DL was NOT provided or used as ID

[Anthony Joseph]

After R4C it is a matter of showing for the 'arraignment' and preventing fraud on the court. If the chief of police fails to forward the R4C, that is fraud on the court.


In response to MJ's comment. If this gets to trial the officer set himself up to just say, I don't remember you making any declarations or comments about your driver license and/or your identification. This is why it is good to have an audio recorder. However, the officer will indeed be required in his training, when on the witness stand, to say exactly how the defendant identified himself. You can count on that.

If this is moving forward to trial by the way AJ - make sure that just before the trial you go to Records and get the backside of the officer's report. He might mention something about how you identified yourself. I doubt it though.

I am presuming that you are simply abating the No Insurance ticket by presenting the Proof of Insurance Card when you R4C both?

It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here! Did you get the officer's name?

I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned; it will be a lie for him to say he does not remember our encounter - DISHONOR. If he claims he does not remember, then my account will stand as truth; I have evidence of my intent, True Name and character pre-dating this encounter. The DL card itself is evidence of that fact; distinction between the man and the TRUST vessel.

I will be sure that fraud is not brought upon the court by offering my assistance via certified copies of the timely refusal. After that, what they wish to do with their account and DL card is up to them; it is their's anyway. Whatever transpires will not hinder my inherent right to travel freely in the mode of travel of my choosing since I will obtain a full record of these events to provide evidence of my honorable standing and competence to form the true and correct record - the superior court.

I did not and will not offer, or join into, any argument of any kind. My sole purpose was to be clear and to make sure the officer was cognizant of the fact that I did NOT identify myself with that DL card. Repeating and reminding him four times would make for an unbelievable assertion that he "doesn't remember". Either way, at any time along the way I can cure the "mistake" on the part of the LEO; my consent is CONTINUALLY required in order for their process to proceed and have any effect upon me.

The only reason to show up to court is to provide information, to prevent fraud on the court and to assist them in a friendly manner to settle their account through their own internal administration. Without a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden, they are left with their inherent obligation of settling any charges against their own vessel.

[David Merrill]

I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned...

I reviewed this thread this morning looking for that.

After a proper R4C a suitor showed up to cattle court (arraignment/First Appearance Center etc.) with a certified copy of his R4C from the USDC. He mistakenly took the wrong chute - to the ADA who rediculed the R4C in front of his ADA friends and threw it in the garbage pail. The suitor and his witness called me from the courthouse steps and I admonished them to get to the judge with it, to go get another copy of the R4C. That was twenty minutes each way so I suggested they go get the one out of the ADA's garbage pail.

They went back in and found that the ADA had already taken it out of the garbage and ran it up to the courtroom. By the time they got up there the ADA was retrieving it from the bailiff and the judge called up the legal name. This suitor stood in front of the podium because it looked too much like a sacrificial altar (which might be a very important point of protocol if you model trust processes as priestcrafting). He informed the judge that he was there by restricted appearance to avoid a fraud on the court. [The chief of police failing to update* the court about the R4C would be fraud by omission.] The judge was very interested and allowed him to bring the R4C up to the bench, took it and looked it over. He said, Okay as he put it in the file folder.

A couple weeks later the suitor went to the clerk of court and asked to see the case. It had nothing in it at all except that copy of the R4C!



Regards,

David Merrill.


* The process being expedited, like your revenue-frenzied officer seems to be the retaliation against the True Name execution. For example law enforcement traditionally waits for at least three days to present the tickets to the courthouse, presumably because of the three-day right of refusal. There is even a technique of getting right to the courthouse with your ticket and the clerk of court will say you have to come back in a few days; and you honorably insist on paying it, the clerk refuses and it is over. However, I have a report last week from a potential suitor, that he got a ticket on Friday evening and called Monday morning and the clerk was ready for payment.

With electronics and the new legislation you mentioned AJ, it is possible that the courthouse is informed simultaneously without you even signing the agreement/presentment/ticket.

[David Merrill]

An acquaintance is a state trooper and told me they were just sent a memo on this issue of motorists not identifying with the DL. Told me the memo described these people as potentially violent, liable to rush at you.
Total disinformation.

Thank you for that news Stonefree. Interesting label to put on properly using the Card.

I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned; it will be a lie for him to say he does not remember our encounter - DISHONOR. If he claims he does not remember, then my account will stand as truth; I have evidence of my intent, True Name and character pre-dating this encounter. The DL card itself is evidence of that fact; distinction between the man and the TRUST vessel.

I will be sure that fraud is not brought upon the court by offering my assistance via certified copies of the timely refusal. After that, what they wish to do with their account and DL card is up to them; it is their's anyway. Whatever transpires will not hinder my inherent right to travel freely in the mode of travel of my choosing since I will obtain a full record of these events to provide evidence of my honorable standing and competence to form the true and correct record - the superior court.

I did not and will not offer, or join into, any argument of any kind. My sole purpose was to be clear and to make sure the officer was cognizant of the fact that I did NOT identify myself with that DL card. Repeating and reminding him four times would make for an unbelievable assertion that he "doesn't remember". Either way, at any time along the way I can cure the "mistake" on the part of the LEO; my consent is CONTINUALLY required in order for their process to proceed and have any effect upon me.

The only reason to show up to court is to provide information, to prevent fraud on the court and to assist them in a friendly manner to settle their account through their own internal administration. Without a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden, they are left with their inherent obligation of settling any charges against their own vessel.

Very effective I will predict.

[Anthony Joseph]

That was quick!!!