Printable View
I lost my driving license for a year under very bogus circumstances.
Without going into great detail, I am looking for a starting point for grounds to file in USDC. My plan is to argue under constitutional right to free travel. Would there be better grounds.
I am now reading the threads on making a record in USDC but have no background
That is a great start! Become adept at Record-Forming. If you want to try asserting case law then you better be a court of competent jurisdiction by being a court of record yourself.
I encourage you to share your record with us here as you go.
Shibumi! I liked that book. Welcome!
I would add to your studies the Supreme Court case Aswander v. Tennessee Valley Association (1936), more specifically the Ashwander rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by shibumi2
If one wishes to raise a constitutional issue, it would be wise not to avail one's self of statutory benefits in accordance with the avoidance doctrine established by Justice Brandeis in the aforementioned case.
According to George Gordon, the State (government) has an interest in your vehicle granted by way of the certificate of title. One may wish to possess the complete and full interest of their vehicle in their right to travel journey.
The certificate of title is a service. There are many, many links with commerce surrounding vehicles, certificates, insurances, and licensing.
For others:
A license is not a contract (which attorneys are quick to yelp about), but the never say exactly what a license is.
A license is a servitude. This is a very important point.
This being the case when did government acquire the power to impose this kind of servitude on citizens?
Perhaps a tie in with the Reconstruction Acts could lend us some clues?
Alfred Adask has an interesting theory on administrative courts being bills of attainder. Administrative courts violate the separation of powers doctrine by unifying the powers of all three branches into one entity.
Rod Class has interesting theories concerning administrative courts and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
Lee Brobst also had interesting material concerning administrative courts and the Constitution as well.
There are also links involving federal codes and statutes involving transportation, traffic legislation of the States and federal funding in addition to regulations from both State and Federal.
Administrative Procedures Act
Bill of attainder.Quote:
Basic purposes
Agencies are unique governmental bodies, capable of exercising powers characteristic of all three branches of the United States federal government: judicial, legislative and executive. An individual agency typically will possess only the power of the branch that set it up, or possibly powers characteristic of two branches, but the Separation of Powers doctrine dictates that all three powers should not be vested in one body. As recognized by President Roosevelt and others, the creation and function of federal agencies can cause separation of powers issues under the United States Constitution. To provide constitutional safeguards, the APA creates a framework for regulating agencies and their unique role. According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), drafted after the 1946 enactment of the APA, the basic purposes of the APA are: (1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules; (2) to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process; (3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication; (4) to define the scope of judicial review.[6]
Perhaps administrative courts are bills of pains and penalties?Quote:
Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflect punishment on them without a judicial trial.
....
An act is a "bill of attainder" when the punishment is death and a "bill of pains and penalties" when the punishment is less severe; both kinds of punishment fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition. [Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.]
Now, I am theorizing that these agencies may be commercial rather than governmental which may be how they are circumventing the separation of powers doctrine.
You may be able to go the Rod Class route and get your way simply by holding their feet to the fire of what the rules currently are and what the statutes, acts, codes, and regulations currently state.
I apologize in advance if the submitter feels I am derailing your thread.
If you feel this way, I can create a new thread moving the material thereto.
Rod Class asserts that the judicial power has been removed from federal courts per the 11th Amendment.
The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
I have heard this mentioned before in allusion by "the Informer".Quote:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
If this is the case, would this not make the federal courts merely administrative save District Courts?
District Courts handle suits in admiralty/maritime.
Thoughts?
You have many points there and I a focusing on these two.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
This is the articulation of the Libel of Review.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Sign the driver license simply - First Middle. When you hand it to the officer specify that you are only using it to evidence compentency. - Not for identification purposes. He will execute a fatal error; misnomer. Now you cannot be arraigned from where you are, with a right to judiciary, into the administrative admiralty. The only justification for administrative government to exist is that it does so under judicial oversight. Look for that in AmJur 2d - Administrative Law.
Retain your right to judiciary by not allowing that signed contract to drag you into Ashwander Doctrine. If you endorse private credit from the Fed, you almost certainly have (own) a SSN that is a taxation contract that will function through that driver license card - so non-endorse private credit; redeem lawful money. Keep all that in your evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government with the Libel of Review.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Another piece of the puzzle !! Thanks :).Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Rod and the AIB Team also make an interesting assessment regarding the whole “Drivers License” business .
In a nutshell . States signed onto the National Highway Safety Act . The Act provides revenue sourcing and that 40% of revenues collected are to go back to the State’s political subdivisions . A stipulation of the revenue arrangement is the local subdivisions are to adhere to federal guidelines in all highway safety related issues .
Only two classifications of “Driver’s License” needed to travel on Safety Act “funded” roadways . A CDL for commercial transport and a DL for those driving / delivering “migrant workers “ . ( Agriculture Codes come into play )
This is all administered under the Dept. of Transportation and ONLY the Office of the ( Director ? ) of the issuing State DOT has authority to pull a required License .
I’ll see what I can find in relation to this and post later .
11th Amendment and Foreign State Status logic can be found in this latest Dismissal Template .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640594/5...issal-Template
The connections I make start with the case cited in the Article in my first Fed video. The Supremes think that SSI is a taxation system like the Income Tax.
Now connect that up with the fact, that I have shown here - that you can get a valid drivers license in your hand, without a SSN. Now you will find (hopefully) that the driver license integrates your personal TIN as evidence to the Revenue Officer stopping you. However, if you have no SSN, then it is much easier to abate the cause for misnomer, provided you sign it correctly with your true name.Quote:
Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
Regards,
David Merrill.
Good points David . One may also claim “mistake” in securing the documents in the first place , correct the record and exercise the power of rescission .
Grace in the Law .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trust Guy
was looking at the document and was wondering if "unjustice division" is a place holder or literal.
What of that Senate Report (can't find it right now, and have to go soon) where it's decreed that all property belongs to the State and "individual ownership" is reduced to "mere use". As far as Congress is concerned, anything within the United States is owned by the United States, including our cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Good point and I do remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Anthony
I'd make sure personal property that is jus privati is without the United States and "this State" for that matter :).
If personal property is "mere use", I'd start leaning heavy on all these trustees and fiduciaries to stand up and be counted !!
This is where you could have a lot of fun with all the trust law that has been passed from England to today.
Anyone claiming to be trustee or administrator within an office of trust, prove it.
No operation by assumpsit :). Only lawful claims are acceptable.
An officer tenuring office lawfully does so by oath and bond.
An officer tenuring an office by oath (or lack thereof) and insurance policy sounds like a corporate officer to me.
Licensed and bonded?
Licensed and insured?
Office of trust or office of profit?
Although this is an old thread, its subject matter is of vital importance for anyone who is contemplating starting a legal action in any court in America. If you don't know what you are going up against, you will lose as soon as you step foot into its jurisdiction.
That's an interesting find by Rod Class. Another piece of the puzzle that fits in with much of the material I've been pouring over lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
What is as interesting (if not more so) is some of the work that Dr. Edwardo M. Rivera has done on these matters (which confirms both "the Informer's" and Rod Class' position) and what he has found and been able to verify. His paper Why There Is No Justice in America, The Congressional Judicial Hoax, A California Case Study will help to put some of the pieces of the puzzle together to explain why there are no judicial courts in America, and that there never have been! This first quote from page 4 gives a bit of historical context to how this circumstance came about.
For even more detail on Dr. Rivera's findings, starting at page 36 of the following Freedom School study guide PDF, read his 9 page letter titled "Re: Jurisdiction of United States District Courts." This study guide (which is well worth a careful reading in itself) can be downloaded in PDF form from the following website: Freedom-school.com/study-links.html. The study guide is the very first item on the list. The website itself contains a wealth of good information, and is well worth anyone's time to check out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Rivera
The big blow comes in the following paragraph in the letter:
Ed warns his reader that: "You must first assure yourself that [the] opinion I provide in this letter is absolutely correct before you confront any federal judge." He states that even many of the judges themselves, in the past and in the present, aren't aware that they are not Article III judges. A statement that can be found to be rather appalling, to say the least. But I'm pretty sure he is correct in his assessment based on my own due diligence of this issue and from personal contact with the court system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Rivera
The good news is that this doesn't mean that we do not have access to the common law, as we most assuredly do. It just means that we have to know and understand the law first and how it works before we can gain remedy. As David has been teaching, remedy is there; you just have to know how to get it out of the administrative court system.
There are hundreds of Libels of Review already filed on that presumption. When the "judge" is assigned at filing the new suitor inquires, Is this an Article III judge? The clerk of court answers, Yes it is.
Either the clerk is lying or ignorant/incompetent.
However the clerk is competent to keep an accurate record. So you now have the "exclusive original competence" of the United States government through your $350 evidence repository.
[Sometimes I wonder though, because of how often the clerk of court forgets to use the adhesive and only tapes up the flap on mailing envelopes. This is against postal regulations and renders the material worthless if you are competent and apply Rules of Evidence in your kitchen table court. How do you know what you are reading is what the clerk of court sent?]
The problem with RIVERA and CLASS for that matter is they are busy describing how you do not have anything going for you in the federal court because of the incompetency there. Rather than how to become the court of competent jurisdiction by record-forming. When you become the only court of record you carry that authority.
Here a court of competent jurisdiction Ordered the clerk of the local court to reinstate his driver license. Notice the role of the federal evidence repository.
Regards,
David Merrill.
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9...toreinstat.jpg
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9...memorespon.jpg
I agree that the clerk IS either lying or ignorant. And that is the point. Article IV courts have no business involving themselves in matters of the people, where the supposed judicial power of the United States is competent to provide judgment. The problem is: despite denial from official sources (fictitious actors who are ENTITLED to lie) the fact remains that there are no judicial District Courts that have been ordained by Congress in 49 of the States. Except for the District Court in Hawaii, yet that court has never had Article III justices appointed to it by Congress, and therefore is incompetent to provide a judicial ruling. It remains a court run by Article IV justices (whether the justices realize it or not). These facts are not insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Article IV administrative courts were designed to address the offenses of government actors and not the people in their substantive form. They are therefore courts for the fictitious actors committing violations against the statutes and not for non-fictions who are without public office (supposedly; although virtually never is that presumption made) and therefore not accountable to statute law.
I agree that keeping an accurate record of the facts is paramount. But there are more ways than one to skin this cat. At least that's what I'm learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
The fact that clerks sometimes muck up this process for people is added evidence of the disingenuousness of the de facto system that we have to work with. All of which points to the fact that one must become a "belligerent combatant" in these arenas and give judges no room for equivocation by challenging jurisdiction at every opportunity. Whether in a county Superior Court or a city municipal court.
I have no experience with Rod Class' material (if indeed he has any). But I have surveyed some of Ed's materials and allegations about the system and found them to be credible, accurate, and helpful knowledge to have. You have to know the arena of law that you are involved with first before you can reasonably expect to find remedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
I have to disagree with the implication of your characterization of Rivera, that all he is doing is telling people they don't have a chance of remedy if they enter the federal court. He, like you, is making a living off people who are too lazy to figure things out for themselves. He does offer a course that people can take in order to become better informed. Whether or not he provides credible services for people seeking remedy I don't have any personal knowledge. However, I do think that the information he is providing is tremendously helpful for those of us who are endeavoring to learn how to successfully obtain justice from an inherently unjust system that uses people's ignorance of the law against them.
Once people have a clear understanding of how the law works, they will be able to handle their own affairs by themselves. At least, that's what I'm working toward.
I had not thought of the brilliant people in the brain trust, suitors as too lazy to figure things out for themselves. Rather they seem to be very intelligent about endeavoring to find the truth and reproducible mental models together and launching off each other's experiences. I have sanitized something that may provoke your mind out of some of these patterns:Quote:
Originally Posted by KnowLaw
Default Judgment and MERS R4C.
Take a careful look at the details, some of which are that the clerk of court Received it and then Filed it two minutes later. That default judgement is certified by the clerk of court too. Significant though is that the suitor still lives there in his home.
I do not mean to disparage Ed RIVERA. My distrust for him is inherent in that he is an attorney.
This catches my eye. I am the one who pointed this out to Ed years ago. He was spouting that Hawaii was Article III and I though that sounded worth checking out downtown at the federal repository. I found this (below):Quote:
Except for the District Court in Hawaii, yet that court has never had Article III justices appointed to it by Congress...
I asked Ed if the Article I judges had been terminated and he withdrew his treatise from viewing. So I gathered he was pondering the question. I was a little put off that he did not answer me or thank me for the information.
So it would seem he is teaching it now though; or that you are he?
Regards,
David Merrill.