From what I gathered from Rod Class, the car is securitized (like stock) for the State to make money.
If this is the case, the State is trustee of the vehicle?
The certificate of title is similar to a document granting right of use?
From what I gathered from Rod Class, the car is securitized (like stock) for the State to make money.
If this is the case, the State is trustee of the vehicle?
The certificate of title is similar to a document granting right of use?
Thanks! That chuckle came up from my toes!
Come to think of it - there are no papers on that. The city attorney phoned the trustee for the Commonwealth of Israel - the previous owner/trust and told him to come get the car.
BTW - Bill of Lading is the admiralty term for MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin).
The reason I have no proof or evidence this works at a traffic stop is that when it does, there is no evidence or proof unless you interview the police officer.
Last edited by David Merrill; 03-20-11 at 02:54 PM.
I once heard a story through the grapevine same kind of situation this man told them that since you took it from a location they need to return it to that same location,Originally Posted by David Merrill
they gave him problems with that, but after he contacted the judge to let him know since they took away his ability to travel they must restore that right. The vehicle
was delivered the next day.
So now you know that sometimes events cannot be proven because of circumstances.
We do know and acknowledge that. But as you see, what transpired was that the car was impounded and "tickets" were issued while utilizing this "method". This is not a "success story" other than the claim that the car was returned after 14 months of impound. Utilizing proper and lawful R4C to abate those presentments is a foundation of fundamental law; the right to refuse or avoid contract. The only thing left to actually prove in this anecdote is to view the paperwork when the car was returned in order to determine if "money" was paid to release it or not. We cannot conclude on that without that evidence.
neither can we conclude that the abatement really happened without proof, i have heard similar stories where one thing worked but the other did in a process if you can see my point here?
I do see your point, however the premise of whether or not it "worked" depends on proper record forming. As courts of competent jurisdiction, one forms and keeps the complete and lawful record of events; the most accurate and lawful record is superior. The presentment is just that; a contract "offer", or better yet, novation. Why do you think they need and request your 'signature' continually?
The right of refusal is not some "paytriot" scheme; it is a fundamental right and maxim of law. If one is competent and self-governing in one's own affairs, then part of that competence is keeping the lawful record. Utilizing the accepted and recognized 'clerk of court' to file and obtain certified copies of one's lawful clerical process is in our own right in order to conduct our own affairs peaceably amidst the others around us. It is a form of 'communication' only utilizing the "language" and "tools" understood by the overwhelming majority we may encounter along our path, while not divesting one iota of our inherent rights and immunities.
That's an interesting lesson in perceptions. I said along the way that the demand to show process-to-results documentation was a demand you are making on yourself. Very true. I am not making the demand on you. I simply require it to believe you.
It is you who wants to be believed. As do I. Therefore I show people, and so do you. When you don't, I cannot allow the testimony in my court. But I can make note of it for later, like the Agreement with your sheriff. Even though you did not show us the agreement, you have a witness (MJ) that it happened and so I dissected the details you would give us.
You have a private gift eventually that will be passed on to you that you may not know about yet, ask MJ about it.
That's Cool!
Fed notes are stock that is designed to depreciate too. Cars depreciate pretty quickly.
Truth be told that is the only thing that makes the Fed an agency (instrumentality) of the US Government. It is illegal to allow stock certificates (FRNs) to intentionally depreciate over time because it is bad fiduciary. Irresponsible as trustee (Congress/Fed Act).
I remember finding that elucidated in one of the linked cases on this case (attached). I have tried to rediscover which link and failed. Of course I was only interested because we find contention between the same priestcraft - FRB v. METRO.
With Rod though, he apparently has made a claim to success in courtrooms and Trust Guy is asking for an evidence package - like a Register of Action, Summons and accompanying transcript. It can be sanitized. Fine! Just so that it is convincing that Rod knows how do document a success if he intends to brag about it over the Internet or whatever.
When something like that happens I may look into Rod CLASS doctrine a bit closer.
I know a fellow who purchased the MSO for cash on an eduro motorbike. No problems but then he does not spend a lot of time on the streets. - Sometimes just to get up into the hills to the trails.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote