Two traffic stops snubbed.
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.
My Comprehension of the Matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Axe
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.
Legal Documents and Signatures
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David Merrill
It was worth
a look.
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, 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.
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 so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.
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