DL was NOT provided or used as ID

[David Merrill]

I thought of a hypothetical conversation after writing that post.

You will go to the Driver License Store - aka Department of Revenue and they may give you a paper to take to the court. Or you take that paper you showed us to the clerk of court. Go in early with $400 cash in your wallet - all marked Redeemed if you have a stamp. Also have your wife or a friend accompany carrying both cash and a checkbook. With a check subscribed on the Memo line like I described.

Tell the clerk of court that you wish to take care of the problem so that you can drive with a valid driver license card. If you do not pay cash or check, likely the clerk will have you arrested or maybe make arrangements for you to be heard with a magistrate.

Magistrate: How can I help you?

AJ: Are we on the Record? I would like to order a transcript of this hearing. I need this driver license card reinstated. This letter says that it has been revoked.

Magistrate: It looks like you have refused to pay the fine.

AJ: I will help the trustee any way I can but as I understand it the driver license functions as a bail bond worth about $250 and if I get stopped without a bail bond I will likely be arrested and my car impounded. I have a family and am worried about being stopped while driving my small children and things like that.

Magistrate: Maybe you had better just pay the fine out of pocket?

AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.

Magistrate: ...


Where the magistrate goes with this is on the record. You ordered up a transcript. It is probably clear by now that the transcript will be kept in your evidence repository. That is about all you can do. But that is by no means a small thing to be doing.

If the magistrate just tells you to pay up the fine, then I suggest you do that. But you will have that transgression on the record. That is what I am about; Record-Forming. I am not buying into the whole CQVT scenario, that is being promoted by others here and I am hoping they do not get somebody like you hurt, AJ. I do not want to be a tyrant and shut them down for having an opinion, and I admit, I find the scenario quite interesting.

What I am saying is that after you have the transcript in the USDC then you copy back to the court the clerk instruction. Maybe even file your default judgment there. This might have some impact the next time you are stopped for a ticket and properly identify yourself. But you will at least be covered by the bonding and avoid having to try fighting and arguing wearing a jumpsuit and handcuffs.

If you don't get ahead of this, we will just hear about how corrupt government is after you are released on bail. This way, we can keep up real time, and your family will appreciate having you around too I bet.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Anthony Joseph]

I thought of a hypothetical conversation after writing that post.

You will go to the Driver License Store - aka Department of Revenue and they may give you a paper to take to the court. Or you take that paper you showed us to the clerk of court. Go in early with $400 cash in your wallet - all marked Redeemed if you have a stamp. Also have your wife or a friend accompany carrying both cash and a checkbook. With a check subscribed on the Memo line like I described.

Tell the clerk of court that you wish to take care of the problem so that you can drive with a valid driver license card. If you do not pay cash or check, likely the clerk will have you arrested or maybe make arrangements for you to be heard with a magistrate.

Magistrate: How can I help you?

AJ: Are we on the Record? I would like to order a transcript of this hearing. I need this driver license card reinstated. This letter says that it has been revoked.

Magistrate: It looks like you have refused to pay the fine.

AJ: I will help the trustee any way I can but as I understand it the driver license functions as a bail bond worth about $250 and if I get stopped without a bail bond I will likely be arrested and my car impounded. I have a family and am worried about being stopped while driving my small children and things like that.

Magistrate: Maybe you had better just pay the fine out of pocket?

AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.

Magistrate: ...


Where the magistrate goes with this is on the record. You ordered up a transcript. It is probably clear by now that the transcript will be kept in your evidence repository. That is about all you can do. But that is by no means a small thing to be doing.

If the magistrate just tells you to pay up the fine, then I suggest you do that. But you will have that transgression on the record. That is what I am about; Record-Forming. I am not buying into the whole CQVT scenario, that is being promoted by others here and I am hoping they do not get somebody like you hurt, AJ. I do not want to be a tyrant and shut them down for having an opinion, and I admit, I find the scenario quite interesting.

What I am saying is that after you have the transcript in the USDC then you copy back to the court the clerk instruction. Maybe even file your default judgment there. This might have some impact the next time you are stopped for a ticket and properly identify yourself. But you will at least be covered by the bonding and avoid having to try fighting and arguing wearing a jumpsuit and handcuffs.

If you don't get ahead of this, we will just hear about how corrupt government is after you are released on bail. This way, we can keep up real time, and your family will appreciate having you around too I bet.



Regards,

David Merrill.

What you are saying is to forego the R4C process altogether in the future, when dealing with "tickets", and just pay the fines in order to keep a valid driver's license.

It sounds as if you feel I should not be taking this any further since I have a wife and children to look after. Either you feel I am not experienced or knowledgable enough to take this all the way or you feel it is not worth the chance being a family man.

I have heard you mention on several occasion that you drive on the roadways without a DL card carrying only a certificate of search on your true name to provide to any LEOs you may encounter. Have you ever been stopped while driving a car?

Forming the truth on the record is important and valuable. This entire exercise will get the truth on the record. What you are suggesting is that the STATE will act in dishonor no matter what truth I present which could land me in jail. You feel that, for me, it is not worth it or I am not ready for that challenge yet.

[David Merrill]

What you are saying is to forego the R4C process altogether in the future, when dealing with "tickets", and just pay the fines in order to keep a valid driver's license.

It sounds as if you feel I should not be taking this any further since I have a wife and children to look after. Either you feel I am not experienced or knowledgable enough to take this all the way or you feel it is not worth the chance being a family man.

I have heard you mention on several occasion that you drive on the roadways without a DL card carrying only a certificate of search on your true name to provide to any LEOs you may encounter. Have you ever been stopped while driving a car?

Forming the truth on the record is important and valuable. This entire exercise will get the truth on the record. What you are suggesting is that the STATE will act in dishonor no matter what truth I present which could land me in jail. You feel that, for me, it is not worth it or I am not ready for that challenge yet.

Absolutely not. The Refusal for Cause process is quite valid and successful. You are misconstructing what I am telling you so please be careful.

You R4C'd the process and the clerk/magistrate has not ignored you. If they were ignoring you then there would be a warrant out for your arrest right now. You would be charged for Failure to Appear too. So pull it together and think about this.

You have had your driver license revoked. You are being presumed the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges and that may be because of the signature - doing business as - SURNAME, ANTHONY JOSEPH. You have declared a business/commercial relationship that is contrary to the doctrine emerging lately here and in the brain trust.

I suggest you better read more carefully, my posts on the last page.

Unless you would rather be the purist and drive your children etc. without a valid driver license card. If you get into an accident there is a good chance that your insurance company will refuse to fill any claim from you, because they consider that an Out. They may retain the right to presume that revokation is a slur on your competence, not some political/financial position.

If you want to be bonded against immediate arrest next time you are caught speeding or running a STOP sign, then pursue the renewal of your driver license. The General Bond rule in admiralty is 2X the amount of the injury. Typically you will find running a STOP sign costs about $125 in fines. You want to get it on the record that having that bond in place is valuable to you. Otherwise you may have to pay it out of pocket, the $250 bail bond and do it from the Booking Area of the local jail, where they do not accept cash any more.

If you understand the trust structures being examined around here enough to influence a police officer's decisions to arrest you and impound your car, then you are way ahead of me!

AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.

Magistrate: ...

When I wrote:

AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.

Magistrate: ...

That "..." - what comes out of the Magistrate's mouth next, that is what I want you to get on the Record. I want you to walk out of the courthouse with a settlement, in peace, so that you can sit down to your computer and let us know exactly what happened. Don't forget to carry your audio recorder!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Rock Anthony]

What you are saying is to forego the R4C process altogether in the future, when dealing with "tickets", and just pay the fines in order to keep a valid driver's license.

It sounds as if you feel I should not be taking this any further since I have a wife and children to look after. Either you feel I am not experienced or knowledgable enough to take this all the way or you feel it is not worth the chance being a family man.

I have heard you mention on several occasion that you drive on the roadways without a DL card carrying only a certificate of search on your true name to provide to any LEOs you may encounter. Have you ever been stopped while driving a car?

Forming the truth on the record is important and valuable. This entire exercise will get the truth on the record. What you are suggesting is that the STATE will act in dishonor no matter what truth I present which could land me in jail. You feel that, for me, it is not worth it or I am not ready for that challenge yet.

I'm not answering for David, but just want to throw in my interpretation of his suggestion...

Sounds to me that David is suggesting that you get on record the magistrate acknowledging the existence of the constructive trust (Trustee de son Tort) and the fact that the State is the trustee of said trust. With these two things on record, filed in your evidence repo, you'll have superpowered R4Cs in the future.

I would take it a bit further with the magistrate: in addition to offering to help the trustee to pay whatever fines or fees, I would inform the magistrate that I am without any form of credit, only lawful money of the United States (with proof that I move without the Federal Reserve Districts).

If the policy is "no cash", then we have a problem because there is no "intangible" form of lawful money. Will the magistrate impose upon me involuntary servitude - that I must participate in a private banking system, else I go to jail? That will also be nice to have on record.

UPDATE: Only after submitting this post did I realize that David already replied to AJ. This post comes a day late and a dollar short.

[David Merrill]

UPDATE: Only after submitting this post did I realize that David already replied to AJ. This post comes a day late and a dollar short.

Hardly! You just verified that my posts were intelligible. Thank you Rock.

I do understand how AJ might have understood my gist the way he seems to have though.

[Rock Anthony]

I am not buying into the whole CQVT scenario, that is being promoted by others here and I am hoping they do not get somebody like you hurt, AJ. I do not want to be a tyrant and shut them down for having an opinion, and I admit, I find the scenario quite interesting.

What I don't buy into is the manner for which to dissolve CQVT as suggested by some people. This is not to ignorantly dismiss others' assertions - this is just to say that I haven't self-determined such assertions to be either correct or incorrect. But I will admit that some things sound too absurd.

However, I do buy into trust structures - now that I'm somewhat educated about them, I can see them everywhere (well, the simple ones, anyway)! I appreciate the discussions that go on within the suitor group on the topic of trust structures.

If you understand the trust structures being examined around here enough to influence a police officer's decisions to arrest you and impound your car, then you are way ahead of me!

Amen, brother. Perhaps only seasoned judges understand trust structures enough to not find themselves in Trustee de son Tort against you! Perhaps the low level personnel - police officers, unseasoned judges and magistrates, village attorneys - have not a clue.

This thread now screams the importance of record forming! Even if the low-level personnel has no clue about trust structures, any Trustee de son Torts by them against you will be on record!

I'm really starting to put together the offerings of David Merrill and Michael Joseph.

[David Merrill]

The verbiage applies to government-owned vehicles alright. Look closely at the stickers on your car:

Official Use Only

[Anthony Joseph]

I thought of one more issue that might arise here; the reinstatement of the DL may require that the "new" rules apply regarding necessary documents and info. A birth certficate, social security card and a utility bill, all obviously an attempt to indict through legal information.

My thoughts are when these documents and information are requested, "I can provide them to meet your requirement, and for your benefit only, absent capacity as trustee or fiduciary".

I will be "getting ahead of this thing", as David put it, some time this week. There has been no notice to appear so whatever I do, wherever I go and whomever I speak to will not result in arrest or jail. I will be dropped off at the DL bureau/courthouse and get it on the record that they are forcing me into the role of trustee in order to reinstate the DL card. My evidence package will reflect that I didn't ignore the presentment and that I acted in honor. It will also show that I respectfully declined the office of trustee/fiduciary for the Constructive Trust and refused for cause timely the presentment offered to me relating to that trust.

I will make it clear that I will help them in any way my character and capacity will allow which may include paying out of pocket to settle the matter, via lawful money only of course. That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me. My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only; to keep peace on the roadways, to avoid negative roadside encounters with uninformed revenue agents/LEOs, to prevent any agent/LEO from committing unlawful trespass/kidnap against me and to avoid traumatizing my young children in the event this scenario transpires with them in the car.

These are all peaceful and righteous intents and purposes for using a DL card and the benefit of that use lies solely with the STATE/COUNTY/CITY. I have expressed these sentiments many times in the past through discussions on our private forum regarding using the "tools" of the STATE in our own right and for righteous purposes only. It seems as though I will be putting those sentiments and ideas into practice; with the added record of my clear and undeniable refusal to be trustee and the possiblity of them forcing that office upon me... For the Record!

[Michael Joseph]

I thought of one more issue that might arise here; the reinstatement of the DL may require that the "new" rules apply regarding necessary documents and info. A birth certficate, social security card and a utility bill, all obviously an attempt to indict through legal information.

My thoughts are when these documents and information are requested, "I can provide them to meet your requirement, and for your benefit only, absent capacity as trustee or fiduciary".

I will be "getting ahead of this thing", as David put it, some time this week. There has been no notice to appear so whatever I do, wherever I go and whomever I speak to will not result in arrest or jail. I will be dropped off at the DL bureau/courthouse and get it on the record that they are forcing me into the role of trustee in order to reinstate the DL card. My evidence package will reflect that I didn't ignore the presentment and that I acted in honor. It will also show that I respectfully declined the office of trustee/fiduciary for the Constructive Trust and refused for cause timely the presentment offered to me relating to that trust.

I will make it clear that I will help them in any way my character and capacity will allow which may include paying out of pocket to settle the matter, via lawful money only of course. That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me. My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only; to keep peace on the roadways, to avoid negative roadside encounters with uninformed revenue agents/LEOs, to prevent any agent/LEO from committing unlawful trespass/kidnap against me and to avoid traumatizing my young children in the event this scenario transpires with them in the car.

These are all peaceful and righteous intents and purposes for using a DL card and the benefit of that use lies solely with the STATE/COUNTY/CITY. I have expressed these sentiments many times in the past through discussions on our private forum regarding using the "tools" of the STATE in our own right and for righteous purposes only. It seems as though I will be putting those sentiments and ideas into practice; with the added record of my clear and undeniable refusal to be trustee and the possiblity of them forcing that office upon me... For the Record!

Exactly! A friend of mine put the DL and Registration on the dashboard and told the Police Officer you may take them for your beneficial use; the police officer came back and said "have a nice day."

If the Property belongs to State, why not redeem it? Or make a demand that it be redeemed anyways. What is the difference between notes and what is bought with notes in light of "PROPERTY"? I mean lets talk plainly now - Is a Map the Land or is a map just a representation of the land. So then is Property the car or is Property just the "Right of Use"? Can you redeem Property? Have not you been making demands for Lawful Money? - I believe the code says "They shall be REDEEMED on demand".......

Isn't money Property? If you say no, then you do not comprehend money. Money only exists within a Trust Relationship.

[shikamaru]

Isn't money Property? If you say no, then you do not comprehend money. Money only exists within a Trust Relationship.

Technically, it is an asset ....
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)

ASSET.

The property in the hands of an heir, executor, administrator or trustee, which is legally or equitably chargeable with the obligations, which such heir, executor, administrator or other trustee, is, as such, required to discharge, is called assets. The term is derived from the French word assez, enough; that is, the heir or trustee has enough property. But the property is still called assets, although there may not be enough to discharge all the obligations; and the heir, executor, &c., is chargeable in distribution as far as such property extends.