “parent,” and means a son or daughter considered as in relation with the father or mother. (2) In the law ofnegligence, and in laws for the*protection*of children, etc., it is used as the CHILD 197CHIROGRAPH*opposite of “adult,” and means the young of the human species, (generally under the age of puberty,) without any reference to parentage and without distinction of sex. Miller v. Finegan, 26 Fla. 29, 7 South. 140, 6 L. R. A. 813.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/child/#ixzz2qoTYyCCp

What is*CHIROGRAPH?

In old English law. A deed or indenture; also the last part of a fine of land. Aninstrument*of gift or*conveyance*attested by the*subscription*and crosses of the witnesses, which was in Saxon times called CHIROGRAPH 198*CHOSE IN ACTION“chirographum,” and which, being somewhat changed in form and manner by the Normans, was by them styled “vharta.” Anciently when they made a chirograph or deed which required a*counterpart, as we call it, they engrossed it twice upon one piece of parchment contrariwise, leaving a space between, in which they wrote in capital letters the word “chirograph,” and then cut the parchment in two through the middle of the word, giving a part to each partyLaw Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/chirograph/#ixzz2qoVHfSZU
Finally, here is a link to a sample birth certificate http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1482943/Sample-Birth-Certificate

Edit -- THE NAME appears to be a Chose in action.

What is*CHOSE IN ACTION?

A right to personal things of which the owner has not the*possession, but merely aright of action*for their possession. 2 Bl. Comm. 3S9, 397; 1 Chit. Pr. 99. A right to receive or recover a debt, demand, or damages on a cause of*action ex contractu, or for a tort counected with contract, but which cannot be made available*without recourseto au action. Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 390, 19 L. Ed. 730; Turuer v. State, 1 Ohio St. 420; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 12 L. Ed. 1147 ; People v. Tioga*Common Pleas, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 73; Sterling v. Sims, 72 Ga. 53; Bank v. Holland, 99 Va. 495, 39 S. E. 126, 55 L. It A. 155, 80 Am. St. Rep. 898.*Personalty*to which the owner has a*right of possession*in future, or a right of immediate possession, wrongfully withheld, is termed by the law a “chose in action.” Code Ga. 1882,Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/chose-in-action/#ixzz2qocKVccn

JohnnyCash
01-19-14, 11:06 PM
when a man learns to be, and act as, a man at all times, he will not require a new 'business trust' creation to claim and hold property.
Yes, but what if you want a bank account? If you give the bank the SS# you'll get a FDR trust account. But here's a chance to get a trust account of your own choosing.

Anthony Joseph
01-20-14, 02:05 AM
a 'FDR' trust account? Is that what you believe? Did you decipher that on your own? Will you verify that claim with full liability? Will anyone else verify that with full liability? Who will make a claim against something that you claim is your property? Will you accept said claim and grant the claimant an opportunity to verify said claim in open court, on and for the record, under oath or affirmation?

Who is making the claim?
Will said claimant come forward now and verify said claim?

If not, there is no claim but yours in living voice and that stands as true until someone comes forward with the "balls", and the voice, to disparage, deny or make their own claim. Until then, you are the only man standing.

JohnnyCash
01-20-14, 04:18 AM
FDR seems pretty straightforward about it here, in his address before the Governor's Conference:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/4925381.1933.001/49?rgn=full+text

And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we [the banksters] shall have made progress.

BTW, isn't persuasion the job of salesmen, agents, and propagandists?

Anthony Joseph
01-20-14, 02:57 PM
you may agree with an opinion written by someone who is dead; however, unless 'FDR' rises from the dead and verifies your interpretation of his words and intent as true, everything people say is purely conjecture

has anyone ever told you, "the value and energy you create and deposit in a bank is not your property; it is United States property held in trust and we can rightly administer it or take it at any time."?

do you believe a trial by jury in common law would result in agreement with that idea; people believing their sweat equity belongs to someone else and they have inferior rights to it?

if you believe something 'FDR' said or did effects your property then it does

if you say it is contract, and contract is the law; fine, bring the law before the court and on the record - is my name expressly written into that 'contract' (FED ACT)?

who will now verify that my property is subject to the 'FED ACT'? paper is nothing without verification in living voice

the 2nd dimension only has power if you give it power

Michael Joseph
01-20-14, 04:58 PM
presumption is rebutted in a VERY SIMPLE expression : "I have no trust in you"

If that is a fact - and ONLY a living soul can establish his identity - [tangent: or just provide evidence of identity] - then IF a living soul lacks trust THEN LET HIM ACT LIKE IT.

Adam and Eve - made Lucifer [Satan] their King in Trust. They ACTED in his law, under his authority - and they thought to establish themselves as gods. Theosophy 101.

Yehoshuah, however, sought to do the Will of His Father. Not my will but Thy Will be done. Yehoshuah ACKNOWLEDGES in his Deeds the Supremacy of Yehovah the Most High El.

Who here cannot see the analogy? If I ordain a new church and I change the day of worship - knowingly change it - and you bow under the church authority and start keeping the new day - then you - BY YOUR DEEDS - assert that you are subject to that church. Adam and Eve BY THEIR DEEDS - asserted the Dominion of Satan upon themselves AND their Posterity. Have you heard that one before? "Ourselves and our Posterity".

You want to argue words - that is a fools game. For the Trustee is always presumed guilty and he must prove his innocence. Who is your Husbandman? Is it Christ or Satan?

Is it Elohim or Mammon? Which is the same as the aforementioned choice. It's ALL ABOUT TRUST friends. Word games are for fools who are already trapped in the box. Play those games and you will be held in contempt.

Express and Implied Trust - Learn it. And you can escape Constructive and Resulting Trust.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth [trusteth] in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart [mind] departeth from Yehovah.

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth [trusteth] in Yehovah, and whose confidence [trust] Yehovah is.

Now consider v. 7 in light of John 3:16


Joh 3:16 For Yehovah El Elyon so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son [Yehovah the Savior], that whosoever places his live in trust in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-20-14, 05:14 PM
"i have no trust in you" = i do not believe we have a contract/agreement

therefore:

no breach exists
no harm done
no injury committed

is there any else i can help you with today?

Michael Joseph
01-20-14, 10:07 PM
I claim IN THE NAME OF Yehoshuah full assurance in the Church of the Firstborn acknowledging my King and His Supremacy. I do not recognize those two women carrying the Ephah [false churches] and the three frogs of deception.

Zec 5:7 And, lo, there was lifted up a round disk, fitting the ephah like a lid: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.

She is a whore - she is a false church - bent on dominion of mankind - but in the end she will give mankind anything his heart desires - even to the point of "ye are God". This is of course Theosophy 101 and in this writers opinion is a great abomination.

I claim in WITNESS to the greatness of my Husbandman. I am as Sampson, with locks regrown - I am returning to the goodness of my Husbandman - The Way - and in doing so I provide testimony to the Philistine world system. For out of the Lion [America] came Honey [the Word]. For Dan is a Lion's whelp. America has indeed been led astray but in the end - there is redemption in the True Messiah.

Let the injured party come forth to be judged under Torah! I sit in court to one day judge the angels. A great deception is coming and No Order of Angels or Powers or Dominions [Watchers] can persuade me that I am not loved by my Creator my Redeemer and my Savior.

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Isa 55:5 Behold, thou [Israel] shalt a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of Yehovah thy Elohim, and for the Holy One of Israel; for He hath glorified thee.

v. 5 of course is talking about America. Founded in duplicity. I am sure I am making many friends - yet the truth is just that - the truth. For sampson was beguiled many times, even to telling his great secret. Which was HE KEPT THE TORAH OF HIS ELOHIM. Now, currently his eyes have been poked out and he has heavy burdens placed upon his back.

Hos_2:7 And she shall eagerly follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, [B]'I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than [it is] now.'

Hos_6:1 "Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up.

Shalom,
MJ

Anthony Joseph
01-20-14, 10:39 PM
a claim can only be made in living voice by man

one who makes said claim is fully liable for it

a false claim is one which is pursued with full knowledge that no harm or injury is done to a man - non-verifiable

a man can only harm another man

nothing in the 2nd dimension can be harmed

nothing in the second dimension can make a claim

common law is the supreme law of the land

common law requires that there must be a wrong of harm, injury or breach done by one man against another for a true and proper claim to exist

a man requires (demands by authority and by right) a proper claim brought in common law so he may settle and make restitution to the man aggrieved, if the claim be true

if no agreement can be made, the controversy will be heard and judged by a jury of 24 people who are God's representatives on earth

Keith Alan
01-20-14, 10:46 PM
The jury of 24... I keep finding it as 23 in America, the reason being that two complete juries can be found in one Grand jury of 24, with possibility of one jury reaching a different conclusion than the other.

Anthony Joseph
01-20-14, 11:03 PM
the number matters not; if one agrees to allow the matter to be judged in the public, the people (jury) decide who wins and the magistrate, being independent of the tribunal, bears witness and instructs the court clerk to seal and record the verdict.

that is how a common law court of record operates

Keith Alan
01-20-14, 11:11 PM
I thought it was interesting, seeing that the grand jury system is said to find its origin in the 25 free men of Magna Charta, and evolved into 23 in America.

Keith Alan
01-21-14, 08:31 PM
Getting back to the original topic, I find in the California Vehicle Code:

** 17450. As used in this chapter, “nonresident” means a person who is not a resident of this State at the time the accident or collision occurs.**

Okay, this is clear, except that for the moment, I'm assuming "this State" means the State of California.

** 17451. The acceptance by a nonresident of the rights and privileges conferred upon him by this code or any operation by himself or agent of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state, or in the event the nonresident is the owner of a motor vehicle then by the operation of the vehicle anywhere within this state by any person with his express or implied permission, is equivalent to an appointment by the nonresident of the director or his successor in office to be his true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful processes in any action or proceeding against the nonresident operator or nonresident owner growing out of any accident or collision resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle anywhere within this state by himself or agent, which appointment shall also be irrevocable and binding upon his executor or*administrator. **

This doesn't sound too bad to me, having an attorney on permanent retainer in matters growing out of accidents or collisions. What could some of the drawbacks be?

Edit -- Oh, and I noticed that in 17450 'State' is capitalized, but in 17451 'state' is not capitalized. Could this be significant?

Freed Gerdes
01-22-14, 04:58 AM
This vehicle code only applies to US citizens, residents within the federal districts that overlay the sovereign states. The states get their authority to issue such codes, and the authority to compel the US citizens to obey them, through the trust. By accepting the trust, you become a ward of the (federal) state, and they own you by holding title to your assets and by an implied security agreement for the debt. If you recover title to your estate and expatriate out of the US federal district, you become a state citizen, and none of these state codes apply to you. But if you have an accident, you would still have a duty to accept service from any injured party (the state cannot be an injured party - the state is imaginary). This is because there are two governments overlaying the same physical territory: the Constitutional Congress, and the sovereign state governments are constitutional republics. In their jurisdictions, you have constitutional rights, and common law applies; you don't need a driver's license. In the Federal Districts, which overlay the states, and are designated by two letter abbreviations and 5 digit zip codes, the democratic socialist government established by Congress in 1871 has jurisdiction. If your NAME has a domicile in Washington DC, such as it will if you signed up for Social Security and checked 'US citizen' on form SS-5, then you are 'subject to' the jurisdiction of the federal government, and all its legions of codes, rules, and regulations, even if you think you are a 'resident' of a state. The slightest violation of these endless rules will wind you up in an Article I court, which practices Lex Mercatoria, banker's law, based on contracts, and codified now in all state's laws as the Unified Commercial Code. Your trust NAME is in contract with the federal government, and you agreed to comply with all their municipal laws, however stupid they are, and also agreed to give up your Constitutional rights and be judged under the UCC in an unconstitutional court. The contract is vague and based on a lot of presumptions, but you must actively rebut those presumptions, starting early in the process, to have any chance of escape from the debt slavery trap that the federal regulations create. See this link: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Freed

froze25
01-22-14, 06:30 PM
however stupid they are, and also agreed to give up your Constitutional rights and be judged under the UCC in an unconstitutional court. The contract is vague and based on a lot of presumptions, but you must actively rebut those presumptions, starting early in the process, to have any chance of escape from the debt slavery trap that the federal regulations create. See this link: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Freed

I am on Chapter 5 now very interesting stuff that I have been exposed to before but this goes into much more detail and the sites are great. Very good stuff everyone could benefit from the information. Thank You Freed

Anthony Joseph
01-24-14, 01:41 AM
or... one can require that the claimant verify and prove whatever presumptions are put forth

don't try to prove a negative; let the claimant back up the presumptions with findings of fact and conclusions of law AFTER he/she bears full liability for said claim by speaking it in open court under oath or affirmation

EZrhythm
03-15-14, 10:39 PM
By accepting a driver's license, yes I would be agreeing. But if I don't have a license, I still think they would make the presumption in other ways. "Are you a US citizen? Are you a resident of the State of California?"

Never the less, I do see value in the process you are advocating. I am simply exploring another way, that's all. What if I have withdrawn consent? At that point they can't even talk to me. Yet there is still the problem of keeping my property in my custody (which I realize brings in yet another subject, my belief that I have a God granted usufruct in worldly possessions).

I've been thinking, and my goal would be to end up with some kind of plate or emblem being affixed to my car that the State would recognize.

Yes they will be looking for evidence/admission that one is a US CITIZEN / STATE OF... RESIDENT. I would dispose of or at the very least not be carrying any thing that could offer such evidence.

An emblem affixed to one's car that is desired to be recognized could be recorded in a public venue such as a county recorder or district court file. Although all such attempts will seem futile at the side of the road of one hasn't canceled/junked the STATE OF... Certificate of Title.

yarash
03-16-14, 01:08 AM
Although all such attempts will seem futile at the side of the road of one hasn't canceled/junked the STATE OF... Certificate of Title.

What is the process of canceling or junking the Cert. of Title without paying any registration fees as per DMV rules? Does one get a receipt for it being junked and how does one show afterwards that it is Yahweh's property with stewardship instructions?

EZrhythm
03-17-14, 04:18 AM
Canceling may be performed with written NOTICE and "junking" may be performed by the rules of one's local DMV. In California I have filled out a Statement of Facts with "I want to junk this motor vehicle", endorsed and turned in the CoT (certificate of title) and handed over the plates after which I have received back a receipt indicating that the status is Junked Vehicle.

If one desires to show who's property it is then they may write up their own title and perform proper record forming as David has mentioned. One option is to record their title in a public venue such as a district court, county recorder or nationalrepublicregistry.com and then carry certified copies.

EZrhythm
03-17-14, 04:20 AM
1590

After performing all of the above, if one is stopped and evidence that lends to being a STATE OF... "resident" is offered or discovered, it should be expected that the enforcement troop will pursue with his code at the side of the road.

yarash
03-17-14, 10:11 PM
Canceling may be performed with written NOTICE and "junking" may be performed by the rules of one's local DMV. In California I have filled out a Statement of Facts with "I want to junk this motor vehicle", endorsed and turned in the CoT (certificate of title) and handed over the plates after which I have received back a receipt indicating that the status is Junked Vehicle.

If one desires to show who's property it is then they may write up their own title and perform proper record forming as David has mentioned. One option is to record their title in a public venue such as a district court, county recorder or nationalrepublicregistry.com and then carry certified copies.

Thanks EZrhythm. I'm in cali also--did you write "i want to junk this motor vehicle" on the form itself? Which form and did they give you a receipt on the spot?

If i record title in public venue, is it notarized first?

yarash
03-17-14, 10:12 PM
Here is a sample title. 1589

After performing all of the above, if one is stopped and evidence that lends to being a STATE OF... "resident" is offered or discovered, it should be expected that the enforcement troop will pursue with his code at the side of the road.

Couldn't open the attachment

EZrhythm
03-17-14, 10:44 PM
Attachment is fixed. Document sample shows places for two witnesses. If witnesses don't already have their own seal then they may print their name along the inner border, thumb print in red or blue or draw/print out their own seal symbol.

"In California I have filled out a Statement of Facts with, "I want to junk this motor vehicle".

The DMV provides the form.

I received a receipt on the spot. If there are outstanding parking tickets attached to the account they may pester that those need to be paid first. One time I was in front of a friendly clerk who said that I could pay them later and then the "junking" process would be completed but she handed me a junked status receipt anyway. I walked out to the vehicle that now had a junked CoT and drove away.

For those who are not convinced of the status after these steps they may always ask an officer to run the VIN.

I would save the junked receipt in case the vehicle is sold to another party who wishes to put it back under a "STATE OF... " security interest. (Wants to re-register it.) They will need the receipt.

mikecz
03-18-14, 07:06 PM
Question...

Instead of junking the car, have you tried obtaining the Manufacturers Statement of origin? I've read a few threads on it and it goes something like this...

The MCO is "surrendered" to the state, who then registers it and issues a Certificate of title. I'm thinking the the certificate is just proof of ownership, much like a deed is. In order to prove you own the vehicle, there is a chain starting with the MCO that the vehicle passed through starting with the Manufacturer, to another party (if it's used) then to you. You don't need to register it with the state, but, you may need the title to prove you own it.

Between this issue (plates/dmv)
My home (land patent)
And income taxes (lawful money)
Even my citizenship (Birth Certificate / SSI)

I think we have all been deceived...

EZrhythm
03-18-14, 08:01 PM
The car isn't actually what is junked in this process only the CoT.

The DMV's don't even retain the MCO once they are allowed to classify the vehicle as a vessel and issue a CoT. If one can retain the MCO with a new purchase and prevent the DMV from creating a file, that is great but in either case, whether buying new or used, it is not vital to obtain the MCO. They are mainly issued for the purposes of a commercial warehouse/transportation receipt. We are free to create our own title. Also remember that a sales receipt is too considered a title.

Freed Gerdes
03-18-14, 08:28 PM
Congress claims the right to regulate motor vehicles through the Interstate Commerce Clause, and Congress has defined a 'motor vehicle' as any self-propelled carriage used to transport persons or cargo for hire in commerce. So the state-issued Certificate of Title to a Motor Vehicle is a fraud intended to create an adhesion contract; you agree to have your car treated as a motor vehicle, even though it isn't, just like a W-4 is an agreement to have your income treated as taxable, even though it isn't. You don't own any motor vehicles, just like you don't own any firearms (a weapon with a short smooth barrel which fires projectiles by chemical propellant). In recent conversation with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles in NC, I stated that I could not conclude that I had a duty to register my privately owned car. He cited the state law, which requires 'all motor vehicles' to be registered, insured, inspected, and plated. When I mentioned that my car was not a motor vehicle, he got abrupt and suggested that 'I try that, and we will let the judge decide.' The issue will still come back to whether you are surety for the NAME, and the driver's license in the NAME would suggest that you are a surety, otherwise why did you get the DL? There is no legal requirement for an American Citizen to have a DL, so this is a right converted to a privilege and taxed/fee'd. A license is required for engaging in a privilege; no license is required to engage in a right. Always lots to unravel...

Freed

Brian
03-19-14, 04:49 PM
Congress claims the right to regulate motor vehicles through the Interstate Commerce Clause, and Congress has defined a 'motor vehicle' as any self-propelled carriage used to transport persons or cargo for hire in commerce. So the state-issued Certificate of Title to a Motor Vehicle is a fraud intended to create an adhesion contract; you agree to have your car treated as a motor vehicle, even though it isn't, just like a W-4 is an agreement to have your income treated as taxable, even though it isn't. You don't own any motor vehicles, just like you don't own any firearms (a weapon with a short smooth barrel which fires projectiles by chemical propellant). In recent conversation with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles in NC, I stated that I could not conclude that I had a duty to register my privately owned car. He cited the state law, which requires 'all motor vehicles' to be registered, insured, inspected, and plated. When I mentioned that my car was not a motor vehicle, he got abrupt and suggested that 'I try that, and we will let the judge decide.' The issue will still come back to whether you are surety for the NAME, and the driver's license in the NAME would suggest that you are a surety, otherwise why did you get the DL? There is no legal requirement for an American Citizen to have a DL, so this is a right converted to a privilege and taxed/fee'd. A license is required for engaging in a privilege; no license is required to engage in a right. Always lots to unravel...

Freed

"otherwise why did you get the DL? " Well officer I have this DL in case I AM operating in commerce, as not having it would then be illegal. At this current point in time I am engaged in my right to travel from point A to B in a non-commercial inherent right to move freely across the land in whatever method I choose to convey myself on the public roadways held in trust for the people by the XYZ government I am currently in. Do you have any facts to disprove what I have just sworn too?

Freed Gerdes
03-19-14, 08:37 PM
Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license. Showing an operator's license to the LEO is proof that you have consented to the loss of your rights, since you went to the trouble of obtaining an operator's license, which proves that you are a surety for the public trust (ie, you have confirmed the presumption that you have no rights, only those privileges granted/licensed by the state).

Freed

Anthony Joseph
03-19-14, 10:07 PM
Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license. Showing an operator's license to the LEO is proof that you have consented to the loss of your rights, since you went to the trouble of obtaining an operator's license, which proves that you are a surety for the public trust (ie, you have confirmed the presumption that you have no rights, only those privileges granted/licensed by the state).

Freed

Really?

So, in your opinion, a man does not have the capacity to decide when to act through his person; or, if he is operating under a license at any moment in time?

Brian
03-20-14, 01:42 AM
Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license. Showing an operator's license to the LEO is proof that you have consented to the loss of your rights, since you went to the trouble of obtaining an operator's license, which proves that you are a surety for the public trust (ie, you have confirmed the presumption that you have no rights, only those privileges granted/licensed by the state).

Freed

What about say a private building contractor who uses his light truck(s) and trailer(s) to move equipment and supplies between worksites? Isn't he operating in commerce, using the public roadways to conduct/facilitate his business? It is my thought that, that is something that the state can license/regulate and is the point on non-CDL DL. CDL's are for heavier vehicles whose primary thing is being on the roads driving/carrying loads of materials.

Moxie
03-20-14, 10:45 PM
...how does one show afterwards that it is Yahweh's property with stewardship instructions?

The car (and other items) could be put into a self-supporting ministry or a trust.

Moxie
03-20-14, 10:47 PM
If i record title in public venue, is it notarized first?

I had mine notarized since no freedom friends live anywhere close by.

Moxie
03-21-14, 12:29 AM
Yes, I know what presumption is, and what the proper method of defeating it is. What if a way we're found to establish the presumption that I wasn't driving, but rather traveling or moving?

I don't want to battle with these people. I want to change their presumptions before they even get to me.

I hear you.

We probably know how to not appear as DRIVERS by now, right? :-) With all these great threads! Like removing all STATE interest from the car, returning the DL, not using certain words to identify our activity and selves to police. The question is, once this is all done, will the police "get it"? Some will. What about those who don't? We can cross all the t's and dot the i's, but there are still no guarantees. I answer to Yahweh and was still arrested for traveling freely.

Why was I arrested after traveling freely for just a month? This is the million dollar question. It might have been wise of me to get out of the car when police told me to, like described here:

Matthew 5:40-41 - If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

But in the heat of the moment, I was thinking more along the lines of I had not committed a felony, no injured party, just traveling freely, there was no probable cause, no lawful warrant, no need to present ID, and I know who I am, so why should I budge when this cop is supposed to be protecting my rights in the first place?

Q: Does everyone know that hindsight is 20/20? ba-da-BOOM

Hindsight #1: After much asking around, and more study, I think when they (four cops present) asked to see a drivers license, presenting my freedom ID would have satisfied them. Even though it wasn't necessary. Because they had no positive ID on me and kept referring to me as Jane Doe. Showing them the freedom ID would have spelled it out for them that I was not in their jurisdiction and perhaps they would have let me go.

Hindsight #2: If I got out of the car to satisfy the cops' request, if I objected to it on the record, they would have let me go. Or so I have been told.

Hindsight #3: The cop inside the jail told me this as I was shackled in chains passing through the dark, hellish bowels of the jail -- "why didn't you just sign the ticket?" And that's true. I could have just signed it, "without prejudice" there on the side of the road and refused it for cause later. But my reasoning at the time was -- I am free, I have a right to contract with whomever I want, and I definitely don't want to contract with the city!

Hindsight #4: And someone else pointed this out to me -- why didn't I stay in honor and do a conditional acceptance with the cop? "I'll sign your ticket if you can prove I am subject to your jurisdiction." But at the time, my conditional acceptance skills were not very developed.


Hindsight #5: Was I really ready to travel freely? Preparing the car was the easy part. But the roadside stop can pitch a million and one curve balls. And preparing for allll those type curve balls would require such excessive study time that one would never get out and travel freely. Defacto is that way by design: so we have a Pyrrhic victory in the end.

Oh, and it's not just battling law enforcement, it's battling sheeple. You know, when the neighbors see your car parked nearby and people in traffic think, "who does she think she is with that -- that -- unusual plate on her car! Look at it, Abner!!" (picture Gladys Kravitz from that 1960s sitcom, Bewitched. She was the Stevens' nosey neighbor.) People in traffic drove wayyy farther away from me. Maybe they thought I was a diplomat. Maybe they thought I was a "crayzee who could endanger people."

I had to explain my arrest to my roommate, my family, my customers, and my students. They didn't get it. At all. Whatsoever. And still don't. It tarnished my reputation and it was absolutely humiliating in my already fragile condition from being in jail for a week. I know that's not long compared to a lot of people here who have been through worse. But no matter how I explained it to them, no matter what law I showed them, they didn't get it, or it was too overwhelming to them. Their reasoning was, "Well if it's so "lawful," then why did you get arrested?!" See? They are socially conditioned to believe the police are doing their jobs correctly. But to this day, I still have post traumatic stress flashbacks from these events. Anyway, I didn't eat for 3 days in solitary. It was either eat their poison, or avoid it to preserve what little mental strength I had left. I was already very dehydrated. They try to dehydrate your brain so you can't think straight by giving you mini Dixie cups of tap water. Anyway, I am not trying to discourage anyone by sharing this. Just telling you what I wish I was prepared for back then. The story gets even worse, but that's the idea. And I know freedom is not free. But dang.

Keith Alan
03-21-14, 02:58 AM
My latest thought is to gift the vehicle title to the US, but retain possession of the car. In the State of California, drivers (operators, users, movers, whatever) who drive US vehicles are not required to be licensed.

Anthony Joseph
03-21-14, 01:43 PM
My latest thought is to gift the vehicle title to the US, but retain possession of the car. In the State of California, drivers (operators, users, movers, whatever) who drive US vehicles are not required to be licensed.

"Render unto Caesar..."

Release the "unclean thing" (TITLE/OWNERSHIP) and return it back from where it came - the realm of the dead (paper, commerce, 2nd dimension).

Retain exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment of the property (right of use of a thing) as man - heir to the earth.

A claim of OWNERSHIP/TITLE in the realm of the dead is an abandonment of heirship in the realm of the living.

Keith Alan
03-21-14, 02:15 PM
"Render unto Caesar..."

Release the "unclean thing" (TITLE/OWNERSHIP) and return it back from where it came - the realm of the dead (paper, commerce, 2nd dimension).

Retain exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment of the property (right of use of a thing) as man - heir to the earth.

A claim of OWNERSHIP/TITLE in the realm of the dead is an abandonment of heirship in the realm of the living.

Yes, exactly. I suppose all one would need do is write them in as the new owner on registration, and that would be that. I haven't figured out the insurance question yet, but I will.

Anthony Joseph
03-21-14, 02:55 PM
Yes, exactly. I suppose all one would need do is write them in as the new owner on registration, and that would be that. I haven't figured out the insurance question yet, but I will.

OWNER is responsible for any "registration" or "insurance" requirements; and, everything associated with facilitating such.

Keith Alan
03-21-14, 04:06 PM
OWNER is responsible for any "registration" or "insurance" requirements; and, everything associated with facilitating such.

That's true. My thinking is though, that as the agent operating the agency created on the birth certificate, I could gift the car to the US, making them the registered owner, and keep an agent's lien on the title. I think this would be accomplished on the transfer of title form prior to registration.

I haven't been able to find any information on what the process is when the US registers vehicles in the State. It could be they are exempt from registration and insurance requirements, but I don't know that yet.

So you're right, the burden of insurance would fall on the US. However, it would be my person filling out the forms, and I need to figure out how to navigate through process.

When I know more, I'll buy a cheap vehicle and use it for a test.

Chex
03-21-14, 08:01 PM
Vehicle registration plates of the United States. In the United States, license plates[1] are issued by a department of motor vehicles, an agency of the state or territorial government, or in the case of the District of Columbia the city government. Some Native American tribes also issue plates. The U.S. federal government issues plates only for its own vehicle fleet and for vehicles owned by foreign diplomats. Until the 1980s, diplomatic plates were issued by the state in which the consulate or embassy was located. Vehicle registration plates of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

allodial
03-21-14, 09:01 PM
"owner" = "surety". :)

EZrhythm
03-23-14, 08:05 AM
Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license.
Freed

ALL LICENSES are commercial.
ALL LICENSES are issued to RESIDENTS.
ALL transactions made by a RESIDENT are COMMERCIAL.

Shuftin
03-23-14, 06:54 PM
It might have been wise of me to get out of the car when police told me to,

so why should I budge when this cop is supposed to be protecting my rights in the first place?

Hindsight #1: After much asking around, and more study, I think when they (four cops present) asked to see a drivers license, presenting my freedom ID would have satisfied them.

Hindsight #2: If I got out of the car to satisfy the cops' request,

Hindsight #3: The cop inside the jail told me this as I was shackled in chains passing through the dark, hellish bowels of the jail -- "why didn't you just sign the ticket?"We the People all have the protected Right of self-protection/self-defence. This protected Right can be traced back to the US Constitution.
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The right of the people to be secure in their persons is the protected Right of self-protection/self-defence and it shall not be violated! To leave a place of security----stand in the open unprotected----surrounded by hired mercenaries----with loaded guns whom wish to do you harm----is a voluntary waiver of a 4th amendment protected Right. No Court, prosecutor, or even a hired mercenary can legally/lawfully give a direct order for one to waive a protected Right. Such an order can only be construed as a request and compliance with said request is consensual.

The same 4th amendment gives we the People a protected Right to be secure (self-protection/self-defence) of our papers. Giving our protected papers to every Tom, Dick, and Harry whom asks for them is the quickest means of losing security over said papers. This waiver of a protected Right is also consensual. Rest assured that a driver's license is NOT “Papers.” A driver's license is an “Effect.”

The same 4th amendment gives we the People a protected Right to be secure (self-protection/self-defence) of our effects. A State issued driver's license is not ones personal private property. A State issued driver's license is the personal private property of the State. Therefore a State issued driver's license is an effect. Giving our protected effects to every Tom, Dick, and Harry whom asks for them is the quickest means of losing security over said effects. This waiver of a protected Right is also consensual.

Why would a Person waive their protected Right to be secure in their effects (Driver's license)?
TITLE 17.**CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *
CHAPTER 6.**BONDS AND RECOGNIZANCES *
ARTICLE 1.**GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 17-6-11 *(2013)

§ 17-6-11.**Display of driver's license for violation of certain traffic related laws

(a)....any person who is apprehended by an officer for the violation of the laws of this state....upon being served with the official summons issued by such apprehending officer....in lieu of being immediately brought before the proper magistrate....in lieu of a recognizance ordering incarceration, may display his or her driver's license to the apprehending officer in lieu of bail, in lieu of entering into a recognizance for his or her appearance for trial as set in the aforesaid summons, or in lieu of being incarcerated by the apprehending officer and held for further action by the appropriate judicial officer.Georgia Statutes provide a means for one to waive his protected Right to be secure in their effects (Driver's license). This waiver of a protected Right is by consent. It is a trade-off (in lieu of). This waiver of a protected Right can not be legally/lawfully ordered. If a Person is not under arrest, and exercising a protected Right is not a crime. Why would one waive his protected Right to be secure in his effects (Driver's license) if there is no trade-off (in lieu of) to be gained?

That sir, is the million dollar question.

What else happens after a Person waives his protected Right to be secure in his effects (Driver's license)?
TITLE 17.**CRIMINAL PROCEDURE *
CHAPTER 6.**BONDS AND RECOGNIZANCES *
ARTICLE 1.**GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 17-6-16 *

§ 17-6-16.**Entry of memorandum on warrant after waiver of commitment hearing and tender of bail

If the accused person waives a commitment hearing [Display of driver's license] and tenders bail [Display of driver's license], a memorandum of these facts shall be entered on the warrant by the person authorized to accept bail; and this waiver may be done by the person charged before arrest and, when done, shall operate as a supersedeas.This means that when one waives his protected Right to be secure in his effects (Driver's license), one is simultaneously waiving his protected Right to a probable-cause hearing before a magistrate due to the trade-off (in lieu of) clause. This is killing two birds with one stone.

Thus the always present illegal and unlawful order from a hired mercenary to "Show me your driver's license." He does not want to take you before a magistrate for a probable-cause hearing because then he would have to explain himself and his actions before said magistrate. Waiving a probable-cause hearing is self-confessing that probable-cause does indeed exist, the hired mercenary is correct, and you are not going to argue that point. You lost your Right to argue that point!

Moxie
03-23-14, 09:18 PM
No drivers license is needed when traveling freely.

I am well aware of my right to be secure. I was pulled from my car.




That sir, is the million dollar question.

I'm not a "sir."