Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 96

Thread: Consent to Service of Process

  1. #11
    @Anthony Joseph

    Anthony, my thinking is that the entities in place are as you say, fictional, but directed by flesh and blood people. Some of them have taken oaths and made bonds to perform certain obligations in the offices they represent. Others are simply members of various social organizations.

    The entities created are tools people use in order to accomplish certain goals and purposes in society.

    Lately I've been focusing on birth certificates, because I believe the organization NAMED thereon is one of those fictional legal entities, established ostensibly for my benefit.

    I've investigated extensively the commercial process you were describing, and to me, it seems premature to begin seeking private remedy for public error. I think it should be the last course of action taken, after all other avenues have been explored and exhausted.

    THE NAME is a public organization, and it should be possible to turn it off or have it redirected to better serve the public. Even though I'm not the one who created it, it does exist in law for my benefit and society's.

    However, I've been playing trustee/agent, and consenting to service of process, out of ignorance. If I begin acting in the private, without first clearly defining the line between public and private, I can hardly blame public servants for overstepping their authority.

    I also realize that I don't have a legal obligation to train these people in their jobs, since I'm not the one who created this situation. But I also realize - by way of analogy - that I have no obligation to use an umbrella when it rains.

    It seems better to seek peace with these people, and use the processes already in place, before going to battle in court.

  2. #12
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    If someone serves you, it is someone else wanting to battle you in court, no? What i suggest is to attempt to settle the matter on the private side before court with the moving party who serves you; that is what man does, try to work it out privately before bringing into a public forum. If the server of process will not deal with you privately, what then?

    A public meeting in court is what follows when a private settlement is not made. Do you not believe you have a right to face your accuser? Do you not believe you have a right to move your court according to your rules if you believe someone is moving a false claim against you? Without an appearance by the accuser to verify what is claimed against you, there is no case.

    The process i am describing is not commercial; it is moving, holding and keeping one's court of record at common law as an inherent right of man.

    Why do you believe that is either commercial or "fighting with these people"? If anything, it is you trying to avoid a fight.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    If someone serves you, it is someone else wanting to battle you in court, no? What i suggest is to attempt to settle the matter on the private side before court with the moving party who serves you; that is what man does, try to work it out privately before bringing into a public forum. If the server of process will not deal with you privately, what then?

    A public meeting in court is what follows when a private settlement is not made. Do you not believe you have a right to face your accuser? Do you not believe you have a right to move your court according to your rules if you believe someone is moving a false claim against you? Without an appearance by the accuser to verify what is claimed against you, there is no case.

    The process i am describing is not commercial; it is moving, holding and keeping one's court of record at common law as an inherent right of man.

    Why do you believe that is either commercial or "fighting with these people"? If anything, it is you trying to avoid a fight.
    I think it is commercial because there are commercial presentments being made and responded to. It's fighting because court begins upon the presentment being made, and court is where civilized battles are fought.

    The person being presented has some options: accept, refuse, counter, acquiesce. But no matter what, he is being made to respond.

    In the case of a law enforcement officer making a presentment, a man is forced to respond. There is a fight being made against him.

    Now let me say I agree with you that attempting to deal with these presentments in the way you suggest is reasonable. But it's not for me. Even when demanding lawful money, a person receives commercial presentments in the form of banking credit or Federal reserve notes. When he makes his demand for lawful money, he's making a counter offer that the issuing authority must accept according to the statutes.

    I've received agencies from various governments, but I have the ability to counter offer according to the statutes that the issuing authorities must accept.

  4. #14
    Interesting session you guys have going on. I agree with AJ that when someone serves process on you, they are offering to fight. Keith, you are correct that you can fight back, concede, or abandon your position. AJ is just making a counter-offer to select the weapons (which under code duello, was always in honor - you challenge, I get to select the weapons). The state of NC says common law is valid in the state; I suspect most states have a statute admitting that. So AJ is just invoking his best weapon of common law, under which the SC has already ruled in Rodriguez v Ray Donovan (1985) that: "all codes, rules, and regulations are for federal officers and employees only, and not for natural humans/Creators; they lack Constitutional protections and due process, and raise serious questions about separation of powers." So AJ's position is that he obeys common law, and thus Lex Mercatoria does not apply to him, whether he has filed any documents to that effect or not. This position already incorporates the argument under UCC 1-308 that 'I have not knowingly and voluntarily surrendered any of my Constitutional rights.' And I agree that one should always attempt to settle disagreements man to man in private, rather than take the squabble into the public forum, so let me fix your prior comment: "and court is the last place where civilized battles are fought."

    As to the nature of the fight being offered by service of process, it is commercial because it is based on Lex Mercatoria, because the state claims that it has some beneficial interest in your body and your estate, and thus has a right to supervise your actions so as to protect their beneficial interest. This translates to Big Daddy Government, benevolent parent to all its citizen children, demanding: "as long as you live in the government's basement, you will obey all house rules." So government has usurped your Constitutional rights by this claim of beneficial interest (because you have volunteered to pledge your labor and assets as collateral for the national debt, through use of their debt money). Now AJ is just invoking his unalienable rights to contract, and starts by claiming that there is no contract, thus no basis for a challenge, and thus no reason for us to fight. It is an intelligent and honorable way to respond to a challenge: "Peace, brother. No one has been injured yet, so let's keep it that way. Now leave me alone."


    Keith, as to your suggestion that you return your drivers license, title, and registration, and resign from your agency for the NAME, you have included too much in one sentence. The state of NC has a statute which demands that you have and carry a license to drive:

    § 20-7. (See notes) Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
    (a) License Required. - To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle.

    Now this is not a Constitutional requirement, so what is the basis of the law? Remember that the authority of government derives from the consent of the governed. The basis of the law is in the commercial contract by which you accept the paternal benevolence of Big Daddy Government, the Great Society, ie your acceptance to be a 14th Amendment citizen (see SC statement above about statutes). Now you are the lawful owner of YOUR NAME, and the accommodation agent for it. You give life and energy to YOUR NAME, as nothing is done in YOUR NAME without you actually doing it, as the legal PERSON is a fictional entity. If you deny that you are agent for the fictional entity, it is trapped in limbo and cannot contract (it has only your hand to sign a contract), thus denying you the benefits of having a legal entity to use for public purposes. So it is not in your interest to deny that you are the agent for your legal entity. Now by returning your drivers license, you are serving process on the state, claiming that you are not subject to their statutes. Vehicle registration is conceding that the state owns your vehicle, and that due to the pledge you made (or Sec of Treasury presumed for you and you did not rebut), the state gets to hold legal title, and you get only equitable title (right to use), and you will be paying property taxes on the vehicle yearly like a good little debt slave. David suggested that the best route here is to clarify your private ownership status by refusing to pay the property tax when the registration comes up for renewal. Vehicle registration is actually done by a private corporation, it provides a public service by maintaining a uniform title transfer system and recording database, so it is reasonable that you would pay something for that service. So the correct approach is to register the vehicle as privately owned, not on the state's tax rolls. I will approach the DMV and discuss with them man to man how to get the state to drop their claim of beneficial interest in my privately owned vehicle.

    Freed

  5. #15
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,419
    Years ago I wrote the JAG and demanded that they perform their duty under military rule to squash the attempt of a private association [BAR] attempting to wage war upon an ignorant people by and thru the United States Post Office. A lawsuit is a Declaration of War. There is no other way to look at it. But it is war waged in a virtual space - not with bullets but with Estates.

    And as long as the Grantor is alive anything he does is considered to be a part of his or her estate. Again years ago a huge law firm 2500 + lawyers tried to get service upon my person - but that of course would require me to identify me. I have written exhaustively concerning identity but few seem to get it. I am the only one who can identify me and in fact - I really can't identify me because I am not sure each morning if I am actually me. If you just stop for a moment and think - throw out all the crap you THINK you know and just meditate on that issue and you hopefully will begin to see.

    There is no way for me to identify you - absolutely zero way. However, I can identify your fruits - which will tell me where your trust lies - which tells me which Kingdom you serve. 'And ye shall know them by their fruits'.....'Faith absent deeds is dead'....

    Getting service upon one who is wise is impossible. I just love to watch the faces turn beat red when some angry marshall yells but I know who you are - my simple response - "prove it". Roflmao.

    Consider these words carefully: Meditate on them and you will hopefully begin to see:

    Luk 11:53 And as He was saying these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urgently press upon Him, and to provoke Him to speak of many things:

    Luk 11:54 Watching Him, and seeking to catch something out of His mouth, that they might accuse him.

    ====

    Psa_49:10 For it must be seen that wise men die, Likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, They leave their wealth to others.

    Pro_18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, And his mouth calleth for strokes.

    Pro_18:7 A fool's mouth is his destruction, And his lips are the snare of his soul.

    Shalom,
    MJ
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  6. #16
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    "... 'saving to suitors', in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it..." - 1789

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Bill of Rights, Article 9

    Not only do i believe i have these rights, you will find your law agrees with me [for your benefit see xxxxxxxxxxxxx, etc].

  7. #17
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,419
    speaking of the State of NC - You should check out THIS LINK

    I have spent many an hour in the State archives - and when I really started getting close, the custodian told me that information was secret and could not be disclosed to the public. This, my friend tells me that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence [of Trust] is written in a manner that cannot be understood without the keys to unlock all of the capitalized nouns.

    In my opinion, if you think you can decode those documents without those keys, then you are just fooling yourself.

    Property Rights are for those who have taken dominion. If you have failed to do so - then simply put - you have not established any rights. And what you consider to be agreement is nothing but civil rights and privileges extended to a citizenry.

    Shalom,
    MJ

    P.S. There is a HUGE difference between "freedman" and "freeman". And "man" BECAME a "living soul".
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 01-13-14 at 11:41 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  8. #18
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    What do you define as "taking dominion" as it relates to claiming property and/or rights?

  9. #19
    @Freed

    I think I may have led you to think I was disassembling or deconstructing THE NAME, which was not my intention. Please notice that the California Corporations Code offers two options: resign as agent of the unincorporated association, or revoke the designation of an agent previously designated. These options, along with returning the driver's license and registration should definitely make the line between THE NAME and myself very clear.

    I'm still reading and contemplating these options. It may be that I decide to forego either option and pursue another course of action.

    At any rate, I would only be refusing to consent to service of process.

    Now it just so happens the same Corporations code also provides the opportunity to designate another agent. My thinking is the Governor would be the proper person to designate to receive services of process. Who else?

    Now about property ownership; it seems to me that this state, and the State, do indeed have security interests in the property I presently hold, since I obtained nearly all of it by using banking credit and/or Federal reserve notes. There are in existence running accounts of all income and expenses made by THE NAME, so the accounts are still open, awaiting settlement and closure.

    Finally, you mentioned a vehicle code that requires drivers to have driver's licenses. California also has a code section stating that drivers must have a driver's license. But I also note that the code only applies to residents, which THE NAME surely is. But I am an inhabitant. So if I, the inhabitant, withdraw consent to receive service of process, and further designate the Governor as my agent, then all the bases are covered. I think.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    speaking of the State of NC - You should check out THIS LINK

    I have spent many an hour in the State archives - and when I really started getting close, the custodian told me that information was secret and could not be disclosed to the public. This, my friend tells me that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence [of Trust] is written in a manner that cannot be understood without the keys to unlock all of the capitalized nouns.

    In my opinion, if you think you can decode those documents without those keys, then you are just fooling yourself.

    Property Rights are for those who have taken dominion. If you have failed to do so - then simply put - you have not established any rights. And what you consider to be agreement is nothing but civil rights and privileges extended to a citizenry.

    Shalom,
    MJ

    P.S. There is a HUGE difference between "freedman" and "freeman". And "man" BECAME a "living soul".
    I think that is a very astute observation and conclusion. I'm beginning to see that 'we the people' is an unincorporated association, to which residents can never fully belong. The 1789 Constitution proclaims it is for the benefit of the signatories and their posterity, almost completely ignoring everyone else except for government officials.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •