my writing style comes off sometimes a lot differently that I talk. Many times I am completely mis-understood. So be it. :)
I hope you are enriched by my humble presentments nevertheless.
shalom
Printable View
"My given appellation is Anthony Joseph spelled precisely as follows (spell out). This is the name given unto me by my natural mother and father, who conceived me, by the command and Will of the Creator. I have accepted this name as my own and I do not, and will not, under any circumstances give my name to anyone or anything to have, hold, use, change or manipulate in any way. My name is provided for the sole purpose of proper, lawful and peaceable communication only."
Set the rules and the agreement before providing a name for amicable, peaceable and communicable clarity ONLY. No one else can take control of what you claim unless it is granted openly or nakedly. Form the contract and let them respond on the record. If it is refusal, then they no longer have any standing to ask for your name; then you instruct them to call you a "friend". Any subsequent character assassination attempt on their part will place them in dishonor on the record.
And here in is the power of Lawful money redemption. Those plates on that car, once paid for in lawful money, ARE NOT property of the Federal District.
They too, have been redeemed with lawful money, re-venued from the District (the sea) to the land, I OWN THEM and I have paid for them, recorded on the receipt and if needed, proof entered into my evidence repository.
The District officer may presume those plates, that license, that ID is the Districts property, but when paid for with lawful money, redeemed per 12-USC 411, they no longer float on the STATE TRUST, they are on the land, owned by the man or woman holding them.
The STATE presumes and assumes ALL things are subject to them via the first lien of the Federal Reserve that presumption and assumption is defeated by the demand and use of lawful money.
Of course, the place to prove that is NOT on the side of the road, the officer is there to enforce the Lien and nothing more.
The Courts and High Priest Judges are the ones who will "take care of it".
The District Court Clerk is the Nexus between the man or woman and the LOWER (lien/revenue) courts.
The Record of who owns those products (License, Plates, registrations, etc) is already a matter of RECORD in the Higher Court, the matter is res judicata, there is nothing for the lower court officers to hear or opine. No standing for them to profit, the LAW fulfilled, the debt paid.
The STATE cannot re-venue the matter nor seize the property without due process, as defined in their Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution. This is the KEY, the narrow path.
Redemption is a powerful thing.
Your getting warmer/ closer to what we discovered through Coresource Martin, liking more of what I am hearing from you on this.
Tomorrow we are going to look into getting an appointment through the local county probate court so we can lay it all out and possibly get a exemption account. One road block is that we may have to go to the county court of the county where the birth took place, we shall see.
This really gets to the heart of all matters; does the demanding/redeeming and being upon lawful money create the result whereby a claim of rightful ownership/authority exists by the demander/redeemer over the created chattels of other men? Layers upon layers of trust creations are only a diversionary tactic which keeps the truth and simplicity of our remedy/solution hidden from us; "they shall be redeemed in lawful money upon demand". Once there is no volunteering into being "chattelized" as collateral, the money of exchange we utilize is burdensome upon only one party... THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is an IOU which, until people lose confidence in it, will render it something of value to exchange for the necessities of life.
Furthermore, what we obtain via that lawful money exchange has NO third party interest whatsoever; an exchange between two parties occured and both felt they received valuable consideration. This means there is NO LIEN or VALID CLAIM of any kind on that item by any party. That paper is of value to the acceptor and the USA is obligated to make good on their promise according to the law else there is dishonor by default.
Wouldn't the fact that you paid in lawful money, something of value, give you a superior claim. If you paid for part of your car or just the taxes on land with lawful money. Would this not give you first position, a position higher than the State as they have invested nothing of real value, FRN's.
"Lawful Money" is not substantive in and of itself, it is considered something of value because of the confidence people have in it as a medium of exchange and the assumption and hope the USA will not default on their promise to make good on it in the future. "In God We Trust" is a prayer to God to one day restore proper balances since the trustees of the USA knew all rested upon making good on that promise which they probably realized was an unattainable goal without the assistance of the Almighty Creator.
I believe, as heirs and appointed sons and daughters of the Divine Kingdom under His Trust, we have superior claim and dominion over the earth and all of the creations of men as long as our intents are righteous in nature and are according to His Will. We do not seek out material wealth and power over others, however, we exercise our superior rights and claims over those who are in dishonor and who attempt to enslave men by utilizing deceptive tactics, trickery and concealment, control over information and education and usurping the vital resources that have become the necessties of life in this day and age.
Their DISHONOR coupled with our competent and righteous self-determination and governing in His name renders our claims as superior to those who are upholding and operating a man-created trust developed and maintained for the purpose of harnessing and harvesting every living soul on this land to suck out their energy and sweat equity in order to satisfy their debts and burdens to their creditors.
I agree.
We still have to deal with the reality at the present moment in regards to their claim of owner ship and their seeming willingness to put you out on the street at their whim. So it would seem that for now lawful money is at least a way forward. It at least in their eyes and using their codes statutes and laws to have an ability to show we hold the superior position. In a perfect world none of this would be needed. fB
The State does not Claim Ownership the State becomes Trustee because YOU registered that Vehicle upon the State Asset Registry. I know, you did it by necessity right? And so what if you paid lawful money to perform the Registry. How does that make a rat's ARSE of a difference. You REGISTERED that Vehicle in the Name of a Cestui Que Trust. What name you choose matters not. It is CQT because it is now Registered Owner as Beneficiary and the State as Trustee.
And the Trustee with powers now of management will ensure that the State tags go on ITS vehicle and the State registration will be associated with ITS vehicle and the State......
The Right-of-way is the Claim you speak of. That Right comes from a Survey, then Registration of the Plat, and then Claim. And it is a valid Claim.
Answer this question and perhaps it will help you to see better: Is money WITHIN the United States - "tangible or intangible" Property. Before you jump the gun - what is Property again. It is the "Right of Use".
I think that as Heir and Son of the Ever Living that I need not the State to help me do an impossible thing - identify myself. As such, if I cannot identify myself, then what of Registration?
Then who are the beneficiary principals that this "trust" was set up for? In other words, all this "trusteeship" is for the benefit of some peoples who are the heirs to this fortune, correct? This will lead us back to the discussion of the original signors of the "unanimous Declaration..." Not convinced of that yet, and even if that were true, the dishonor, deception and usurpation required to maintain and grow this "USA TRUST" disqualifies that claim from the position of that trust structure and we who make claims upon the Holy and Divine Trust have SUPERIOR standing and HIGHEST TITLE over the land, dominions and possessions we hold and claim in His Name and under His Trust as stewards and husbandmen of the earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
The State does not Claim Ownership the State becomes Trustee because YOU registered that Vehicle upon the State Asset Registry. I know, you did it by necessity right? And so what if you paid lawful money to perform the Registry. How does that make a rat's ARSE of a difference. You REGISTERED that Vehicle in the Name of a Cestui Que Trust. What name you choose matters not. It is CQT because it is now Registered Owner as Beneficiary and the State as Trustee.
And the Trustee with powers now of management will ensure that the State tags go on ITS vehicle and the State registration will be associated with ITS vehicle and the State......
The Right-of-way is the Claim you speak of. That Right comes from a Survey, then Registration of the Plat, and then Claim. And it is a valid Claim.
Answer this question and perhaps it will help you to see better: Is money WITHIN the United States - "tangible or intangible" Property. Before you jump the gun - what is Property again. It is the "Right of Use".
I think that as Heir and Son of the Ever Living that I need not the State to help me do an impossible thing - identify myself. As such, if I cannot identify myself, then what of Registration?
You have a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter and I like that.
You see there are a couple of Trusts running at the Same time. If in fact you are one who goes and Registers "Rights of Use" [Property] upon a State Registry. That makes YOU "First Grantor". Then there are both the Federal Reserve Districts [FRD's] and US Districts [USD's] - overlays. Now Metro has a Trustee in the Military. Lieber Code. Does not METRO and STATE police wear Military insignia? Therefore you, a living soul, Register the Vehicle in Cestui Que Trust on the State Registry. So then if the State is willing to pick up the Trusteeship, which they are; Let them.
Of course the trust requires that you carry a competency card [for the newbiew a DL] - but for the older ones no license is required - you are Not in FRD's are you? I hope not. "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USCA411" - that is if you need a checking account. That puts you in another Survey WITHIN the United States.
To be Clear - a Drivers [License] Card is required; it is just that if you make a demand for lawful money and use lawful money you really are using that DL for competency purposes. The ID is for the Person - CQVT. Not you, as man. Continuing....
Now the Civil Side of the United States is run by President; the Military Side is run by the Commander in Chief, as Trustee.
So if there are any presentments [charges upon the CQT] the Trustee is duty bound to discharge the charge - unless there is "Trustee de son Tort". This is "Commercially Sensitive Information".
This is a totally different model than R4C. This recognizes the trust exists; recognizes who the players are; recognizes who you are; you are without this Trust, right? I hope so. So the State benefits by you helping as Envoy, friend, whatever to "help".
You want paperwork right? There is none. There is only comprehension of the Person and the Trust parties. Who is Trustee, Who is Beneficiary and who are you? If you are w/o this Trust; as Usufruct; then act like it. Help out where you can.
The Trust is perfected; you just have to learn how to use it; OR, go and create your own Independent State. There is already a new State that has EXACTLY the same Claim on Exactly the Same Territory as the United States and the US met the founders with honor. I can already hear that old tired argument 'state within a state'.
Think of the US and the New Independent State on an x,y,z coordinate system. The US is at z coordinate 1; the new State is at z coordinate 2; they both share the x,y space.
But the latter is not an easy task so it is not practical. The former is an easy task; just takes some reprogramming and a lot of study.
Of course you have superior standing in the Divine; yet the Divine said "do not trespass against your neighbor". [even if he is one ignorant son of a gun - I jest]
The State has established R/W [right-of-way] based on Survey. Are you in that Survey? The Vehicle is, it is Registered in the State. Was it in CQVT or was it a CQT? Meaning did you register in LEGAL NAME or New Trust Creation (NTC)? NTC is still CQT as it is beneficiary and State is Trustee for the PROPERTY.
And property again is "Right of Use". Now, who are you again? Do you see now? Will you let the Trustee do his job or will you interfere with their process? You may incur a fine if you interfere.
Attachment 193
Lieber Code - General Orders No. 100
My registry exspired with the state. So I guess my vehicle is no longer in their registry. Oh and by the way I did not register the vehicle with the state. Someone else did. They do have a tendency to get upset with cars on the road with no registration. Hmmm. If there was a survey done on you when you were born, and one done on the car when it was made, you are not the survey and neither is the car. So how does that work again. Not claiming the name. The survey is there property, are you the survey, is your car the survey. hmmm. fB
I already said that I can positively identify you! I do it in an instant though:
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6760/dnadoodle.jpg
We have machines that can do that too - but they take a few days if you pay expedition fees.
And Frederick Burrell;
The states have uniform legislation about Last Registered Owner.
I am glad you responded like this because actually that John Doe crap cannot be easily overcome if JOHN DOE is constructed and a man stands before the Court arguing with the Trustee.
A competent man knows better than to do that. So you are correct in a sense if a new Trust is Constructed - so be it. I am not Trustee your honor - therefore I will not usurp that office. And I have no claim in Ownership of the new Express Trust you just created so I cannot be your fiduciary. I can however help you today. Do you require my assistance to help you settle your books?
-----
martin earl. Identity is impossible to obtain. You are correct.
To the dead bodies and identity - When helping a friend bury his loved one we were met by a State official with some document at the bottom of the document was place for witness. Upon reading the document carefully we realized this is the commercial Survey in order to close the Cestui Que Trust. Meaning the authorized User = Usufruct is now dead.
I am reminded of this Scripture:
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
David Said "The states have uniform legislation about Last Registered Owner."
Meaning what David? That does not tell me a lot. Can you explain.
Still waiting for my invitation to visit them. Nothing yet.
I actually tried to pay them for my registration, but it was within 30 days of the expiration of one year without registration,so they wanted me to pay for this year also(two years total). A year which I will not be in the US.This transpired after I had handed her the plates. So I declined the offer to pay for the two years. The Nice lady excepted the plates and handed me the bill for two years. I told her I didn't want to pay for the two years as I would be out of the country. She then tried to return my plates. I declined. She threated to call the police, I left. She accepted the plates with no conditions and then tried to put a condition on receiving them. I will deal with it in a year form now. One way or another. fB
That is why I want you to carry a digital camera from now on MJ! I would like to see that.
There was a fellow I met named Bear. I doubt his parents named him that but this guy lived in the mountains near Jim's castle. When his wife miscarried late-term he was forced into the system to save her life, and they lost the baby. They basically held Bear in custody until he would sign a death certificate by naming the unborn child. Try putting yourself in his shoes - not losing the child - that is something people are designed for in life. But this guy was under arrest until he would do one little thing that is completely against our makeup - he just had to name the dead fetus!!
Unimaginable! If there is anything to convince me Satan exists, that one incident might do it.
David
That is totally sick. If not for the wife it might have been time for a 30 day fast while being held in custody. They hate it when you do that. fB
That is why the Last Registered owner should notify the Department of revenue recorders the vehicle has been sold for lawful money and is no longer a pledged Item in commerce.
What is stopping us from "selling" (actually redeeming) the car from the TRUST (legal name) into the hands of the man (true name) and then recording that fact with the District Court Clerk and then informing the Department of revenue of that record?
Since I can put whatever I want into the TRUST, I should be able to redeem something from the Trust and have it recognized by the STATE.
To me, this is just another power of lawful money redemption.
With my recorded demand and use of lawful money per 12-USC 411, I can redeem not only the car, but the Drivers license, the plates and the VIN from the lien of the Federal Reserve and the subjugation of system.
RE-venue would then be illegal and unlawful trespass/seizure on those items. I would have to see a passport from the re-venue officer or the courts before any items could be seized.
And what would be a passport from the STATE? A return by the STATE to Lawful money use, of course, I doubt that is going to happen any time soon...
That leaves the STATE no Standing on the Land without habeas corpus or a living victim of injury or actual property damage.
Being lost at sea and elastic currency is as much an issue for the STATE as it is and has been for the patriot movement.
Now I can see how all are equal under the LAW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
I am glad you responded like this because actually that John Doe crap cannot be easily overcome if JOHN DOE is constructed and a man stands before the Court arguing with the Trustee.
A competent man knows better than to do that. So you are correct in a sense if a new Trust is Constructed - so be it. I am not Trustee your honor - therefore I will not usurp that office. And I have no claim in Ownership of the new Express Trust you just created so I cannot be your fiduciary. I can however help you today. Do you require my assistance to help you settle your books?
-----
martin earl. Identity is impossible to obtain. You are correct.
To the dead bodies and identity - When helping a friend bury his loved one we were met by a State official with some document at the bottom of the document was place for witness. Upon reading the document carefully we realized this is the commercial Survey in order to close the Cestui Que Trust. Meaning the authorized User = Usufruct is now dead.
I am reminded of this Scripture:
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
That was really mean. It is sad that men and women will treat other men and women this way in the name of "just doing my job".
Remember the Saga I shared concerning the young man and the court. He did Exactly that and he left with Exactly what he and I had determined in our Court before the Ever Living. Judgment was kept from Scripture. Do you recall?
Thank you David and Martin for your responses. I have thinking about how to remove myself and some things from the trust. I had decided to buy my truck from my legal name with lawful money. You Martin just put the icing on the cake, in regards how to proceed from their. fB
Update:
Received my certified copies of my timely refusals of the presentments offered to me. All were maked up properly with my case jacket number, raised seal and signature from the clerk testifying that they are true and correct copies. Nice to know and see that my evidence repository is being cared for and utilized for my own express intents and purposes.
Next, I will await any futher offerings/summonses (if any) relating to this matter and I will exercise my right of refusal once again and obtain certified copies of that process as well.
April 23 was 30 days from the time of the initial offering... we shall see what comes next.
UPDATE:
Late last week I received an "ORDER OF SUSPENSION" from Tallahassee regarding the "Tickets" presented to me on March 24.
Attachment 486
Attachment 487
Apparantly the original issuer (Sheriff's Dept.) neglected to disclose the fact that the presentments were properly and timely Refused for Cause. The "ORDER" was Refused for Cause and registered-mailed out today to Tallahassee and to my case file/evidence repository. Copies were furnished to the local county court and to the Sheriff's office. Also included was a "NOTICE TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT" document which is now also in the cognizance of United States in the case file at the clerk of the district court.
Attachment 488
That makes me wonder what will happen if you go in to the DoR and Renew?
That question will be answered by the next action taken by the local county court and Tallahassee. Will the local court take heed to the truth given unto them and stay in honor by settling their own account and acknowledging the proper and lawful process executed regarding this matter which declares undeniably that there is no VOLUNTEER who has granted consent to alleviate the STATE's own burden? Will Tallahassee stay in honor and recognize the same? If the answer to either question is "NO" then my "NOTICE" stands as the truth and law regarding my inherent right to move about and travel freely in the method and conveyance of my choice even if the STATE decides to invalidate the DL I was utilizing prior to this issue.
My next step will be to publish this outcome on the county level and give proper notice to the roving "revenue agents" (LEOs) at each level: CITY, COUNTY, STATE.
This is starting to get interesting; I could have paid the nominal fines and avoided this potential strife. However, to live in truth, one must declare it openly and act upon it honorably.
I have taken a plunge in faith after learning and knowing the truth of how the wordly system operates. Instead of continuing on as a debt slave and keeping "current" with the fraudulent mortgage note, I acted in truth and presented a valid instrument (coupon) to help them settle the claimed debt on their books. My LoR was wrapped around their dishonorable response/action as a result.
I have now opted not to be a debt slave and willing fiduciary for the CQVT vessel which was issued a "charge" on its account by an agent of the Department of Revenue (LEO). This may result in the suspension or invalidation of the DL card I have been using and carrying for most of my life. I could avoid that by simply complying and pay the fine like a good "citizen".
I can't do that now that I have learned the truth. I prayed to our Creator and asked for the truth above all else and I am receiving it. Be careful what you pray for... my eyes are now open and I must act upon the knowledge given unto me or I will be worse than those who act the same in ignorance.
Truth is truly a double-edged sword.
My faith and trust will be with Him always and He will decide what may come according to my actions. My prayer is that I will come through these matters claiming victory in His name and testifying to that to all who will hear. Any and all glory is upon our Creator, for He is the Author of truth and the Giver of it.
Please do not take this personally, I submit this response for the benefit and consideration of the position you are taking.
Can you both be a Suitor in their statute codes and have standing in Divine Law both at the same time?
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Do you think this might be pretty important since it was mentioned twice?
From my studies to try and take standing on both sides is double mindedness, by definition of law this is the mind of a lunatic. Do we need that label beaten over our head any more?
I often tell people when you are taking standing on both sides of a barb wire fence, it can be awfully painful to the family jewels. I think you touched on that with your comment about truth having a double edged sword.
Blessings upon your journey.
Your jab at the character Suitor is ill-founded.
I think it is an antagonistic stance in your case, that you must always attack people who pay me to become a "suitor" within the scope of the Libel of Review, but it is a Lesson Plan that you have not gained the experience of doing for yourself. Here is the scripture for you Motla68:
I am not encouraging you however to become a suitor. You are confrontational and in many interpretations, like this one, incorrect. Your confrontations however, are very useful to me to explain things to the serious student. - As explained below.Quote:
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
Jas 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Anthony Joseph has new options on the stance he is taking. I believe that as of yesterday, a new resulting trust may be in formation where AJ could affect Setoff and reinstate his card-evidenced competency and exhibit his responsibility to compensate injury - get the Driver License and insurance coverage.
As the US Government begins actively gambling on Americans going into foreclosure, without the scope of its original charter to protect the property rights of the same Americans trust is breached in a final manner. Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling before GEITHNER's deadline and the process of selling mortgage-backed securities can, by the April Notice (last paragraph of the Appendix) go into effect. Anthony Joseph initially identified himself to be a peaceful inhabitant and through the HJR-192 gold seizure may have been able to allow the US Government as trustee to adjust the Setoff.
I am not sure which avenue AJ will be choosing. His stance is not to serve mammon (confidence in the Fed/false balances). This is why my presumption about you Motla68 is that you have only a smattering of NLP training - Neuro-linguistic Programming. You will start with a false presumption and then develop it as though it is correct.
This is the current Entry Banner to this website. What the Reader/Student should keep in mind is that Chapter 20 of the same Judiciary Act of 1789 also formed the districts, which are the state Districts overlaid on the American states and in 1790 these districts became the conduit for responsibly settling the debt obligations of the District United States. So read the Banner with that in mind, and you will discover hopefully that the 'saving to suitors' clause is the abatement and avoidance of that forum.
Without ever having exercised your right of avoidance to the commercial nature of the state district overlays, you would of course make the error you have in your post. - That AJ, by being a suitor is benefitting from the commerce, when in fact by being a suitor he is in his true name expressing his participation in a higher trust. But that would only be if you Motla68 were making that mistake - which you are not. You are simply being confrontational. And your false presumption is made intentionally, therefore your misinterpretation (actually more - misapplication) of the scripture is also intentional. Ergo, my usage of your misdirection to clarify an important point about remedy.
It is also helpful to re-read this thread's opening post:
The process has been expedited to make it nearly impossible for Anthony Joseph, the man, to express his peaceful inhabitant nature. That is being honored as it would seem there is no bench warrant, (unless he appears to want the DL reissued) but only a summary revokation of his driving privilege. The new expedited process is designed so that the police officer no longer needs to address the issue that the DL card was not utilized by AJ for identification purposes.
Reading the opening post, it becomes clear to those fluent in the serving mammon scriptures you misapply for us Motla68, that the officer's objective is to summarily "forget" that any conversation occured at all. AJ's point about not using the DL for ID was that he never be drawn into the field of battle (commerce). This would only be brought out on the witness stand, under oath while the officer is being examined and by the recollection of the conversation - the officer may easily say, That is all done by computer, I really don't recall anything being said. When a Florida driver hands over a Florida Driver License I think it is easy to presume he is identifying himself with it.
That opening post describes the gist of the thread in my opinion. The reason AJ is writing and sharing is because of this new twist by LEO's and technology to attorn men and women into the actual theater of war - commerce. The very opposite of your point - which is nothing but a jab at suitors. You have become contradictory and hipocritical in your postings as you are actually an advocate of being outside the scope of belligerant. So you redefined "suitor" to be something that it is not, and then applied scripture in a misapplication.
Continued...
Continued...
Thank you. I think that my explanation will be quite helpful to anybody here to learn about remedy. I am a bit mixed that you continue these jabs at remedy even though they continually backfire.
Projecting my own experience on AJ's real life drama;
The stance is to go re-instate the driver license, and continue using it for only competency and responsibility purposes. At that time, it will likely reveal a bench warrant for Failure to Appear and AJ will be pushed for a bond amount and this will be set for trial - which is what he has set this up for all along. - To get that officer on the stand to either reveal that AJ never used the DL to identify himself a belligerent on the field of commerce, or to perjure himself on the stand by saying he doesn't remember; which is what the computer system and expeditious process is set up to accomodate.
The posture is based on the faithful fact that God will be the judge, not the attorney in the black robe. In my opinion AJ should be looking forward to the adventure and we should be encouraging him to share it with us in full detail - like he is doing. As he is competent at record-forming through the 'saving to suitors' clause in federal court with his evidence repository (LoR) his position of not accepting fiduciary appointment at the Stop, and maybe now the government is dishonest in its charter - for the first time in history - he might take the appointment over the resulting trust to affect Setoff himself?
This is really quite an exciting saga, speaking for myself anyway. Your jabs Motla68 help bring the details to light, but I cannot help but cringe a little at the embarrassment that must arise from being so hipocritical in front of everybody.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Notice how I never claimed to "be a Suitor in their statute codes" similar to never claiming to "be a federal reserve banker" when citing Title 12 USC §411. The saving to suitors' clause was written into their law structure by their burdens and requirements in order to stay in honor when encountering a competent and peaceful man or woman who inhabits the land while choosing to remain without their formed districts in his/her own right. The clause is a required "exit door" for those immune to the newly formed structure and district overlay of the physical land. That "exit door" is a mandatory obligation and remedy written into the law in order to avoid the charge of tyranny and forced servitude upon those who know and exercise their inherent exemption and immunity from their system.
When citing these laws, statutes and codes in that inherently immune capacity, character and standing, through overt and proper declaration, it serves as only a friendly and peaceful reminder to those who are bound, and oath-sworn, to that structure that the law provides free remedy to those who claim it competently.
I believe my "family jewels" are quite safe and cozy where they are, and belong.
You have misunderstood my comment regarding the double edged sword; I meant that not only will it cut through the lies you were unaware of your entire life, it will also cut through your past beliefs, and manner of conducting yourself, so you cannot go back in to that "old way" in good faith or conscience once the truth is revealed. In other words, be careful and ready for truth when you ask for it because it will effect you permanantly one way or the other.
First off, thank you, Anthony Joseph, for starting this thread to share your experiences.
Perhaps one would be prudent to novate the DL agreement such that the holder of the DL does not use the DL for identification purposes (the agreement is the paper application for DL). A copy of such agreement should be kept inside the glove compartment of motorized conveyances and presented to the armed Federal Reserve agents at the roadside. I'll go even further and suggest that such a novation can be included on the DL itself - on the signature line.
This card is not to be used for identification of the signatory, per sec 6‑117.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
[True Name signature]
Now it becomes nearly impossible for the FR agent to impose an identity on peaceful inhabitants that have such an agreement with the state.
David, this is one of the most clear explanations of the significance of the 'saving to suitors' clause. I encourage anyone to bookmark your post.
Ok, thanks for the correction.
I am working on getting stuff done by using some of the language but just not the statute coding, I have heard of others who have done this so I await with anticipation of some results in the near future. Nevertheless getting interesting responses from the registrar and the comptroller in birth county.
Somebody PM'd me this - I believe because of this subject matter.
Quote:
IL Vehicle Code
Sec. 6‑117.1. Prohibited use of driver's license information.
Sounds to me like if you tell the officer that it is not for ID purposes, he cannot use it for such.
By process of lawful strategy this is not how an officer approaches the situation inheritable. One must express the intent to void the assumption. This is the tacit I spoke of some time ago which can be also through silence if we do not speak up.
Subsection of that code says:
(c) Use of information contained on a driver's license is not a violation of this Section if (i) the individual whose information has been used gave express permission for that use or (ii) the information relating to the individual was obtained from a source other than the individual's driver's license.
The latter which is (ii), that part in reference to said officer seeing the name on registration matching the drivers license would give the hook he would need if one did not speak up and say: " I do not consent to be recognised by the name and waive any benefit thereof". As to say, no I do not need any services/benefits today. I could further thrown in our discussion about service, but we have already discussed that already in this thread I think.
Subsection (a) is also interesting noting a commercial activity. We have thwarted such claims with 18 U.S.C 31 by definition what commercial use is. If someone is interested in discussing that it would probably be best suited for a new thread though.
Richard Earl found that section of the Illinois Vehicle Code per a request I shouted on the ShoutBox. Thanks, Richard!
Nice, motla68. I will use a variation of that for my next encounter with an LEO. On several occasions I instructed officers "not to use the DL for identification purposes." There's the old saying, "you get more with honey than you do with vinegar." That being said, rather than verbalizing instructions to LEOs, I'll just inform them of what I do and do not consent.
"This driver's license does not belong to me - it belongs to the State of Illinois. I do not consent to be identified by any of the images or markings on the driver's license other than the image of my signature found on the front-side bottom."
I think the discussion avoids the fact that Anthony Joseph signed the Driver License Card Anthony Joseph. That signature is on the record with the Department of Revenue too. So if the cop on the stand cannot be considered trustworthy, the card in AJ's possession and the records from the DoR can be subpoenaed by Discovery.
I'll admit to not being much of a wordsmith. I've edited the verbiage in that post to better express the actual intent. Thanks, John Booth.
I guess what I propose goes more towards expressing intent in a way that would be more convincing to LEOs while on the side of the road. The officer ignored AJ's true name signature. But what if it was clearly stated on the DL that it is not to be used to identify the man that surrenders the DL. And what if a copy of the amended agreement is presented to the LEO. Perhaps things would be more likely to be handled at the roadside instead of in someone's brick-and-mortar courtroom. In other words, "Allright, I'm just going to issue a warning. Have a nice day!"