Why go to the trouble to even do all that?
Printable View
Why go to the trouble to even do all that?
FINAL UPDATE... for now
Unfortunately this round ended in a somewhat deflating fashion according to what I expected to occur in a court setting. My wife's car registration came up for renewal during this escapade and when she attempted to renew, she was denied since the registration for her car also has the LEGAL M. NAME with a suspended license on it. In other words, due to the DL card I use being suspended, they will not allow a registration renewal for a car with that name on it.
So, I had to expedite the correcting of this situation and I went to the DL bureau/courthouse to help with that issue. I found it extremely easy and quick to resolve this issue with cash regardless of the verbiage contained in the presentments sent which stated that an appearance before a judge was required and a signed "clearance document" from the court was needed in order to reinstate the DL.
NONE OF THIS EVEN CAME UP. I handed cash over to the clerk and presto, reinstatement. There was a room semi-full with people and when I arrived, I didn't even sit down to wait. I was taken right away and instructed that when payment was made upstairs at the clerk of court, bring the receipt and the DL will be reinstated for $60. NO clearance document, NO judge, NO ANYTHING... just cash. It was made real easy for me and I was in and out in less than fifteen minutes while I witnessed people still waiting to be called.
I only did this because I did not want my wife to have to deal with an expired registration with our children in the car. They don't need to deal with that unnecessary strife so I ended the situation this way for now. I still have the entire process documented in my evidence repository for the next occurance.
BTW, when asked for a signature I wrote "Lawful Money". I will upload that doc when I have a chance.
With a credit card one can apply online. Its probably a lot easier to apply online and then send in an update by fax. By mail or by fax are alternatives.
A division of a private family trust that I oversee has a USDOT # with a not domestic mail addy and fax # --no other contact info. Communications from USDOT are like this: "To John Henry, as Attorney-In-Fact of Family Trust...". They communicate by fax on a regular basis.
Link to the MCS-150 is here.
To knowledge, no State plates are required if the automobile is free from a car note or mortgage or the like. If you remove State tags on a car with a note they will presume one to be up to commit larceny. One can do the following for completing the form:
#1 and #2 your choice
...
#22 Interstate -- the treaty protection zones are Interstate--this keeps you out of the district-states. Choosing intrastate and local DMV will probably bother you.
#23 OTHER and "Not for hire", "Private", "Exempt", "Immune" etc.
#24 *only* OTHER and "No cargo" choosing "household goods" is not a smart idea IMHO.
Also If I recall correctly, technically without the 'car carriage' on top, the underlying wheel-base is a 'truck'.
Nearly overwhelming! - Those two posts...
Thanks guys.
Anthony Joseph;
It sounds like they had that strategy in mind for you so they could 'dodge the bullet' so to speak. Tell us; is your driver license signed Anthony Joseph?
There was posting issue. This is to add clarification..
#22 Interstate -- the treaty protection zones are Interstate--this keeps you out of the district-states. Choosing intrastate and local DMV will probably bother you. The idea is that get in your private automobile, leave your private land or your dominions then as soon as you reach the street/highway/road you commence transit through the UN-OAS-NATO zone to the shopping mall and then right back to private land.
#24 *only* OTHER and "No cargo". WARNING: choosing "household goods" is not a smart idea IMHO. No cargo also means no human chattel!
I have traveled sans State plates with USDOT # with family crest on custom tag on front and rear or automobile, no problems. Once what appeared to be a Police or State DOT SUV trailed behind me for a good deal of the trip on Interstate/Interstate and then he exited the highway and headed toward a street known to be heavy with semi traffic. Suppose he had better things to do.
if one does it online, one can always follow up by a fax to the USDOT's Chief Counsel to clarify your intent. Be courteous. USDOT personnel have been quite upstanding.
Also: others have reported cross country trips with no pullovers and just displaying USDOT # only.
It bounced off the brain trust with a warning.
How can this be done without imitating or impersonating a federal or state employee?Quote:
A division of a private family trust that I oversee has a USDOT # with a not domestic PO Box and a fax # --no other contact info.
#1 for MAILING ADDRESS one can put private in front among other things. Instead of PO Box one can put "private box ####". Family trust does not have any SSN or an EIN.
#2 put stickers on the bumper that read "PRIVATE" or "NOT FOR HIRE" ..put it on the tag even or on the USDOT decal..depending on how you do it
#3 One can send memorandum of law or the like indicating your reservation of rights or the like, your intent so as the clarify. Keep the 'application' form and related documents on hand. Or at least copies thereof.
There is a drop-down on the online USDOT application for UNKNOWN STATE..not sure of the usefulness of that selection.
#4 Interstate selection only removes it from being intrastate. No 'State employee' relationship ..its interstate.
#5 "near" before CITY, STATE is to remove 'resident of city' presumption.
Should read private box not PO Box. There is such a thing as a "private box" or a "private bag". Private != resident (public office holder). Not domestic = not U.S./Metro Federal/state employees are neither private nor non-domestic. 'near' City, State is to remove the presumption under a city-residence contract.Quote:
A division of a private family trust that I oversee has a USDOT # with a not domestic PO Box and a fax # --no other contact info.
Example:
private 40 Baker Lane
near Chicago, Illinois not domestic
private box 9493
near Chicago, Illinois [12345-9493]
One can ask about the +4 numbering for the private box.
General post office is also an option.
I actually obtained a US DOT# and held it for a year or so while I contemplated about transitioning over. I received a notice that without the mandatory inspection, the # would be cancelled. I told them there is nothing to inspect since I believe I entered any vehicles as "leased" when needed. I don't remember exactly what was said on the phone but it ended with the US DOT# being cancelled.
Any thoughts on that?
If you went for the "Household Goods Methodology" that is probably why they are asking. The only kind of cargo should be: OTHER: NO CARGO. If you are transporting cosmetics, toiletries...no surprise they want an inspection. As attorney-in-fact for the trust I have yet to receive ANY information asking for an inspection just information about basic programs and the alcohol awareness training which due to status they immediately acknowledged that it was not required training.
Goods and personal property are two different things. Goods are in stores. "Personal property" is "your stuff" better yet, "private possessions".
Also the family trust isn't a motor carrier just acting AS IF a carrier for the purposes of aiding easy friend-foe-neutral identification while in transit.
RE: NAME
For the name of the "motor carrier" one can enter "John Henry, as Motor Carrier" to limit the scope of usage of the name to that specific role (from general to special). One can utilize name of a family trust. One could even put "John Henry, as Motor Carrier" for name and put the John Henry Doe for the 'trade name'. I prefer the house estate or family trust method. For the signature/role/office: Attorney-In-Fact, Agent, Authorized Representative are all sufficient.
Consider:
John Henry as Attorney-In-Fact for John Henry, as Motor Carrier d/b/a JOHN HENRY DOE.
John Henry, as Attorney-In-Fact for JOHN HENRY DOE, AS MOTOR CARRIER.
If you're using the SSA/EIN entity as an intermediary (its a trust or an estate in case you didn't know), that's fair enough. You could put John Henry, as Motor Carrier in field #1 and JOHN HENRY DOE in field #2. However, I'd enter "not domestic" and "private" into the address fields. You can also do change of address with the SSA and also with the IRS and also with the State DMV. Key is be thorough not half-on-half-off. But again your situation may be different from mine. I am wholly without any State ID, Driver License or SSN whatsoever.
Quote:
"Goods" means all things which are moveable at the time of the sale or at the time the buyer takes possession, including goods not in existence at the time the transaction is entered into and goods which are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction on real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not they are severable therefrom. "Goods" also includes merchandise certificates.(North Carolina General Assembly)
In this particular court every defendant is brought to a table in a small room with a "LET's MAKE A DEAL" prosecutor.
1 Prosecutor: "Legal Name"?
2 Defendant: My name is True Name.
3 P: Excuse me?
4 D: My name is True Name.
5 P: This isn't you? "N-A-M-E"?
6 D: I go by True Name.
7 P: Is this you though?
8 D: I'm here by restricted appearance, to prevent fraud on the court. Is the court aware that all presentments were refused for cause timely?
9 P: I dunno what you're talking about.
10 D: Right there [pointing to file], refused for cause.
11 P: I don't even care about that, is this you? I need to know, if it's not you we gotta get the f.. OK well step outside then .. we gotta get the file. So what's your name?
12 D: True Name.
13 P: True Name?
14 D: The ticket was handed to me.
15 P: is, is this you, were you the person stopped on ..
16 D: yes
17 P: Route 66 January 7th in the town of X?
18 D: yes
19 P: by a XX state police officer
20 D: yes
21 P: ok. So what do you want, a hearing before a magistrate? Is that what you're looking for?
22 D: I want it dismissed ..
23 P: I'm not dismissing it. But if you want a hearing before a magistrate ..
24 D: I did not identify myself as "LEGAL NAME" on January 7th
25 P: you said you were somebody else?
26 D: I said: "I'm showing you this license for competency not for identification."
27 P: for what?
28 D: Competency. Competency to drive.
29 P: I don't understand what you're talking about.
30 P: So let's have a hearing before the magistrate, ok
31 D: ok
32 P: That's not gonna be today. You gotta come back on ... May 4th ok? You got any .. proof, bring it in, witnesses
33 D: thank you
34 P: we'll see ya.
Yes, I can imagine how the prosecutor would not care about that misnomer. It is the court that the suitor would be concerned if there is fraud or not and it sounds like the R4C is in the case file. So the court is not being defrauded, the Police Chief sent that R4C process over and it may also be found (presuming an evidence repository) on PACER. I is accompanied with a clerk instruction that tells the judge the case number in the federal courthouse.
The distict attorney is not the judge/magistrate.
His refusal for cause went south though when he agreed to do business by saying "ok". He should have kept saying, No, I don't want to come back or speak to the magistrate.
He wandered away from the task at hand, to prevent fraud on the court.
Yes! I agree. Right there at line 30 the offer was made and he accepted it at 31. And yes, the prosecutor/DA is not the judge/magistrate. Very educational; thank you.
A lot of these courts are like cattle chutes.
Looking at that transcript maybe he best have said that is what he came for, to prevent fraud on the court but he got sidetracked into speaking with the ADA. It would appear that the ADA sealed the business appearance by making it another day...
Do you see it that way?
The fellow came to prevent fraud on the court but never got to the court. He got distracted by the ADA.
Great idea Delaware. I now will have to start looking at Laws from Texas. I have only used this once in the last 2 years, for I have not dealt with the road trolls except for once in these 2 years.
When he asked for the DL I said I have one but done use it.
He asked why.
I ask him if I was carrying passengers, goods, or providing any type of service.
Tacit response.
I told him I was traveling in the private, and not engage in the public at the time.
He then told me that the State in its authority has deemed it so.
I asked him by what authority does the State make such claims when involuntary servitude has been outlawed?
Tacit response.
I asked him if involuntary servitude is against the Law.
Tacit response from him.
I remained very clam and friendly with him the entire time, and he responded in like manner.
The back story to this situation that makes it interesting is that two years ago I had two felony Warrants issued on the name. The Felony charges did not stick, but they left the Warrants active on the name. I did not know this. So after he figured out who I was via the plates on the Car, that is when about 10 of them show up for the felony stop.
All that ended up being taken care of, as they called the Country I live in and learned about the "mistake", and I was let go without further incident.
I thought at the time maybe they let me off because of the FUBAR situation that occurred, but that is not the case, because one of the others troopers there, a Commander, wanted to take me to jail anyway.
So they must have had no other reasoning Lawfully to detain me further or proceed with coercion.
So I have established my footing in a situation and situations that would appear to be the opposite. Which is really surreal considering my past personal interactions and relationships with the road trolls.
(On another note)
I have been here reading for about a little while, and want to thank everyone for their work. I used to be very angry because I was searching for remedy so badly, and only getting BS information, disinformation, and down right deception. It is sites like this one that give remedy and true sincere study into what is taking place, and at least try to find solutions. I am finding that our Country was established for us to truly rule in. We are to be the creators of Law. Through the Court of Record primarily, and that Law thus created is for us alone and our Personal Contracts and dealings.
And in reality, its so very simple, though the process can be tedious. Patience is a virtue.
And once the true depth of what is allowed us is realized, one can truly reflect on it, and say that they are glad to understand, and have a system in place to use and apply to ones own personal freedom and liberty.
It has taken me many years to get to this point. And though here, yet I am still very far away from where I want to be in my personal knowledge and application of such.
It may feel roundabout to get to my point but take a look at the top of Page 2. There is something there about no man can be redeemed by a religion that he does not trust. Conversely there is no redemption in a process that a man cannot understand.
I ponder this lately.
Something seems key in understanding the redemption of lawful money, for identical reasons. A suitor called me up out of the blue today to tell me he had a revelation about the term "mammon" in the Holy Bible. He said it was for derivatives. How about that? Every time I have ever heard a sermon touching on that passage the preacher has never made any distinction between silver and gold for traditional money, and the first fiat - and subsequent IOU's, then notes like insurance policies FDIC and even a marketplace for gambling on foreclosures and death called guess what? Derivatives. I liked that thought. America escaped mammon between 1789 and 1861.
Wrap your mind around remedy, and it will execute smoothly. Basic metaphysics in the natural law.
If a 'signature' is not required for the citation, they are likely going back to the 'application' for determining fiduciary relationship.
As followup to post #173, the date for our defendants "hearing with magistrate" arrived. Well aware business appearance may have previously been perfected he went ahead anyway. He was again shuttled into a one-on-one with the State's Attorney. Brief discussion where defendant stated he wanted it dismissed, attorney said he wasn't dismissing it, then admitted he couldn't dismiss it, didn't have the authority, etc. He was made to wait, probably while the citing officer & magistrate were readied, and they went ahead with a little show trial. Defendant raised several points but magistrate found no merit in any and decided in State's favor.
Anyway, defendant is now that much the wiser and the event provided the impetus for defendant to file a full evidence repository. While he may have lost a skirmish, he's confident the war is won.
So, what ended up happening?
Defendant was convicted, paid the $140 fine, and rolled on down the road. I do have another suitor anecdote to relate though...
At the beginning of this year I managed to get 3 tickets - one each month for the first 3 months. January was for speeding & lane violation by town cop, second for speeding by State Patrol, and third (March) for lane viol. by State Patrol. Wasn't trying to get them but it could be related to the combination of sports car, Dr. Pepper, and loud rock 'n roll (unconfirmed theory). This offered a chance to apply some of what I've learned here at Planet Merrill. Not to keep you waiting though, I lost 2 and won one. 1 for 3. Now for the details.
FIRST. Told the town cop I was not showing the DL for identification. He must have found my words unusual because he then questioned my well-being. He must've doubted his own ability to make that determination as he radioed nearby EMT personnel to come & question me. They apparently found me sane enough, and the cop having conferred with another who arrived continued the questioning (like how I was known to others) & finally handed me a citation which I later timely R4C'd back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
SECOND. Here again I tried not to identify with the fictional IT, the LEGAL NAME trust on the DL. But thinking back on it later, I failed when the officer asked if the car was registered in my name and I answered "yes." I R4C'd the citation timely back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
THIRD. This stop was short, very little was said, and the officer had no objection to it. I R4C'd the citation timely back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
Subsequently I received notice that the driver was convicted on 1 & 2 and must pay fines to avoid suspension. I paid the fines and the DMV also notified that driver must do safety training: http://i.imgur.com/3O7VG3U.jpg
On all notices there was nothing listed under "Court" heading.
Also of note, the State Patrol legal returned my original R4C citations 2 & 3 with a cover letter: http://i.imgur.com/za7xW3i.jpg
I did not appeal or do the payment option as directed; I ignored them. I never heard another word about citation #3 or paid its fine. That was my win. Hoorah for R4C!
Those are the facts and here is my take. It seems I'm too quick and ready to supply answers. If you're in this situation and later realize you may have answered wrong ... then consider appealing the citation and filing an affidavit of truth into the case. I've done that before and won (found "not responsible" when no prosecution showed). I should also say on citation #1 I forgot to R4C the back of the ticket (the instructions); could've been pivotal.
I am just bouncing off this #2 statement here, like David states record forming 101.
This description has been updated since I last been here: Legal name http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+name
Legal name is the name that identifies a person for legal, administrative and other official purposes. A person's first legal name generally is the name of the person that was given for the purpose of registration of the birth and which then appears on a birth certificate (see birth name), but may change subsequently. Most jurisdictions require the use of a legal name for all legal and administrative purposes, and some jurisdictions permit or require a name change to be recorded at marriage.
This is actually the most common method, since most women who marry do not petition a court under the statutorily prescribed method, but simply use a new name (typically the husband's, a custom which started under the theory of coverture where a woman lost her identity and most rights when she married (Really now? woman loose their identity and most rights when married).
The legal name may need to be used on various government issued documents (e.g., a court order). The term is also used when an individual changes their first or full name, typically after reaching a certain legal age (usually 18 or over, though it can be as low as 14 in several European nations).
A person's legal name typically is the same as their personal name, comprising a given name and a family name. The order varies according to culture and country. There are also country-by-country differences on changes of legal names by marriage. (See married name.)
Birth certificate: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...th+certificate
Mary Elizabeth Winblad (1895-1987) birth certificate A birth certificate is a vital record that documents the birth of a child. The term "birth certificate" can refer to either the original document certifying the circumstances of the birth or to a certified copy of or representation of the ensuing registration of that birth. Depending on the jurisdiction, a record of birth might or might not contain verification of the event by such as a midwife or doctor.
History and contemporary times
A Soviet birth certificate from 1972.
The documentation of births is a practice widely held throughout human civilization, especially in China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Persia. The original purpose of vital statistics was for tax purposes (lol and still is) and for the determination of available military manpower.
Births were initially registered with churches, who maintained registers of births. This practice continued into the 19th century.[1] The compulsory registration of births with governmental agencies is a practice that originated in the United Kingdom in 1853.[2]
Most countries have statutes and laws that regulate the registration of births. In all countries, it is the responsibility of the mother's physician, midwife, hospital administrator, or the parents of the child to see that the birth is properly registered with the appropriate government agency.
The actual record of birth is stored with a government agency. That agency will issue certified copies or representations of the original birth record upon request, which can be used to apply for government benefits, such as passports. The certification is signed and/or sealed by the registrar or other custodian of birth records, who is commissioned by the government.
The right of every child to a name and nationality, and the responsibility of national governments to achieve this are contained in Articles 7 and 8 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality..." (CRC Article 7) and "States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations..." (CRC Article 8).
[3]"...it's a small paper but it actually establishes who you are and gives access to the rights and the privileges, and the obligations, of citizenship" - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, February 2005.
I know of someone who made an "all rights reserved, without prejudice, by: given name" type thing for his DL: he typed that in the smallest font, printed it off, cut around the words, probably with an Exacto knife, affixed it to the DL, then laminated the DL. He says he was stopped two or three times, showed that to the officers, and was let off with "have a nice day" each time.
So the guy explained it like: this was his way of re-contracting on his terms and turned the DL into his personal copy of the agreement.
This is a question I asked way back. “If the property is in your name than whose is it”?
If the property is not in your name then whose is it.
If lawful money is in your name than whose is it?
As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”
If you believe you own that property you refer to as a Name, please provide evidence of such ownership. Saying I AM JOHN DOE in YOUR COURT or in public does not make that Name your property. If property is owned/held by legal title, then you would be able to produce the original title to the property Name AS OWNER. If you can not, and all you can obtain is a "certified copy", signed by an authorized official who has some fictional title, it appears to me that the owner or legal title holder sure does not want you to have it. I wonder why?????
I would suggest you all look up what the "legal community" considers to be a belligerent act, along with the bankruptcy of the US. If you decide that legal community DOES NOT function in YOUR world, as you are a sovereign or other self-important title claiming your "rights" or you "own this or that", boy are you going to be in for a real lesson. Sure TPTB do not want their fraud exposed and you "may get lucky" - over small stuff but when push comes to shove, we will see. For those who are familiar with Paul Andrew Mitchell, word is that he has been indicted for obstruction of justice, etc.
No since the whole license is an agreement that you have created. The physical license card belongs to the "STATE OF..." under the terms of the agreement but the agreement itself is the signor's. A signor may alter an agreement at any time and the alterations go into effect immediately upon NOTICE. Notice = knowledge of the communication.
If one desired they could place 'See attached" on the signature line and then carry the attachment with them.
Another effective method is to form a separate NOTICE, record the notice in a public forum, issue a certified copy to the DMV and then carrying one with you.
Make copies, take pics.
The birth certificate afaik = State property. The name on the birth certificate = State property.
Afaik, private property (de jure) is not "in this State".Quote:
“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”
something called "State" may maintain the position that it "owns" property; yet, said "State" cannot make claim to property (requires vocal chords)
“The ultimate ownership of all property..."
all that tells me is that ownership and property are two different things
non-living entities can hold "titles" (dead paper) in ownership; only man can make a claim (living voice) to property
I understand the concept that the so-called "federal gov't" tried to propagate in the above Senate Doc #43 but it rests on the definition of the word "individual." Paul Andrew Mitchell's work explains with cited material why the "federal gov't's" use of the term "individual" circles back to the definition of small "c" "citizen"...meaning "federal citizen." For those interested in Mitchell's work simply google "supreme law dot org."
The above post also mentions that Paul Andrew Mitchell has been "indicted for obstruction of justice." Where is this written? I would like to know how this information was gathered.
Thanks,
Sam
I have my own account to add to this ongoing saga.
I got pulled over yesterday for speeding. Officer approached and waited while I gathered my documents. I noticed my licence had JUST expired last month on the 31st but I presented it anyway and said very loudly and clearly.
" I am not presenting this as identification, only to show competence", he replied "but this is your identifica...." to which I smiled at him and basically said whatever with a shrug of my shoulders. He says ok in a muted tone and walks back to run me through the system. 20 minutes later a patrol sergeant shows up and I say to myself "whichever way this goes this should get interesting". I see him poked into his patrolmans side window and then sticking his head out kinda giving me a mean look in the rearview to which I YAWN. PS walks over and says in a very polite tone "excuse me sir did you know your licence has expired" I replied "I JUST saw that now when I presented it". "Ok thank you" and walks away. 20 minutes later the patrolman walks back over with all my papers and nothing else. "I apologize for taking up your time and inconveniencing you sir" "we are having a computer glitch at the moment so were gonna let you go" " my sergeant is not happy about it". I smile and say thank you and actually share a laugh with the patrolman about safe driving and off I GO.
question: can I keep driving with an expired licence and just keep presenting it as proof of competence?