Two traffic stops snubbed.

[David Merrill]

It was worth a look.


I was born in Colorado. So I think that must go on the theory and some limited definitions about the territorial US being limited to the District?

That's the tricky thing about definitions of the United States - even according to the Supreme Court there are three. So what you might do is explore around that section of code and see if you can bring us the applicable definition for the US?

The method of identification I describe can be found in law. Abatement for misnomer, or prolonging arraignment (pleading) until the prosecution gets nervous enough to dismiss. A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card. If you identify yourself properly the officer will not likely proceed against a different name than that of the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

It is possible for the court to proceed against the man in his true name. I have not heard of it happening though. As for my persecution about the $20M lien, the officer lied on the Affidavit of Probable Cause so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.

The way I remember it:

JACOBSEN: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: (Silence.)
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: Nobody can be compelled to incriminate himself.

The perjury there is that JACOBSEN said I would not tell him who I was. I am David Merrill and I told him my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Axe]

A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card.

Okay I see your logic, that makes sense to me.

My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?

Sorry if the question is rudimentary, I appreciate your patience.

Tom

[David Merrill]

Okay I see your logic, that makes sense to me.

My question would then be; Haven't you already taken fiduciary responsibility
by signing the state document for the Trust?

Sorry if the question is rudimentary, I appreciate your patience.

Tom

You might be correct. The other line of thought is that, We can proceed in the name JOHN DOE, we do those prosecutions all the time.

The point is that this is not a silver bullet. It is quite effective and that makes sense when you shed a certain light on it. The presentment, the Uniform Summons and Complaint and Penalty Assessment says the legal name on it. If you specify to the police officer you are not identifying yourself with the card then there is an error of misnomer.

A lot of the time the officer will give you a verbal warning when it becomes apparent you are going to be taking this to trial.

Understand that I just read that post again. I presumed by the State document you meant the driver license. Now I will presume you mean the Presentment, the ticket.

If you accept the position of fiduciary then yes, you are there. You don't have the right to R4C if you are already the fiduciary. If you are not the fiduciary, then you have three days to consider that contract - the right of refusal. If you identify yourself correctly the police officer has forged a title for you. You have three days to consider whether you accept or not.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. You mentioned this:

[ellecdavis]

It was worth a look.


I was born in Colorado. So I think that must go on the theory and some limited definitions about the territorial US being limited to the District?

That's the tricky thing about definitions of the United States - even according to the Supreme Court there are three. So what you might do is explore around that section of code and see if you can bring us the applicable definition for the US?

The method of identification I describe can be found in law. Abatement for misnomer, or prolonging arraignment (pleading) until the prosecution gets nervous enough to dismiss. A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card. If you identify yourself properly the officer will not likely proceed against a different name than that of the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

It is possible for the court to proceed against the man in his true name. I have not heard of it happening though. As for my persecution about the $20M lien, the officer lied on the Affidavit of Probable Cause so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.

The way I remember it:

JACOBSEN: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: (Silence.)
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: Nobody can be compelled to incriminate himself.

The perjury there is that JACOBSEN said I would not tell him who I was. I am David Merrill and I told him my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

After reading this post, it made me wonder if it would apply with signatures as well. When issued a traffic ticket or a legal plea agreement, should one sign as their true name and not their legal name? For example, if I am issued a traffic ticket and the officer uses my legal name and I sign the ticket with my true name, when it comes time to R4C the ticket or if I even have to show up for a court appearance, will it make a differnce? Since I identified myself in writing with my true name and not my legal name, does this prove I have not accepted the "fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME" concerning the charge? I hope this makes sense. This is all very new to me.

Thank you,
Michelle Colmon