DL was NOT provided or used as ID

[Moxie]

Alternatively, making very small, illegible marks via the signature pad...ya know...just a dot or two for a 'signature' an then using a fine magic marker to finish it off once the DL comes in the mail...well u get the idea.

I know of someone who made an "all rights reserved, without prejudice, by: given name" type thing for his DL: he typed that in the smallest font, printed it off, cut around the words, probably with an Exacto knife, affixed it to the DL, then laminated the DL. He says he was stopped two or three times, showed that to the officers, and was let off with "have a nice day" each time.

So the guy explained it like: this was his way of re-contracting on his terms and turned the DL into his personal copy of the agreement.

[Chex]

he typed it, printed it , cut it around the words, affixed it to the DL, then laminated it on the DL. says he was stopped two or three times, showed that to the officers, and was let off with "have a nice day"

Isn't that altering someone else's document?

[Moxie]

Isn't that altering someone else's document?

Here's the thing though: what about when people reserve rights by altering (crossing out, rewriting) DL documents at the DMV -- aren't those docs their property too?

[Chex]

Here's the thing though: aren't those docs their property too?

This is a question I asked way back. “If the property is in your name than whose is it”?

If the property is not in your name then whose is it.

If lawful money is in your name than whose is it?

[Moxie]

This is a question I asked way back. “If the property is in your name than whose is it”?

If the property is not in your name then whose is it.

If lawful money is in your name than whose is it?

Ahhhh, I missed that! Thanks!

[salsero]

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

If you believe you own that property you refer to as a Name, please provide evidence of such ownership. Saying I AM JOHN DOE in YOUR COURT or in public does not make that Name your property. If property is owned/held by legal title, then you would be able to produce the original title to the property Name AS OWNER. If you can not, and all you can obtain is a "certified copy", signed by an authorized official who has some fictional title, it appears to me that the owner or legal title holder sure does not want you to have it. I wonder why?????

I would suggest you all look up what the "legal community" considers to be a belligerent act, along with the bankruptcy of the US. If you decide that legal community DOES NOT function in YOUR world, as you are a sovereign or other self-important title claiming your "rights" or you "own this or that", boy are you going to be in for a real lesson. Sure TPTB do not want their fraud exposed and you "may get lucky" - over small stuff but when push comes to shove, we will see. For those who are familiar with Paul Andrew Mitchell, word is that he has been indicted for obstruction of justice, etc.

[sambking]

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

If you believe you own that property you refer to as a Name, please provide evidence of such ownership. Saying I AM JOHN DOE in YOUR COURT or in public does not make that Name your property. If property is owned/held by legal title, then you would be able to produce the original title to the property Name AS OWNER. If you can not, and all you can obtain is a "certified copy", signed by an authorized official who has some fictional title, it appears to me that the owner or legal title holder sure does not want you to have it. I wonder why?????

I would suggest you all look up what the "legal community" considers to be a belligerent act, along with the bankruptcy of the US. If you decide that legal community DOES NOT function in YOUR world, as you are a sovereign or other self-important title claiming your "rights" or you "own this or that", boy are you going to be in for a real lesson. Sure TPTB do not want their fraud exposed and you "may get lucky" - over small stuff but when push comes to shove, we will see. For those who are familiar with Paul Andrew Mitchell, word is that he has been indicted for obstruction of justice, etc.

I understand the concept that the so-called "federal gov't" tried to propagate in the above Senate Doc #43 but it rests on the definition of the word "individual." Paul Andrew Mitchell's work explains with cited material why the "federal gov't's" use of the term "individual" circles back to the definition of small "c" "citizen"...meaning "federal citizen." For those interested in Mitchell's work simply google "supreme law dot org."

The above post also mentions that Paul Andrew Mitchell has been "indicted for obstruction of justice." Where is this written? I would like to know how this information was gathered.

Thanks,

Sam

[Chex]

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

If you believe you own that property you refer to as a Name, please provide evidence of such ownership. Saying I AM JOHN DOE in YOUR COURT or in public does not make that Name your property. If property is owned/held by legal title, then you would be able to produce the original title to the property Name AS OWNER. If you can not, and all you can obtain is a "certified copy", signed by an authorized official who has some fictional title, it appears to me that the owner or legal title holder sure does not want you to have it. I wonder why?????

The catholic encyclopedia will tell you why.

And there you go…..

U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part I › Chapter 21 › § 453
28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Current through Pub. L. 114-19. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code
• Notes

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

"So help me God.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

[EZrhythm]

Here's the thing though: what about when people reserve rights by altering (crossing out, rewriting) DL documents at the DMV -- aren't those docs their property too?

Not until you hand the document back to them with any desired edits.

[EZrhythm]

Isn't that altering someone else's document?

No since the whole license is an agreement that you have created. The physical license card belongs to the "STATE OF..." under the terms of the agreement but the agreement itself is the signor's. A signor may alter an agreement at any time and the alterations go into effect immediately upon NOTICE. Notice = knowledge of the communication.
If one desired they could place 'See attached" on the signature line and then carry the attachment with them.
Another effective method is to form a separate NOTICE, record the notice in a public forum, issue a certified copy to the DMV and then carrying one with you.