Two traffic stops snubbed.

[David Merrill]

Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

The name of the trust is on the DL (at the top)
You true name sig is at the bottom (or is it printed, I still don't know)

If it is signed, then your true name is "signing for" your
legal name, so my question is isn't that all the same to the state
from a legal perspective?

I think what you're saying is the officer is going to write the
ticket out to LEGAL NAME, because it's at the top.

But you have true name in the sig, giving you separation
at court.

"That ticket is not for me."?

It is impossible to arraign you. You R4C on the cause being misnomer. You do not specify because it is a fact, you do not need to teach the court or DA law. If things get serious abate the cause for misnomer.

[Rock Anthony]

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

The comprehension that formed in my head is that there are two trusts involved in traffic matters:

1. The express trust that is effected when one holds a DL. The holder of the DL is the trustee. The trustee is obligated to abide by the bylaws of the trust. Those bylaws are defined by the traffic laws of whatever state issues the DL.
2. The constructive trust that is effected by the LEO that issues the presentment. The issuer of the presentment is the executor. The executor offers the recipient of the presentment to be the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges.

Now, when trustee of the express trust speeds along at 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, then there is a breach of trust, and therefore the State has been injured. From this injury, an LEO effects a constructive trust.

Something that I have read repeatedly from Michael Joseph, and have self-determined to be true, is that action implies trust.

The action of procuring and holding a DL demonstrates an express trust relationship between LEGAL NAME and the State (Axe, I think this is the fiduciary responsibility that you've inquired about).

The actions of the living soul that made the conscious decision to physically apply for and physically carry (see how consciousness and physical capacity has to be loaned to the non-living trust) the DL demonstrates an implied trust relationship between the living soul and the trust.

LEGAL NAME expressly trusts in STATE
True Name implicitly trusts in LEGAL NAME

Things are slightly different with the constructive trust that is effected when an LEO issues a presentment. If a living soul does not identify him or herself as the LEGAL NAME on the DL, then no trust has been demonstrated! The living soul has not expressly agreed to be responsible for settling the charges against the LEGAL NAME on the presentment. Nevertheless, the LEO still effects a trust, but does so in error. If the living soul's actions do not demonstrate trust in LEGAL NAME for the purposes of effecting a constructive trust, then LEO has no legal grounds to construct a trust! Refusal for Cause is an effective way to serve notice that the living soul refuses the offer to be the fiduciary.

So my answer to your question is, no. No man or woman has accepted fiduciary responsibility for presentments by way of expressly holding a DL. The express trust associated with the DL is seperate from the constructive trust associated with the presentment.

[Axe]

It is impossible to arraign you. You R4C on the cause being misnomer. You do not specify because it is a fact, you do not need to teach the court or DA law. If things get serious abate the cause for misnomer.

Whoa... Thanks David.

That's what I needed. Don't know why I didn't put that together on my own!

The action of procuring and holding a DL demonstrates an express trust relationship between LEGAL NAME and the State (Axe, I think this is the fiduciary responsibility that you've inquired about).

The actions of the living soul that made the conscious decision to physically apply for and physically carry (see how consciousness and physical capacity has to be loaned to the non-living trust) the DL demonstrates an implied trust relationship between the living soul and the trust.

LEGAL NAME expressly trusts in STATE
True Name implicitly trusts in LEGAL NAME

Things are slightly different with the constructive trust that is effected when an LEO issues a presentment. If a living soul does not identify him or herself as the LEGAL NAME on the DL, then no trust has been demonstrated! The living soul has not expressly agreed to be responsible for settling the charges against the LEGAL NAME on the presentment. Nevertheless, the LEO still effects a trust, but does so in error. If the living soul's actions do not demonstrate trust in LEGAL NAME for the purposes of effecting a constructive trust, then LEO has no legal grounds to construct a trust! Refusal for Cause is an effective way to serve notice that the living soul refuses the offer to be the fiduciary.

Thanks Buddy! That's awesome, I understand that perfectly! Why can't Michael Joseph just say it that way? (lol...jk MJ)

Sounds like you have definitely kept up your studies.

Become powerful you have. (voice of Yoda)

[David Merrill]

Whoa... Thanks David.

That's what I needed. Don't know why I didn't put that together on my own!



Thanks Buddy! That's awesome, I understand that perfectly! Why can't Michael Joseph just say it that way? (lol...jk MJ)

Sounds like you have definitely kept up your studies.

Become powerful you have. (voice of Yoda)

Not that MJ needs any defense, but I am glad I spent a couple headaches wading through the terminology of trust law he distributes. In my opinion the titles and terms are a bit fleeting but from an engineering perspective (attached) one learns to define the system parameters too.

Some people, unaware of the parameters think you can open the fridge and cool down the kitchen not realizing that the same amount of heat is coming off the back of the fridge. So you could open the pantry window and back the fridge to fill the pantry door and cool down the kitchen a bit. - System parameters!

If you can get a grip on the system parameters - the entire agreement and the environment (law/courts of justice) then you can apply the terms and not have them fudged with by the black robed attorney.


Regards,

David Merrill.