PDA

View Full Version : Two traffic stops snubbed.



David Merrill
03-05-11, 06:00 AM
One suitor told us the other day that for the second time, he handed the driver license over to a police officer during a traffic stop; Officer, I am not giving you that card for identification purposes. It is for competency only.

Both times the police officer went to his car for ten minutes and returned with a mild verbal warning.



Regards,

David Merrill.

KnowLaw
03-06-11, 06:25 AM
One suitor told us the other day that for the second time, he handed the driver license over to a police officer during a traffic stop; Officer, I am not giving you that card for identification purposes. It is for competency only.

Both times the police officer went to his car for ten minutes and returned with a mild verbal warning.

Interesting. What part of the country did this take place in?

I can tell you from experience that as of October 2009 the Highway Patrol in Arizona were not that observant. But then, I didn't have a driver license to begin with, so the LEO thought he had gotten a sucker...until I pulled out my copy of the law and began reading that to him. From that point on, he took a more cautious approach. But still insisted on issuing me a ticket, which I gladly took as he might just as easily have impounded my property for no tags and no driver license. I knew I could defeat him in court, that's why I was pleased to only receive the ticket.

David Merrill
03-06-11, 04:48 PM
Very good. Glad to hear it.

I am not certain where it took place. My thought was the suitor might chime in to the thread with details but I must respect his right to be quiet about his victories.

That is something to work out in the near future - the intellectual property we call crosstalk. All the anecdotes but these are more. I can sanitize the images of the evidence that goes along with the anecdotes and they are elevated to supported fact? Well almost, anyway. I have done this with sanitized support docs for some while but seldom in a fashion like here, where if the person chimes in you have a true name to attach with the anecdote.

So I am just feeling my way around here in this new forum. It looks like a regular chat room at first glance but there is a brain trust of suitors here and that makes it unique; a cut above. I have to wade in slowly. I was hoping to prompt a suitor to share the experience in detail.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. With my own docs, since I have been going by true name for over a decade, that simplifies things, even when officials commit forgery.

stoneFree
03-07-11, 04:32 PM
Oh, David could well be relating my experience, as I have twice used his declaration at traffic stops.

Interesting. What part of the country did this take place in? Let's just say, it happened in one of the original 13 colonies. I probably never would have used it, had I first not witnessed some interesting behavior of the court on an earlier citation. After reading success stories over at SJC, I attempted a common-law defense (much like what www.ticketslayer.com sells). Correct me if I'm wrong but this defense is based on the theory that the state is not alleging/charging you the living person with a violation, but a separate entity with a similar name as you (constructive trust?). I raised this defense, filing some documents into the traffic case. Well at the court hearing with the judge, I noticed there was no prosecution, no police accusers. All those appealing their traffic tickets were being dismissed with "Not responsible, lack of prosecution" as was mine.

I realize that court experience isn't positive proof of anything and that the logistics of scheduling accusing officers for court may not be cost effective for the state. However, I think it's also possible this is an issue the state/court wasn't prepared to contest; that they don't want to go there. If true, Greg's claim of "Over 80% nationwide Traffic Ticket Dismissal Rate" is further evidence that something is going on here.

We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine?

KnowLaw
03-07-11, 08:56 PM
Well at the court hearing with the judge, I noticed there was no prosecution, no police accusers. All those appealing their traffic tickets were being dismissed with "Not responsible, lack of prosecution" as was mine.
That phrase sounds familiar. That's what was mentioned to me in a phone call to the court when checking on whether or not a ticket had been submitted to the court. I had "refused it for cause" sending the original back to the presenter (a highway patrol officer with the DPS who apparently hadn't informed the court yet of the refusal).

The person on the other end of the phone told me after I mentioned having "refused for cause" the ticket that I would need to come in and enter a "not responsible" something or other (it was unclear what she was talking about; and I wasn't all that certain that she wasn't attempting to coax me into pleading into the case, so I approached it with caution). But yes, she used that phrase about "not responsible."

They are apparently trying to separate those who know from those who don't know the law, was my take on the situation. Because all those who knew about this method were separated into a separate group (separate court date and time) from those who were unaware and therefore "easy pickins" for the state legal machine.

I'll be re-posting my victory story in the "Success Stories" section once I have some time to sit down and format the post. It should help some people gain some sense of confidence in the "refused for cause" movement as well as a peek at one person's practical experience in the matter and how it was handled.



We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine?
Well, don't stop there! What, pray tell, was the error you observed? If I knew what you were speaking about, I might be able to proffer an answer to the question you posed.

osbogosley
03-08-11, 01:52 PM
Here's an interesting email I recieved:

Hey Colonel;

We talked on the phone several weeks ago. I am the guy in Mississippi who beat the ticket.

The recording of it became corrupted on the computer. I've been having a guy try to recover it. Might work later. If yes, I'll let you know.

BUT, I wrote the transcript the next day. Here it is, exactly as it went down.

Prelim remarks. I believe the reason it worked is simply because I did not plead along the way. In other words, I talked with the clerk on at least 2 occasions before the date to move the date, etc., and on each occasion, she tried to get me to state how I pled or would plea.

Having gone to court and won on a wildlife charge and come to understand that "pleadings perfects jurisdiction," I had figured out the game. So, I fastidiously did NOT plead, and I made it abundantly clear to the clerk that although she is Christian and good person, she was, after all, an officer of the court and as such, she should, in no way, say or intimate to the 'judge' that I pled anything, and if she did, I was going to be very upset and sue her.

So, in court, here's the transcript:

judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

judge: "Yes, you may."

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

judge: "Yes."

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

Officer WAS present in street clothes. judge needed a story for the other people cause they were domestic charges and didn't have an officer. Reason I know that is because I listened to all the attorneys talking with them before. I just sat there with my head down like I was napping and listened so hard I could hear the mice in the damn wall. I had everybody pegged. Lambs to the damn slaughter for Fed Res Notes.

10 seconds went by, maybe.

judge said: "You are free to go, Mr. File. Have a nice day."

I walked out through 5 attorneys and 2 police officers sporting 9 MM's and Tasers like I was Barac, 'Insane,' Obama.

Whole thing took less than 30 words from me. Saved me $168 Federal Res Notes.

You and I already talked about the procedure problems I set up on them using these words and getting the question before the court, first.

He had to address the question. If he didn't, I'd get it on the record and beat, and embarass him on appeal as the record is all that matters on appeal unless, of course, well, no matter right now.

The thing that made me figure it this way is I heard an attorney on the radio the day after my Fed Court Wildlife thing talking about pleadings. He was showing out and didn't even know what he said. He go broke lawyering if he practiced what he preached because no court, save a victim case of murder or rape, could get one of his clients into jurisdiction.

Hence, the Bar would sanction me if I were an attorney. Hee hee.

David Merrill
03-08-11, 03:57 PM
Yes!! That's what I'm talking about! It may just be me but you two just bumped the Fun Meter around here triple.


Dipping back into the hearsay - (meaning that the suitor is around and he might pick this up in detail if he does not mind the general readers knowing which member did this).

This fellow formed his Libel of Review (LoR) around a ticket for no papers while traveling. That means he had a certified copy of the Refusal for Cause (R4C) with him when he went to see if the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST still appeared on the docket anyway - meaning that the Chief of Police was likely defrauding the court by not sharing the additional Information - the R4C.

When he entered cattle court he had three chutes:

1) Go to the cash register last minute, pay the fine and plead guilty - leave.
2) Go visit with the DA and hear your deal for pleading guilty, then to option 1).
3) Go to the court and plead not guilty before the judge, set for trial.

He and his witness (another suitors) mistakenly went down chute 2). When they showed the R4C (marked by the US Court) to the ADA (Assistant District Attorney/prosecutor) the ADA showed it off to his ADA friends for loud ridicule and threw it in the wastepaper basket. My pals called me from the steps of the courthouse. I suggested they go get another copy of the R4C but that was 20 minutes each way back home so I amended that they might go fish the one out of the wastepaper basket.

They went back in and found that the ADA had already fished it out and sent it up to the court on the fifth floor. The ADA beat them to the courtroom to and retrieved it for him from the bailiff; he was immediately called to the podium; which felt like an altar so he stood in front of it - just for safe measure. He announced that he was there, To prevent fraud on the court. The judge asked to see the paper so he brought it to the bench and tendered it. The judge examined it a moment and said, Okay. - As he placed it in the case file. The suitor left.

Two weeks later the suitor returned and asked to see the case files (as there were more than one case) but there was now only one folder. Nothing was in the folder except the Copy of the R4C that he had tendered to the judge.

Keep in mind these are commercial financial transactions. That is why they call them charges.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
03-08-11, 04:19 PM
That one is a lot of fun too Osbogosly.

The other way to convey jurisdiction is to swear or affirm. But that would usually be limited to consent for perjury or contempt. Here it is in the Colorado constitution:


Section 23. Trial by jury - grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided,

Courts not of record are a waste of time all around because they have no authority to fine or imprison you. They can proceed though, on your consent. You plead and you volunteer into the jurisdiction.

However, in many instances the judge might correctly presume that by identifying yourself First Middle Last - a full legal name matching the LAST, FIRST M. spelling on the driver license card, that you have plead into the jurisdiction. Therefore change the signature on your driver license card to First Middle. When you give it to an officer announce clearly:


Officer, I am not showing you this driver license card for identification purposes. I am only showing it to you to prove my competency to operate this vehicle and so you know I keep a valid insurance policy active on it. I am noting your name and hope that you will recall this conversation accurately on the witness stand at trial - how I just identified myself to you. My name is clearly spelled there on the signature line.

Furthermore you might be sure to pay for your driver license card with redeemed lawful money (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6742/redeemedbills.jpg). But it really comes down to risk management on their part. The prosecutor did not seem willing in the anecdote to step up, Judge, the stopping officer is right here.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Crosstalk;



Anyway, just had occasion to use the line I learned from David again. While handing over the DL: "I'm showing this for competency not for identification." Well after several minutes in his cruiser, presumably some onboard communications, the officer hands back the DL saying: "come to a complete stop next time." No citation, no written warning, no nothing, nada. (!) My second success with this line.


P.P.S. I saw Adjustment Bureau last night. It is the kind of SciFi that builds a great legacy for SciFi! Of course for me it was about through responsibility and competence (in the movie, laying it all on the line for true love) we break through having others govern our path and develop self-governance.

Axe
03-09-11, 01:31 AM
So, the drivers license sig should just be True Name printed? I just got my
new Drivers license and signed it Legal Name UCC 1-308.

Did that based on what I found at SJC.

Also based on this post http://chat.lawinfo.com/showpost.php?p=60846&postcount=11
I also thought about writing 8 USC 1408.

David Merrill
03-09-11, 03:14 AM
It was worth a look (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001408----000-.html).


I was born in Colorado. So I think that must go on the theory and some limited definitions about the territorial US being limited to the District?

That's the tricky thing about definitions of the United States - even according to the Supreme Court there are three. So what you might do is explore around that section of code and see if you can bring us the applicable definition for the US?

The method of identification I describe can be found in law. Abatement for misnomer (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7294/misnomer.jpg), or prolonging arraignment (pleading) until the prosecution gets nervous enough to dismiss. A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card. If you identify yourself properly the officer will not likely proceed against a different name than that of the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3411/nameconstructivetrust.jpg).

It is possible for the court to proceed against the man in his true name. I have not heard of it happening though. As for my persecution about the $20M lien, the officer lied on the Affidavit of Probable Cause (http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9248/affidavitwarrantlessid.jpg) so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.



http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9248/affidavitwarrantlessid.jpg

The way I remember it:

JACOBSEN: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: (Silence.)
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: Nobody can be compelled to incriminate himself.

The perjury there is that JACOBSEN said I would not tell him who I was. I am David Merrill and I told him my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

stoneFree
03-09-11, 04:13 AM
KnowLaw & Osbogosley, thanks for that & congrats on the victories! Yes, afraid I was "easy pickins" for quite some time.

Regarding ticket errors: The error I noticed was the ticket was written up "62 MPH IN A 15 MPH ZONE" when I'm fairly certain the limit was more than 15. I never raised that as an issue. Just a beginner here but my take is ... the citation error leaves the state/court another out; another avenue out of revealing the true nature of their administrative proceeding. They can say "case dismissed; ticket error. Not because of your wacky ALL CAPS strawman theory."

Also, David once related an instance of a R4C ticket dismissed and they wrote down something like "dismissed, error on the ticket, not for cause."

Axe
03-09-11, 09:36 PM
A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card.


Okay I see your logic, that makes sense to me.

My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?

Sorry if the question is rudimentary, I appreciate your patience.

Tom

David Merrill
03-11-11, 03:06 AM
Okay I see your logic, that makes sense to me.

My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?

Sorry if the question is rudimentary, I appreciate your patience.

Tom

You might be correct. The other line of thought is that, We can proceed in the name JOHN DOE, we do those prosecutions all the time.

The point is that this is not a silver bullet. It is quite effective and that makes sense when you shed a certain light on it. The presentment, the Uniform Summons and Complaint and Penalty Assessment says the legal name on it. If you specify to the police officer you are not identifying yourself with the card then there is an error of misnomer.

A lot of the time the officer will give you a verbal warning when it becomes apparent you are going to be taking this to trial.

Understand that I just read that post again. I presumed by the State document you meant the driver license. Now I will presume you mean the Presentment, the ticket.

If you accept the position of fiduciary then yes, you are there. You don't have the right to R4C if you are already the fiduciary. If you are not the fiduciary, then you have three days to consider that contract - the right of refusal. If you identify yourself correctly the police officer has forged a title for you. You have three days to consider whether you accept or not.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. You mentioned this:

Axe
03-11-11, 03:31 AM
Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

The name of the trust is on the DL (at the top)
You true name sig is at the bottom (or is it printed, I still don't know)

If it is signed, then your true name is "signing for" your
legal name, so my question is isn't that all the same to the state
from a legal perspective?

I think what you're saying is the officer is going to write the
ticket out to LEGAL NAME, because it's at the top.

But you have true name in the sig, giving you separation
at court.

"That ticket is not for me."?

David Merrill
03-11-11, 04:37 AM
Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

The name of the trust is on the DL (at the top)
You true name sig is at the bottom (or is it printed, I still don't know)

If it is signed, then your true name is "signing for" your
legal name, so my question is isn't that all the same to the state
from a legal perspective?

I think what you're saying is the officer is going to write the
ticket out to LEGAL NAME, because it's at the top.

But you have true name in the sig, giving you separation
at court.

"That ticket is not for me."?

It is impossible to arraign you. You R4C on the cause being misnomer. You do not specify because it is a fact, you do not need to teach the court or DA law. If things get serious abate the cause for misnomer (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7294/misnomer.jpg).

Rock Anthony
03-11-11, 07:17 AM
My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?




The comprehension that formed in my head is that there are two trusts involved in traffic matters:
The express trust that is effected when one holds a DL. The holder of the DL is the trustee. The trustee is obligated to abide by the bylaws of the trust. Those bylaws are defined by the traffic laws of whatever state issues the DL.
The constructive trust that is effected by the LEO that issues the presentment. The issuer of the presentment is the executor. The executor offers the recipient of the presentment to be the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges.
Now, when trustee of the express trust speeds along at 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, then there is a breach of trust, and therefore the State has been injured. From this injury, an LEO effects a constructive trust.

Something that I have read repeatedly from Michael Joseph, and have self-determined to be true, is that action implies trust.

The action of procuring and holding a DL demonstrates an express trust relationship between LEGAL NAME and the State (Axe, I think this is the fiduciary responsibility that you've inquired about).

The actions of the living soul that made the conscious decision to physically apply for and physically carry (see how consciousness and physical capacity has to be loaned to the non-living trust) the DL demonstrates an implied trust relationship between the living soul and the trust.

LEGAL NAME expressly trusts in STATE
True Name implicitly trusts in LEGAL NAME
Things are slightly different with the constructive trust that is effected when an LEO issues a presentment. If a living soul does not identify him or herself as the LEGAL NAME on the DL, then no trust has been demonstrated! The living soul has not expressly agreed to be responsible for settling the charges against the LEGAL NAME on the presentment. Nevertheless, the LEO still effects a trust, but does so in error. If the living soul's actions do not demonstrate trust in LEGAL NAME for the purposes of effecting a constructive trust, then LEO has no legal grounds to construct a trust! Refusal for Cause is an effective way to serve notice that the living soul refuses the offer to be the fiduciary.

So my answer to your question is, no. No man or woman has accepted fiduciary responsibility for presentments by way of expressly holding a DL. The express trust associated with the DL is seperate from the constructive trust associated with the presentment.

perk7375
03-11-11, 04:40 PM
Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

The name of the trust is on the DL (at the top)
You true name sig is at the bottom (or is it printed, I still don't know)

UCC § 3-401. SIGNATURE.

(b) A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.

This leads me to believe that there is no difference between a cursive or printed name because they both still execute a signature that authenticates the writing. As I understand it, the separation between the LEGAL NAME and the True Name comes by the use of full-caps for the LEGAL NAME and Proper English for the True Name. FULL-CAPS always representing the legal entity or corporation.

This also raises questions of my own, like, When doing a Refusal for Cause, does it make a difference or is it necessary to sign the True Name "Under Duress"(Reservation of Rights) on the ticket(presentment) or as the "Authorized Representative" for the legal name? Or, would I simply sign First, and Middle and still have grounds to Refuse for Cause on misnomer?

David Merrill
03-11-11, 10:57 PM
Hi Rock;


Maybe somebody can help me out finding something I am sure I saved to disk. Somebody brought up a citation from a state's Revised Statutes that actually said that the driver license was not to be used for identification purposes! Did anybody catch that?

Axe
03-11-11, 11:25 PM
It is impossible to arraign you. You R4C on the cause being misnomer. You do not specify because it is a fact, you do not need to teach the court or DA law. If things get serious abate the cause for misnomer (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7294/misnomer.jpg).

Whoa... Thanks David.

That's what I needed. Don't know why I didn't put that together on my own!


The action of procuring and holding a DL demonstrates an express trust relationship between LEGAL NAME and the State (Axe, I think this is the fiduciary responsibility that you've inquired about).

The actions of the living soul that made the conscious decision to physically apply for and physically carry (see how consciousness and physical capacity has to be loaned to the non-living trust) the DL demonstrates an implied trust relationship between the living soul and the trust.

LEGAL NAME expressly trusts in STATE
True Name implicitly trusts in LEGAL NAME

Things are slightly different with the constructive trust that is effected when an LEO issues a presentment. If a living soul does not identify him or herself as the LEGAL NAME on the DL, then no trust has been demonstrated! The living soul has not expressly agreed to be responsible for settling the charges against the LEGAL NAME on the presentment. Nevertheless, the LEO still effects a trust, but does so in error. If the living soul's actions do not demonstrate trust in LEGAL NAME for the purposes of effecting a constructive trust, then LEO has no legal grounds to construct a trust! Refusal for Cause is an effective way to serve notice that the living soul refuses the offer to be the fiduciary.

Thanks Buddy! That's awesome, I understand that perfectly! Why can't Michael Joseph just say it that way? (lol...jk MJ)

Sounds like you have definitely kept up your studies.

Become powerful you have. (voice of Yoda)

Michael Joseph
03-12-11, 01:09 AM
Speak the Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jVuLuwwkNo&feature=related)

If one shows up and engages the Court - or "signs in" before entering the court - well there you have it. I have seen many a man who r4c'ed a presentment - only to show up before the judge and say "I just want to ensure my constitutional rights are protected". Well there you go. In one case, the Judge asked the poor fella, well, then when do you want to reschedule the trial?

Who protects a constitutional right? Rights are Property - and the Trustee is with the Legal Title for the Trust Corpus. Therefore to claim Against the Constitution is "Trustee de son Tort". Which will just lead to bigger problems.

by the way: The Court is being held on the side of the Road. The Trustee is conducting a survey - Name, DOB, DL and Registration? Sounds like a survey to me. And that survey goes directly to his districts - Federal Reserve districts. Do you have rights to be there? Or, are you in that overlay at all. It is all up to you. Do you think to usurp the Trustee or the de-jure officer in the Federal Reserve Districts and SPEAK for the NAME.

David Merrill
03-12-11, 02:15 PM
Whoa... Thanks David.

That's what I needed. Don't know why I didn't put that together on my own!



Thanks Buddy! That's awesome, I understand that perfectly! Why can't Michael Joseph just say it that way? (lol...jk MJ)

Sounds like you have definitely kept up your studies.

Become powerful you have. (voice of Yoda)

Not that MJ needs any defense, but I am glad I spent a couple headaches wading through the terminology of trust law he distributes. In my opinion the titles and terms are a bit fleeting but from an engineering perspective (attached) one learns to define the system parameters too.

Some people, unaware of the parameters think you can open the fridge and cool down the kitchen not realizing that the same amount of heat is coming off the back of the fridge. So you could open the pantry window and back the fridge to fill the pantry door and cool down the kitchen a bit. - System parameters!

If you can get a grip on the system parameters - the entire agreement and the environment (law/courts of justice) then you can apply the terms and not have them fudged with by the black robed attorney.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Trust Guy
05-10-11, 01:46 PM
Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"


All in All - A "Perfect" turn of phrase.

motla68
05-10-11, 03:45 PM
Speak the Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jVuLuwwkNo&feature=related)

If one shows up and engages the Court - or "signs in" before entering the court - well there you have it. I have seen many a man who r4c'ed a presentment - only to show up before the judge and say "I just want to ensure my constitutional rights are protected". Well there you go. In one case, the Judge asked the poor fella, well, then when do you want to reschedule the trial?

Who protects a constitutional right? Rights are Property - and the Trustee is with the Legal Title for the Trust Corpus. Therefore to claim Against the Constitution is "Trustee de son Tort". Which will just lead to bigger problems.

by the way: The Court is being held on the side of the Road. The Trustee is conducting a survey - Name, DOB, DL and Registration? Sounds like a survey to me. And that survey goes directly to his districts - Federal Reserve districts. Do you have rights to be there? Or, are you in that overlay at all. It is all up to you. Do you think to usurp the Trustee or the de-jure officer in the Federal Reserve Districts and SPEAK for the NAME.

Yes, pretty much between the lines to survey: " what kind of benefits can we offer you today "?

" absolutely none today, I waive all of them, but if you need benefits from the trust today, here take these instruments from the dashboard ".

Often will have a puzzled look on their face and waive you on down the road, at best a warning. The real pricks who are often rookies will make a whole scene out of it, checking their computer and holding you there. I usually tell them you had better call your supervisor to the scene, it does not look like you know the limitations to your authority here... [another rookie benefit.] If your real lucky the whole district of police officers will be called to the scene like what happened to me January 2009, big party; I had a good chat with the supervisor and in the end was sent on my way.

Michael Joseph
05-10-11, 04:49 PM
Yes, pretty much between the lines to survey: " what kind of benefits can we offer you today "?

" absolutely none today, I waive all of them, but if you need benefits from the trust today, here take these instruments from the dashboard ".

Often will have a puzzled look on their face and waive you on down the road, at best a warning. The real pricks who are often rookies will make a whole scene out of it, checking their computer and holding you there. I usually tell them you had better call your supervisor to the scene, it does not look like you know the limitations to your authority here... [another rookie benefit.] If your real lucky the whole district of police officers will be called to the scene like what happened to me January 2009, big party; I had a good chat with the supervisor and in the end was sent on my way.

Right on. Trust Law 101. Just learn the parameters.

Leave all of the codes/statutes/ and other such stuff to the those who are bound by it.

Specifically I say it is wise to learn the codes to keep the servant with his/her survey, but those codes/statutes do not apply to me.

To the offficer with a gun: "How, sir may I benefit you today?"

To the attorner - "I have no trust in you".

----------------------------

It just dawned on me what you just did. You are not accepting service "as benefit" from Officer. However, as Envoy for Owner - WITHOUT the Trust [survey] - you offer up to the Trustee - a benefit from the Trust. It is a way of saying - I am without this survey.

I am Envoy for Owner. Owner is Registered Owner or cestui que trust and I will not commit Trustee de son Tort.

Very Good.

motla68
05-10-11, 08:11 PM
Right on. Trust Law 101. Just learn the parameters.

Leave all of the codes/statutes/ and other such stuff to the those who are bound by it.

Specifically I say it is wise to learn the codes to keep the servant with his/her survey, but those codes/statutes do not apply to me.

To the offficer with a gun: "How, sir may I benefit you today?"

To the attorner - "I have no trust in you".

----------------------------

It just dawned on me what you just did. You are not accepting service "as benefit" from Officer. However, as Envoy for Owner - WITHOUT the Trust [survey] - you offer up to the Trustee - a benefit from the Trust. It is a way of saying - I am without this survey.

I am Envoy for Owner. Owner is Registered Owner or cestui que trust and I will not commit Trustee de son Tort.

Very Good.

Good thinking, a long time ago I explained this to you, but back then it kind of went whoosh, right over your head because you were still attaching yourself to that trust at the time thinking you were enslaved by the COLB like the other patriots do out there, manifesting something that does not exist listening to all the garbage that is on the Internet. It is a joy to see them light bulbs turning on these days.

Michael Joseph
05-10-11, 08:16 PM
Good thinking, a long time ago I explained this to you, but back then it kind of went whoosh, right over your head because you were still attaching yourself to that trust at the time thinking you were enslaved by the COLB like the other patriots do out there, manifesting something that does not exist listening to all the garbage that is on the Internet. It is a joy to see them light bulbs turning on these days.

I can appreciate that. Thing is I cannot approve you, nor you me.

Plus one thing about me is that I cannot receive what I am not prepared to receive. Study to show Thyself approved.

I add that I now see the BC or COLB is not some kind of money it is a Trust Receipt. Yet i am not trustee or beneficiary; and yet my signature is required for the State Trustees to be about their business.

to the gainsayer answer me this: What is money within a Trust? Then, answer me this, is money intangible property? I ask in Rhetorical style. Money is Property of the State!

What you now gonna usurp the trustees on the Notes? Great then pay the bills.

ellecdavis
05-11-11, 04:18 AM
It was worth a look (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001408----000-.html).


I was born in Colorado. So I think that must go on the theory and some limited definitions about the territorial US being limited to the District?

That's the tricky thing about definitions of the United States - even according to the Supreme Court there are three. So what you might do is explore around that section of code and see if you can bring us the applicable definition for the US?

The method of identification I describe can be found in law. Abatement for misnomer (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7294/misnomer.jpg), or prolonging arraignment (pleading) until the prosecution gets nervous enough to dismiss. A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card. If you identify yourself properly the officer will not likely proceed against a different name than that of the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3411/nameconstructivetrust.jpg).

It is possible for the court to proceed against the man in his true name. I have not heard of it happening though. As for my persecution about the $20M lien, the officer lied on the Affidavit of Probable Cause (http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9248/affidavitwarrantlessid.jpg) so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.



http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/9248/affidavitwarrantlessid.jpg

The way I remember it:

JACOBSEN: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: (Silence.)
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: Nobody can be compelled to incriminate himself.

The perjury there is that JACOBSEN said I would not tell him who I was. I am David Merrill and I told him my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

After reading this post, it made me wonder if it would apply with signatures as well. When issued a traffic ticket or a legal plea agreement, should one sign as their true name and not their legal name? For example, if I am issued a traffic ticket and the officer uses my legal name and I sign the ticket with my true name, when it comes time to R4C the ticket or if I even have to show up for a court appearance, will it make a differnce? Since I identified myself in writing with my true name and not my legal name, does this prove I have not accepted the "fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME" concerning the charge? I hope this makes sense. This is all very new to me.

Thank you,
Michelle Colmon

David Merrill
05-11-11, 11:12 AM
That is best accomplished by signing the Driver License with your true name only. Specify:

I am not showing you this card for identification purposes, my name as you see is Michelle Colmon there on my signature. I am only showing you the card for competency purposes; so that you understand I have passed the testing and have a valid insurance policy on this motor vehicle.

We have several reports of the officer returning from his vehicle after ten minutes of communications only to return the Driver License card with a brief verbal warning. One report, the officer returned asking what name the driver wanted on the summons; he mistakenly said, You do whatever your job requires. That acknowledged to the officer that the driver wanted the presentment at all. He would better have replied, I do not want you to write a citation.

I do not remember if that driver Refused for Cause.

motla68
05-11-11, 01:26 PM
I can appreciate that. Thing is I cannot approve you, nor you me.

Plus one thing about me is that I cannot receive what I am not prepared to receive. Study to show Thyself approved.

I add that I now see the BC or COLB is not some kind of money it is a Trust Receipt. Yet i am not trustee or beneficiary; and yet my signature is required for the State Trustees to be about their business.

to the gainsayer answer me this: What is money within a Trust? Then, answer me this, is money intangible property? I ask in Rhetorical style. Money is Property of the State!

What you now gonna usurp the trustees on the Notes? Great then pay the bills.

Lets investigate that Trust Receipt a little further though for the benefit of all in this forum.

- A holder of a receipt is usually known as the owner, but owner of what?

- A receipt is also known as a security, but what is it securing?

- The FRNS say on them " Faith and Credit for all debts Public and Private, The authenticated Certificate of Live Birth has the same kind of language:
460

Could this possibly just mean that this is the acknowledgement that a man born on such a date is one of the owners of the estate ( gift given from God - the earth ) and all charges are to be setoff with a security held in trust, and such trust receipt is proof of where said trust is setup at?
The Gutenburg deposited into trust via incun, is also acknowledgement of this gift given to man.

What does your insight tell you about this?

Michael Joseph
05-11-11, 03:02 PM
Lets investigate that Trust Receipt a little further though for the benefit of all in this forum.

- A holder of a receipt is usually known as the owner, but owner of what?

- A receipt is also known as a security, but what is it securing?

- The FRNS say on them " Faith and Credit for all debts Public and Private, The authenticated Certificate of Live Birth has the same kind of language:
460

Could this possibly just mean that this is the acknowledgement that a man born on such a date is one of the owners of the estate ( gift given from God - the earth ) and all charges are to be setoff with a security held in trust, and such trust receipt is proof of where said trust is setup at?
The Gutenburg deposited into trust via incun, is also acknowledgement of this gift given to man.

What does your insight tell you about this?

My insight tells me that this has NOTHING to do with money. This is Trust Law.

My concerns that have yet to be satisfied are: 1. Am I in fact beneficiary in the estate?

Chisholm v. Georgia the opinions produced the following:

“To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”; and,

MJ's comment: These were the Settlors


“No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”; and,

The sovereigns without subjects are the Settlors; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and are joint tenants in the sovereignty. This begs the question of what is a tenant in common?

16. Tenants in common, are such as hold by several and distinct titles, but by unity of possession. 2 Bl. Com. 161. See Estate in common; 7 Cruise, Dig. Ind. tit. Tenancy in Common; Bac. Abr. Joint-Tenants and Tenants in Common; Com. Dig. Abatement, E 10, F 6; Chancery, 3 V 4 Devise, N 8; Estates, K 8, K 2 Supp. to Ves. jr. vol. 1, 272, 315; 1 Vern. It. 353; Arch. Civ. Pl. 53, 73.

17. Tenants in common may have title as such to real or personal property; they may be tenants of a house, land, a horse, a ship, and the like.

18. Tenants in common are bound to account to each other; but they are bound to account only for the value of the property as it was when they entered, and not for any improvement or labor they put upon it, at their separate expense. 1 McMull. R. 298. Vide Estates in common; and 4 Kent, Com. 363. Joint tenants, are such as hold lands or tenements by joint tenancy. See Estate in joint tenany; 7 Cruise, Dig. Ind. tit. Joint Tenancy; Bac. Abr. Joint Tenants and Tenants in Common; Com. Dig. Estates, K 1; Chancery, 3 V 1; Devise, N 7, N 8; 2 Saund. Ind. Joint Tenants; Preston on Estates, 2 Bl. Com. 179.

Now, this begs the question as to why my signature is required, IF all Rights, Titles and Interest [Property] is already in the United States held in Trust by the Military as Trustee. Is my signature a requirement upon the Trustee to perform the duties of State? If so, what is the consideration for my signature? Is not the consideration either one of the following two options:

1) HJR 192 - discharge of all debts; or,
2) Benefit of running a Federal Reserve Bank

But consider the former does not require money to be in circulation - the latter does. In the former, there must be an operation, black box, in nature that allows the User to issue upon the Trustee demand orders.

Then the BC or COLB is not a Trust Certificate, it is an event registered on a trust asset registry as Owner or Registered Owner in the Estate. Now the question begging to be answered is this a Beneficiary directed Trust? If so, then the beneficiaries have been mighty complacent. Asleep might be a better word. And the Trustee is doing what needs to be done to keep the Trust going - as any Trustee would be compelled to do.

This discussion is in the Wrong Thread. I suggest we move this conversation to another thread within Trusts section.

shalom,
mj

P.S. btw, money is a Trust Certificate. As its value is not known until said money is used.

If i, as beneficiary of a Trust, hold a Trust Certificate, said Trust Certificate indicates the percentage of interest that I have in the Trust Corpus. But the VALUE of the TC cannot be known until the Trust Corpus is exchanged for value with another. Therefore, the TC has no value until the value can be determined on exchange or sale.

Therefore, who or what determines the value of the TC?
Answer: Market places value.

Can a Trust Certificate held in the Trust Corpus be taxed?
Answer: No.

Why can't a TC be taxed?
Answer: Because its value is not known until the Trust Property has been exchanged or sold.

Michael Joseph
05-11-11, 03:43 PM
Zec 5:1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

Zec 5:2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

Zec 5:3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.


In my opinion: verse 3 describes to a tee the State as Trust. On one side we have those who take from the Trust without standing or possibly by endorsement of another Trust - Federal Reserve System - and on the other side we have the Trustee who is also unable to reach the trust corpus by Oath of office.

David Merrill
05-11-11, 04:03 PM
Zec 5:1 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.

Zec 5:2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.

Zec 5:3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.


In my opinion: verse 3 describes to a tee the State as Trust. One one side we have those who take from the Trust without standing or possibly by endorsement of another Trust - Federal Reserve System - and on the other side we have the Trustee who is also unable to reach the trust corpus by Oath of office.



Thank you! That is some amazing insight.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-19-12, 09:17 PM
Hey Colonel;

We talked on the phone several weeks ago. I am the guy in Mississippi who beat the ticket.

The recording of it became corrupted on the computer. I've been having a guy try to recover it. Might work later. If yes, I'll let you know.

BUT, I wrote the transcript the next day. Here it is, exactly as it went down.

Prelim remarks. I believe the reason it worked is simply because I did not plead along the way. In other words, I talked with the clerk on at least 2 occasions before the date to move the date, etc., and on each occasion, she tried to get me to state how I pled or would plea.

Having gone to court and won on a wildlife charge and come to understand that "pleadings perfects jurisdiction," I had figured out the game. So, I fastidiously did NOT plead, and I made it abundantly clear to the clerk that although she is Christian and good person, she was, after all, an officer of the court and as such, she should, in no way, say or intimate to the 'judge' that I pled anything, and if she did, I was going to be very upset and sue her.

So, in court, here's the transcript:

judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Your Honor, may I ask the Court a question?"

judge: "Yes, you may."

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

Here, it was as though I farted in church on a wooden bench on the front row. Pussel-gutted prosecutor almost had a heart attack and started blurting out 'jurisdiction' stuff cause he had some more money to collect and they didn't see this coming.

Judge was taken aback and blurted,...

judge: "Yes."

I waited 2 Mississippi:

Me: "Therefore, your Honor, may I MOVE the court to dismiss the charges, immediately?"

judge had his head down writing. He needed a story like the prosecutor did. He said,

judge: "Yes, you may. The officer is not present anyway."

Officer WAS present in street clothes. judge needed a story for the other people cause they were domestic charges and didn't have an officer. Reason I know that is because I listened to all the attorneys talking with them before. I just sat there with my head down like I was napping and listened so hard I could hear the mice in the damn wall. I had everybody pegged. Lambs to the damn slaughter for Fed Res Notes.

10 seconds went by, maybe.

judge said: "You are free to go, Mr. File. Have a nice day."

I walked out through 5 attorneys and 2 police officers sporting 9 MM's and Tasers like I was Barac, 'Insane,' Obama.

Whole thing took less than 30 words from me. Saved me $168 Federal Res Notes.

You and I already talked about the procedure problems I set up on them using these words and getting the question before the court, first.

He had to address the question. If he didn't, I'd get it on the record and beat, and embarass him on appeal as the record is all that matters on appeal unless, of course, well, no matter right now.

The thing that made me figure it this way is I heard an attorney on the radio the day after my Fed Court Wildlife thing talking about pleadings. He was showing out and didn't even know what he said. He go broke lawyering if he practiced what he preached because no court, save a victim case of murder or rape, could get one of his clients into jurisdiction.

Hence, the Bar would sanction me if I were


judge: "So, Mr. File, are you here today to plead not guilty."

Me: "Your Honor, I have not pled anything." (my way of saying have not, will not be doing it now because I know you do not have jurisdiction now unless I screw up and give it to you.)





If that " person " "APPEARED" before the Court, they now had PERSONAM JURISDICTION

look it up

why do you think they call them " APPEARANCE TICKETS "

BETTER CALLED " self arrest warrants "

I am soooo tired of reading this crap

David Merrill
01-20-12, 01:18 AM
No arraignment. I like that!


But there is something fascinating in your style. Instead of saying that, No, I am not here to plead. What you did is point out that you had not plead.

You actually threatened to sue the clerk of court if she plead for you? I think you are a genius. - Or maybe dyslexic...

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-20-12, 04:58 AM
[QUOTE=David Merrill;6212

You actually threatened to sue the clerk of court if she plead for you? ..[/QUOTE]




actually, it calls for a Criminal Complaint, for Tampering with the Record

nonetheless, by "appearing", our supposed friend has started the Machine... next will be the Judge entering a guilty plea, and an FTA

learn how the System works ...

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-20-12, 05:07 AM
§ 150.10 Appearance ticket; definition, form and content.
1. An appearance ticket is a written notice issued and subscribed by a
police officer or other public servant authorized by state law or local
law enacted pursuant to the provisions of the municipal home rule law to
issue the same, directing a designated person to appear in a designated
local criminal court at a designated future time in connection with his
alleged commission of a designated offense. A notice conforming to such
definition constitutes an appearance ticket regardless of whether it is
referred to in some other provision of law as a summons or by any other
name or title.
2. When an appearance ticket as defined in subdivision one of this
section is issued to a person in conjunction with an offense charged in
a simplified information, said appearance ticket shall contain the
language, set forth in subdivision four of section 100.25, notifying the
defendant of his right to receive a supporting deposition. § 340.10 Definition of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this title:
1. "Information," in addition to its meaning as defined in
subdivision one of section 100.10, includes (a) a simplified information
and (b) a prosecutor's information and (c) a misdemeanor complaint upon
which the defendant, by a waiver executed pursuant to subdivision three
of section 170.65, has consented to be prosecuted.
2. "Single judge trial" means a trial in a local criminal court
conducted by one judge sitting without a jury.
3. "Jury trial" means a trial in a local criminal court conducted by
one judge sitting with a jury. § 170.65 Replacement of misdemeanor complaint by information and waiver
thereof.
1. A defendant against whom a misdemeanor complaint is pending is not
required to enter a plea thereto. For purposes of prosecution, such
instrument must, except as provided in subdivision three, be replaced by
an information, and the defendant must be arraigned thereon. If the
misdemeanor complaint is supplemented by a supporting deposition and
such instruments taken together satisfy the requirements for a valid
information, such misdemeanor complaint is deemed to have been converted
to and to constitute a replacing information.
2. An information which replaces a misdemeanor complaint need not
charge the same offense or offenses, but at least one count thereof must
charge the commission by the defendant of an offense based upon conduct
which was the subject of the misdemeanor complaint. In addition, the
information may, subject to the rules of joinder, charge any other
offense which the factual allegations thereof or of any supporting
depositions accompanying it are legally sufficient to support, even
though such offense is not based upon conduct which was the subject of
the misdemeanor complaint.
3. A defendant who has been arraigned upon a misdemeanor complaint
may waive prosecution by information and consent to be prosecuted upon
the misdemeanor complaint. In such case, the defendant must be
required, either upon the date of the waiver or subsequent thereto, to
enter a plea to the misdemeanor complaint.

Shuftin
01-20-12, 06:05 AM
This is what you are referring to concerning giving the Court jurisdiction. This is from the great State of Georgia but it spells it out nicely.
TITLE 17. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 7. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
ARTICLE 5. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS GENERALLY

O.C.G.A. § 17-7-94 (2011)

§ 17-7-94. Recordation and effect of plea of "not guilty" or of standing mute


If the person accused of committing a crime, upon being arraigned, pleads "not guilty" or stands mute, the clerk shall immediately record upon the minutes of the court the plea of "not guilty," together with the arraignment; and the arraignment and plea shall constitute the issue between the accused and the state.


HISTORY: Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 834; Code 1863, § 4525; Code 1868, § 4544; Code 1873, § 4638; Code 1882, § 4638; Penal Code 1895, § 947; Penal Code 1910, § 972; Code 1933, § 27-1405.The arraignment and plea [together] shall constitute the issue between the accused and the state.

Appearance perfects the process i.e paperwork. Any errors in the process are made perfect by ones appearance. What is needed is an abatement. An abatement is not a challenge to the Court, it is a notice to the Court that there are errors in the process.

Long story short. An abatement informs the Court "Fix the errors in the process [paperwork] and I will show."

David Merrill
01-20-12, 11:33 AM
The style BY used is unbelievably simple. It strikes me like the §508 church. If you mention §508 then you are not the exeption to §501(C)(3). You simply must be without registering an appearance. The problem being that you cannot gather much of a congregation without giving people that money in tax-exemptions and more a problem, if even one of the congregants tries to get the exemption on a 1040 Form, naming your true church, or the Good Church as one suitor coins, that disqualifies the entire exception. Look at §508(C)(1)(a) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000508----000-.html).

BY simply pointed out that he had not yet plead. Genius!

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-20-12, 12:39 PM
This is what you are referring to concerning giving the Court jurisdiction. .

Appearance perfects the process i.e paperwork. Any errors in the process are made perfect by ones appearance.


Thank You, brother Steve, for helping to make my point ...;)

Anthony Joseph
01-20-12, 06:45 PM
Is there a meaningful and/or consequential difference between:

"I have not plead anything"

and

"I am not here to plead"


Also, wouldn't, "I have not yet plead" be contrued as having an intent to plead in the future?

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-20-12, 07:45 PM
there is a contumacious difference between the two

You are still missing the point

Anthony Joseph
01-20-12, 08:48 PM
there is a contumacious difference between the two

You are still missing the point

Well, don't hold out B' Yag; let me in on it.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-20-12, 09:32 PM
Shuftin
Shuftin is offline
Junior Member
This user has no status.

I am:
----

Shuftin's Avatar

Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
22
Post Thanks / Like

This is what you are referring to concerning giving the Court jurisdiction. This is from the great State of Georgia but it spells it out nicely.
TITLE 17. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

§ 17-7-94. Recordation and effect of plea of "not guilty" or of standing mute


If the person accused of committing a crime, upon being arraigned, pleads "not guilty" or stands mute, the clerk shall immediately record upon the minutes of the court the plea of "not guilty," together with the arraignment; and the arraignment and plea shall constitute the issue between the accused and the state.


HISTORY: Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 834; Code 1863, § 4525; Code 1868, § 4544; Code 1873, § 4638; Code 1882, § 4638; Penal Code 1895, § 947; Penal Code 1910, § 972; Code 1933, § 27-1405.
The arraignment and plea [together] shall constitute the issue between the accused and the state.

Appearance perfects the process i.e paperwork. Any errors in the process are made perfect by ones appearance. What is needed is an abatement. An abatement is not a challenge to the Court, it is a notice to the Court that there are errors in the process.

Long story short. An abatement informs the Court "Fix the errors in the process [paperwork] and I will show."

Anthony Joseph
01-21-12, 01:53 PM
So, "I have not plead anything" does not perfect jurisdiction and does not constitute appearance

but

"I am not here to plead" does?

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-21-12, 05:11 PM
Any Appearance ..... perfects Jurisdiction

that means...

physical appearance

a mail in Plea

filing a Motion, other than a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

hiring an Attorney

David Merrill
01-21-12, 10:29 PM
I agree that even appearing to decline to plea would be interpreted as Registration of Appearance pro se. Not letting the judge do his job is the same as threatening his career. It is uncomfortable to let him cross the prosecutor, who is there in his courtroom with literally every case he hears.

One thing that I note too about BY's recollection of the transcript. He claims that he remembers it exactly, maybe he even recorded it to transcribe?

I believe if it is accurate that it is very important.

Do you see how he asked the judge if he could move the court for a dismissal but never actually did so? The judge granted him permission to move the court and waited for BY to do so. The judge got silence and after waiting a while, the judge dismissed the case suae sponte.

BY understands the concept about any appearance will perfect jurisdiction not to be caught on the record moving the court. That would be Registration of Appearance and suddenly things would go typically where the judge just railroads the Defendant through the revenue mill.

Michael Joseph
01-22-12, 01:39 AM
I agree that even appearing to decline to plea would be interpreted as Registration of Appearance pro se. Not letting the judge do his job is the same as threatening his career. It is uncomfortable to let him cross the prosecutor, who is there in his courtroom with literally every case he hears.

One thing that I note too about BY's recollection of the transcript. He claims that he remembers it exactly, maybe he even recorded it to transcribe?

I believe if it is accurate that it is very important.

Do you see how he asked the judge if he could move the court for a dismissal but never actually did so? The judge granted him permission to move the court and waited for BY to do so. The judge got silence and after waiting a while, the judge dismissed the case suae sponte.

BY understands the concept about any appearance will perfect jurisdiction not to be caught on the record moving the court. That would be Registration of Appearance and suddenly things would go typically where the judge just railroads the Defendant through the revenue mill.

"the more i fought, the more powerful he became....so what do we do - Nothing.....it's his board now, the only way to win is not to play" - Tron Legacy

Shuftin
01-22-12, 06:35 AM
Any Appearance ..... perfects Jurisdiction

that means...

physical appearance

a mail in Plea

filing a Motion, other than a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

hiring an AttorneyClose but Go/NoGo [military term]. Yes, an appearance can be a physical appearance. But then again, an appearance can also be paperwork [once filed]. Either/or can be construed as being an "Appearance." An appearance alone does not, has not, and will never "Perfect Jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction is gained purely by "Process." Jurisdiction is never ever GAINED solely by an "Appearance."

NOTE: there is a "Special Appearance" before the Court and also there is an "At Arms Length" appearance before the Court. Neither of which gives the Court jurisdiction.

A Courts jurisdiction MUST be stated (Clearly) in the paperwork [Process].

i.e. "This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because 'Blah blah blah'."

Start reading some Supreme Court cases or if nothing else, some Appellant cases. The first few paragraphs should suffice.

Jurisdiction is gained always by "Process," never by "Appearance."

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-22-12, 07:11 AM
Close but Go/NoGo [military term]. Yes, an appearance can be a physical appearance. But then again, an appearance can also be paperwork [once filed]. Either/or can be construed as being an "Appearance." An appearance alone does not, has not, and will never "Perfect Jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction is gained purely by "Process." Jurisdiction is never ever GAINED solely by an "Appearance."

NOTE: there is a "Special Appearance" before the Court and also there is an "At Arms Length" appearance before the Court. Neither of which gives the Court jurisdiction.

A Courts jurisdiction MUST be stated (Clearly) in the paperwork [Process].

i.e. "This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because 'Blah blah blah'."

Start reading some Supreme Court cases or if nothing else, some Appellant cases. The first few paragraphs should suffice.

Jurisdiction is gained always by "Process," never by "Appearance."

see here ....

Quote =

Any Appearance ..... perfects Jurisdiction

that means...

physical appearance

a mail in Plea

filing a Motion, other than a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

hiring an Attorney

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now ....

go back to the NY definition of " Appearance Ticket " posted a bit back, we were discussing a traffic issue, where the Process starts with an Appearance Ticket

>>by Appearing, You are giving the Court Jurisdiction due to acquiescing to the " Simplified Traffic Information " filed by Offiucer Friendly

now, if You do not appear, the Court is not able to acquire Jurisdiction, because there is no Process ...:D

PS...

New York abolished " Special Apperance " some years ago

PSS

there is no such thing as an " at arms length " appearance in New York

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-22-12, 07:28 AM
"the more i fought, the more powerful he became....so what do we do - Nothing.....it's his board now, the only way to win is not to play" - Tron Legacy

in a NY traffic Case, this is essentially correct

they cannot issue a Warrant of Arrest for FTA, because there has been no Summons, no Process

of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL

Shuftin
01-23-12, 05:22 AM
in a NY traffic Case, this is essentially correct

they cannot issue a Warrant of Arrest for FTA, because there has been no Summons, no Process

of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DLIf it isn't in writing [process] i.e. wet ink, then it never happened. Spoken words tend to dissipate, vanish, and disappear in the brisk breezy breeze of Legalese BS.

Let's join heads just for a moment. Can a NY judge "Suspend ones Driver's License" because??? Well, just because??? Well??? Um??? Because!!! Umm, umm, well, because!!! Jeeze, well, um, just because!!!

A police officer need not even be involved at all. A judge can play the children's game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. Blind-fold the judge, spin him around three times. Then point the judge in the general direction of a chart, chock full of citizen's Driver's License's numbers. Ask the judge to pin the donkeys tail to one of Driver's License's numbers.

Driver's License suspended. Why??? Well, umm. "Just Because."

You get my drift SL.

You also understand my stance on defense. Or do you? Here I see red meat ready for devouring.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
01-23-12, 08:52 PM
4-a. Suspension for failure to answer an appearance ticket or to pay a
fine. (a) Upon receipt of a court notification of the failure of a
person to appear within sixty days of the return date or new subsequent
adjourned date, pursuant to an appearance ticket charging said person
with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter (except one
for parking, stopping, or standing), of any violation of the tax law or
of the transportation law regulating traffic or of any lawful ordinance
or regulation made by a local or public authority, relating to traffic
(except one for parking, stopping, or standing) or the failure to pay a
fine imposed by a court the commissioner or his or her agent may suspend
the driver's license or privileges of such person pending receipt of
notice from the court that such person has appeared in response to such
appearance ticket or has paid such fine. Such suspension shall take
effect no less than thirty days from the day upon which notice thereof
is sent by the commissioner to the person whose driver's license or
privileges are to be suspended. Any suspension issued pursuant to this
paragraph shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (j-l) of
subdivision two of section five hundred three of this chapter.

Michael Joseph
01-24-12, 01:18 AM
in a NY traffic Case, this is essentially correct

they cannot issue a Warrant of Arrest for FTA, because there has been no Summons, no Process

of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL

The DL is property of the State. State as Grantor and poor ignorant soul, as Trustee for LEGAL DUMMY.

In the end just as Bob Dylan sang "you got to serve somebody, and it may be the Devil [world] or it may be the Lord [Yehovah] but you are gonna have to serve somebody."

----------------

Therefore "your DL" is somewhat of a misnomer. Said DL is being Held in Possession by a Trustee. Therefore said DL is Never mine only it is a Grant of Privilege.


But you already know these things.

Shalom,
mj

David Merrill
01-24-12, 04:31 PM
It is easier to understand as a bond worth about $250. The state presumes that you, the enemy of the bank since 1933, are a criminal for even having that Department of Revenue license. [You hoarder of gold, you!] It keeps you free by a supersedeas bond forming an ongoing appeal that keeps you from being remanded to the barred jail.

One patriotic fellow with his head in 1995 as far as I am concerned brought that to light for me. He challenged jurisdiction and got a letter saying there was a warrant out for his arrest. He went downtown and sure enough was handcuffed so he called for somebody to pay $250 bail bond. [By check only btw. They know about Redeeming Lawful Money around here. If I had been there at the time I would have had the account-holder strike through the Pay to the Order of:] Then they let him go back to the jail without bars.

Jmi52
03-06-12, 03:36 AM
so the LEO thought he had gotten a sucker...until I pulled out my copy of the law and began reading that to him. From that point on, he took a more cautious approach. But still insisted on issuing me a ticket, which I gladly took as he might just as easily have impounded my property for no tags and no driver license. I knew I could defeat him in court, that's why I was pleased to only receive the ticket.

Would you mind telling me from what source you were able to copy this law? I would like to print this for my own records

AllanNR
06-15-15, 05:06 PM
check out my post in the DL not presented as ID thread for my account of putting this successfully into action. THANK YOU David you are truly a servant of the Most High.

Yaweh Elohim baruch David Merrill.

pumpkin
01-22-16, 01:55 PM
"of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL"

It seems without jurisdiction he can do no judicial act whatsoever.

Michael Joseph
01-22-16, 03:37 PM
The DL is property of the State. State as Grantor and poor ignorant soul, as Trustee for LEGAL DUMMY.

In the end just as Bob Dylan sang "you got to serve somebody, and it may be the Devil [world] or it may be the Lord [Yehovah] but you are gonna have to serve somebody."

----------------

Therefore "your DL" is somewhat of a misnomer. Said DL is being Held in Possession by a Trustee. Therefore said DL is Never mine only it is a Grant of Privilege.


But you already know these things.

Shalom,
mj

I have to revise this post in light of more recent comprehension of the term UNDERTAKING. The Statute creates the liability and thus the consideration for contract to the Public Trust. Therefore in application for license one Undertakes FBO himself of whom he/she is a member of the Public Trust. Therefore one Undertakes in quasi-contract.

Immediately the mind will say but where is the value? Or, where is the consideration? The value is keeping the peace for yourself and others in society.

So in fact, I think I am wrong to say the holder of license is trustee. Rather, license holder undertakes in contract. Therefore if license holder does not obey the bylaws which govern the license, then those who have the power to administrate said license may decide to revoke the license. In effect, one who does not keep the bylaws [obey] does not keep one's word, thus the Tort is against the Trustee who issued the license.

"Those who, though not appointed trustees, take on themselves to act as such and to possess and administer trust property for the beneficiaries, such as trustees de son tort. Distinguishing features ... are (a) they do not claim to act in their own right but for the beneficiaries, and (b) their assumption to act is not of itself a ground of liability ... and still there is status as trustees precedes the occurrence which may be the subject of claim against them."

" To be liable as trustees de son tort, strangers to the trust must commit a breach of trust while acting as trustees. Such persons are not appointed trustees but take on themselves to act as such and to possess and administer trust property."

In a sense, once the licensee disobeys the bylaws which govern said license, then he/she should immediately make the livery of the legal title to said license to the de-jure trustee OR he/she should discharge any charge which issues upon said licensee.

A constructive trust does not arise because of the expressed intent of a settlor/creator, one who establishes a trust. It is created by a court whenever title to property is held by a person who, in fairness, should not be permitted to retain it. It is frequently based on disloyalty or other breach of trust by an express trustee (the person appointed or required by law to execute a trust), and it is also created where no express trust is created but property is obtained or retained by other Unconscionable conduct. The court employs the constructive trust as a remedial device to compel the defendant to convey title to the property to the plaintiff. It treats the defendant as if he or she had been an express trustee from the date of the unlawful holding of the property in question. A constructive trust is not a trust, in the true meaning of the word, in which the trustee is to have duties of administration enduring for a substantial period of time, but rather it is a passive, temporary arrangement, in which the trustee's sole duty is to transfer the title and possession to the beneficiary.

xparte
01-22-16, 05:10 PM
I would have had the account-holder strike through the Pay to the Order of:] Then they let him go back to the jail without bars.to the Order following orders taking orders fullfiling orders filing orders excectuive orders defying orders.account-holders zero the balance cancel thar order. Everyone brings a cheque to balance in a trust situation.

xparte
01-27-16, 01:06 AM
We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine? Appearing for the NAME all tickets Surname FIRST MIDDLE or SURNAME FIRST MIDDLE or SURNAME First Middle.a upper lower case Name is a common law Name lawful as witnessed.U showing up is why it corrects that mistake the legally dead you are claiming that body NAMED on the ticket a warrant for a dead guy hardly .90000 DL# is my account if a bill shows up its for the dead in law to pay Graveyards are full of NAMES accounts Estates the living fight probate daily because blood from a stone means nobody is going home BC DC between certificates birth & death be your own coroner R4C is information on missing facts evidence or evident a re venue in the works Style the Name/case sensitive or correct the Name case filed according to jurisdiction upper lower case vs basket case all upper case .If CONN EDISON Bills a dead hydro account and it gets paid the power remains on its the accounting service not the NAME who pays.If disconnected or service gets suspended its only till 0 balance same as DL suspension till tickets payed up .ORDERS and bills.Do you sit in the dark or burn candles do you need a generator to claim power if hydro suspends there power u dont steal it if DMV suspends there licenced driver stop driving commercially and accepting bills try dead guys dont drive .com for more safe traveling tips true name is true game.

pumpkin
01-27-16, 01:06 PM
"Therefore in application for license one Undertakes FBO himself of whom he/she is a member of the Public Trust. Therefore one Undertakes in quasi-contract."

I have not seen any evidence of that for Indiana. I have found court cases defining a license as permission from the state to take part in a state regulated occupation. I have found it effective to affirm that I was traveling by right and not by occupation, within my private automobile. I have also focused on the court, not really caring what a license is or represents. The courts have rules, and the infraction process does not follow those rules. By Indiana law (statute), any statutory process within the courts that contradicts the approved rules of court (approved by the supreme court), that statute is without force or effect. That is if you have mind enough to bring the matter to the attention of the court. It is a separation of powers issue. Making rules of court is a judicial act, requiring judicial power. The legislature has none.

xparte
01-27-16, 07:40 PM
They make the rules to fit arguments not abatements the lower court is a wild card it does bat shit crazy justice to ORDER. One without absolute jurisdiction can act civilian and criminal at the same time no rules. The rules are now facts it just takes the appearance of justice rule of law. as you have agreed with your appearance to take responsibility for justice . Law charges misdemeanor quasi felony charges. offences summary quasi indictable presuming a trial without rules is a Mans only choice is why a ruling is only on the facts being found guilty is not as guilty as pledging no guilt.Without being employed with the state how is it you get to appear as one that is then salaried with benefits and no process penalties.survey says. DL application or just begging to be employed long enough for a benefit warrants charges bills orders employee of the month i get it every january. often visit the pmkn patch thnx

xparte
01-28-16, 12:19 AM
Canadian r4c any hosers remember if the clerk was county meaning common law or that municipal window thing.