DL was NOT provided or used as ID

[Michael Joseph]

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

ASSET.

thank you for that, but clearly that asset only exists within the trust. Property called asset is Right of Use. The Asset is the right of use. And typically the asset is Registered on a Trust Asset Registry - typically known as Register of Deeds. Or County Clerk and Recorder. The Property or Asset is wholly dependent upon Survey and Claim. And Use depends on Claim - I mean who has the right to the Use is derived from the Claim. Therefore the Use being put into Trust is split into Legal Use and Equitable Use. And then there are those who do not hold titles and they are just mere "End User" or plain ole "User" by way of Usufruct. A legal right.

Legal goes to Trust. Right goes to Trust property. Therefore Legal Right is Property held in Trust for a User.

I mean how on earth would one come to Possess [another trust term, yes] a new Vehicle - absent some sort of "Legal" [again goes to trust, yes] tender from Within, some trust? Possess is actually incorrect, really Use is a better term.

I hate Collectivism - but thanks to Plato, Kant and Niche who hold that the State is Supreme - we are bombarded daily by the Fasces

Just read Senate Resolution #62 - page 13

If the argument of collectivism appeals to you then we are all one and everything is entangled. Therefore what is man but an expression of God and therefore man is God. Here I cannot go. Pantheism - all is God. Or said another way - the Universe if God. heard that one lately? And yet the proponents of this philo-SOPHY as they claim to be wise also espouse Trust doctrine. I mean just read carefully that [de]finition of "asset". A trust begs a particular society. Therefore a trust excludes a particular society by its very nature. Therefore a Trust is in opposition to the ALL and yet Senate Resolution #62 declares the State is Supreme Person.

How preposterously absurd. Never in my existence has something come to be absent Force or Intent. And yet, these fix that abomination against nature by claiming the Universe just "came to exist." How utterly convenient.

Therefore, it is also convenient that I have choice. My expression of my Faith or Trust - by my own singular purpose absent the need to bundle a bunch of sticks ready for the slayer [axe]. The "covering" of State is interesting indeed - fig leaves. A lie to keep man from Full Liability to his fellow man.

Sorry to go into philosophy when we are talking law but is not all Law a benefit? Therefore a benefit issued by whom? Trusts are quite slippery indeed.



shalom,
mj

[shikamaru]

thank you for that, but clearly that asset only exists within the trust. Property called asset is Right of Use. The Asset is the right of use. And typically the asset is Registered on a Trust Asset Registry - typically known as Register of Deeds. Or County Clerk and Recorder. The Property or Asset is wholly dependent upon Survey and Claim. And Use depends on Claim - I mean who has the right to the Use is derived from the Claim. Therefore the Use being put into Trust is split into Legal Use and Equitable Use. And then there are those who do not hold titles and they are just mere "End User" or plain ole "User" by way of Usufruct. A legal right.

This is why I personally make a sharp distinction between the terms asset and property.
Property, as I define it, means property held as strictly jus privati.
Asset implies commerce as well.
Asset is a species of property. A subset.

[Michael Joseph]

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.

I mean this is the definition of Charge. One who issues a Charge must discharge the Charge upon the owners Estate. Who Owns the Property or Asset? If I am mere user, I am not Owner. How can I discharge the Charge?

Is not Right = Property. What then of Privilege extending from Right? Is it not still within Property? So who holds the Legal/Equitable Title. It can't be me, if i am mere user.

so we can't have it both ways. Either I am liable and if such, I am trustee or I am not liable, I am user. but if trustee, when did i take an oath? Constructive Trustee? did I commit a tort?

Clearly Driving is said to be a privilege coming from legal right. So who holds that Property [privilege] in trust? Not me. You? I doubt it. So then who is responsible for that Right and the Privilege? If I am mere user of that privilege, I am not responsible and I cannot discharge any charges that issue as a result of that privilege.

State as fig leaves - a covering.

Isaiah 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.

[David Merrill]

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.

I think the discussion is elucidated by this post.

In other words Schedule A is a list of assets belonging to the Trust.

[Anthony Joseph]

More ammunition to add to my arsenal...

The FRB attorneys are trying to make out that Scott Gregory was never injured.

I will describe the injury. At lawful money rates and redemption, Scott's $100 bill should buy over two ounces of gold. Look at the footnote - $42.22/troy ounce of gold. Instead Scott's bill will buy only a fraction of that - Spot being $1540/troy ounce. So Scott can only purchase about 1/15 an ounce today with it.

If you divide $1540/$42.22 you get about 1/20 value of his $100 bill. The bill if redeemed should be redeemed at its lawful money value. Lawful money (US notes) is not elastic nor is it to be used as reserve currency.


I am telling Scott!!

I am telling the magistrate!

If the magistrate forces me into an office of trust on the record, said magistrate will also be forcing me into false balances unless he/she consents that my redeemed lawful money cash is worth 20X the value of signature endorsed FRNs. More transgressions and dishonor on and for the record.

[Michael Joseph]

I think the discussion is elucidated by this post.

In other words Schedule A is a list of assets belonging to the Trust.

thank you. Assets like Driving Privileges and certain Rights belong to the Trust.

[Rock Anthony]

DISCLAIMER: The following are just some ponderings in my mind:

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.

I just can't help but wonder if an offer to help them by paying out of your pocket is really necessary. The end game is to help them settle their own intangible affairs with their own intangible money.

Now I'm thinking that the extent of your assistance to them is to help them realize that you're not the fiduciary. That's it. And to help them with that realization you can remind them that you are forever without the money that is used within their trust structure. 12 USC 411

That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me.

I'm also thinking that any magistrate can only thrust obligations upon whatever constructive trusts they create - not you. It appears that you're doing well to not get mixed into their stuff.

My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only;

Be careful. I'm thinking that only the trustee can have the DL re-in-state-d. I agree that to do so is for their benefit. But, going back to the fundamentals of trusts, whenever there is only one beneficiary, then the office of beneficiary is mutually exclusive of the office of trustee. So if the State is the beneficiary, where does that leave you - and you are the one that is reinstating the DL? Hmm. That might just be what their waiting for from you - for you to execute the executory constructive trust by acting to reinstate the DL.

Thoughts from anyone?

[David Merrill]

My thought is that AJ gets the DL reinstated by the trustee, at the trustee's expense. If the DoR will not do it or the court threatens to jail him, then he better get the card in possession at his expense.

I am not thinking so much as endgame. I am thinking about AJ's welfare. My objective is that AJ gets the whole thing on the record and in his evidence repository so we can learn from his experience - without getting bruised up about it.

[Anthony Joseph]

DISCLAIMER: The following are just some ponderings in my mind:



I just can't help but wonder if an offer to help them by paying out of your pocket is really necessary. The end game is to help them settle their own intangible affairs with their own intangible money.

Now I'm thinking that the extent of your assistance to them is to help them realize that you're not the fiduciary. That's it. And to help them with that realization you can remind them that you are forever without the money that is used within their trust structure. 12 USC 411



I'm also thinking that any magistrate can only thrust obligations upon whatever constructive trusts they create - not you. It appears that you're doing well to not get mixed into their stuff.



Be careful. I'm thinking that only the trustee can have the DL re-in-state-d. I agree that to do so is for their benefit. But, going back to the fundamentals of trusts, whenever there is only one beneficiary, then the office of beneficiary is mutually exclusive of the office of trustee. So if the State is the beneficiary, where does that leave you - and you are the one that is reinstating the DL? Hmm. That might just be what their waiting for from you - for you to execute the executory constructive trust by acting to reinstate the DL.

Thoughts from anyone?

As I understand this, the offer is to help in any way my declared character and capacity will allow. The instruction by me for them to settle their own account has been presented and received, however, there has been no response but the action of suspending the license. My offer of help is just as you describe; making it clear that I have respectfully and timely declined and refused the office of trustee/fiduciary to settle the account and my instruction is for them to administrate it internally. Trouble is, the judge may come back and say, "you must pay out of pocket to settle these fines and reinstate the DL." My response on the record will be that, "I am prepared to do that today, but I feel I am being wrongfully forced into an office of trust when I have made it clear that my express intent is to remain without that character, I don't feel I should have to take on the obligation of trustee." If the judge insists, that dishonor and transgression is now on the record and I have made it clear that the office of trustee has been wrongfully forced upon me rather than it being voluntary or by my acquiescence.

Also, it will be on record that I can only offer lawful money of exchange since my demand is clear and on record. I will be wronged even further on the record if I am forced to pay the amount according to the $1550/oz. gold window (FRNs) rather than the $42.22/oz. gold window (USNs). That transgression of false balances being thrust upon me will also be on the record.

I gain no benefit from reinstating the DL card. The STATE gains all the benefit from that action. My intents and purposes are righteous in nature and NOT for profit or gain. My use of that card prevents the roving agents/LEOs from committing unlawful trespass and kidnap/arrest against me. I am helping my fellow man and woman to not sin against me and I am protecting my children from unnecessary roadside strife and anguish which they are too young to understand.

My use of the DL tool is strictly at arm's length.

[Anthony Joseph]

I am still interested in any comments regarding this post...

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".