*doug555
Say, about the implied contact; isn't there an implied contact when driving? Are implied contacts derived from public policy?
Printable View
*doug555
Say, about the implied contact; isn't there an implied contact when driving? Are implied contacts derived from public policy?
presumption is not fact; someone is required to verify what he/she presumes to be true if he/she wishes
the DL is a license to either use or not use according to one's own choice; simply because you hold a DL, doesn't mean you are operating under it at that time
if someone presumes you are, require that someone verify that claim on the record with full liability
Yes, I know what presumption is, and what the proper method of defeating it is. What if a way we're found to establish the presumption that I wasn't driving, but rather traveling or moving?
I don't want to battle with these people. I want to change their presumptions before they even get to me.
Yes, I think there might be, if only because the presumption has existed for so many years.
I look in California's vehicle code, and find their definition of driving means being physically in control of a vehicle. But I also find the code applies only to residents, either of "this" jurisdiction, or another.
If a person is an agent of the US or other instrumentality foreign to the State of California, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he is operating as a foreign agent, doing business in the State of California? Doesn't that validate the presumption?
Edit -- Really, it seems to me the entire question goes to residency. By definition, a resident has the intention of one day departing, returning to his domicile. United States citizens (14th Amendment citizens) manifest by their appearance in a foreign state their intention to return to their domicile. That status resides in THE NAME. As THE NAME'S agent, we consent to service of process either by presumption or by the act of registering to vote, applying for a driver's license, etc.
Don't battle... You will do any of their "orders" per your ORDER FEE SCHEDULE as fair fees for your performance under your unimpaired right to contract.
Like in the "Pirates of the Caribbean", "It's all business".
Listen to Karls Lentz's Talkshoe call of 1/11/14... at about 1 hr 40 min mark it gets very interesting...
at 2 hr 14 min mark he talks about "driving"...
at 2 hr 25 min mark, Karl talks about loving to get "orders"... "but who is going to compensate me for carrying out your orders?"...
Karl says "I love taking orders... That's how I make money!"
at 2 hr 28 min mark, Karl says for big orders, "Put up a bond before I carry out this order, and put the money in escrow..."
at 2 hr 30 min mark, Karl says "It's all business!"
Hope this clarifies the power of contract that one has...
if you try to decipher any code, you already lost
By accepting a driver's license, yes I would be agreeing. But if I don't have a license, I still think they would make the presumption in other ways. "Are you a US citizen? Are you a resident of the State of California?"
Never the less, I do see value in the process you are advocating. I am simply exploring another way, that's all. What if I have withdrawn consent? At that point they can't even talk to me. Yet there is still the problem of keeping my property in my custody (which I realize brings in yet another subject, my belief that I have a God granted usufruct in worldly possessions).
I've been thinking, and my goal would be to end up with some kind of plate or emblem being affixed to my car that the State would recognize.
I missed your point earlier. I already think of the DL in that way. In case I'm pulled over, I already know what I plan to do - refuse for cause on the presentment and return the instrument to its proper place. In the event that doesn't fly, I have another plan in place.
I am keeping the D/L in the event at some point in time, I may want to "drive", that is, hire myself out to "transport" "passengers" or "car-go" in their "vehicle".
It also is a convenient instrument that they accept as identification of the "Estate" that i, a man, am heir to, just as the "Birth Certificate" is.
IMO, their Jurisdiction attaches by a "cognizable event", I believe, and not until then, or else by your consent by agreeing with their adhesion trap-words.
But I see your dilemma, and cannot presume to tell anyone what to do in a particular situation, really. Just do the best you can with the knowledge you have so far. And there is so much to learn.. This BT is a good resource to share/leverage that knowledge though, and I wish more would participate.
I'm beginning to think the BC contains the State's legal fiction, and by deceit and conditioning everyone is thinking it's their estate.
But really it's being used to put everyone in this 14th Amendment citizen status, and we go and use the thing as trustee or beneficiary, when in reality it's not ours at all. We've been acting as its agent, and nothing more.
What if everyone withdrew consent to service? The fictions would all fall away, and we'd be left dealing man to man with each other, our common law would resurrect, and the money would be real.
See this folder and especially read this document to see another dimension the to the BC issue...
Thanks for the very interesting information. Here is Black's 2d definition:
What is*USUFRUCTUARY?
In the civil law. One who has the usufruct or right of enjoying anything in which he has no property, Cartwright v. Cartwright, 18 Tex. 628Law
I think it might be prudent to ask which party to the BC trust is the usufructuary interest. So let's dissect the trust.
What is the res? THE NAME as an organization under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, and all the rights, duties, and obligations running with that organization.
Earlier in the thread I made mention that I thought I was the beneficiary of the trust, since I thought it was my mother's intention as settlor. But wait, that's not what the certificate application says. Rather the mother or other person is the informant. So mom was a hostile witness.
What if I am the settlor who is creating an intervivos trust for the benefit of THE NAME, which has at least three parties? Wouldn't the usufructuary interest then lie with THE NAME, and not with me? And wouldn't there be two other settlors/secured parties?
Now I realize I was an infant, but mom appeared as an hostile informant, and made an affidavit stating to the facts. But all men are created equal, and contracts with infants are voidABLE, not void.
Note the second part of the following definition:
What is*CHILD?
This word has two meanings in law: (1) In the law of the domestic relations, and as to descent and*distribution, it is used strictly as the*correlative*of “parent,” and means a son or daughter considered as in relation with the father or mother. (2) In the law ofnegligence, and in laws for the*protection*of children, etc., it is used as the CHILD 197CHIROGRAPH*opposite of “adult,” and means the young of the human species, (generally under the age of puberty,) without any reference to parentage and without distinction of sex. Miller v. Finegan, 26 Fla. 29, 7 South. 140, 6 L. R. A. 813.Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/child/#ixzz2qoTYyCCp
What is*CHIROGRAPH?
In old English law. A deed or indenture; also the last part of a fine of land. Aninstrument*of gift or*conveyance*attested by the*subscription*and crosses of the witnesses, which was in Saxon times called CHIROGRAPH 198*CHOSE IN ACTION“chirographum,” and which, being somewhat changed in form and manner by the Normans, was by them styled “vharta.” Anciently when they made a chirograph or deed which required a*counterpart, as we call it, they engrossed it twice upon one piece of parchment contrariwise, leaving a space between, in which they wrote in capital letters the word “chirograph,” and then cut the parchment in two through the middle of the word, giving a part to each partyLaw Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/chirograph/#ixzz2qoVHfSZU
Finally, here is a link to a sample birth certificate http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1482943/...th-Certificate
Edit -- THE NAME appears to be a Chose in action.
What is*CHOSE IN ACTION?
A right to personal things of which the owner has not the*possession, but merely aright of action*for their possession. 2 Bl. Comm. 3S9, 397; 1 Chit. Pr. 99. A right to receive or recover a debt, demand, or damages on a cause of*action ex contractu, or for a tort counected with contract, but which cannot be made available*without recourseto au action. Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 390, 19 L. Ed. 730; Turuer v. State, 1 Ohio St. 420; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 12 L. Ed. 1147 ; People v. Tioga*Common Pleas, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 73; Sterling v. Sims, 72 Ga. 53; Bank v. Holland, 99 Va. 495, 39 S. E. 126, 55 L. It A. 155, 80 Am. St. Rep. 898.*Personalty*to which the owner has a*right of possession*in future, or a right of immediate possession, wrongfully withheld, is termed by the law a “chose in action.” Code Ga. 1882,Law Dictionary:*http://thelawdictionary.org/chose-in-action/#ixzz2qocKVccn
a 'FDR' trust account? Is that what you believe? Did you decipher that on your own? Will you verify that claim with full liability? Will anyone else verify that with full liability? Who will make a claim against something that you claim is your property? Will you accept said claim and grant the claimant an opportunity to verify said claim in open court, on and for the record, under oath or affirmation?
Who is making the claim?
Will said claimant come forward now and verify said claim?
If not, there is no claim but yours in living voice and that stands as true until someone comes forward with the "balls", and the voice, to disparage, deny or make their own claim. Until then, you are the only man standing.
FDR seems pretty straightforward about it here, in his address before the Governor's Conference:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/...?rgn=full+text
BTW, isn't persuasion the job of salesmen, agents, and propagandists?Quote:
And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we [the banksters] shall have made progress.
you may agree with an opinion written by someone who is dead; however, unless 'FDR' rises from the dead and verifies your interpretation of his words and intent as true, everything people say is purely conjecture
has anyone ever told you, "the value and energy you create and deposit in a bank is not your property; it is United States property held in trust and we can rightly administer it or take it at any time."?
do you believe a trial by jury in common law would result in agreement with that idea; people believing their sweat equity belongs to someone else and they have inferior rights to it?
if you believe something 'FDR' said or did effects your property then it does
if you say it is contract, and contract is the law; fine, bring the law before the court and on the record - is my name expressly written into that 'contract' (FED ACT)?
who will now verify that my property is subject to the 'FED ACT'? paper is nothing without verification in living voice
the 2nd dimension only has power if you give it power
presumption is rebutted in a VERY SIMPLE expression : "I have no trust in you"
If that is a fact - and ONLY a living soul can establish his identity - [tangent: or just provide evidence of identity] - then IF a living soul lacks trust THEN LET HIM ACT LIKE IT.
Adam and Eve - made Lucifer [Satan] their King in Trust. They ACTED in his law, under his authority - and they thought to establish themselves as gods. Theosophy 101.
Yehoshuah, however, sought to do the Will of His Father. Not my will but Thy Will be done. Yehoshuah ACKNOWLEDGES in his Deeds the Supremacy of Yehovah the Most High El.
Who here cannot see the analogy? If I ordain a new church and I change the day of worship - knowingly change it - and you bow under the church authority and start keeping the new day - then you - BY YOUR DEEDS - assert that you are subject to that church. Adam and Eve BY THEIR DEEDS - asserted the Dominion of Satan upon themselves AND their Posterity. Have you heard that one before? "Ourselves and our Posterity".
You want to argue words - that is a fools game. For the Trustee is always presumed guilty and he must prove his innocence. Who is your Husbandman? Is it Christ or Satan?
Is it Elohim or Mammon? Which is the same as the aforementioned choice. It's ALL ABOUT TRUST friends. Word games are for fools who are already trapped in the box. Play those games and you will be held in contempt.
Express and Implied Trust - Learn it. And you can escape Constructive and Resulting Trust.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth [trusteth] in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart [mind] departeth from Yehovah.
Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth [trusteth] in Yehovah, and whose confidence [trust] Yehovah is.
Now consider v. 7 in light of John 3:16
Joh 3:16 For Yehovah El Elyon so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son [Yehovah the Savior], that whosoever places his live in trust in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Shalom,
MJ
"i have no trust in you" = i do not believe we have a contract/agreement
therefore:
no breach exists
no harm done
no injury committed
is there any else i can help you with today?
I claim IN THE NAME OF Yehoshuah full assurance in the Church of the Firstborn acknowledging my King and His Supremacy. I do not recognize those two women carrying the Ephah [false churches] and the three frogs of deception.
Zec 5:7 And, lo, there was lifted up a round disk, fitting the ephah like a lid: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.
She is a whore - she is a false church - bent on dominion of mankind - but in the end she will give mankind anything his heart desires - even to the point of "ye are God". This is of course Theosophy 101 and in this writers opinion is a great abomination.
I claim in WITNESS to the greatness of my Husbandman. I am as Sampson, with locks regrown - I am returning to the goodness of my Husbandman - The Way - and in doing so I provide testimony to the Philistine world system. For out of the Lion [America] came Honey [the Word]. For Dan is a Lion's whelp. America has indeed been led astray but in the end - there is redemption in the True Messiah.
Let the injured party come forth to be judged under Torah! I sit in court to one day judge the angels. A great deception is coming and No Order of Angels or Powers or Dominions [Watchers] can persuade me that I am not loved by my Creator my Redeemer and my Savior.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Isa 55:5 Behold, thou [Israel] shalt [be called] a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of Yehovah thy Elohim, and for the Holy One of Israel; for He hath glorified thee.
v. 5 of course is talking about America. Founded in duplicity. I am sure I am making many friends - yet the truth is just that - the truth. For sampson was beguiled many times, even to telling his great secret. Which was HE KEPT THE TORAH OF HIS ELOHIM. Now, currently his eyes have been poked out and he has heavy burdens placed upon his back.
Hos_2:7 And she shall eagerly follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, 'I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than [it is] now.'
Hos_6:1 "Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up.
Shalom,
MJ
a claim can only be made in living voice by man
one who makes said claim is fully liable for it
a false claim is one which is pursued with full knowledge that no harm or injury is done to a man - non-verifiable
a man can only harm another man
nothing in the 2nd dimension can be harmed
nothing in the second dimension can make a claim
common law is the supreme law of the land
common law requires that there must be a wrong of harm, injury or breach done by one man against another for a true and proper claim to exist
a man requires (demands by authority and by right) a proper claim brought in common law so he may settle and make restitution to the man aggrieved, if the claim be true
if no agreement can be made, the controversy will be heard and judged by a jury of 24 people who are God's representatives on earth
The jury of 24... I keep finding it as 23 in America, the reason being that two complete juries can be found in one Grand jury of 24, with possibility of one jury reaching a different conclusion than the other.
the number matters not; if one agrees to allow the matter to be judged in the public, the people (jury) decide who wins and the magistrate, being independent of the tribunal, bears witness and instructs the court clerk to seal and record the verdict.
that is how a common law court of record operates
I thought it was interesting, seeing that the grand jury system is said to find its origin in the 25 free men of Magna Charta, and evolved into 23 in America.
Getting back to the original topic, I find in the California Vehicle Code:
** 17450. As used in this chapter, “nonresident” means a person who is not a resident of this State at the time the accident or collision occurs.**
Okay, this is clear, except that for the moment, I'm assuming "this State" means the State of California.
** 17451. The acceptance by a nonresident of the rights and privileges conferred upon him by this code or any operation by himself or agent of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state, or in the event the nonresident is the owner of a motor vehicle then by the operation of the vehicle anywhere within this state by any person with his express or implied permission, is equivalent to an appointment by the nonresident of the director or his successor in office to be his true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful processes in any action or proceeding against the nonresident operator or nonresident owner growing out of any accident or collision resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle anywhere within this state by himself or agent, which appointment shall also be irrevocable and binding upon his executor or*administrator. **
This doesn't sound too bad to me, having an attorney on permanent retainer in matters growing out of accidents or collisions. What could some of the drawbacks be?
Edit -- Oh, and I noticed that in 17450 'State' is capitalized, but in 17451 'state' is not capitalized. Could this be significant?
This vehicle code only applies to US citizens, residents within the federal districts that overlay the sovereign states. The states get their authority to issue such codes, and the authority to compel the US citizens to obey them, through the trust. By accepting the trust, you become a ward of the (federal) state, and they own you by holding title to your assets and by an implied security agreement for the debt. If you recover title to your estate and expatriate out of the US federal district, you become a state citizen, and none of these state codes apply to you. But if you have an accident, you would still have a duty to accept service from any injured party (the state cannot be an injured party - the state is imaginary). This is because there are two governments overlaying the same physical territory: the Constitutional Congress, and the sovereign state governments are constitutional republics. In their jurisdictions, you have constitutional rights, and common law applies; you don't need a driver's license. In the Federal Districts, which overlay the states, and are designated by two letter abbreviations and 5 digit zip codes, the democratic socialist government established by Congress in 1871 has jurisdiction. If your NAME has a domicile in Washington DC, such as it will if you signed up for Social Security and checked 'US citizen' on form SS-5, then you are 'subject to' the jurisdiction of the federal government, and all its legions of codes, rules, and regulations, even if you think you are a 'resident' of a state. The slightest violation of these endless rules will wind you up in an Article I court, which practices Lex Mercatoria, banker's law, based on contracts, and codified now in all state's laws as the Unified Commercial Code. Your trust NAME is in contract with the federal government, and you agreed to comply with all their municipal laws, however stupid they are, and also agreed to give up your Constitutional rights and be judged under the UCC in an unconstitutional court. The contract is vague and based on a lot of presumptions, but you must actively rebut those presumptions, starting early in the process, to have any chance of escape from the debt slavery trap that the federal regulations create. See this link: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/
Freed
or... one can require that the claimant verify and prove whatever presumptions are put forth
don't try to prove a negative; let the claimant back up the presumptions with findings of fact and conclusions of law AFTER he/she bears full liability for said claim by speaking it in open court under oath or affirmation
Yes they will be looking for evidence/admission that one is a US CITIZEN / STATE OF... RESIDENT. I would dispose of or at the very least not be carrying any thing that could offer such evidence.
An emblem affixed to one's car that is desired to be recognized could be recorded in a public venue such as a county recorder or district court file. Although all such attempts will seem futile at the side of the road of one hasn't canceled/junked the STATE OF... Certificate of Title.
Canceling may be performed with written NOTICE and "junking" may be performed by the rules of one's local DMV. In California I have filled out a Statement of Facts with "I want to junk this motor vehicle", endorsed and turned in the CoT (certificate of title) and handed over the plates after which I have received back a receipt indicating that the status is Junked Vehicle.
If one desires to show who's property it is then they may write up their own title and perform proper record forming as David has mentioned. One option is to record their title in a public venue such as a district court, county recorder or nationalrepublicregistry.com and then carry certified copies.
Attachment 1590
After performing all of the above, if one is stopped and evidence that lends to being a STATE OF... "resident" is offered or discovered, it should be expected that the enforcement troop will pursue with his code at the side of the road.
Attachment is fixed. Document sample shows places for two witnesses. If witnesses don't already have their own seal then they may print their name along the inner border, thumb print in red or blue or draw/print out their own seal symbol.
"In California I have filled out a Statement of Facts with, "I want to junk this motor vehicle".
The DMV provides the form.
I received a receipt on the spot. If there are outstanding parking tickets attached to the account they may pester that those need to be paid first. One time I was in front of a friendly clerk who said that I could pay them later and then the "junking" process would be completed but she handed me a junked status receipt anyway. I walked out to the vehicle that now had a junked CoT and drove away.
For those who are not convinced of the status after these steps they may always ask an officer to run the VIN.
I would save the junked receipt in case the vehicle is sold to another party who wishes to put it back under a "STATE OF... " security interest. (Wants to re-register it.) They will need the receipt.
Question...
Instead of junking the car, have you tried obtaining the Manufacturers Statement of origin? I've read a few threads on it and it goes something like this...
The MCO is "surrendered" to the state, who then registers it and issues a Certificate of title. I'm thinking the the certificate is just proof of ownership, much like a deed is. In order to prove you own the vehicle, there is a chain starting with the MCO that the vehicle passed through starting with the Manufacturer, to another party (if it's used) then to you. You don't need to register it with the state, but, you may need the title to prove you own it.
Between this issue (plates/dmv)
My home (land patent)
And income taxes (lawful money)
Even my citizenship (Birth Certificate / SSI)
I think we have all been deceived...
The car isn't actually what is junked in this process only the CoT.
The DMV's don't even retain the MCO once they are allowed to classify the vehicle as a vessel and issue a CoT. If one can retain the MCO with a new purchase and prevent the DMV from creating a file, that is great but in either case, whether buying new or used, it is not vital to obtain the MCO. They are mainly issued for the purposes of a commercial warehouse/transportation receipt. We are free to create our own title. Also remember that a sales receipt is too considered a title.
Congress claims the right to regulate motor vehicles through the Interstate Commerce Clause, and Congress has defined a 'motor vehicle' as any self-propelled carriage used to transport persons or cargo for hire in commerce. So the state-issued Certificate of Title to a Motor Vehicle is a fraud intended to create an adhesion contract; you agree to have your car treated as a motor vehicle, even though it isn't, just like a W-4 is an agreement to have your income treated as taxable, even though it isn't. You don't own any motor vehicles, just like you don't own any firearms (a weapon with a short smooth barrel which fires projectiles by chemical propellant). In recent conversation with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles in NC, I stated that I could not conclude that I had a duty to register my privately owned car. He cited the state law, which requires 'all motor vehicles' to be registered, insured, inspected, and plated. When I mentioned that my car was not a motor vehicle, he got abrupt and suggested that 'I try that, and we will let the judge decide.' The issue will still come back to whether you are surety for the NAME, and the driver's license in the NAME would suggest that you are a surety, otherwise why did you get the DL? There is no legal requirement for an American Citizen to have a DL, so this is a right converted to a privilege and taxed/fee'd. A license is required for engaging in a privilege; no license is required to engage in a right. Always lots to unravel...
Freed
"otherwise why did you get the DL? " Well officer I have this DL in case I AM operating in commerce, as not having it would then be illegal. At this current point in time I am engaged in my right to travel from point A to B in a non-commercial inherent right to move freely across the land in whatever method I choose to convey myself on the public roadways held in trust for the people by the XYZ government I am currently in. Do you have any facts to disprove what I have just sworn too?