Consent to Service of Process

[doug555]

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 What if I have withdrawn consent?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 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.

[Keith Alan]

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.

[doug555]

See this folder and especially read this document to see another dimension the to the BC issue...

[Keith Alan]

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

[JohnnyCash]

when a man learns to be, and act as, a man at all times, he will not require a new 'business trust' creation to claim and hold property.

Yes, but what if you want a bank account? If you give the bank the SS# you'll get a FDR trust account. But here's a chance to get a trust account of your own choosing.

[Anthony Joseph]

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.

[JohnnyCash]

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

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.

BTW, isn't persuasion the job of salesmen, agents, and propagandists?

[Anthony Joseph]

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

[Michael Joseph]

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

[Anthony Joseph]

"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?