Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: Two Traffic Tickets R4C Refused for Cause successfully!

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu View Post
    where may I find this "Manor Roll"..??
    in a Public Record ..??

    help ..!! this is confusing ..
    Statutory Law + something Else " Manor Roll"
    With all due respect to Michael Joseph, whom I do not know, nor do I have any animosity against him, I find him nearly completely incomprehensible. I just smile and move on. This stuff is apparently learned in layers, ongoingly. It is important for me at least, that I stay grounded in reality, by which I mean, Okay, if I presented that incomprehensible statement in a court of Law, true Law, How would it be dealt with? I assume I just don't know what MJ knows. And at the moment, I have no need to go there, either. But I try to never say Never.

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu View Post
    some bold Statements there ..
    might You back such Statements with some judicial opinions in support of your postulations ..??
    Thanks for the challenge to document these statements. I don't have only access to legal research. I read the court findings in a report I purchased from BeatTrafficTickets.org.
    You have the Law of the Land, a.k.a. Common Law Jurisdiction, and the Law of the Sea, a.k.a. Admiralty Law Jurisdiction, also called Commercial Law.
    A Commercial Law Jurisdiction functions in an Administrative Court, which simply administers the Commercial, and not, Common Law. Common Law is the Law of Natural Men and Women, that is where a flesh and blood person could swear a complaint of injury and seek damages of another natural person.

    In Law, only Like can come against Like. A commercial entity, identified in all caps, cannot sue an upper and lower case Natural Man, because they are not like entities at law. Only if the Natural Man CONSENTS to this form of law (absent a crime involving a victim who swears an affidavit, or the existence of a physical body of the crime), the Administrative Court has no personam Jurisdiction. This is why the Refused for Cause R4C Process works! (But damage someone, or injure them, and you are now in deep trouble, because they will be able to claim Jurisdiction over you in some fashion. I don't know what or how, I am still learning. :-))

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xparte View Post
    integrity would suggest , if you're never going to pull this Commercial [DRIVER] LICENSE. that instrument out of a wallet the persona. acting Commercial all my paperwork is in the vehicle your identity is thus verbatim never that wallet attachment. "You can TAKE the driver license card out if you need to USE it." warfare and a LEO,s own undertaking are both avoidable once you've exchanged his options.a tape recording as my voice identifies me.
    I have no other state issued ID, which is required everywhere. Integrity aside, whether I like it or not, the bank teller isn't going to be impressed with my home made ID. It's impractical not to carry the LEGAL FICTION around.Also, there have been times when I WAS acting in a commercial capacity, and therefore did require said ID.

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    So the plastic sleeve strategy helps me a. avoid implied or presumed consent? and b. it removes the possibility of the cop getting furious with me for asking 'Is that a request or a demand for those Documents?'?

    I like that idea very much. I did NOT like the cop ordering me to hand over my 'papers', like a scene from a Russian Check Point crossing: 'Yuri, Let me see his papers!'

    It was surreal. I will look into www.lawfulmoneytrust.com. I will try to avoid MJ (not because he is a bad guy or anything, but because I have no earthly idea what he means when he combines words, all of which I think I know, in combinations that make them like Ancient Sanskrit to me. :-)).

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonLawWarrior View Post
    With all due respect to Michael Joseph, whom I do not know, nor do I have any animosity against him, I find him nearly completely incomprehensible. I just smile and move on. This stuff is apparently learned in layers, ongoingly. It is important for me at least, that I stay grounded in reality, by which I mean, Okay, if I presented that incomprehensible statement in a court of Law, true Law, How would it be dealt with? I assume I just don't know what MJ knows. And at the moment, I have no need to go there, either. But I try to never say Never.
    For me, the key to finding MJ's postings useful is to view biochemical and biophysical model in parables of the Bible. Thought preceding creation and the Word of God being interpreted truthfully through the Holy Spirit. So that in a wonderful way, we can all have different interpretations but they are quite correct, when considering they are custom.

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    You and the officer PRESUME that I the natural man, am under his Commercial Jurisdiction, bound by his 'adhesion contracts, namely LICENSE TAG, REGISTRATION, and LEGAL FICTION DRIVERS LICENSE.'

    Adhesion contracts have no written terms, and no remedies at Law, for failure to comply. Furthermore, they are UNDISCLOSED contracts, such that if anyone actually knew that one waives one's unalienable RIGHT, in order to accept a fraudulently required State DRIVERS LICENSE, so said contract is null and void and unenforceable. By refusing CONSENT to contract with the State, there is NO obligation to perform per those statutes. So far, there is NO EVIDENCE of a written contract, nor legitimate obligation to be bound to it, or all the statues purported to be obligated to perform by it. The LEO is out of bullets. As is your presumptive argument, respectfully.

    Also, United States Code (Federal Codes of Statutory Law) trump State Statutes, where they contradict. U.S.C Section 18 or so, has definitions. I don't have all the cites here, but you could find them with a Google search. A 'driver' is a person 'operating' a 'motor vehicle', to transport cargo or persons, for pay or compensation. I was and am NOT a 'DRIVER', was 'traveling' not 'operating' nor 'driving' a 'motor vehicle' (defined as a conveyance used for commercial purposes on public roadways). So, there is still NO EVIDENCE, that I a traveler, am or was subject to those commercial statutes, which only apply to 'drivers'.

    The Insurance is for private purposes, not because the State threatens me to have it or else. If I should damage property or injure someone, I want financial help and am paying to transfer some of that private risk.

    If I kill someone while traveling, no, I do not, if I am at fault, have enough insurance. I will have to pay with my life, or freedom, most likely.

    If I had agreed to abide by the traffic statutes, which would be the case if I were still a delivery driver, then yes, I would abide by the judgements. (The Serpent is a Real Person, Satan, not my lower human nature. On this you are greatly mistaken. That is called the Flesh. But I digress. Believe as you will, I don't care to argue religion with you or anyone. We will all find out where we were wrong one day.)

    I pay all lawful tribute/taxes/notes. I don't shirk my duties. I have no idea what you are talking about with Peter and Paul, that is an expression, not a literal transaction. (I personally find your hyper interpretation of that saying bizarre and irrational. But it's your interpretation so you are as entitled to it as I am to tell you it is folly.) Your CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST does not form, in the matter I described, but only in the one you described.

    I enjoy very much being alive, and look forward to many more days.

    Regards MJ, with whom I disagree, but don't dislike.

    CLW
    Last edited by CommonLawWarrior; 07-28-16 at 05:07 AM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    Hilarious. Thanks for that.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Thank you Ag Maniac!

    I am not sure I get it but you showed me that when somebody touches a nerve, it is MY problem.


    P.S. This brings up a doctrine, at least to me; Appearance cures all defects in jurisdiction.

    I have seen this with passports as well as driver licenses. I cut teeth with the Right to Travel with it decades ago too. It is when one enters and gets response to Affidavit or Directives to the DoR or State Department in the process of getting the card in hand.

    In particular the State Department says,



    Even if you got it the way you wanted,




    As pointed out, this is a matter of establishing that you have a prior right - the right to egress and ingress - to Travel. The trick is to show it on the Card.

    After processing the holographic "big picture" I have found that is best expressed in the signature, by True Name. First and Middle shows a distinction in how you identify yourself. Whenever signing something I would rather not sign, I use my stamp only. I have never had any trouble. And when signing a digital pad I always write "Lawful Money." large and clear.

    These I believe are all rights recognized by Congress and as intelligence nexus for hundreds of suitors, if you say to the cop, I am only showing you this card for competency purposes. Well, that usually results in a verbal warning and "Have a nice day."
    Key is IMHO not expecting the Department of State to do what they are supposed to (without someone looking over their shoulder at least). So I would serve the facts on the AG provided the facts are concise and non-threatening (general suggestion to the readers rather than to you). Consider that I can send the State AG or U.S. AG my automotive financial responsibility particulars and say: "Hey here this info. which you may utilize in the event someone ever took my car for a joy ride and did a hit and run. I like the idea of someone who suffers loss in such a circumstance being able to recover damages and be made whole within the limits of the policy or w/e." No need to make an appearance, the controversy is settled before it ever happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by CommonLawWarrior View Post
    In Law, only Like can come against Like. A commercial entity, identified in all caps, cannot sue an upper and lower case Natural Man, because they are not like entities at law. Only if the Natural Man CONSENTS to this form of law (absent a crime involving a victim who swears an affidavit, or the existence of a physical body of the crime), the Administrative Court has no personam Jurisdiction. This is why the Refused for Cause R4C Process works! (But damage someone, or injure them, and you are now in deep trouble, because they will be able to claim Jurisdiction over you in some fashion. I don't know what or how, I am still learning. :-))
    Corporate status is presumed.
    Last edited by allodial; 07-28-16 at 06:06 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    ........I have found that is best expressed in the signature, by True Name. First and Middle shows a distinction in how you identify yourself. Whenever signing something I would rather not sign, I use my stamp only. I have never had any trouble. And when signing a digital pad I always write "Lawful Money." large and clear......

    Might it be more advantageous to autograph "by: True Name".....that little 2 letter word indicating an "at arm's length" relationship?

    However, whether autographing True Name, Lawful Money, any "mark" (such as an "x"), or using the 12usc411 stamp......all of those indicate a "brand" which you choose to identify yourself with.....not the matrix-owned FirstMiddleLast brand.

    If I'm going to be viewed as some piece of meat swinging on a hook ("Corporate status is presumed"), I sure as heck will brand myself to rebut that presumption !
    Last edited by ag maniac; 07-28-16 at 09:32 AM.

  10. #30
    How do you identify yourself?

    You and the officer PRESUME that I the natural man, am under his Commercial Jurisdiction, bound by his 'adhesion contracts, namely LICENSE TAG, REGISTRATION, and LEGAL FICTION DRIVERS LICENSE.'
    If you are carrying a Driver License card then you better decide why. That should be indicated by your autograph/signature. I use "David Merrill." to indicate that I do not identify with the DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT on the Card. This is what I mean when I say that I have established the right to travel a priori on the face of the card.

    Paul did this. He hid the expensive citizenship papers from the Sanhedrin. He managed to have a Mason (Mnason) lie for him too, on the stand. - A Cypriot Jew saying that the ship never stopped in Cyprus - two witnesses telling a lie on the presumption the Sanhedrin would not investigate. It took a week to send an investigator to Tyre to check the ship's manifest.

    Paul's a priori citizenship, prior to his citizenship in heaven, and to his recognition as a Babylonian Jew or even Israelite was to Rome. Paul's father had participated in the civil skirmish in Celicia fighting for Roman occupation, and therefore Paul became eligible for the citizenship papers. His Jewish/Israelite heritage was obviously rejected out right.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 07-28-16 at 03:50 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •