View Full Version : DL was NOT provided or used as ID
Anthony Joseph
03-25-11, 07:01 PM
Well, here we go.
I have the opportunity to put what I have learned into practice. I was presented the first "TRAFFIC CITATION", since learning of how NOT to present the DL as ID, just yesterday by a staked-out deputy in an unmarked SUV who was on a revenue generating expedition in the area. I heard reports from others throughout the day that this same SUV was pulling people over all day. The claim on the presentment is "DRIVER NOT BELTED". Also, the new insurance card was not with me; I found it within a stack of recently opened mail at home later. So in addition, "INSURANCE - NO PROOF OF" is also claimed.
There is apparantly a new "law" in effect near my area since 2009 that a signature is no longer required when issuing a citation. The new "law" states that providing the DL is the consent now. The citations are now thermally printed from a computer data entry system which makes for a quick and easy "sale", taking less than a quarter of the time it took in the past to write out tickets. Nice to see the efficiency nowadays!
I was obviously not aware of the new "no-signature-required" procedure and was informed of it by the revenue agent/LEO.
I was heading to work and noticed the SUV parked in a lot at the side of the highway. He decided that I was his target and proceeded to flash his lights, sound the siren and pull me over. I kept going slowly until I reached my work parking lot and pulled in there as my safe place. He approached rather quickly and, without me having a chance to say anything, he uttered... "Driver's License, Registration and Proof of Insurance... You were pulled over for no seatbelt". Noticing the apparant "cash cow" at work, I didn't respond and just proceeded to find the DL card and registration (No insurance card) to show the LEO. It was then that I said, "Before I hand these to you, I have to inform you that I am providing this Driver's License card to you for competency purposes only and NOT for I.D." I also asked him to put that in his notes. He made a weird face, shrugged it off and asked, "What does that mean?" I repeated it once again and he quipped "Your providing it to me because I asked you for it." I repeated it once again showing that I did not agree with that opinion. The next comment was, "Whatever." He promptly went back to the car and came back real quick with these citations; I thought that they would be warnings because he came back so fast. So he quickly handed them to me and breezed through the "options" available, obviously in a hurry to get back to his stake-out spot to keep "ringing the register". I was confused about the non-signature and it put me off my game somewhat since I was planning to write on his copy how I presented the DL card and also sign with the True Name dba LEGAL M. NAME method. I tried to ask him something else and he just ignored me and started walking back to his SUV. So, I got out of my car and started walking towards him. Sitting in the SUV and obviously frustrated with me, he asked, "What can I do for you now?" I proceeded to remind him that he should remember how I presented the DL card to him and that he would have to testify to that on the stand when questioned if that ever became necessary. He responded that what I said doesn't mean anything and that he wasn't worried about it. I said, "Well, I think your making a legal determination that your not qualified to make". He responded, "Thanks for telling me what I am not qualified to do." We then parted with the usual "have a nice day".
I will be refusing these presentements for cause and filing copies in my evidence repository at the United States district clerk of court near my area. I am attaching copies of this process and will continue to update as we go as best I can.
Treefarmer
03-25-11, 10:07 PM
More power to you, Anthony Joseph!
This should be interesting.
I'm watching from the fence row, all eager, drink in hand and ears perked up:)
Michael Joseph
03-25-11, 11:01 PM
it is a presentment in Trust; your signature is not required; your actions matter; three days and counting...the Officer is very qualified to make any determination he needs to make regarding CQVT. This was the Court and Trial. Now on to appeals if you feel it necessary. The Trustee issued forth a determination upon the CQVT and that is that.
Argument on your end is indeed fruitless. So why waste your time. That officer is Trustee. Again, your consent will be known by your silence. It appears to me you have expressed your intent.
Sovereignty
03-26-11, 12:08 AM
What is the next step? Go to court? Then what? We should all be on the same page at least...?
David Merrill
03-26-11, 12:57 AM
What is the next step? Go to court? Then what? We should all be on the same page at least...?
After R4C it is a matter of showing for the 'arraignment' and preventing fraud on the court. If the chief of police fails to forward the R4C, that is fraud on the court.
In response to MJ's comment. If this gets to trial the officer set himself up to just say, I don't remember you making any declarations or comments about your driver license and/or your identification. This is why it is good to have an audio recorder. However, the officer will indeed be required in his training, when on the witness stand, to say exactly how the defendant identified himself. You can count on that.
If this is moving forward to trial by the way AJ - make sure that just before the trial you go to Records and get the backside of the officer's report. He might mention something about how you identified yourself. I doubt it though.
I am presuming that you are simply abating the No Insurance ticket by presenting the Proof of Insurance Card when you R4C both?
It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here! Did you get the officer's name?
Delawarejones
03-26-11, 03:14 AM
It seems to me the best way to avoid fighting a citation is to NOT have one issued. Which begins with the LEO. When an LEO approaches a car, he/she PRESUMES the person behind the wheel is a "driver." It is during the confrontation, one must exercise one's right to travel and rebut the LEO's presumption.
To that end, I have created a Notice of Travel. This notice is based upon my past experience with traffic citations. To date, I have not used this notice of travel and therefore CANNOT guarantee any success with it. As I always travel in a safe manner, it is unusual for an LEO to pull me over. Over the last 3 years, I have been pulled over twice and issued citations, both were dismissed without fines or points accumulating against my license.
Sooner or later I will be pulled over and the LEO will ask me for a DL, registration and proof of insurance. I have all of these, in case I am ever "driving." I rarely am. If asked, I will say to the LEO, "I need to hand you this first." I will give to the LEO my notice of travel and a homemade ID card. Reproduced below is my Notice of Travel.
NOTICE OF TRAVEL
I, Delawarejones, am giving written notice to all parties that I am exercising my right to travel in my private capacity. As such, I am not subject to Title 21 of the Delaware code. The right to travel is inherent in all men. This birthright is conferred upon me by God and secured by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the state of Delaware, the Constitution for the United States of America, the United States Supreme Court and the Delaware Legislature.
Legal Proof
Delaware Code
21DSC101(22) "Highway" means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel, but does not include a road or driveway upon grounds owned by private persons, colleges, universities or other institutions.
U.S. Supreme Court Case Cites:
Shapiro v Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969), All citizens must be free to travel unemcumbered. . .If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional.
Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943) A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1963) If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 (5th Cir. 1959) The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
In summation, the right to travel is inherent in all men wheresoever. The State of Delaware acknowledges this right in its Preamble and specifically in 21DSC101(22) and the U.S. Supreme Court clearly states “citizens must be free to travel unemcumbered,” and if the state converts a liberty into a privilege, by charging a fee or tax, the citizen can ignore it with impunity. The exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime, which traffic citations are classified.
Difference between Driving and Travelling
Driving in Delaware is a privilege. Driving is commerce, and can be regulated by the state and Federal Government, thus requiring a license. The Delaware Legislature codified Title 21 in 1935 and has yet to define the term “Driver”. Useing 1DSC303 to discover the “peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law” for the term “Driver” it is proper to use a legal dictionary. Black’s Legal Dictionary 3rd ed. from 1933, two years prior to the codification of Title 21, defines “Driver” as:
Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horse, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car, pg. 622.
Employed - This signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it, pg. 657.
Driving is doing business, commerce, is using public roads to make a private gain. Travelling is done in one’s private capacity and is not commerce and therefore cannot be regulated by any government.
I certify, under penalty of perjury in the United States of America, that I am travelling in my private capacity., that I am not engaged in a regulated activity, i.e. commerce and not using public roads to make a private gain.
STATE OF DELAWARE, COUNTY OF SUSSEX
BEFORE ME personally appeared Delawarejones who, being by me first duly sworn and identified in accordance with Delaware law, did execute the foregoing in my presence this ___ day of _____________ 2010.
________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires:
This Notice of Travel is specific to Delaware. I do not expect the LEO to know what to do with this. However, Delaware code is quite clear that during "fresh pursuit" the LEO can demand ID. (I agree with this as a matter of good public policy. Most criminals are caught during routine traffic stops. Let the LEOs deal with the criminals, so I do not have to.) The code does NOT specify what form the ID must take. One could give the LEO a name. Even better, crib it down on a piece of paper and hand to the LEO. Better still is to hand over a homemade ID card for that specific purpose. Mine has a disclaimer that this card is for ID purposes only and servers no other purpose and that it is compliant with Del. code. Beyond my name, it states my DOB, address for my house and picture of myself. It is my hope the LEO will decide that I am exercising my right to travel and let me go about my way. If you think this has merit, please use as you see fit and adjust according to your state code.
Delawarejones
stoneFree
03-26-11, 03:38 AM
It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here!
An acquaintance is a state trooper and told me they were just sent a memo on this issue of motorists not identifying with the DL. Told me the memo described these people as potentially violent, liable to rush at you.
:confused: Total disinformation.
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 03:51 AM
After R4C it is a matter of showing for the 'arraignment' and preventing fraud on the court. If the chief of police fails to forward the R4C, that is fraud on the court.
In response to MJ's comment. If this gets to trial the officer set himself up to just say, I don't remember you making any declarations or comments about your driver license and/or your identification. This is why it is good to have an audio recorder. However, the officer will indeed be required in his training, when on the witness stand, to say exactly how the defendant identified himself. You can count on that.
If this is moving forward to trial by the way AJ - make sure that just before the trial you go to Records and get the backside of the officer's report. He might mention something about how you identified yourself. I doubt it though.
I am presuming that you are simply abating the No Insurance ticket by presenting the Proof of Insurance Card when you R4C both?
It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here! Did you get the officer's name?
I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned; it will be a lie for him to say he does not remember our encounter - DISHONOR. If he claims he does not remember, then my account will stand as truth; I have evidence of my intent, True Name and character pre-dating this encounter. The DL card itself is evidence of that fact; distinction between the man and the TRUST vessel.
I will be sure that fraud is not brought upon the court by offering my assistance via certified copies of the timely refusal. After that, what they wish to do with their account and DL card is up to them; it is their's anyway. Whatever transpires will not hinder my inherent right to travel freely in the mode of travel of my choosing since I will obtain a full record of these events to provide evidence of my honorable standing and competence to form the true and correct record - the superior court.
I did not and will not offer, or join into, any argument of any kind. My sole purpose was to be clear and to make sure the officer was cognizant of the fact that I did NOT identify myself with that DL card. Repeating and reminding him four times would make for an unbelievable assertion that he "doesn't remember". Either way, at any time along the way I can cure the "mistake" on the part of the LEO; my consent is CONTINUALLY required in order for their process to proceed and have any effect upon me.
The only reason to show up to court is to provide information, to prevent fraud on the court and to assist them in a friendly manner to settle their account through their own internal administration. Without a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden, they are left with their inherent obligation of settling any charges against their own vessel.
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 04:30 AM
it is a presentment in Trust; your signature is not required; your actions matter; three days and counting...the Officer is very qualified to make any determination he needs to make regarding CQVT. This was the Court and Trial. Now on to appeals if you feel it necessary. The Trustee issued forth a determination upon the CQVT and that is that.
Argument on your end is indeed fruitless. So why waste your time. That officer is Trustee. Again, your consent will be known by your silence. It appears to me you have expressed your intent.
For the purposes of clarity, please share your interpretation of precisely what my "expressed intent" is.
Michael Joseph
03-26-11, 09:43 AM
apparently you refused for cause his offer. Yes? I think you are operating without the Federal Reserve Districts and said officer is moving IN the FRD's. He works for Metro, Yes? If you remain silent, your intent is acceptance.
Frederick Burrell
03-26-11, 11:29 AM
It would seem to me by showing up in their court, you are presenting yourself to their jurisdiction. You would seem to be seeing them as something above you that your must obey. You refused for cause already and when the next invitation to appear arrives, why would you just F4C it also. Frederick Burrell
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 12:27 PM
apparently you refused for cause his offer. Yes? I think you are operating without the Federal Reserve Districts and said officer is moving IN the FRD's. He works for Metro, Yes? If you remain silent, your intent is acceptance.
That is correct. I am exercising my inherent right of refusal so as to avert any assertion that I will grant my consent or silently acquiesce to their attempt to bring me into, or join me to, their claimed jurisdiction.
Thank you for the clarification; we shall see how they will handle the business and administration of their account and controversy.
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 12:37 PM
It would seem to me by showing up in their court, you are presenting yourself to their jurisdiction. You would seem to be seeing them as something above you that your must obey. You refused for cause already and when the next invitation to appear arrives, why would you just F4C it also. Frederick Burrell
Merely being present does not equate to subjugation or "appearance". To "appear", one must answer to the NAME on their docket. The only purpose cited to show up to court is to help the court stay in honor by preventing fraud. If the accuser fails to disclose the fact and evidence of my timely refusal, there is dishonor and fraud upon the court. I will be there simply to assist in that regard and to prevent that from happening. All subsequent presentments will be refused for cause as well. My presence in court does not negate that process or subjugate me in any way.
Frederick Burrell
03-26-11, 12:59 PM
Why not just send the a copy of the R4C ticket and the filing in your LoR jacket along with a R4C for the new invitation. This would make the court aware that a fraud was being perpetrated on the court as well as an appearance. Frederick Burrell
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 01:20 PM
Why not just send the a copy of the R4C ticket and the filing in your LoR jacket along with a R4C for the new invitation. This would make the court aware that a fraud was being perpetrated on the court as well as an appearance. Frederick Burrell
That would be depending on the honor of the court to handle matters as they should be handled; in truth and honor. A bit of a stretch in my opinion. None of my actions will constitute "appearance" in any way.
Frederick Burrell
03-26-11, 01:42 PM
Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell
Frederick Burrell
03-26-11, 01:45 PM
What makes you think they will act more honorably if you appear before them. hmmmmm
Frederick Burrell
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 02:03 PM
Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell
I do not understand your "martyrdom" comment. You keep insisting on the word "appearance" as if it applies to me or my process. I have explained and outlined what my process will be and that I am exercising my right of refusal as a court of competent jurisdiction. I have a published judgment on the record which makes my opinion as relevant as any "judge" and, at the very least, on equal standing.
They should be in control of their situation and they do have jurisdiction over that matter. What you fail to comprehend is that my actions are absent ANY consent to be fiduciary/surety for the cause on their agenda; I do not grant my substance and energy to alleviate their burdens via "appearance" because I do not claim or answer to the NAME of their vessel on their docket. I will show up of my own volition, in my own right and for the sole purposes already stated.
Let me repeat it for you one more time; NONE OF MY ACTIONS OUTLINED WILL CONSTITUTE "APPEARANCE" AS IT IS DEFINED LEGALLY. "Appearance" means something different when the word is uttered in a courtroom as opposed to when the word is used in casual conversation. In a courtroom, "appearance" is putting on the mask/persona of the LEGALLY NAMED defendant in question. You can do this in a number of ways including answering to the NAME, claiming the NAME or acquiescing to the NAME.
Obviously, I am absent any of those actions.
David Merrill
03-26-11, 02:04 PM
I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned...
I reviewed this thread this morning looking for that.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2844/truenamedbalegalname.jpg
After a proper R4C a suitor showed up to cattle court (arraignment/First Appearance Center etc.) with a certified copy of his R4C from the USDC. He mistakenly took the wrong chute - to the ADA who rediculed the R4C in front of his ADA friends and threw it in the garbage pail. The suitor and his witness called me from the courthouse steps and I admonished them to get to the judge with it, to go get another copy of the R4C. That was twenty minutes each way so I suggested they go get the one out of the ADA's garbage pail.
They went back in and found that the ADA had already taken it out of the garbage and ran it up to the courtroom. By the time they got up there the ADA was retrieving it from the bailiff and the judge called up the legal name. This suitor stood in front of the podium because it looked too much like a sacrificial altar (which might be a very important point of protocol if you model trust processes as priestcrafting). He informed the judge that he was there by restricted appearance to avoid a fraud on the court. [The chief of police failing to update* the court about the R4C would be fraud by omission.] The judge was very interested and allowed him to bring the R4C up to the bench, took it and looked it over. He said, Okay as he put it in the file folder.
A couple weeks later the suitor went to the clerk of court and asked to see the case. It had nothing in it at all except that copy of the R4C!
Regards,
David Merrill.
* The process being expedited, like your revenue-frenzied officer seems to be the retaliation against the True Name execution. For example law enforcement traditionally waits for at least three days to present the tickets to the courthouse, presumably because of the three-day right of refusal. There is even a technique of getting right to the courthouse with your ticket and the clerk of court will say you have to come back in a few days; and you honorably insist on paying it, the clerk refuses and it is over. However, I have a report last week from a potential suitor, that he got a ticket on Friday evening and called Monday morning and the clerk was ready for payment.
With electronics and the new legislation you mentioned AJ, it is possible that the courthouse is informed simultaneously without you even signing the agreement/presentment/ticket.
Frederick Burrell
03-26-11, 02:17 PM
Nice way to spend the day I suppose. Enjoy the experience and tell us all about it when you finish. Frederick Burrell
Michael Joseph
03-26-11, 05:07 PM
I will wager they will dismiss with leave. Basically means they "put it on the shelf" - until a later time that they can gain a better toe hold in order to prosecute this matter.
Anthony Joseph
03-26-11, 05:09 PM
Nice way to spend the day I suppose. Enjoy the experience and tell us all about it when you finish. Frederick Burrell
Nice way??? Not really, but for a responsible and competent man on the land, this, at times, becomes a necessary way to spend a day. I do intend to share the experience, whether it is enjoyable or not, as best I can.
shikamaru
03-26-11, 08:48 PM
Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell
General appearance and special appearance are different beasts :).
There is more than one form of appearance ....
David Merrill
03-26-11, 10:04 PM
Why is it you seek martyrdom. Your appearance is their demand and you are agreeing to it. I would say they are in control of the situation and hence have jurisdiction. But what do I know. Frederick Burrell
It may not go the way I say it should. But this way, Anthony Joseph will R4C timely and have a certified copy of that from his USDC evidence repository and the judge will deal with that. Even if AJ shows up restricted appearance (Rule E(8) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleE.htm)) to prevent fraud on the court, the judge will have difficulty saying that he Failed to Appear, wont he? Imagine that! AJ is standing right there and the judge acknowledges his right to appear restricted instead of generally by complaining that he has failed to appear?
Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 01:52 AM
I have a very similar situation going. I R4C'd two tickets. One for no safety and one for no current registration. Return the contract to the Chief of Police. So far I have not received an invitation to appear. It has been 3 weeks. Should they demand an appearance, since I am in Thailand, I will have to R4C the invitation. So it will be interesting to see how both cases work out. Frederick Burrell
Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 01:56 AM
more than likely it is dismissed with leave [DWL] since these are infractions. There is probably a FTA but DWL. Awaiting you to really screw up and they will haul out all of this again. But then again, who knows.
Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 02:00 AM
One thing I find interesting in my case is the officer wrote the ticket out to my true name and not the my legal name. Not sure how this will effect things. Frederick Burrell
Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 02:17 AM
this is exactly my point found HERE. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?149-No-pleading.&p=914&viewfull=1#post914)
The officer is attempting to Construct a Trust. The NAME does not matter at Contract Law it can easily be overcome. DA to Officer - "is that him?" Officer: "Yes sir."
The name game at commercial law is not grounds for abatement. See the following Sanitized Report:
-----
17 MR. DA: --- Who -- whoever he
18 is, he's the person we're seeking to put on trial
19 today.
20 True Name: Does -- does the one
21 being put on trial not have to be named?
22 THE COURT: No.
23 True Name: Oh, so they don't have
24 to be named?
25 THE COURT: No. We -- we've tried
00047
1 John Doe's/
-----
4 MR. DA: Judge, the state is
5 contending, no matter what he may call himself today
6 -- he can call himself Mickey Mouse if that's what he
7 wants to call himself, but his body, that person, is
8 the one that this officer says was on that occasion
9 driving that motor vehicle.
10 What he wants to call himself, I really
11 don't care. We're here to try this person for the
12 charges issued by this officer. And we're ---
13 THE COURT: --- That's what the
14 trial will determine.
15 MR. DA: Right. .........
blah, blah, blah....
25 THE COURT: Well, we understand --
00015
1 and I'll be happy to refer to you as True Name --
2 that True Name is here for the trial of driving
3 with an expired registration plate and driving a
4 vehicle -- operating a vehicle without any license.
5 That's what we're here for trial.
6 The state will present any evidence that
7 you were the person that was present on......
-----
Your actions imply your trust! What you call yourself at commercial law really does not matter.
If he found TRUE NAME in the Federal Reserve Districts - moving on STREET/ROAD/HIGHWAY and TRUE NAME is with a Residential Address - well he has then conducted his Survey and found TRUE NAME within the STATE.
Was his survey correct? Only you know! A choice, yes?
Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 02:46 AM
Michael David
It would seem you are right in this regard. Interesting. Frederick Burrell
motla68
03-27-11, 03:03 AM
What came first man or name? Does law say man must accept whatever name given?
Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 03:29 AM
Law is benefit upon man and man has the ability to accept said benefit and express his Trust or Not. It is all up to man. It is time for men to stop being whining babies and take full responsibility and liability for themselves. Man came first.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image,....; male and female created he them.
I see no names here - 6th day creation of mankind. Now, lets go to later creation of eth-ha-aw-dawm [or Adam, for convenience]:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
First Trustee:
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Yehovah called Adam - Man. Adam called his wife Woman. Clearly the creation came first then the labels second.
-----
but here is the rub....time to wake up and realize we have choice. If you chose to come under the shadow of a label, then fine - go ahead - no one is stopping you. If you chose another path - the way, the truth, the light - well fine no one is stopping you.
To the prodigal son he gave free will; to the elder son he did not.
-----
your presentment is vague at best - what law? - common to what venue; what jurisdiction? The officer made a survey based on the name he was GIVEN. To grant ones name is to issue forth an agency. Doubt what I write?
Do all things in my name. You have power over all the enemy in my name. I can find numerous examples of this trust put in the Election by the Ever Living. Eth-ha-aw-dawm being first Trustee in flesh age; yet he has fellows and associates - Remnant and Election. Who will pick up the Trust gladly and continue to work in the field.
So Name? What you gonna name me now? What you got that Authority? Well guess what you do, if I remain silent!
btw Frederick Burrell just assigned a new name to me did not he? Refusal for Cause timely. ROFLMAO.....but true. No worries Federick Burrell mistakes happen.
David Merrill
03-27-11, 03:53 AM
The prosecution can only continue in the name you identifed yourself as. Misnomer is a fatal flaw as pleading can be abated.
Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 04:03 AM
What would compel a man to identify himself to another man? What's your name? No really, I am demanding your name. Huh? All in the spirit of "peace". A necessary evil to make a demand on another man in order to keep the peace - these are at odds, yes? Will you force me to give you my name?
Perhaps we have jurisdiction; I mean those are our plates. Therefore as Trustee that is my Vehicle. I mean somebody freely granted it into Trust. State as Trustee. So who are you using OUR property? It is OUR claim, says the Trustee; I mean really, OUR tags, OUR Registration; OUR inspection; OUR insurance......Who are you again?
Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 04:59 AM
Thats what I like about you Michael Josepth always so cheery. lol Frederick Burrell
doug-again
03-27-11, 05:19 AM
Perhaps we have jurisdiction; I mean those are our plates. Therefore as Trustee that is my Vehicle. I mean somebody freely granted it into Trust. State as Trustee. So who are you using OUR property? It is OUR claim, says the Trustee; I mean really, OUR tags, OUR Registration; OUR inspection; OUR insurance......Who are you again?So, the solution to one man's roadside dilemma is what? craft convincing private plates, maybe saying something like Elected by the Ever Living on them? and when queried by the statey, say something like
What you gonna name me now? What you got that Authority? Well guess what you do, if I remain silent!
Oh, this is a really useful bit of rhetoric...
What would compel a man to identify himself to another man?A gun, a radio, a helicopter on call, a state facility for my kids, and a cold cell for me. Are you single, or retired? That's a rhetorical question. Yer answer is none of my business.
David's posts are full of photos and clever exploits for folks - with someone to loose - to use. If i'm jisting your posts right, your alternative to state ID cards is very private, and very fearless, and you are not going to show your hand here. David takes pictures of his court transcripts and posts them. You type yours.
i liked you better at SJC Micheal, your aloofness gilted your presence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilding).
Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 05:43 AM
Well it could be said that since I am no longer transporting FRN's (commercial use) I have the right to use my auto for my personal travel. Just a thought regarding how redeeming lawful money might play into the picture. Frederick Burrell
David Merrill
03-27-11, 10:00 AM
What would compel a man to identify himself to another man? What's your name? No really, I am demanding your name. Huh? All in the spirit of "peace". A necessary evil to make a demand on another man in order to keep the peace - these are at odds, yes? Will you force me to give you my name?
Perhaps we have jurisdiction; I mean those are our plates. Therefore as Trustee that is my Vehicle. I mean somebody freely granted it into Trust. State as Trustee. So who are you using OUR property? It is OUR claim, says the Trustee; I mean really, OUR tags, OUR Registration; OUR inspection; OUR insurance......Who are you again?
Now I think I understand finally why you keep mentioning that the judge will gladly prosecute you in the name John DOE; that is exactly what will happen if you refuse to give your name.
Well it could be said that since I am no longer transporting FRN's (commercial use) I have the right to use my auto for my personal travel. Just a thought regarding how redeeming lawful money might play into the picture. Frederick Burrell
At the end of the day I pull out my wallet and stamp (http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/9559/redeemed100s.jpg) my FRNs. You make me wonder Frederick Burrell; Would Booking be able to convert my lawful money back to legal tender (check)? Or would they just leave them in Property until my release.
Frederick Burrell
03-27-11, 10:43 AM
I think they would remain in property until you check out.
I try to keep it simple. To me the crux of the issue is whether you contract with them or not or if that really plays into the game at all. They say I am subject to their jurisdiction simply based on the place of my birth and they have guns to prove it. should they choose to be honorable and accept the fact that I do not wish to play (contract with them) and release me from the libilities associated with the contract I have unwisely entered into then, I see no problem. But it would seem they are reluctant to allow me to withdraw from their game. It does not seem like it would matter what I call myself if I have no contracts with them as then I would not fall under their jurisdiction (codes and etc.) Proving to them and their agents that I have removed myself from the game would seem to be half the battle. We can talk about God given rights all night long but if he doesn't show up with more force then they have at the given time they are seeking to limit my freedoms it is of little use. If as you, David, believe and have successfully shown in some instances that not redeeming lawful money is the primary contract, then it is just matter of proving your demand and the rest falls by the wayside. Hence, the LoR. Frederick Burrell
David Merrill
03-27-11, 11:01 AM
I think they would remain in property until you check out.
I try to keep it simple. To me the crux of the issue is whether you contract with them or not or if that really plays into the game at all. They say I am subject to their jurisdiction simply based on the place of my birth and they have guns to prove it. should they choose to be honorable and accept the fact that I do not wish to play (contract with them) and release me from the libilities associated with the contract I have unwisely entered into then, I see no problem. But it would seem they are reluctant to allow me to withdraw from their game. It does not seem like it would matter what I call myself if I have no contracts with them as then I would not fall under their jurisdiction (codes and etc.) Proving to them and their agents that I have removed myself from the game would seem to be half the battle. We can talk about God given rights all night long but if he doesn't show up with more force then they have at the given time they are seeking to limit my freedoms it is of little use. If as you, David, believe and have successfully shown in some instances that not redeeming lawful money is the primary contract, then it is just matter of proving your demand and the rest falls by the wayside. Hence, the LoR. Frederick Burrell
What comes to mind for me anyway is I was once arrested without any cash on me at all - no currency. The booking deputy asked me if I used currency of the United States? I replied that I do.
I have always regretted that. I was much younger then. I imagine the DA instructed him to ask me that.
Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 12:13 PM
The Officer is IN the Federal Reserve Districts. He has authority to make his survey by agreement with the United States via Agreements by the States and the United States. Therefore, if he find plates on the Vehicle that is HIS vehicle. And if he truly wants he can demand you get out of HIS vehicle park it and you walk. Especially, if he finds you are not the beneficiary he is expecting.
Tangent: This is why titling a Vehicle in the Name of a Trust is so advantageous. Privacy - if someone looks up the tags - he will find Trust Name. Estate - If you get in accident everything else with LEGAL NAME will be subject to lien. Therefore LEGAL NAME holds Right of Use and everything in LEGAL NAME is subject to lien upon accident of any kind. First thing a competent attorner will do - go to public records - lets see what's in LEGAL NAME.
Come on folks lets call it for what it is and stop dancing around the issue. The Police Officer is all about RE-venue into the FRD's. If you are not UNDERSTANDING the FRD's then well that's gonna be a problem. I can remember when I voluntarily went to see the Magistrate that I had on my possession 24 ounces of silver and an ounce of gold - the Sheriff Deputy telling me - you can't bring that in here - and I just laughed and thanked him. Yet my position had nothing to do with gold/silver - it had to do with being competent - as I laid claim upon the account and ordered the clerk to hold it over for thirty days until and injured man came forth with a claim.
So now, the Police Officer does not care what your name is - I have seen some very weird tickets lately. And the DA does not care what you call yourself - and the Judge will ask you your name - will you grant him AGENCY? My name is "alskdjfalskfj". Thank you for that says the Judge.
Rather if you allow the judge, he may prosecute in any name.
I put it to everyone here - when I went thru my tribulation last year with the local METRO did I call any of you and ask you how to express my trust? David, specifically when I showed you what I did, had you ever seen anything like what I did in regard to did you help me fashion my Trust? The emphatic answer is NO.
Rather I begged the Ever Living Self Existing One to show me and help me. And guess what, i was met with smiles all around. You did want to know what I did right?
The only time i ever called anyone was I called David and he suggest I write a memorandum to the Court and get a Certified copy of MY default judgement upon the Clerk of Court. It is comments like yours "doug-again" that bother people like me. I do not stay on the strength of other men. I will never look to another man to help me settle my own affairs. Maybe that is the difference between you and I. If you want a picture of my "private ID" - get up now go into the bathroom and look in the mirror - see it? - It's on your shoulders!
As for me and my house we shall stay on the Ever Living :
Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
To David Merrill concerning John DOE: They can construct a trust in whatever name they desire as long as they have an actor. DA to Officer: "Is that him"; Officer: "Yes sir." Therefore MISNOMER fails. Of course the Ever Living shall not be mocked - and the Ever Living Self Existing One dwells in the kingdoms of men.
Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
Job 32:22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.
H3655
כּנה
kânâh
kaw-naw'
A primitive root; to address by an additional name; hence, to eulogize: - give flattering titles, surname (himself).
Pointing out the obvious: A LEGAL NAME is a combination of Given Name and Surname. A surname is an additional name, yes?
Shalom,
mj
P.S. I just remembered I called another man who prayed with me and agreed with me that I already was with the victory as we bound what is in the Earth by our Agreement. I went to the court house not to fight but to witness.
P.S.S. i offer the foregoing as witness. As for my part, it is not about me, it is about trusting God and not man.
"What you gonna name me now? What you got that Authority? Well guess what? You do, if I remain silent!"
An offer unrebutted is agreed to in silence. This concept is international law and common law to the United States. See Padelford Fay and Co vs. The Mayors of the City of Savannah. Silence leads to two outcomes Fraud or Agreement.
Michael Joseph
03-27-11, 12:54 PM
Thats what I like about you Michael Josepth always so cheery. lol Frederick Burrell
my writing style comes off sometimes a lot differently that I talk. Many times I am completely mis-understood. So be it. :)
I hope you are enriched by my humble presentments nevertheless.
shalom
Anthony Joseph
03-27-11, 03:04 PM
"My given appellation is Anthony Joseph spelled precisely as follows (spell out). This is the name given unto me by my natural mother and father, who conceived me, by the command and Will of the Creator. I have accepted this name as my own and I do not, and will not, under any circumstances give my name to anyone or anything to have, hold, use, change or manipulate in any way. My name is provided for the sole purpose of proper, lawful and peaceable communication only."
Set the rules and the agreement before providing a name for amicable, peaceable and communicable clarity ONLY. No one else can take control of what you claim unless it is granted openly or nakedly. Form the contract and let them respond on the record. If it is refusal, then they no longer have any standing to ask for your name; then you instruct them to call you a "friend". Any subsequent character assassination attempt on their part will place them in dishonor on the record.
martin earl
03-27-11, 11:38 PM
And here in is the power of Lawful money redemption. Those plates on that car, once paid for in lawful money, ARE NOT property of the Federal District.
They too, have been redeemed with lawful money, re-venued from the District (the sea) to the land, I OWN THEM and I have paid for them, recorded on the receipt and if needed, proof entered into my evidence repository.
The District officer may presume those plates, that license, that ID is the Districts property, but when paid for with lawful money, redeemed per 12-USC 411, they no longer float on the STATE TRUST, they are on the land, owned by the man or woman holding them.
The STATE presumes and assumes ALL things are subject to them via the first lien of the Federal Reserve that presumption and assumption is defeated by the demand and use of lawful money.
Of course, the place to prove that is NOT on the side of the road, the officer is there to enforce the Lien and nothing more.
The Courts and High Priest Judges are the ones who will "take care of it".
The District Court Clerk is the Nexus between the man or woman and the LOWER (lien/revenue) courts.
The Record of who owns those products (License, Plates, registrations, etc) is already a matter of RECORD in the Higher Court, the matter is res judicata, there is nothing for the lower court officers to hear or opine. No standing for them to profit, the LAW fulfilled, the debt paid.
The STATE cannot re-venue the matter nor seize the property without due process, as defined in their Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution. This is the KEY, the narrow path.
Redemption is a powerful thing.
motla68
03-28-11, 01:27 AM
And here in is the power of Lawful money redemption. Those plates on that car, once paid for in lawful money, ARE NOT property of the Federal District.
They too, have been redeemed with lawful money, re-venued from the District (the sea) to the land, I OWN THEM and I have paid for them, recorded on the receipt and if needed, proof entered into my evidence repository.
The District officer may presume those plates, that license, that ID is the Districts property, but when paid for with lawful money, redeemed per 12-USC 411, they no longer float on the STATE TRUST, they are on the land, owned by the man or woman holding them.
The STATE presumes and assumes ALL things are subject to them via the first lien of the Federal Reserve that presumption and assumption is defeated by the demand and use of lawful money.
Of course, the place to prove that is NOT on the side of the road, the officer is there to enforce the Lien and nothing more.
The Courts and High Priest Judges are the ones who will "take care of it".
The District Court Clerk is the Nexus between the man or woman and the LOWER (lien/revenue) courts.
The Record of who owns those products (License, Plates, registrations, etc) is already a matter of RECORD in the Higher Court, the matter is res judicata, there is nothing for the lower court officers to hear or opine. No standing for them to profit, the LAW fulfilled, the debt paid.
The STATE cannot re-venue the matter nor seize the property without due process, as defined in their Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution. This is the KEY, the narrow path.
Redemption is a powerful thing.
Your getting warmer/ closer to what we discovered through Coresource Martin, liking more of what I am hearing from you on this.
Tomorrow we are going to look into getting an appointment through the local county probate court so we can lay it all out and possibly get a exemption account. One road block is that we may have to go to the county court of the county where the birth took place, we shall see.
Anthony Joseph
03-30-11, 06:23 PM
And here in is the power of Lawful money redemption. Those plates on that car, once paid for in lawful money, ARE NOT property of the Federal District.
They too, have been redeemed with lawful money, re-venued from the District (the sea) to the land, I OWN THEM and I have paid for them, recorded on the receipt and if needed, proof entered into my evidence repository.
The District officer may presume those plates, that license, that ID is the Districts property, but when paid for with lawful money, redeemed per 12-USC 411, they no longer float on the STATE TRUST, they are on the land, owned by the man or woman holding them.
The STATE presumes and assumes ALL things are subject to them via the first lien of the Federal Reserve that presumption and assumption is defeated by the demand and use of lawful money.
Of course, the place to prove that is NOT on the side of the road, the officer is there to enforce the Lien and nothing more.
The Courts and High Priest Judges are the ones who will "take care of it".
The District Court Clerk is the Nexus between the man or woman and the LOWER (lien/revenue) courts.
The Record of who owns those products (License, Plates, registrations, etc) is already a matter of RECORD in the Higher Court, the matter is res judicata, there is nothing for the lower court officers to hear or opine. No standing for them to profit, the LAW fulfilled, the debt paid.
The STATE cannot re-venue the matter nor seize the property without due process, as defined in their Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution. This is the KEY, the narrow path.
Redemption is a powerful thing.
This really gets to the heart of all matters; does the demanding/redeeming and being upon lawful money create the result whereby a claim of rightful ownership/authority exists by the demander/redeemer over the created chattels of other men? Layers upon layers of trust creations are only a diversionary tactic which keeps the truth and simplicity of our remedy/solution hidden from us; "they shall be redeemed in lawful money upon demand". Once there is no volunteering into being "chattelized" as collateral, the money of exchange we utilize is burdensome upon only one party... THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is an IOU which, until people lose confidence in it, will render it something of value to exchange for the necessities of life.
Furthermore, what we obtain via that lawful money exchange has NO third party interest whatsoever; an exchange between two parties occured and both felt they received valuable consideration. This means there is NO LIEN or VALID CLAIM of any kind on that item by any party. That paper is of value to the acceptor and the USA is obligated to make good on their promise according to the law else there is dishonor by default.
Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 06:34 PM
Wouldn't the fact that you paid in lawful money, something of value, give you a superior claim. If you paid for part of your car or just the taxes on land with lawful money. Would this not give you first position, a position higher than the State as they have invested nothing of real value, FRN's.
Anthony Joseph
03-30-11, 06:59 PM
Wouldn't the fact that you paid in lawful money, something of value, give you a superior claim. If you paid for part of your car or just the taxes on land with lawful money. Would this not give you first position, a position higher than the State as they have invested nothing of real value, FRN's.
"Lawful Money" is not substantive in and of itself, it is considered something of value because of the confidence people have in it as a medium of exchange and the assumption and hope the USA will not default on their promise to make good on it in the future. "In God We Trust" is a prayer to God to one day restore proper balances since the trustees of the USA knew all rested upon making good on that promise which they probably realized was an unattainable goal without the assistance of the Almighty Creator.
I believe, as heirs and appointed sons and daughters of the Divine Kingdom under His Trust, we have superior claim and dominion over the earth and all of the creations of men as long as our intents are righteous in nature and are according to His Will. We do not seek out material wealth and power over others, however, we exercise our superior rights and claims over those who are in dishonor and who attempt to enslave men by utilizing deceptive tactics, trickery and concealment, control over information and education and usurping the vital resources that have become the necessties of life in this day and age.
Their DISHONOR coupled with our competent and righteous self-determination and governing in His name renders our claims as superior to those who are upholding and operating a man-created trust developed and maintained for the purpose of harnessing and harvesting every living soul on this land to suck out their energy and sweat equity in order to satisfy their debts and burdens to their creditors.
Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 08:16 PM
"Lawful Money" is not substantive in and of itself, it is considered something of value because of the confidence people have in it as a medium of exchange and the assumption and hope the USA will not default on their promise to make good on it in the future. "In God We Trust" is a prayer to God to one day restore proper balances since the trustees of the USA knew all rested upon making good on that promise which they probably realized was an unattainable goal without the assistance of the Almighty Creator.
I believe, as heirs and appointed sons and daughters of the Divine Kingdom under His Trust, we have superior claim and dominion over the earth and all of the creations of men as long as our intents are righteous in nature and are according to His Will. We do not seek out material wealth and power over others, however, we exercise our superior rights and claims over those who are in dishonor and who attempt to enslave men by utilizing deceptive tactics, trickery and concealment, control over information and education and usurping the vital resources that have become the necessties of life in this day and age.
Their DISHONOR coupled with our competent and righteous self-determination and governing in His name renders our claims as superior to those who are upholding and operating a man-created trust developed and maintained for the purpose of harnessing and harvesting every living soul on this land to suck out their energy and sweat equity in order to satisfy their debts and burdens to their creditors.
I agree.
We still have to deal with the reality at the present moment in regards to their claim of owner ship and their seeming willingness to put you out on the street at their whim. So it would seem that for now lawful money is at least a way forward. It at least in their eyes and using their codes statutes and laws to have an ability to show we hold the superior position. In a perfect world none of this would be needed. fB
Michael Joseph
03-30-11, 09:53 PM
The State does not Claim Ownership the State becomes Trustee because YOU registered that Vehicle upon the State Asset Registry. I know, you did it by necessity right? And so what if you paid lawful money to perform the Registry. How does that make a rat's ARSE of a difference. You REGISTERED that Vehicle in the Name of a Cestui Que Trust. What name you choose matters not. It is CQT because it is now Registered Owner as Beneficiary and the State as Trustee.
And the Trustee with powers now of management will ensure that the State tags go on ITS vehicle and the State registration will be associated with ITS vehicle and the State......
The Right-of-way is the Claim you speak of. That Right comes from a Survey, then Registration of the Plat, and then Claim. And it is a valid Claim.
Answer this question and perhaps it will help you to see better: Is money WITHIN the United States - "tangible or intangible" Property. Before you jump the gun - what is Property again. It is the "Right of Use".
I think that as Heir and Son of the Ever Living that I need not the State to help me do an impossible thing - identify myself. As such, if I cannot identify myself, then what of Registration?
Anthony Joseph
03-31-11, 03:53 AM
The State does not Claim Ownership the State becomes Trustee because YOU registered that Vehicle upon the State Asset Registry. I know, you did it by necessity right? And so what if you paid lawful money to perform the Registry. How does that make a rat's ARSE of a difference. You REGISTERED that Vehicle in the Name of a Cestui Que Trust. What name you choose matters not. It is CQT because it is now Registered Owner as Beneficiary and the State as Trustee.
And the Trustee with powers now of management will ensure that the State tags go on ITS vehicle and the State registration will be associated with ITS vehicle and the State......
The Right-of-way is the Claim you speak of. That Right comes from a Survey, then Registration of the Plat, and then Claim. And it is a valid Claim.
Answer this question and perhaps it will help you to see better: Is money WITHIN the United States - "tangible or intangible" Property. Before you jump the gun - what is Property again. It is the "Right of Use".
I think that as Heir and Son of the Ever Living that I need not the State to help me do an impossible thing - identify myself. As such, if I cannot identify myself, then what of Registration?
Then who are the beneficiary principals that this "trust" was set up for? In other words, all this "trusteeship" is for the benefit of some peoples who are the heirs to this fortune, correct? This will lead us back to the discussion of the original signors of the "unanimous Declaration..." Not convinced of that yet, and even if that were true, the dishonor, deception and usurpation required to maintain and grow this "USA TRUST" disqualifies that claim from the position of that trust structure and we who make claims upon the Holy and Divine Trust have SUPERIOR standing and HIGHEST TITLE over the land, dominions and possessions we hold and claim in His Name and under His Trust as stewards and husbandmen of the earth.
Michael Joseph
03-31-11, 06:14 AM
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
The State does not Claim Ownership the State becomes Trustee because YOU registered that Vehicle upon the State Asset Registry. I know, you did it by necessity right? And so what if you paid lawful money to perform the Registry. How does that make a rat's ARSE of a difference. You REGISTERED that Vehicle in the Name of a Cestui Que Trust. What name you choose matters not. It is CQT because it is now Registered Owner as Beneficiary and the State as Trustee.
And the Trustee with powers now of management will ensure that the State tags go on ITS vehicle and the State registration will be associated with ITS vehicle and the State......
The Right-of-way is the Claim you speak of. That Right comes from a Survey, then Registration of the Plat, and then Claim. And it is a valid Claim.
Answer this question and perhaps it will help you to see better: Is money WITHIN the United States - "tangible or intangible" Property. Before you jump the gun - what is Property again. It is the "Right of Use".
I think that as Heir and Son of the Ever Living that I need not the State to help me do an impossible thing - identify myself. As such, if I cannot identify myself, then what of Registration?
Then who are the beneficiary principals that this "trust" was set up for? In other words, all this "trusteeship" is for the benefit of some peoples who are the heirs to this fortune, correct? This will lead us back to the discussion of the original signors of the "unanimous Declaration..." Not convinced of that yet, and even if that were true, the dishonor, deception and usurpation required to maintain and grow this "USA TRUST" disqualifies that claim from the position of that trust structure and we who make claims upon the Holy and Divine Trust have SUPERIOR standing and HIGHEST TITLE over the land, dominions and possessions we hold and claim in His Name and under His Trust as stewards and husbandmen of the earth.
You have a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter and I like that.
You see there are a couple of Trusts running at the Same time. If in fact you are one who goes and Registers "Rights of Use" [Property] upon a State Registry. That makes YOU "First Grantor". Then there are both the Federal Reserve Districts [FRD's] and US Districts [USD's] - overlays. Now Metro has a Trustee in the Military. Lieber Code. Does not METRO and STATE police wear Military insignia? Therefore you, a living soul, Register the Vehicle in Cestui Que Trust on the State Registry. So then if the State is willing to pick up the Trusteeship, which they are; Let them.
Of course the trust requires that you carry a competency card [for the newbiew a DL] - but for the older ones no license is required - you are Not in FRD's are you? I hope not. "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USCA411" - that is if you need a checking account. That puts you in another Survey WITHIN the United States.
To be Clear - a Drivers [License] Card is required; it is just that if you make a demand for lawful money and use lawful money you really are using that DL for competency purposes. The ID is for the Person - CQVT. Not you, as man. Continuing....
Now the Civil Side of the United States is run by President; the Military Side is run by the Commander in Chief, as Trustee.
So if there are any presentments [charges upon the CQT] the Trustee is duty bound to discharge the charge - unless there is "Trustee de son Tort". This is "Commercially Sensitive Information".
This is a totally different model than R4C. This recognizes the trust exists; recognizes who the players are; recognizes who you are; you are without this Trust, right? I hope so. So the State benefits by you helping as Envoy, friend, whatever to "help".
You want paperwork right? There is none. There is only comprehension of the Person and the Trust parties. Who is Trustee, Who is Beneficiary and who are you? If you are w/o this Trust; as Usufruct; then act like it. Help out where you can.
The Trust is perfected; you just have to learn how to use it; OR, go and create your own Independent State. There is already a new State that has EXACTLY the same Claim on Exactly the Same Territory as the United States and the US met the founders with honor. I can already hear that old tired argument 'state within a state'.
Think of the US and the New Independent State on an x,y,z coordinate system. The US is at z coordinate 1; the new State is at z coordinate 2; they both share the x,y space.
But the latter is not an easy task so it is not practical. The former is an easy task; just takes some reprogramming and a lot of study.
Of course you have superior standing in the Divine; yet the Divine said "do not trespass against your neighbor". [even if he is one ignorant son of a gun - I jest]
The State has established R/W [right-of-way] based on Survey. Are you in that Survey? The Vehicle is, it is Registered in the State. Was it in CQVT or was it a CQT? Meaning did you register in LEGAL NAME or New Trust Creation (NTC)? NTC is still CQT as it is beneficiary and State is Trustee for the PROPERTY.
And property again is "Right of Use". Now, who are you again? Do you see now? Will you let the Trustee do his job or will you interfere with their process? You may incur a fine if you interfere.
193
Lieber Code - General Orders No. 100 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp)
Frederick Burrell
03-31-11, 06:35 AM
My registry exspired with the state. So I guess my vehicle is no longer in their registry. Oh and by the way I did not register the vehicle with the state. Someone else did. They do have a tendency to get upset with cars on the road with no registration. Hmmm. If there was a survey done on you when you were born, and one done on the car when it was made, you are not the survey and neither is the car. So how does that work again. Not claiming the name. The survey is there property, are you the survey, is your car the survey. hmmm. fB
David Merrill
03-31-11, 04:27 PM
I already said that I can positively identify you! I do it in an instant though:
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6760/dnadoodle.jpg
We have machines that can do that too - but they take a few days if you pay expedition fees.
And Frederick Burrell;
The states have uniform legislation about Last Registered Owner.
Michael Joseph
03-31-11, 04:32 PM
Come on, that John Doe CRAP is too easy to overcome with this:
"On and for the Record, Identify the John DOE you are charging."
Answer: "YOU", sorry, John DOE is not YOU, nor am I a YOU, repeat the demand for IDENTIFICATION.
"They" cannot IDENTIFY anyone, anymore than anyone can IDENTIFY their "self".
You should know this, a John DOE warrant means NOTHING, it means, the SUSPECT cannot be IDENTIFIED and unless and until someone claims to be or to know, John DOE, the warrant sits idol, as worthless as the paper it is written on.
I know of several John/Jane DOE warrants for murder that can never be served until and unless an eye witness or confession is obtained.
One thing that always amazed me when I was a police officer was how many dead human bodies are found every day that were never IDENTIFIED. I would say JOHN and JANE DOE bodies are found every day in big cities and never, ever attached to an IDENTITY, why should or how could a living body be attached to any identity and PROVEN true?
No body has the right or power to IDENTIFY me, even as a John DOE, nor do I have to accept any title they offer, Mister, Sir, Citizen, et al.
It is impossible.
I am glad you responded like this because actually that John Doe crap cannot be easily overcome if JOHN DOE is constructed and a man stands before the Court arguing with the Trustee.
A competent man knows better than to do that. So you are correct in a sense if a new Trust is Constructed - so be it. I am not Trustee your honor - therefore I will not usurp that office. And I have no claim in Ownership of the new Express Trust you just created so I cannot be your fiduciary. I can however help you today. Do you require my assistance to help you settle your books?
-----
martin earl. Identity is impossible to obtain. You are correct.
To the dead bodies and identity - When helping a friend bury his loved one we were met by a State official with some document at the bottom of the document was place for witness. Upon reading the document carefully we realized this is the commercial Survey in order to close the Cestui Que Trust. Meaning the authorized User = Usufruct is now dead.
I am reminded of this Scripture:
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
Frederick Burrell
03-31-11, 04:51 PM
David Said "The states have uniform legislation about Last Registered Owner."
Meaning what David? That does not tell me a lot. Can you explain.
Still waiting for my invitation to visit them. Nothing yet.
I actually tried to pay them for my registration, but it was within 30 days of the expiration of one year without registration,so they wanted me to pay for this year also(two years total). A year which I will not be in the US.This transpired after I had handed her the plates. So I declined the offer to pay for the two years. The Nice lady excepted the plates and handed me the bill for two years. I told her I didn't want to pay for the two years as I would be out of the country. She then tried to return my plates. I declined. She threated to call the police, I left. She accepted the plates with no conditions and then tried to put a condition on receiving them. I will deal with it in a year form now. One way or another. fB
David Merrill
03-31-11, 04:52 PM
I am glad you responded like this because actually that John Doe crap cannot be easily overcome if JOHN DOE is constructed and a man stands before the Court arguing with the Trustee.
A competent man knows better than to do that. So you are correct in a sense if a new Trust is Constructed - so be it. I am not Trustee your honor - therefore I will not usurp that office. And I have no claim in Ownership of the new Express Trust you just created so I cannot be your fiduciary. I can however help you today. Do you require my assistance to help you settle your books?
-----
martin earl. Identity is impossible to obtain. You are correct.
To the dead bodies and identity - When helping a friend bury his loved one we were met by a State official with some document at the bottom of the document was place for witness. Upon reading the document carefully we realized this is the commercial Survey in order to close the Cestui Que Trust. Meaning the authorized User = Usufruct is now dead.
I am reminded of this Scripture:
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
That is why I want you to carry a digital camera from now on MJ! I would like to see that.
There was a fellow I met named Bear. I doubt his parents named him that but this guy lived in the mountains near Jim's castle. When his wife miscarried late-term he was forced into the system to save her life, and they lost the baby. They basically held Bear in custody until he would sign a death certificate by naming the unborn child. Try putting yourself in his shoes - not losing the child - that is something people are designed for in life. But this guy was under arrest until he would do one little thing that is completely against our makeup - he just had to name the dead fetus!!
Unimaginable! If there is anything to convince me Satan exists, that one incident might do it.
Frederick Burrell
03-31-11, 05:11 PM
David
That is totally sick. If not for the wife it might have been time for a 30 day fast while being held in custody. They hate it when you do that. fB
David Merrill
03-31-11, 06:42 PM
David Said "The states have uniform legislation about Last Registered Owner."
Meaning what David? That does not tell me a lot. Can you explain.
Still waiting for my invitation to visit them. Nothing yet.
I actually tried to pay them for my registration, but it was within 30 days of the expiration of one year without registration,so they wanted me to pay for this year also(two years total). A year which I will not be in the US.This transpired after I had handed her the plates. So I declined the offer to pay for the two years. The Nice lady excepted the plates and handed me the bill for two years. I told her I didn't want to pay for the two years as I would be out of the country. She then tried to return my plates. I declined. She threated to call the police, I left. She accepted the plates with no conditions and then tried to put a condition on receiving them. I will deal with it in a year form now. One way or another. fB
Sorry I was so brief.
It means that they don't have to find the owner. They just notify the Last Registered Owner. In other words when you forfeit it, they don't believe you are the owner, unless you are the Last Registered Owner.
martin earl
03-31-11, 07:28 PM
Sorry I was so brief.
It means that they don't have to find the owner. They just notify the Last Registered Owner. In other words when you forfeit it, they don't believe you are the owner, unless you are the Last Registered Owner.
That is why the Last Registered owner should notify the Department of revenue recorders the vehicle has been sold for lawful money and is no longer a pledged Item in commerce.
What is stopping us from "selling" (actually redeeming) the car from the TRUST (legal name) into the hands of the man (true name) and then recording that fact with the District Court Clerk and then informing the Department of revenue of that record?
Since I can put whatever I want into the TRUST, I should be able to redeem something from the Trust and have it recognized by the STATE.
To me, this is just another power of lawful money redemption.
With my recorded demand and use of lawful money per 12-USC 411, I can redeem not only the car, but the Drivers license, the plates and the VIN from the lien of the Federal Reserve and the subjugation of system.
RE-venue would then be illegal and unlawful trespass/seizure on those items. I would have to see a passport from the re-venue officer or the courts before any items could be seized.
And what would be a passport from the STATE? A return by the STATE to Lawful money use, of course, I doubt that is going to happen any time soon...
That leaves the STATE no Standing on the Land without habeas corpus or a living victim of injury or actual property damage.
Being lost at sea and elastic currency is as much an issue for the STATE as it is and has been for the patriot movement.
Now I can see how all are equal under the LAW.
Michael Joseph
03-31-11, 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
I am glad you responded like this because actually that John Doe crap cannot be easily overcome if JOHN DOE is constructed and a man stands before the Court arguing with the Trustee.
A competent man knows better than to do that. So you are correct in a sense if a new Trust is Constructed - so be it. I am not Trustee your honor - therefore I will not usurp that office. And I have no claim in Ownership of the new Express Trust you just created so I cannot be your fiduciary. I can however help you today. Do you require my assistance to help you settle your books?
-----
martin earl. Identity is impossible to obtain. You are correct.
To the dead bodies and identity - When helping a friend bury his loved one we were met by a State official with some document at the bottom of the document was place for witness. Upon reading the document carefully we realized this is the commercial Survey in order to close the Cestui Que Trust. Meaning the authorized User = Usufruct is now dead.
I am reminded of this Scripture:
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
That is why I want you to carry a digital camera from now on MJ! I would like to see that.
There was a fellow I met named Bear. I doubt his parents named him that but this guy lived in the mountains near Jim's castle. When his wife miscarried late-term he was forced into the system to save her life, and they lost the baby. They basically held Bear in custody until he would sign a death certificate by naming the unborn child. Try putting yourself in his shoes - not losing the child - that is something people are designed for in life. But this guy was under arrest until he would do one little thing that is completely against our makeup - he just had to name the dead fetus!!
Unimaginable! If there is anything to convince me Satan exists, that one incident might do it.
That was really mean. It is sad that men and women will treat other men and women this way in the name of "just doing my job".
Remember the Saga I shared concerning the young man and the court. He did Exactly that and he left with Exactly what he and I had determined in our Court before the Ever Living. Judgment was kept from Scripture. Do you recall?
Frederick Burrell
04-01-11, 04:02 AM
Thank you David and Martin for your responses. I have thinking about how to remove myself and some things from the trust. I had decided to buy my truck from my legal name with lawful money. You Martin just put the icing on the cake, in regards how to proceed from their. fB
Anthony Joseph
04-25-11, 02:53 AM
Update:
Received my certified copies of my timely refusals of the presentments offered to me. All were maked up properly with my case jacket number, raised seal and signature from the clerk testifying that they are true and correct copies. Nice to know and see that my evidence repository is being cared for and utilized for my own express intents and purposes.
Next, I will await any futher offerings/summonses (if any) relating to this matter and I will exercise my right of refusal once again and obtain certified copies of that process as well.
April 23 was 30 days from the time of the initial offering... we shall see what comes next.
David Merrill
04-25-11, 04:38 AM
Update:
Received my certified copies of my timely refusals of the presentments offered to me. All were maked up properly with my case jacket number, raised seal and signature from the clerk testifying that they are true and correct copies. Nice to know and see that my evidence repository is being cared for and utilized for my own express intents and purposes.
Next, I will await any futher offerings/summonses (if any) relating to this matter and I will exercise my right of refusal once again and obtain certified copies of that process as well.
April 23 was 30 days from the time of the initial offering... we shall see what comes next.
Thank you! That is genuinely great testimony for Remedy.
1) Identity
2) Record-forming
3) redemption of lawful money.
Tomorrow I hope to open some threads exploring salvaging a home out of bankruptcy and foreclosure.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Anthony Joseph
05-16-11, 06:33 PM
UPDATE:
Late last week I received an "ORDER OF SUSPENSION" from Tallahassee regarding the "Tickets" presented to me on March 24.
486
487
Apparantly the original issuer (Sheriff's Dept.) neglected to disclose the fact that the presentments were properly and timely Refused for Cause. The "ORDER" was Refused for Cause and registered-mailed out today to Tallahassee and to my case file/evidence repository. Copies were furnished to the local county court and to the Sheriff's office. Also included was a "NOTICE TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT" document which is now also in the cognizance of United States in the case file at the clerk of the district court.
488
David Merrill
05-16-11, 08:13 PM
That makes me wonder what will happen if you go in to the DoR and Renew?
Anthony Joseph
05-17-11, 02:32 AM
That makes me wonder what will happen if you go in to the DoR and Renew?
That question will be answered by the next action taken by the local county court and Tallahassee. Will the local court take heed to the truth given unto them and stay in honor by settling their own account and acknowledging the proper and lawful process executed regarding this matter which declares undeniably that there is no VOLUNTEER who has granted consent to alleviate the STATE's own burden? Will Tallahassee stay in honor and recognize the same? If the answer to either question is "NO" then my "NOTICE" stands as the truth and law regarding my inherent right to move about and travel freely in the method and conveyance of my choice even if the STATE decides to invalidate the DL I was utilizing prior to this issue.
My next step will be to publish this outcome on the county level and give proper notice to the roving "revenue agents" (LEOs) at each level: CITY, COUNTY, STATE.
This is starting to get interesting; I could have paid the nominal fines and avoided this potential strife. However, to live in truth, one must declare it openly and act upon it honorably.
I have taken a plunge in faith after learning and knowing the truth of how the wordly system operates. Instead of continuing on as a debt slave and keeping "current" with the fraudulent mortgage note, I acted in truth and presented a valid instrument (coupon) to help them settle the claimed debt on their books. My LoR was wrapped around their dishonorable response/action as a result.
I have now opted not to be a debt slave and willing fiduciary for the CQVT vessel which was issued a "charge" on its account by an agent of the Department of Revenue (LEO). This may result in the suspension or invalidation of the DL card I have been using and carrying for most of my life. I could avoid that by simply complying and pay the fine like a good "citizen".
I can't do that now that I have learned the truth. I prayed to our Creator and asked for the truth above all else and I am receiving it. Be careful what you pray for... my eyes are now open and I must act upon the knowledge given unto me or I will be worse than those who act the same in ignorance.
Truth is truly a double-edged sword.
My faith and trust will be with Him always and He will decide what may come according to my actions. My prayer is that I will come through these matters claiming victory in His name and testifying to that to all who will hear. Any and all glory is upon our Creator, for He is the Author of truth and the Giver of it.
motla68
05-17-11, 06:36 AM
UPDATE:
Late last week I received an "ORDER OF SUSPENSION" from Tallahassee regarding the "Tickets" presented to me on March 24.
486
487
Apparantly the original issuer (Sheriff's Dept.) neglected to disclose the fact that the presentments were properly and timely Refused for Cause. The "ORDER" was Refused for Cause and registered-mailed out today to Tallahassee and to my case file/evidence repository. Copies were furnished to the local county court and to the Sheriff's office. Also included was a "NOTICE TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT" document which is now also in the cognizance of United States in the case file at the clerk of the district court.
488
Please do not take this personally, I submit this response for the benefit and consideration of the position you are taking.
Can you both be a Suitor in their statute codes and have standing in Divine Law both at the same time?
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Do you think this might be pretty important since it was mentioned twice?
From my studies to try and take standing on both sides is double mindedness, by definition of law this is the mind of a lunatic. Do we need that label beaten over our head any more?
I often tell people when you are taking standing on both sides of a barb wire fence, it can be awfully painful to the family jewels. I think you touched on that with your comment about truth having a double edged sword.
Blessings upon your journey.
David Merrill
05-17-11, 11:38 AM
Your jab at the character Suitor is ill-founded.
I think it is an antagonistic stance in your case, that you must always attack people who pay me to become a "suitor" within the scope of the Libel of Review, but it is a Lesson Plan that you have not gained the experience of doing for yourself. Here is the scripture for you Motla68:
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
Jas 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
I am not encouraging you however to become a suitor. You are confrontational and in many interpretations, like this one, incorrect. Your confrontations however, are very useful to me to explain things to the serious student. - As explained below.
Anthony Joseph has new options on the stance he is taking. I believe that as of yesterday, a new resulting trust may be in formation where AJ could affect Setoff and reinstate his card-evidenced competency and exhibit his responsibility to compensate injury - get the Driver License and insurance coverage.
As the US Government begins actively gambling on Americans going into foreclosure, without the scope of its original charter to protect the property rights of the same Americans trust is breached in a final manner. Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling before GEITHNER's deadline (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/FINAL%20Letter%2004-04-2011%20Reid%20Debt%20Limit.pdf)and the process of selling mortgage-backed securities can, by the April Notice (last paragraph of the Appendix) go into effect. Anthony Joseph initially identified himself to be a peaceful inhabitant and through the HJR-192 gold seizure may have been able to allow the US Government as trustee to adjust the Setoff.
I am not sure which avenue AJ will be choosing. His stance is not to serve mammon (confidence in the Fed/false balances). This is why my presumption about you Motla68 is that you have only a smattering of NLP training - Neuro-linguistic Programming. You will start with a false presumption and then develop it as though it is correct.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3989/savingtosuitorsclubbann.jpg
This is the current Entry Banner to this website. What the Reader/Student should keep in mind is that Chapter 20 of the same Judiciary Act of 1789 also formed the districts, which are the state Districts overlaid on the American states and in 1790 these districts became the conduit for responsibly settling the debt obligations of the District United States. So read the Banner with that in mind, and you will discover hopefully that the 'saving to suitors' clause is the abatement and avoidance of that forum.
Without ever having exercised your right of avoidance to the commercial nature of the state district overlays, you would of course make the error you have in your post. - That AJ, by being a suitor is benefitting from the commerce, when in fact by being a suitor he is in his true name expressing his participation in a higher trust. But that would only be if you Motla68 were making that mistake - which you are not. You are simply being confrontational. And your false presumption is made intentionally, therefore your misinterpretation (actually more - misapplication) of the scripture is also intentional. Ergo, my usage of your misdirection to clarify an important point about remedy.
It is also helpful to re-read this thread's opening post:
Well, here we go.
I have the opportunity to put what I have learned into practice. I was presented the first "TRAFFIC CITATION", since learning of how NOT to present the DL as ID, just yesterday by a staked-out deputy in an unmarked SUV who was on a revenue generating expedition in the area. I heard reports from others throughout the day that this same SUV was pulling people over all day. The claim on the presentment is "DRIVER NOT BELTED". Also, the new insurance card was not with me; I found it within a stack of recently opened mail at home later. So in addition, "INSURANCE - NO PROOF OF" is also claimed.
There is apparantly a new "law" in effect near my area since 2009 that a signature is no longer required when issuing a citation. The new "law" states that providing the DL is the consent now. The citations are now thermally printed from a computer data entry system which makes for a quick and easy "sale", taking less than a quarter of the time it took in the past to write out tickets. Nice to see the efficiency nowadays!
I was obviously not aware of the new "no-signature-required" procedure and was informed of it by the revenue agent/LEO.
I was heading to work and noticed the SUV parked in a lot at the side of the highway. He decided that I was his target and proceeded to flash his lights, sound the siren and pull me over. I kept going slowly until I reached my work parking lot and pulled in there as my safe place. He approached rather quickly and, without me having a chance to say anything, he uttered... "Driver's License, Registration and Proof of Insurance... You were pulled over for no seatbelt". Noticing the apparant "cash cow" at work, I didn't respond and just proceeded to find the DL card and registration (No insurance card) to show the LEO. It was then that I said, "Before I hand these to you, I have to inform you that I am providing this Driver's License card to you for competency purposes only and NOT for I.D." I also asked him to put that in his notes. He made a weird face, shrugged it off and asked, "What does that mean?" I repeated it once again and he quipped "Your providing it to me because I asked you for it." I repeated it once again showing that I did not agree with that opinion. The next comment was, "Whatever." He promptly went back to the car and came back real quick with these citations; I thought that they would be warnings because he came back so fast. So he quickly handed them to me and breezed through the "options" available, obviously in a hurry to get back to his stake-out spot to keep "ringing the register". I was confused about the non-signature and it put me off my game somewhat since I was planning to write on his copy how I presented the DL card and also sign with the True Name dba LEGAL M. NAME method. I tried to ask him something else and he just ignored me and started walking back to his SUV. So, I got out of my car and started walking towards him. Sitting in the SUV and obviously frustrated with me, he asked, "What can I do for you now?" I proceeded to remind him that he should remember how I presented the DL card to him and that he would have to testify to that on the stand when questioned if that ever became necessary. He responded that what I said doesn't mean anything and that he wasn't worried about it. I said, "Well, I think your making a legal determination that your not qualified to make". He responded, "Thanks for telling me what I am not qualified to do." We then parted with the usual "have a nice day".
I will be refusing these presentements for cause and filing copies in my evidence repository at the United States district clerk of court near my area. I am attaching copies of this process and will continue to update as we go as best I can.
The process has been expedited to make it nearly impossible for Anthony Joseph, the man, to express his peaceful inhabitant nature. That is being honored as it would seem there is no bench warrant, (unless he appears to want the DL reissued) but only a summary revokation of his driving privilege. The new expedited process is designed so that the police officer no longer needs to address the issue that the DL card was not utilized by AJ for identification purposes.
Reading the opening post, it becomes clear to those fluent in the serving mammon scriptures you misapply for us Motla68, that the officer's objective is to summarily "forget" that any conversation occured at all. AJ's point about not using the DL for ID was that he never be drawn into the field of battle (commerce). This would only be brought out on the witness stand, under oath while the officer is being examined and by the recollection of the conversation - the officer may easily say, That is all done by computer, I really don't recall anything being said. When a Florida driver hands over a Florida Driver License I think it is easy to presume he is identifying himself with it.
That opening post describes the gist of the thread in my opinion. The reason AJ is writing and sharing is because of this new twist by LEO's and technology to attorn men and women into the actual theater of war - commerce. The very opposite of your point - which is nothing but a jab at suitors. You have become contradictory and hipocritical in your postings as you are actually an advocate of being outside the scope of belligerant. So you redefined "suitor" to be something that it is not, and then applied scripture in a misapplication.
Continued...
David Merrill
05-17-11, 11:39 AM
Continued...
Thank you. I think that my explanation will be quite helpful to anybody here to learn about remedy. I am a bit mixed that you continue these jabs at remedy even though they continually backfire.
Projecting my own experience on AJ's real life drama;
The stance is to go re-instate the driver license, and continue using it for only competency and responsibility purposes. At that time, it will likely reveal a bench warrant for Failure to Appear and AJ will be pushed for a bond amount and this will be set for trial - which is what he has set this up for all along. - To get that officer on the stand to either reveal that AJ never used the DL to identify himself a belligerent on the field of commerce, or to perjure himself on the stand by saying he doesn't remember; which is what the computer system and expeditious process is set up to accomodate.
The posture is based on the faithful fact that God will be the judge, not the attorney in the black robe. In my opinion AJ should be looking forward to the adventure and we should be encouraging him to share it with us in full detail - like he is doing. As he is competent at record-forming through the 'saving to suitors' clause in federal court with his evidence repository (LoR) his position of not accepting fiduciary appointment at the Stop, and maybe now the government is dishonest in its charter - for the first time in history - he might take the appointment over the resulting trust to affect Setoff himself?
This is really quite an exciting saga, speaking for myself anyway. Your jabs Motla68 help bring the details to light, but I cannot help but cringe a little at the embarrassment that must arise from being so hipocritical in front of everybody.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Anthony Joseph
05-17-11, 06:03 PM
Please do not take this personally, I submit this response for the benefit and consideration of the position you are taking.
Can you both be a Suitor in their statute codes and have standing in Divine Law both at the same time?
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Do you think this might be pretty important since it was mentioned twice?
From my studies to try and take standing on both sides is double mindedness, by definition of law this is the mind of a lunatic. Do we need that label beaten over our head any more?
I often tell people when you are taking standing on both sides of a barb wire fence, it can be awfully painful to the family jewels. I think you touched on that with your comment about truth having a double edged sword.
Blessings upon your journey.
Notice how I never claimed to "be a Suitor in their statute codes" similar to never claiming to "be a federal reserve banker" when citing Title 12 USC §411. The saving to suitors' clause was written into their law structure by their burdens and requirements in order to stay in honor when encountering a competent and peaceful man or woman who inhabits the land while choosing to remain without their formed districts in his/her own right. The clause is a required "exit door" for those immune to the newly formed structure and district overlay of the physical land. That "exit door" is a mandatory obligation and remedy written into the law in order to avoid the charge of tyranny and forced servitude upon those who know and exercise their inherent exemption and immunity from their system.
When citing these laws, statutes and codes in that inherently immune capacity, character and standing, through overt and proper declaration, it serves as only a friendly and peaceful reminder to those who are bound, and oath-sworn, to that structure that the law provides free remedy to those who claim it competently.
I believe my "family jewels" are quite safe and cozy where they are, and belong.
You have misunderstood my comment regarding the double edged sword; I meant that not only will it cut through the lies you were unaware of your entire life, it will also cut through your past beliefs, and manner of conducting yourself, so you cannot go back in to that "old way" in good faith or conscience once the truth is revealed. In other words, be careful and ready for truth when you ask for it because it will effect you permanantly one way or the other.
Rock Anthony
05-17-11, 06:27 PM
First off, thank you, Anthony Joseph, for starting this thread to share your experiences.
Anthony Joseph initially identified himself to be a peaceful inhabitant...
The process has been expedited to make it nearly impossible for Anthony Joseph, the man, to express his peaceful inhabitant nature...
The new expedited process is designed so that the police officer no longer needs to address the issue that the DL card was not utilized by AJ for identification purposes...
Perhaps one would be prudent to novate the DL agreement such that the holder of the DL does not use the DL for identification purposes (the agreement is the paper application for DL). A copy of such agreement should be kept inside the glove compartment of motorized conveyances and presented to the armed Federal Reserve agents at the roadside. I'll go even further and suggest that such a novation can be included on the DL itself - on the signature line.
This card is not to be used for identification of the signatory, per sec 6‑117.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
[True Name signature]
Now it becomes nearly impossible for the FR agent to impose an identity on peaceful inhabitants that have such an agreement with the state.
This is the current Entry Banner to this website. What the Reader/Student should keep in mind is that Chapter 20 of the same Judiciary Act of 1789 also formed the districts, which are the state Districts overlaid on the American states and in 1790 these districts became the conduit for responsibly settling the debt obligations of the District United States. So read the Banner with that in mind, and you will discover hopefully that the 'saving to suitors' clause is the abatement and avoidance of that forum.
David, this is one of the most clear explanations of the significance of the 'saving to suitors' clause. I encourage anyone to bookmark your post.
motla68
05-17-11, 10:13 PM
Notice how I never claimed to "be a Suitor in their statute codes" similar to never claiming to "be a federal reserve banker" when citing Title 12 USC §411. The saving to suitors' clause was written into their law structure by their burdens and requirements in order to stay in honor when encountering a competent and peaceful man or woman who inhabits the land while choosing to remain without their formed districts in his/her own right. The clause is a required "exit door" for those immune to the newly formed structure and district overlay of the physical land. That "exit door" is a mandatory obligation and remedy written into the law in order to avoid the charge of tyranny and forced servitude upon those who know and exercise their inherent exemption and immunity from their system.
When citing these laws, statutes and codes in that inherently immune capacity, character and standing, through overt and proper declaration, it serves as only a friendly and peaceful reminder to those who are bound, and oath-sworn, to that structure that the law provides free remedy to those who claim it competently.
I believe my "family jewels" are quite safe and cozy where they are, and belong.
You have misunderstood my comment regarding the double edged sword; I meant that not only will it cut through the lies you were unaware of your entire life, it will also cut through your past beliefs, and manner of conducting yourself, so you cannot go back in to that "old way" in good faith or conscience once the truth is revealed. In other words, be careful and ready for truth when you ask for it because it will effect you permanantly one way or the other.
Ok, thanks for the correction.
I am working on getting stuff done by using some of the language but just not the statute coding, I have heard of others who have done this so I await with anticipation of some results in the near future. Nevertheless getting interesting responses from the registrar and the comptroller in birth county.
David Merrill
05-18-11, 12:55 AM
Somebody PM'd me this - I believe because of this subject matter.
IL Vehicle Code
Sec. 6‑117.1. Prohibited use of driver's license information.
Sounds to me like if you tell the officer that it is not for ID purposes, he cannot use it for such.
motla68
05-18-11, 01:41 AM
Somebody PM'd me this - I believe because of this subject matter.
By process of lawful strategy this is not how an officer approaches the situation inheritable. One must express the intent to void the assumption. This is the tacit I spoke of some time ago which can be also through silence if we do not speak up.
Subsection of that code says:
(c) Use of information contained on a driver's license is not a violation of this Section if (i) the individual whose information has been used gave express permission for that use or (ii) the information relating to the individual was obtained from a source other than the individual's driver's license.
The latter which is (ii), that part in reference to said officer seeing the name on registration matching the drivers license would give the hook he would need if one did not speak up and say: " I do not consent to be recognised by the name and waive any benefit thereof". As to say, no I do not need any services/benefits today. I could further thrown in our discussion about service, but we have already discussed that already in this thread I think.
Subsection (a) is also interesting noting a commercial activity. We have thwarted such claims with 18 U.S.C 31 by definition what commercial use is. If someone is interested in discussing that it would probably be best suited for a new thread though.
John Booth
05-18-11, 03:04 AM
I'll go even further and suggest that such a novation can be included on the DL itself - on the signature line.
This card is not to be used for identification of the holder.
[True Name signature]
Now it becomes nearly impossible for the FR agent to impose an identity on peaceful inhabitants that have such an agreement with the state.
whoo boy, This card is not to be used for identification of the holder. HOLDER - have you just volunteered as Trustee in your desire to escape the frying pan...
This is friendly advice to keep you out of the [line of] fire
motla68
05-18-11, 03:24 AM
whoo boy, This card is not to be used for identification of the holder. HOLDER - have you just volunteered as Trustee in your desire to escape the frying pan...
This is friendly advice to keep you out of the [line of] fire
Someone I know on the land know as Florida signed the words " non assumpsit " only about a year ago, it has worked well for him so far.
Rock Anthony
05-18-11, 03:51 AM
Somebody PM'd me this - I believe because of this subject matter.
Richard Earl found that section of the Illinois Vehicle Code per a request I shouted on the ShoutBox. Thanks, Richard!
...speak up and say: " I do not consent to be recognised by the name and waive any benefit thereof".
Nice, motla68. I will use a variation of that for my next encounter with an LEO. On several occasions I instructed officers "not to use the DL for identification purposes." There's the old saying, "you get more with honey than you do with vinegar." That being said, rather than verbalizing instructions to LEOs, I'll just inform them of what I do and do not consent.
"This driver's license does not belong to me - it belongs to the State of Illinois. I do not consent to be identified by any of the images or markings on the driver's license other than the image of my signature found on the front-side bottom."
shikamaru
05-18-11, 11:00 AM
Someone I know on the land know as Florida signed the words " non assumpsit " only about a year ago, it has worked well for him so far.
You can get a rise out of the magistrate pleading "non-assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance" as well :D
David Merrill
05-18-11, 03:02 PM
I think the discussion avoids the fact that Anthony Joseph signed the Driver License Card Anthony Joseph. That signature is on the record with the Department of Revenue too. So if the cop on the stand cannot be considered trustworthy, the card in AJ's possession and the records from the DoR can be subpoenaed by Discovery.
Rock Anthony
05-18-11, 04:25 PM
whoo boy, This card is not to be used for identification of the holder. HOLDER - have you just volunteered as Trustee in your desire to escape the frying pan...
This is friendly advice to keep you out of the [line of] fire
I'll admit to not being much of a wordsmith. I've edited the verbiage in that post to better express the actual intent. Thanks, John Booth.
I think the discussion avoids the fact that Anthony Joseph signed the Driver License Card Anthony Joseph. That signature is on the record with the Department of Revenue too. So if the cop on the stand cannot be considered trustworthy, the card in AJ's possession and the records from the DoR can be subpoenaed by Discovery.
I guess what I propose goes more towards expressing intent in a way that would be more convincing to LEOs while on the side of the road. The officer ignored AJ's true name signature. But what if it was clearly stated on the DL that it is not to be used to identify the man that surrenders the DL. And what if a copy of the amended agreement is presented to the LEO. Perhaps things would be more likely to be handled at the roadside instead of in someone's brick-and-mortar courtroom. In other words, "Allright, I'm just going to issue a warning. Have a nice day!"
Anthony Joseph
05-18-11, 07:00 PM
I think the discussion avoids the fact that Anthony Joseph signed the Driver License Card Anthony Joseph. That signature is on the record with the Department of Revenue too. So if the cop on the stand cannot be considered trustworthy, the card in AJ's possession and the records from the DoR can be subpoenaed by Discovery.
Signed: Anthony Joseph d.b.a. ANTHONY XXXXXX
That is right, the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes the distinction between Anthony Joseph (living man) and the LEGAL M. NAME (TRUST vessel) as the agreement was signed in that manner, therefore, there is acquiescence to my declared character. The result (resulting trust) is that I am with standing and authority to refuse the trustee duties associated with any "charges" against that account. My declaration of that standing and authority is clear and undeniable as it resides in the cognizance of the United States at the clerk of the district court.
David Merrill
05-18-11, 10:45 PM
I guess what I propose goes more towards expressing intent in a way that would be more convincing to LEOs while on the side of the road. The officer ignored AJ's true name signature. But what if it was clearly stated on the DL that it is not to be used to identify the man that surrenders the DL. And what if a copy of the amended agreement is presented to the LEO. Perhaps things would be more likely to be handled at the roadside instead of in someone's brick-and-mortar courtroom. In other words, "Allright, I'm just going to issue a warning. Have a nice day!"
In practicality there is not enough room for much verbiage. In Colorado - at least around Colorado Springs suitors were signing:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2844/truenamedbalegalname.jpg
Fairly quickly, after a few verbal skirmishes but with success the DoR swapped out the digital pads with much smaller ones. That is when we went to True Name signatures. Another thing now is that you wait for at least ten days and receive the new license card by mail. I suspect "non-assumpsit" and "without prejudice" are signature add-ons of the past. Likely you will not get your card at all until you correct the signature.
What I keep kicking myself about is that several months ago I received an email with a state statute that clearly said that the Driver License was not to be used for Identification Purposes! I don't recall saving it, and I have tried several times to find it and cannot. My memory is really good and I recall just letting it get by because of a priority-shift. Maybe a mood; I just thought, Every state has probably got a clause like this in the statutes and didn't bother saving it...
Anthony Joseph
06-01-11, 02:48 AM
UPDATE:
Well, as suspected, the STATE OF FLORIDA has decided to suspend/revoke the DL card I make use of. It is their card so they have the right to do with it what they please.
510
Now comes the matter of whether or not the county Sheriff and the court will remain in honor by not harassing me, or attempting to re-venue me, while I move on the common right of ways. My entire process is in the cognizance of the United States District court and the proper and lawful record of my timely refusals and notices are in the cognizance of all parties involved in this matter.
I will be carrying a voice recorder with me now in case of an encounter with an LEO at the roadside. I have ordered up a certificate of search for my true name from the district clerk of court and will be carrying that with me as well to offer any LEOs who attempt to disparage or assassinate my declared character of peaceful inhabitant on the land. Also, I ordered up a certified copy of my "NOTICE AND DEMAND OF LAWFUL MONEY" document filed into my evidence repository for another matter I am currently dealing with (mortgage scavenger). The notice shows my actions match my claim of peaceful inhabitant as I show my demand for lawful money in written form and on the record for all to see and know.
511
Copies of these certified documents will be presented to any LEO who attempts to gain jurisdiction over me. I may send copies of this entire process to the Judge Advocate General per the well informed instruction of Michael Joseph who offers that the Navy is the highest ranking authority on this land entrusted with the duty to keep the peace, and protect those who declare, and display by action, their character as being peaceful inhabitants on the land. Since Admiralty Law is the what is being enforced and administered in most cases, it seems logical that the JAG is responsible for ensuring that those who invoke Admiratly do not bring it upon the dry land against one who has undeniably established his/her character as being without the Federal Reserve Districts, and thusly, without Admiralty jurisdiction.
allodial
06-01-11, 03:15 AM
There are a variety of ways to deal with the signature line. If at a loss for space...
John Henry for the parties
John Henry for the driver
John Henry as Secured Party
John Henry as Claimant
John Henry as Agent
[ Believe it or not Doe is left out on purpose! ]
The following require more space:
John Henry for DOE JOHN H
John Henry for the State of California
John Henry d/b/a DOE JOHN H
I know of someone that has established that its, say,
House of Smith d/b/a
DOE JOHN H...
This was established by letterhead sent to the head of the DMV or the like.
If there is really a severe space restriction for 'signature', one could simply put:
DOE JOHN H
or
DOE JOHN H 1293993 {license or ID #}
Either way, one can within three days or so of filling out the app for a DL send a letter to the DMV (Director or Attorney) or SoS that might go along these lines:
John Henry of the Doe clan
To fiduciary agents/officers of the DMV:
This is to inform you that I, __________________, on behalf of
DOE JOHN H
and/or for
JOHN HENRY DOE
(CALIFORNIA) File # ______________
apply for {or renew or whatever} a CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION CARD.
I would not suggest a "true name" signature. True Name d/b/a ENTITY #3049494 is one thing. But merely signing True Name could put you in the position of accommodation party. IMHO its best to just put
DOE JOHN H #03949494
or
DOE JOHN H
for the signature if you are extremely pressed for space and to always subsequently notify the DMV of your power of attorney or some other claim---IN OTHER WORDS make it clear as pie without a bunch of blah blah blah Paytriot kitchen sinkage that John Henry was acting as Attorney-In-Fact in putting the signature of the ENTITY on the signature pad--as in so they cant presume otherwise. Alternatively or additionally one could file a fictitious name registration that shows say...
John Henry, c/o private 100 Main street, New York, New York not domestic
doing business as DOE JOHN H
Don't expect the lemming mindset to even remotely comprehend your exercise of brains. If you are having conceptual issues perhaps you are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html).
EZrhythm
06-02-11, 06:42 AM
In the past I have signed DL documents and the electronic pad, "Without Prejudice" and nothing else. Because that is only two words they must have glanced only enough to believe it was a name.
allodial
06-02-11, 02:36 PM
:) You're not the only one.
allodial
06-02-11, 02:40 PM
In practicality there is not enough room for much verbiage. In Colorado...
Walmart and the like sell sets of little tiny stickers that can be fixed to the back or center of a DL. Someone I know the Casino made her remove the sticker claiming that the ID scanner would not accept the sticker on the face (wording: "without prejudice") 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.
Removing the laminate temporarily and writing directly on the plastic card is perhaps an option?
Anthony Joseph
06-08-11, 07:10 PM
UPDATE:
More evidence of intentional falsification of a Certificate of Search request; DISHONOR.
I sent a request for a Cetificate of Search on the true name Anthony Joseph on June 1st with explicit instructions as to how to perform it properly. See attached clerk instruction. I also provided them with example copies of a "falsified" search and the corrected search from the Colorado District court. Well, they sent me a certified copy of the search in the exact manner I instructed NOT to do. There can be no explanation but intentional falsification. I am sending it back to them with a request to "correct their mistake" in order to provide what I paid them for and to remain in honor. I instructed the clerk to file this entire process into my evidence repository.
528
527
526
David Merrill
06-08-11, 07:49 PM
Good work! - AJ!
Keep it up. Keep us posted please.
Anthony Joseph
06-09-11, 03:50 AM
At least they got this right...
531
I will be publishing this locally at the county clerk of court and carrying a certified copy of it to give to any LEO I encounter as evidence that my actions match my words. As soon as I receive the corrected copy of the Certificate of Search, I will publish that as well so as to provide a certified copy of evidence that NO ONE has utilized the proper venue for making a claim against a man who declares himself as a peaceful inhabitant on the land.
See the banner of the website for the law regarding any attempted seizures on land.
David Merrill
06-09-11, 04:47 AM
www.savingtosuitorsclub.net
Thanks for sharing that.
Anthony Joseph
06-10-11, 05:59 PM
More interesting stuff: seems like the "pass the buck" game is in full effect.
532
Does this letter meet the character of a presentment that should be refused for cause? I am still thinking about that. It seems like a letter stating that we "wash our hands" of this due to lack of authority and jurisdiction.
Any opinions on this would be great; I would like to hear if it is worth the $26+ dollars to R4C and file into district court.
thanks
shikamaru
06-10-11, 06:58 PM
More interesting stuff: seems like the "pass the buck" game is in full effect.
Does this letter meet the character of a presentment that should be refused for cause? I am still thinking about that. It seems like a letter stating that we "wash our hands" of this due to lack of authority and jurisdiction.
Any opinions on this would be great; I would like to hear if it is worth the $26+ dollars to R4C and file into district court.
thanks
What they say and what the law actually says, if you do the digging, may contradict :).
You'd be surprised how often this is the case .....
I don't see any cites of any "laws" within the letter.
There can be great satisfaction in making an agency or department obey the law :D.
That rule of law stuff .... rather than the rule of men.
David Merrill
06-10-11, 11:17 PM
An acquaintance is a state trooper and told me they were just sent a memo on this issue of motorists not identifying with the DL. Told me the memo described these people as potentially violent, liable to rush at you.
:confused: Total disinformation.
Thank you for that news Stonefree. Interesting label to put on properly using the Card.
I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned; it will be a lie for him to say he does not remember our encounter - DISHONOR. If he claims he does not remember, then my account will stand as truth; I have evidence of my intent, True Name and character pre-dating this encounter. The DL card itself is evidence of that fact; distinction between the man and the TRUST vessel.
I will be sure that fraud is not brought upon the court by offering my assistance via certified copies of the timely refusal. After that, what they wish to do with their account and DL card is up to them; it is their's anyway. Whatever transpires will not hinder my inherent right to travel freely in the mode of travel of my choosing since I will obtain a full record of these events to provide evidence of my honorable standing and competence to form the true and correct record - the superior court.
I did not and will not offer, or join into, any argument of any kind. My sole purpose was to be clear and to make sure the officer was cognizant of the fact that I did NOT identify myself with that DL card. Repeating and reminding him four times would make for an unbelievable assertion that he "doesn't remember". Either way, at any time along the way I can cure the "mistake" on the part of the LEO; my consent is CONTINUALLY required in order for their process to proceed and have any effect upon me.
The only reason to show up to court is to provide information, to prevent fraud on the court and to assist them in a friendly manner to settle their account through their own internal administration. Without a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden, they are left with their inherent obligation of settling any charges against their own vessel.
Very effective I will predict.
Anthony Joseph
06-11-11, 06:05 PM
That was quick!!!
534
533
David Merrill
06-12-11, 12:29 AM
Good job getting that corrected. It would appear that they will always convert it into the trust though.
David Merrill
06-12-11, 12:41 AM
More interesting stuff: seems like the "pass the buck" game is in full effect.
532
Does this letter meet the character of a presentment that should be refused for cause? I am still thinking about that. It seems like a letter stating that we "wash our hands" of this due to lack of authority and jurisdiction.
Any opinions on this would be great; I would like to hear if it is worth the $26+ dollars to R4C and file into district court.
thanks
Yes. Get your R4C on the Record but save some $ doing so.
Find the Clerk Instruction Frugal (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1M TQtNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en_US) file.
I am gathering that the expeditious process there never allowed you to be heard? [I apologize if I missed something.]
David Merrill
06-14-11, 02:09 PM
Some advice and Crosstalk for AJ;
If you go to the beginning of the thread though, we get the 'memorandum' that went out (policy) that Florida police are being trained to completely ignore any verbiage going down about, I am not using this card to identify myself. It is even possible that Florida is waiting on Colorado's New Cash Cow before trying it on AJ, maybe not. Even though AJ may be keeping a current insurance policy on his motor vehicle, he might get charged for no insurance coverage on the same legal opinion, that even though he is offering Proof of Insurance he will be charged with No Proof of Insurance - like another suitor was. This is just amazing how these things come together synchronous in the brain trust and makes me aware that they have their internal memorandums and email lists too.
The approach is that the driver license card is bail for $250. Regardless of name. They may not pursue failure to appear (in Colorado they typically jail for FTA and drop that once bail out of your pocket has been arrainged (arranged). One non-suitor I spoke with challenged jurisdiction on a speeding charge. The judge had a Warrant mailed to him. He went in to inquire about that and was arrested and would have gone to jail except somebody came in and wrote a check - they would not accept cash! - Even if he had the $250 in his pocket lawful money, they would not have accepted that cash.
So Cheryl LOESCH the US clerk of court there in Florida, has formed the ANTHONY JOSEPH for Anthony Joseph's use. Just as when I paid for the transcripts (http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2259/transcriptorder82508.jpg) in lawful money chief judge SAMELSON arranged the same trust for my use, the DAVID MERRILL (http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/3307/namecorrected.jpg). I appreciate that - that will be the NAME ON ACCOUNT for settling the $20M lien. Hopefully AJ will handle himself accordingly and remain Anthony Joseph for the duration of the trial to come because misnomer abates pleadings - he has never been arraigned. However the next police officer will notice that AJ has not paid up bail for the infraction and its off to jail for booking (think about that - setting an appointment for a Show to be Heard) where the judge will verify that AJ does not hold value (A4V) in the driver license card of $250 and set some higher amount of bail in cash out of AJ's pocket...
But the Booking Department at the jail has already gotten the Memo!
They will only accept a check. So whoever comes and pays it better put in the Memo line, a new Memo - Paid Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411 and wait four hours while they decide if they will accept it or can coerce AJ's wife, sitting in the hard plastic chairs in the jail waiting area, to write a new check with the case number only in the Memo line. Memorandums are Notice. Meanwhile she gets to visit with AJ through a Plexiglas window or two-way camera screen, between shivering concrete box-naps hoping AJ will authorize her to set up the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME trust. If AJ holds out until trial, then he can cross examine the prosecution's witness - Adversary Witness for the Defense - and hopefully the officer will come clean that AJ did not use the driver license card, in either infraction, the earlier one FTA or the next one, to identify himself. During the pre-trial negotiations (settlement of bail) AJ can notify the court of his charges for the court proceeding against his abatement for misnomer and start liening on his actor charges - after all, Jack NICHOLSON does it for allowing those PARAMOUNT makup artists to violate and assassinate his character - painting up his face and showing everybody what a JOKER Jack really is - to the Notice such a tort against the real Jack will cost only $36M per movie...
Then comes the Past Due Notice, then the lien...
That's about it. I can share with you my first hand experiences with a greater confidence than advise somebody to Certify the Charges, or Certify the Statute. Both of these come from suitors who are very organized with their computers. If you have a good memory you know what I mean because you know which suitor mentioned Certify the Charges and which one mentioned Certify the Statute - have the other suitor do this... Certify the Blank. My point being that somebody mentioned that it has worked every time, on the Internet, and these two suitors tucked that email away in a directory where they could find it later. My posture is that makes it one level of hearsay above complete Internet Yarn. In other words, when somebody is intelligent enough to make Certify the Blank work, I would hope they are intelligent enough to keep a copy of the citation or get it from the Records Department at the courthouse along with ordering up the Transcript and Register of Action where it worked, and to sanitize their personal information and prepare some kind of convincing evidence package so that I do not have to dismiss two intelligent suitors like they are clowns who believe anything they hear. I know neither one of them are clowns. But I cannot in good conscience pass this on or try it in actuality on the other suitor if I do not understand it myself. If one of you wants to add that verbiage and/or explain it carefully there we go. One suggestion that may go over is the other suitor is arranging a meeting for all of us with the suitor who suggests Certify the Charges doctrine, as we are all local - an advantage of the brain trust. Maybe something will come of it? If we sit down and we understand it, or the suitor shows me evidence like I suggest, then we might risk adding it in.
This whole issue about Gifting the Name to an Attorney is in constant interplay. Even Dating a document! Dating is again Gifting and so I have been leaving that to the clerk (postal clerk too) or notary - to add the Gifting to the documentation. That makes me the conduit between heaven and earth, as I understand the teachings of yet another suitor around here. The State is trustee but I can make that trustee behave legally as far as correcting misnomer.
My advisement.
What you do have control of at this point Anthony Joseph is the timing. Timing is important in strategy. Musashi 1 (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4686/timinginstrategy1.jpg). Musashi 2 (http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8681/timinginstrategy2.jpg).
I may totally agree, that being forced to be the trustee for the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME against your will is evil that should be fought with every fiber of your soul. That is the sentiment you seem to be expressing here. Sinderesis (http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/3554/sinderesis.jpg). I suggest you conduct the timing - like you already are.
It looks also like the DA is not willing to prosecute you or arrest you for FTA on the traffic incident at the beginning of this thread. But they have decided to revoke you bail for the next infringement/infraction out there on the theater of war known as Traffic. That driver license card was a get out of jail free card worth $250 cash bond money. Now you are no longer carrying any bail value in your wallet. My point is that you might consider taking advantage of the DA trying to get an advantage and actively pursue renewing your bail card signed properly "Anthony Joseph" only. Take advantage that the DA is not willing to risk that initial officer on the witness stand describing how you actually did identify yourself to the State.
Work on the premise of how important it is to you and your family that you continue to drive and buy your way out of minor infractions with that card. In other words, actively show the State that the card is worth $250+ to you - Accept for Value. Instill value into that Card but keep your true identity on it too. This will expose some very interesting items for us here too. Please have a post ready, what you intend to do that somebody can post for us if you are held in Booking.
You are a good man for doing this so I want to equip you. StSC may be of great help too in Notice and public conscience. Remember I am offering $350 to anybody who holds the Bill from before Settlement on my $20M lien - that 130-Page thread on SJC. That played a major role in my learning curve and I even suspect that the prosecution knew about my evidence repository and my publication of the malfeasance and malicious prosecution going on there at SJC.
But what I am saying is that you obviously know who you are and what your name is and the fundamentals of redeeming lawful money in America. So go protect yourself and your family with that same privilege - a card that represents a $250 bail bond against minor traffic infractions so that you can continue to abide in that other privilege - driving. You will be at a major, major disadvantage if you give the DA control over the timing, the next time you are stopped.
I further suggest that you prepare yourself, take the bus or be dropped at DMV, DoR whatever, and go early, beat the lines and have somebody ready to pay your bail with the Redeeming Lawful money Memo on the Check. Dress appropriately including pocket contents for weapons checks and alway remember to turn on your audio recorder before, the conversations start. Prepare and take control of the Timing. Be peaceful and know yourself and your Relationship to the Creator of the Universe and you will watch trouble brew, and see miracles come forth in His Name Jesus CHRIST.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Anthony Joseph
06-14-11, 06:02 PM
Some advice and Crosstalk for AJ;
My advisement.
What you do have control of at this point Anthony Joseph is the timing. Timing is important in strategy. Musashi 1 (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4686/timinginstrategy1.jpg). Musashi 2 (http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8681/timinginstrategy2.jpg).
I may totally agree, that being forced to be the trustee for the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME against your will is evil that should be fought with every fiber of your soul. That is the sentiment you seem to be expressing here. Sinderesis (http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/3554/sinderesis.jpg). I suggest you conduct the timing - like you already are.
It looks also like the DA is not willing to prosecute you or arrest you for FTA on the traffic incident at the beginning of this thread. But they have decided to revoke you bail for the next infringement/infraction out there on the theater of war known as Traffic. That driver license card was a get out of jail free card worth $250 cash bond money. Now you are no longer carrying any bail value in your wallet. My point is that you might consider taking advantage of the DA trying to get an advantage and actively pursue renewing your bail card signed properly "Anthony Joseph" only. Take advantage that the DA is not willing to risk that initial officer on the witness stand describing how you actually did identify yourself to the State.
Work on the premise of how important it is to you and your family that you continue to drive and buy your way out of minor infractions with that card. In other words, actively show the State that the card is worth $250+ to you - Accept for Value. Instill value into that Card but keep your true identity on it too. This will expose some very interesting items for us here too. Please have a post ready, what you intend to do that somebody can post for us if you are held in Booking.
You are a good man for doing this so I want to equip you. StSC may be of great help too in Notice and public conscience. Remember I am offering $350 to anybody who holds the Bill from before Settlement on my $20M lien - that 130-Page thread on SJC. That played a major role in my learning curve and I even suspect that the prosecution knew about my evidence repository and my publication of the malfeasance and malicious prosecution going on there at SJC.
But what I am saying is that you obviously know who you are and what your name is and the fundamentals of redeeming lawful money in America. So go protect yourself and your family with that same privilege - a card that represents a $250 bail bond against minor traffic infractions so that you can continue to abide in that other privilege - driving. You will be at a major, major disadvantage if you give the DA control over the timing, the next time you are stopped.
I further suggest that you prepare yourself, take the bus or be dropped at DMV, DoR whatever, and go early, beat the lines and have somebody ready to pay your bail with the Redeeming Lawful money Memo on the Check. Dress appropriately including pocket contents for weapons checks and alway remember to turn on your audio recorder before, the conversations start. Prepare and take control of the Timing. Be peaceful and know yourself and your Relationship to the Creator of the Universe and you will watch trouble brew, and see miracles come forth in His Name Jesus CHRIST.
Regards,
David Merrill.
I may be confused a little here, are you suggesting that I renew the DL card by paying the fines and then, if ever I am presented with another "ticket", to just pay it? Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I could have done that with these presentments and avoided this process altogether.
I am a little under the weather right now so maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying. The DL card was signed Anthony Joseph d.b.a. ANTHONY J. XXXXXXXX.
Do you really think they will renew the DL card without me paying the fines and reinstatement fees? I don't think that is likely; the clerk will see "unpaid fines" and direct me to satisfy those "tickets" with the court and bring back a "clearance document" before they will reinstate.
These are the duties and obligations that I respectfully decline and defer to the trustee to settle their own account and charges. Perhaps you could clarify your post, I appreciate your time and knowledge.
David Merrill
06-14-11, 09:29 PM
I thought of a hypothetical conversation after writing that post.
You will go to the Driver License Store - aka Department of Revenue and they may give you a paper to take to the court. Or you take that paper you showed us to the clerk of court. Go in early with $400 cash in your wallet - all marked Redeemed if you have a stamp. Also have your wife or a friend accompany carrying both cash and a checkbook. With a check subscribed on the Memo line like I described.
Tell the clerk of court that you wish to take care of the problem so that you can drive with a valid driver license card. If you do not pay cash or check, likely the clerk will have you arrested or maybe make arrangements for you to be heard with a magistrate.
Magistrate: How can I help you?
AJ: Are we on the Record? I would like to order a transcript of this hearing. I need this driver license card reinstated. This letter says that it has been revoked.
Magistrate: It looks like you have refused to pay the fine.
AJ: I will help the trustee any way I can but as I understand it the driver license functions as a bail bond worth about $250 and if I get stopped without a bail bond I will likely be arrested and my car impounded. I have a family and am worried about being stopped while driving my small children and things like that.
Magistrate: Maybe you had better just pay the fine out of pocket?
AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.
Magistrate: ...
Where the magistrate goes with this is on the record. You ordered up a transcript. It is probably clear by now that the transcript will be kept in your evidence repository. That is about all you can do. But that is by no means a small thing to be doing.
If the magistrate just tells you to pay up the fine, then I suggest you do that. But you will have that transgression on the record. That is what I am about; Record-Forming. I am not buying into the whole CQVT scenario, that is being promoted by others here and I am hoping they do not get somebody like you hurt, AJ. I do not want to be a tyrant and shut them down for having an opinion, and I admit, I find the scenario quite interesting.
What I am saying is that after you have the transcript in the USDC then you copy back to the court the clerk instruction. Maybe even file your default judgment there. This might have some impact the next time you are stopped for a ticket and properly identify yourself. But you will at least be covered by the bonding and avoid having to try fighting and arguing wearing a jumpsuit and handcuffs.
If you don't get ahead of this, we will just hear about how corrupt government is after you are released on bail. This way, we can keep up real time, and your family will appreciate having you around too I bet.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Anthony Joseph
06-15-11, 01:00 PM
I thought of a hypothetical conversation after writing that post.
You will go to the Driver License Store - aka Department of Revenue and they may give you a paper to take to the court. Or you take that paper you showed us to the clerk of court. Go in early with $400 cash in your wallet - all marked Redeemed if you have a stamp. Also have your wife or a friend accompany carrying both cash and a checkbook. With a check subscribed on the Memo line like I described.
Tell the clerk of court that you wish to take care of the problem so that you can drive with a valid driver license card. If you do not pay cash or check, likely the clerk will have you arrested or maybe make arrangements for you to be heard with a magistrate.
Magistrate: How can I help you?
AJ: Are we on the Record? I would like to order a transcript of this hearing. I need this driver license card reinstated. This letter says that it has been revoked.
Magistrate: It looks like you have refused to pay the fine.
AJ: I will help the trustee any way I can but as I understand it the driver license functions as a bail bond worth about $250 and if I get stopped without a bail bond I will likely be arrested and my car impounded. I have a family and am worried about being stopped while driving my small children and things like that.
Magistrate: Maybe you had better just pay the fine out of pocket?
AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.
Magistrate: ...
Where the magistrate goes with this is on the record. You ordered up a transcript. It is probably clear by now that the transcript will be kept in your evidence repository. That is about all you can do. But that is by no means a small thing to be doing.
If the magistrate just tells you to pay up the fine, then I suggest you do that. But you will have that transgression on the record. That is what I am about; Record-Forming. I am not buying into the whole CQVT scenario, that is being promoted by others here and I am hoping they do not get somebody like you hurt, AJ. I do not want to be a tyrant and shut them down for having an opinion, and I admit, I find the scenario quite interesting.
What I am saying is that after you have the transcript in the USDC then you copy back to the court the clerk instruction. Maybe even file your default judgment there. This might have some impact the next time you are stopped for a ticket and properly identify yourself. But you will at least be covered by the bonding and avoid having to try fighting and arguing wearing a jumpsuit and handcuffs.
If you don't get ahead of this, we will just hear about how corrupt government is after you are released on bail. This way, we can keep up real time, and your family will appreciate having you around too I bet.
Regards,
David Merrill.
What you are saying is to forego the R4C process altogether in the future, when dealing with "tickets", and just pay the fines in order to keep a valid driver's license.
It sounds as if you feel I should not be taking this any further since I have a wife and children to look after. Either you feel I am not experienced or knowledgable enough to take this all the way or you feel it is not worth the chance being a family man.
I have heard you mention on several occasion that you drive on the roadways without a DL card carrying only a certificate of search on your true name to provide to any LEOs you may encounter. Have you ever been stopped while driving a car?
Forming the truth on the record is important and valuable. This entire exercise will get the truth on the record. What you are suggesting is that the STATE will act in dishonor no matter what truth I present which could land me in jail. You feel that, for me, it is not worth it or I am not ready for that challenge yet.
David Merrill
06-15-11, 10:44 PM
What you are saying is to forego the R4C process altogether in the future, when dealing with "tickets", and just pay the fines in order to keep a valid driver's license.
It sounds as if you feel I should not be taking this any further since I have a wife and children to look after. Either you feel I am not experienced or knowledgable enough to take this all the way or you feel it is not worth the chance being a family man.
I have heard you mention on several occasion that you drive on the roadways without a DL card carrying only a certificate of search on your true name to provide to any LEOs you may encounter. Have you ever been stopped while driving a car?
Forming the truth on the record is important and valuable. This entire exercise will get the truth on the record. What you are suggesting is that the STATE will act in dishonor no matter what truth I present which could land me in jail. You feel that, for me, it is not worth it or I am not ready for that challenge yet.
Absolutely not. The Refusal for Cause process is quite valid and successful. You are misconstructing what I am telling you so please be careful.
You R4C'd the process and the clerk/magistrate has not ignored you. If they were ignoring you then there would be a warrant out for your arrest right now. You would be charged for Failure to Appear too. So pull it together and think about this.
You have had your driver license revoked. You are being presumed the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges and that may be because of the signature - doing business as - SURNAME, ANTHONY JOSEPH. You have declared a business/commercial relationship that is contrary to the doctrine emerging lately here and in the brain trust.
I suggest you better read more carefully, my posts on the last page.
Unless you would rather be the purist and drive your children etc. without a valid driver license card. If you get into an accident there is a good chance that your insurance company will refuse to fill any claim from you, because they consider that an Out. They may retain the right to presume that revokation is a slur on your competence, not some political/financial position.
If you want to be bonded against immediate arrest next time you are caught speeding or running a STOP sign, then pursue the renewal of your driver license. The General Bond rule in admiralty is 2X the amount of the injury. Typically you will find running a STOP sign costs about $125 in fines. You want to get it on the record that having that bond in place is valuable to you. Otherwise you may have to pay it out of pocket, the $250 bail bond and do it from the Booking Area of the local jail, where they do not accept cash any more.
If you understand the trust structures being examined around here enough to influence a police officer's decisions to arrest you and impound your car, then you are way ahead of me!
AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.
Magistrate: ...
When I wrote:
AJ: I am prepared to do that today but I am not the trustee. I am the beneficiary of the ANTHONY JOSEPH SURNAME constructive trust and defer any obligations to settle the charges to the State Treasurer as the trustee. If the State claims ownership over that trust, then I feel it unappropriate for me to be forced into that fiduciary responsibility.
Magistrate: ...
That "..." - what comes out of the Magistrate's mouth next, that is what I want you to get on the Record. I want you to walk out of the courthouse with a settlement, in peace, so that you can sit down to your computer and let us know exactly what happened. Don't forget to carry your audio recorder!
Regards,
David Merrill.
Rock Anthony
06-15-11, 10:52 PM
What you are saying is to forego the R4C process altogether in the future, when dealing with "tickets", and just pay the fines in order to keep a valid driver's license.
It sounds as if you feel I should not be taking this any further since I have a wife and children to look after. Either you feel I am not experienced or knowledgable enough to take this all the way or you feel it is not worth the chance being a family man.
I have heard you mention on several occasion that you drive on the roadways without a DL card carrying only a certificate of search on your true name to provide to any LEOs you may encounter. Have you ever been stopped while driving a car?
Forming the truth on the record is important and valuable. This entire exercise will get the truth on the record. What you are suggesting is that the STATE will act in dishonor no matter what truth I present which could land me in jail. You feel that, for me, it is not worth it or I am not ready for that challenge yet.
I'm not answering for David, but just want to throw in my interpretation of his suggestion...
Sounds to me that David is suggesting that you get on record the magistrate acknowledging the existence of the constructive trust (Trustee de son Tort) and the fact that the State is the trustee of said trust. With these two things on record, filed in your evidence repo, you'll have superpowered R4Cs in the future. ;)
I would take it a bit further with the magistrate: in addition to offering to help the trustee to pay whatever fines or fees, I would inform the magistrate that I am without any form of credit, only lawful money of the United States (with proof that I move without the Federal Reserve Districts).
If the policy is "no cash", then we have a problem because there is no "intangible" form of lawful money. Will the magistrate impose upon me involuntary servitude - that I must participate in a private banking system, else I go to jail? That will also be nice to have on record.
UPDATE: Only after submitting this post did I realize that David already replied to AJ. This post comes a day late and a dollar short.
David Merrill
06-15-11, 11:30 PM
UPDATE: Only after submitting this post did I realize that David already replied to AJ. This post comes a day late and a dollar short.
Hardly! You just verified that my posts were intelligible. Thank you Rock.
I do understand how AJ might have understood my gist the way he seems to have though.
Rock Anthony
06-16-11, 12:07 AM
I am not buying into the whole CQVT scenario, that is being promoted by others here and I am hoping they do not get somebody like you hurt, AJ. I do not want to be a tyrant and shut them down for having an opinion, and I admit, I find the scenario quite interesting.
What I don't buy into is the manner for which to dissolve CQVT as suggested by some people. This is not to ignorantly dismiss others' assertions - this is just to say that I haven't self-determined such assertions to be either correct or incorrect. But I will admit that some things sound too absurd.
However, I do buy into trust structures - now that I'm somewhat educated about them, I can see them everywhere (well, the simple ones, anyway)! I appreciate the discussions that go on within the suitor group on the topic of trust structures.
If you understand the trust structures being examined around here enough to influence a police officer's decisions to arrest you and impound your car, then you are way ahead of me!
Amen, brother. Perhaps only seasoned judges understand trust structures enough to not find themselves in Trustee de son Tort against you! Perhaps the low level personnel - police officers, unseasoned judges and magistrates, village attorneys - have not a clue.
This thread now screams the importance of record forming! Even if the low-level personnel has no clue about trust structures, any Trustee de son Torts by them against you will be on record! :cool:
I'm really starting to put together the offerings of David Merrill and Michael Joseph.
Anthony Joseph
06-16-11, 07:11 PM
Is there any worth/advantage to bringing my documents/evidence package with me? The certified copies of the original R4C presentments, the subsequent R4C presentments related to the matter, the locally published copy of the Certificate of Search, the locally published copy of the Certified "NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY" document, the "NOTICE TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT" document?
If I go on the record as respectfully declining the office and duty of the "Contructive Trustee" and then pay the fines as per the clerk or magistrate's instruction, am I not then setting myself as one who will continue to volunteer to pay the charges on their account? I understand that their "trangression" will be on the record but my willingness to "pay out of pocket" will be also. What is it about all this that puts them at a disadvantage the next time? They have a willing volunteer to pay the fines "out of pocket" on the record.
Thanks for the time and effort here; I will "get in front of this" thing before I get pulled over again. This entire episode is, after all, a learning process and opportunity to get the truth on the record and share the experience for edification. I will do my best to document what happens and share it for our discussion and learning.
David Merrill
06-16-11, 09:09 PM
Is there any worth/advantage to bringing my documents/evidence package with me? The certified copies of the original R4C presentments, the subsequent R4C presentments related to the matter, the locally published copy of the Certificate of Search, the locally published copy of the Certified "NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY" document, the "NOTICE TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT" document?
If I go on the record as respectfully declining the office and duty of the "Contructive Trustee" and then pay the fines as per the clerk or magistrate's instruction, am I not then setting myself as one who will continue to volunteer to pay the charges on their account? I understand that their "trangression" will be on the record but my willingness to "pay out of pocket" will be also. What is it about all this that puts them at a disadvantage the next time? They have a willing volunteer to pay the fines "out of pocket" on the record.
Thanks for the time and effort here; I will "get in front of this" thing before I get pulled over again. This entire episode is, after all, a learning process and opportunity to get the truth on the record and share the experience for edification. I will do my best to document what happens and share it for our discussion and learning.
My best guess is keep it in your hand. If you are instructed to pay, and to be the trustee/fiduciary then file the Default Judgment and ask the magistrate to look at that and reconsider. If he says to, then pay up - lawful money. Ask the clerk to write, Paid in Lawful Money on the Receipt. Order the transcripts for both hearings on your way out. Ask the magistrate for the order form. Get the whole thing on audio.
Regards,
David Merrill.
EZrhythm
06-16-11, 09:39 PM
Is there any worth/advantage to bringing my documents/evidence package with me? The certified copies of the original R4C presentments, the subsequent R4C presentments related to the matter, the locally published copy of the Certificate of Search, the locally published copy of the Certified "NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY" document, the "NOTICE TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT" document?
Absolutely! Isn't that why you R4C in the first place and have evidence of doing so? Why perform the process if not going to utilize it? All law is contract and makes the law to which you refused the contract.
allodial
06-18-11, 01:29 AM
Regarding fiduciary relationships and DLs. One thing is..if they cant go after John Henry Doe for DOE JOHN H #X02994, they might send a warrant after the license entity...or suspend the license or something. Point is ... the fiduciary is the key. In one case, I appointed a State big-wig as a fiduciary. For some reason, the renewal fees went away. But the 'court case' stayed around for ...some reason: the Courts are likely run under a different 'department' than the Revenue. Resolving the fiduciary issue can be very important. If its their CHILD, then appoint them fiduciary. Perhaps if you don't want to babysit anymore, appoint a babysitter? Seems they dont like CHILD abandonment too much. Point: if you really really pay attention you'll see that:
John Henry Doe and DOE JOHN H ain't the same person.
http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu268/sweetthingz/sarah/s35.jpg
If you dont pay attention to detail...well dont expect them to feel sorry for you.
P.S. Dont forget the connection between a driver license, State revenue streams and international treaties. :)
Treefarmer
06-18-11, 03:39 PM
Regarding fiduciary relationships and DLs. One thing is..if they cant go after John Henry Doe for DOE JOHN H #X02994, they might send a warrant after the license entity...or suspend the license or something. Point is ... the fiduciary is the key. In one case, I appointed a State big-wig as a fiduciary. For some reason, the renewal fees went away. But the 'court case' stayed around for ...some reason: the Courts are likely run under a different 'department' than the Revenue. Resolving the fiduciary issue can be very important. If its their CHILD, then appoint them fiduciary. Perhaps if you don't want to babysit anymore, appoint a babysitter? Seems they dont like CHILD abandonment too much. Point: if you really really pay attention you'll see that:
John Henry Doe and DOE JOHN H ain't the same person.
http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu268/sweetthingz/sarah/s35.jpg
If you dont pay attention to detail...well dont expect them to feel sorry for you.
P.S. Dont forget the connection between a driver license, State revenue streams and international treaties. :)
OK, I'm tired of babysitting. Do you know of a good babysitter? Can you give me contact info?
How much does the babysitter charge?
And what is the connection between a DL, State revenue streams and international treaties exactly?
Thank you allodial.
allodial
06-20-11, 02:10 AM
OK, I'm tired of babysitting. Do you know of a good babysitter? Can you give me contact info?
How much does the babysitter charge?
And what is the connection between a DL, State revenue streams and international treaties exactly?
Thank you allodial.
If the Oz Department of Revenue created the baby then might the Oz Director of Revenue be the best babysitter? How might one go about notifying a State of a change in fiduciary relationships? How much should a Parent charge for babysitting its own CHILD?
And what is the connection between a DL, State revenue streams and international treaties exactly?
Perhaps a study of the following terms or phrases might help? municipal bonds, revenue streams, factoring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoring_(finance)), bond anticipation note (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/154.12), assignment of receivables (http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/payments/2001Convention_receivables.html) (perhaps see also factoring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoring_(finance))).
What if State of Oz sells municipal bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_bond) or the like in anticipation of revenues to be gotten from traffic tickets? What if those bonds are traded internationally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_International_Trade_L aw)? What if you agree to pay the fines when you sign some contract associated with a driver license? So what if JOHN HENRY DOE owes $100 to the State and the State in turn owes the United Kingdom or some investor that is a resident of China? What if Bob owed you $100 dollars and you in turned owed Mike $100? Could Mike step in and collect directly from Bob? (Hint: The IRS probably thinks so!) What if State of Oz signed a treaty to pay a portion of revenues to the Land of Lilliput and you held a State of Oz license and then in turn you wound up owing State of Oz $100 in connection with a traffic ticket?
Its really not that hard to figure out. The following might be greatly insightful.
The two basic types of municipal bonds are:
General obligation bonds. Principal and interest are secured by the full faith and credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause) of the issuer and usually supported by either the issuer’s unlimited or limited taxing power. In many cases, general obligation bonds are voter-approved.
Revenue bonds. Principal and interest are secured by revenues derived from tolls, charges or rents from the facility built with the proceeds of the bond issue. Public projects financed by revenue bonds include toll roads, bridges, airports, water and sewage treatment facilities, hospitals and subsidized housing. Many of these bonds are issued by special authorities created for that particular purpose.
Perhaps it might be very helpful to seriously ponder the following question: Why would a driver license be issued by a "Department of Revenue" rather than a "Department of Transportation"?
Treefarmer
06-20-11, 03:08 AM
Perhaps it might be very helpful to seriously ponder the following question: Why would a driver license be issued by a "Department of Revenue" rather than a "Department of Transportation"?
Because it's a scam!
But what to do about it?
Michael Joseph
06-20-11, 03:33 AM
Perhaps it might be very helpful to seriously ponder the following question: Why would a driver license be issued by a "Department of Revenue" rather than a "Department of Transportation"?
because the DL is a license to be in commerce in the Federal Reserve districts and cities. Said license is governed by General Statutes also known as Bills of Pains and Penalties.
and the DEJURE re-venue office is in fact attempting to re-venue you from a private capacity into another venue and jurisdiction.
but there are in fact places that are not incorporated.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_County#Unincorporated_communities)
allodial
06-20-11, 03:43 AM
Because it's a scam!
But what to do about it?
Or because the contract can give rise to REVENUE? :)
because the DL is a license to be in commerce in the Federal Reserve districts and cities. Said license is governed by General Statutes also known as Bills of Pains and Penalties.
and the DEJURE re-venue office is in fact attempting to re-venue you from a private capacity into another venue and jurisdiction.
but there are in fact places that are not incorporated.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_County#Unincorporated_communities)
Is it not a license to "drive"?
drive
DRIVE, v.t. pret. Drove, [formerly drave; pp. Driven, G.]
1. To impel or urge forward by force; to force; to move by physical force. We drive a nail into wood with a hammer; the wind or a current drive a ship on the ocean.
2. To compel or urge forward by other means than absolute physical force, or by means that compel the will; as, to drive cattle to market. A smoke drives company from the room. A man may be drive by the necessities of the times, to abandon his country.
Drive thy business; let not thy business drive thee.
3. To chase; to hunt.
To drive the deer with hound and horn.
4. To impel a team of horses or oxen to move forward, and to direct their course; hence, to guide or regulate the course of the carriage drawn by them. We say, to drive a team, or to drive a carriage drawn by a team.
5. To impel to greater speed.
6. To clear any place by forcing away what is in it.
To drive the country, force the swains away.
7. To force; to compel; in a general sense.
8. To hurry on inconsiderately; often with on. In this sense it is more generally intransitive.
9. To distress; to straighten; as desperate men far driven.
10. To impel by influence of passion. Anger and lust often drive men into gross crimes.
11. To urge; to press; as, to drive an argument.
12. To impel by moral influence; to compel; as, the reasoning of his opponent drove him to acknowledge his error.
13. To carry on; to prosecute; to keep in motion; as, to drive a trade; to drive business.
14. To make light by motion or agitation; as, to drive feathers.
His thrice driven bed of down.
The sense is probably to beat; but I do not recollect this application of the word in America.
To drive away, to force to remove to a distance; to expel; to dispel; to scatter.
To drive off, to compel to remove from a place; to expel; to drive to a distance.
To drive out, to expel.(Source (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/drive))
license
LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.]
1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.
2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.
License they mean, when they cry liberty.
LI'CENSE, v.t.
1. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission; as, to license a man to keep an inn.
2. To authorize to act in a particular character; as, to license a physician or a lawyer.
3. To dismiss. [Not in use.](Source (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,license))
Ah yes...fortunately something was just remembered.... Hopefully will lead to even more interesting discussion. (next post)
allodial
06-20-11, 03:59 AM
543
That is from the back of a current, non-expired LOUISIANA driver license.
Regarding the State of Louisiana, a allegedly a person must be 21 to:
1. Get a CDL. [unless its for intrastate commerce :). ]
2. To buy or drink alcohol.
3. To buy or redeem lottery tickets.
4. To purchase a handgun or handgun ammunition. (18 for rifles or shotguns or related ammo.)
:) Lots to be gleaned from that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghdukkzJHw
Consider that (1) federally chartered banks are not necessarily going to be subject to the 21 limit, (2) the relevance of a Social Security # to a given situation or scenario.
Michael Joseph
06-20-11, 12:40 PM
Is it not a license to "drive"?
a couple two/three years back a bus organization - Trust Company - was involved in an accident. The headlines read - Trust Company, as Driver and Owner - or something to that effect.
The driver is the operator - or at least in the NC Code (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=20) - The lights came on.
The Registered Party is the Driver.
Therefore why not: Trust Company, as Trustee for [the] Friendly Driving Trust Company, as Registered Party as Driver; that makes all beneficiaries mere User.
(26) Owner. – A person holding the legal title to a vehicle, or in the event a vehicle is the subject of a chattel mortgage or an agreement for the conditional sale or lease thereof or other like agreement, with the right of purchase upon performance of the conditions stated in the agreement, and with the immediate right of possession vested in the mortgagor, conditional vendee or lessee, said mortgagor, conditional vendee or lessee shall be deemed the owner for the purpose of this Chapter. For the purposes of this Chapter, the lessee of a vehicle owned by the government of the United States shall be considered the owner of said vehicle.
Hello - the legal title is always held in the Trustee. The Trustee is NOT the registered party!
License. – Any driver's license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under or granted by the laws of this State including:
Grants issue from Grantors and Grantor is an office of Trust. Who cannot see the State as Express Trust?
David Merrill
06-20-11, 03:19 PM
The verbiage applies to government-owned vehicles alright. Look closely at the stickers on your car:
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1507/officialuseonlysticker.jpg
Official Use Only
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7762/officialuseonly.jpg
Anthony Joseph
06-20-11, 05:47 PM
I thought of one more issue that might arise here; the reinstatement of the DL may require that the "new" rules apply regarding necessary documents and info. A birth certficate, social security card and a utility bill, all obviously an attempt to indict through legal information.
My thoughts are when these documents and information are requested, "I can provide them to meet your requirement, and for your benefit only, absent capacity as trustee or fiduciary".
I will be "getting ahead of this thing", as David put it, some time this week. There has been no notice to appear so whatever I do, wherever I go and whomever I speak to will not result in arrest or jail. I will be dropped off at the DL bureau/courthouse and get it on the record that they are forcing me into the role of trustee in order to reinstate the DL card. My evidence package will reflect that I didn't ignore the presentment and that I acted in honor. It will also show that I respectfully declined the office of trustee/fiduciary for the Constructive Trust and refused for cause timely the presentment offered to me relating to that trust.
I will make it clear that I will help them in any way my character and capacity will allow which may include paying out of pocket to settle the matter, via lawful money only of course. That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me. My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only; to keep peace on the roadways, to avoid negative roadside encounters with uninformed revenue agents/LEOs, to prevent any agent/LEO from committing unlawful trespass/kidnap against me and to avoid traumatizing my young children in the event this scenario transpires with them in the car.
These are all peaceful and righteous intents and purposes for using a DL card and the benefit of that use lies solely with the STATE/COUNTY/CITY. I have expressed these sentiments many times in the past through discussions on our private forum regarding using the "tools" of the STATE in our own right and for righteous purposes only. It seems as though I will be putting those sentiments and ideas into practice; with the added record of my clear and undeniable refusal to be trustee and the possiblity of them forcing that office upon me... For the Record!
Michael Joseph
06-20-11, 06:18 PM
I thought of one more issue that might arise here; the reinstatement of the DL may require that the "new" rules apply regarding necessary documents and info. A birth certficate, social security card and a utility bill, all obviously an attempt to indict through legal information.
My thoughts are when these documents and information are requested, "I can provide them to meet your requirement, and for your benefit only, absent capacity as trustee or fiduciary".
I will be "getting ahead of this thing", as David put it, some time this week. There has been no notice to appear so whatever I do, wherever I go and whomever I speak to will not result in arrest or jail. I will be dropped off at the DL bureau/courthouse and get it on the record that they are forcing me into the role of trustee in order to reinstate the DL card. My evidence package will reflect that I didn't ignore the presentment and that I acted in honor. It will also show that I respectfully declined the office of trustee/fiduciary for the Constructive Trust and refused for cause timely the presentment offered to me relating to that trust.
I will make it clear that I will help them in any way my character and capacity will allow which may include paying out of pocket to settle the matter, via lawful money only of course. That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me. My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only; to keep peace on the roadways, to avoid negative roadside encounters with uninformed revenue agents/LEOs, to prevent any agent/LEO from committing unlawful trespass/kidnap against me and to avoid traumatizing my young children in the event this scenario transpires with them in the car.
These are all peaceful and righteous intents and purposes for using a DL card and the benefit of that use lies solely with the STATE/COUNTY/CITY. I have expressed these sentiments many times in the past through discussions on our private forum regarding using the "tools" of the STATE in our own right and for righteous purposes only. It seems as though I will be putting those sentiments and ideas into practice; with the added record of my clear and undeniable refusal to be trustee and the possiblity of them forcing that office upon me... For the Record!
Exactly! A friend of mine put the DL and Registration on the dashboard and told the Police Officer you may take them for your beneficial use; the police officer came back and said "have a nice day."
If the Property belongs to State, why not redeem it? Or make a demand that it be redeemed anyways. What is the difference between notes and what is bought with notes in light of "PROPERTY"? I mean lets talk plainly now - Is a Map the Land or is a map just a representation of the land. So then is Property the car or is Property just the "Right of Use"? Can you redeem Property? Have not you been making demands for Lawful Money? - I believe the code says "They shall be REDEEMED on demand".......
Isn't money Property? If you say no, then you do not comprehend money. Money only exists within a Trust Relationship.
shikamaru
06-20-11, 06:42 PM
Isn't money Property? If you say no, then you do not comprehend money. Money only exists within a Trust Relationship.
Technically, it is an asset ....
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
ASSET.
The property in the hands of an heir, executor, administrator or trustee, which is legally or equitably chargeable with the obligations, which such heir, executor, administrator or other trustee, is, as such, required to discharge, is called assets. The term is derived from the French word assez, enough; that is, the heir or trustee has enough property. But the property is still called assets, although there may not be enough to discharge all the obligations; and the heir, executor, &c., is chargeable in distribution as far as such property extends.
Michael Joseph
06-20-11, 07:44 PM
Technically, it is an asset ....
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
ASSET.
thank you for that, but clearly that asset only exists within the trust. Property called asset is Right of Use. The Asset is the right of use. And typically the asset is Registered on a Trust Asset Registry - typically known as Register of Deeds. Or County Clerk and Recorder. The Property or Asset is wholly dependent upon Survey and Claim. And Use depends on Claim - I mean who has the right to the Use is derived from the Claim. Therefore the Use being put into Trust is split into Legal Use and Equitable Use. And then there are those who do not hold titles and they are just mere "End User" or plain ole "User" by way of Usufruct. A legal right.
Legal goes to Trust. Right goes to Trust property. Therefore Legal Right is Property held in Trust for a User.
I mean how on earth would one come to Possess [another trust term, yes] a new Vehicle - absent some sort of "Legal" [again goes to trust, yes] tender from Within, some trust? Possess is actually incorrect, really Use is a better term.
I hate Collectivism - but thanks to Plato, Kant and Niche who hold that the State is Supreme - we are bombarded daily by the Fasces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces)
Just read Senate Resolution #62 - page 13 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B0NFfW47qTcCY2E2YjYwNDktNDk5MC00NDRlLTg1MGU tZmE5Y2Y5NGY0NzBh&hl=en_US&authkey=CJCj7okG)
If the argument of collectivism appeals to you then we are all one and everything is entangled. Therefore what is man but an expression of God and therefore man is God. Here I cannot go. Pantheism - all is God. Or said another way - the Universe if God. heard that one lately? And yet the proponents of this philo-SOPHY as they claim to be wise also espouse Trust doctrine. I mean just read carefully that [de]finition of "asset". A trust begs a particular society. Therefore a trust excludes a particular society by its very nature. Therefore a Trust is in opposition to the ALL and yet Senate Resolution #62 declares the State is Supreme Person.
How preposterously absurd. Never in my existence has something come to be absent Force or Intent. And yet, these fix that abomination against nature by claiming the Universe just "came to exist." How utterly convenient.
Therefore, it is also convenient that I have choice. My expression of my Faith or Trust - by my own singular purpose absent the need to bundle a bunch of sticks ready for the slayer [axe]. The "covering" of State is interesting indeed - fig leaves. A lie to keep man from Full Liability to his fellow man.
Sorry to go into philosophy when we are talking law but is not all Law a benefit? Therefore a benefit issued by whom? Trusts are quite slippery indeed.
shalom,
mj
shikamaru
06-20-11, 08:15 PM
thank you for that, but clearly that asset only exists within the trust. Property called asset is Right of Use. The Asset is the right of use. And typically the asset is Registered on a Trust Asset Registry - typically known as Register of Deeds. Or County Clerk and Recorder. The Property or Asset is wholly dependent upon Survey and Claim. And Use depends on Claim - I mean who has the right to the Use is derived from the Claim. Therefore the Use being put into Trust is split into Legal Use and Equitable Use. And then there are those who do not hold titles and they are just mere "End User" or plain ole "User" by way of Usufruct. A legal right.
This is why I personally make a sharp distinction between the terms asset and property.
Property, as I define it, means property held as strictly jus privati.
Asset implies commerce as well.
Asset is a species of property. A subset.
Michael Joseph
06-20-11, 09:23 PM
The property in the hands of an heir, executor, administrator or trustee, which is legally or equitably chargeable with the obligations, which such heir, executor, administrator or other trustee, is, as such, required to discharge, is called assets. The term is derived from the French word assez, enough; that is, the heir or trustee has enough property. But the property is still called assets, although there may not be enough to discharge all the obligations; and the heir, executor, &c., is chargeable in distribution as far as such property extends.
I mean this is the definition of Charge. One who issues a Charge must discharge the Charge upon the owners Estate. Who Owns the Property or Asset? If I am mere user, I am not Owner. How can I discharge the Charge?
Is not Right = Property. What then of Privilege extending from Right? Is it not still within Property? So who holds the Legal/Equitable Title. It can't be me, if i am mere user.
so we can't have it both ways. Either I am liable and if such, I am trustee or I am not liable, I am user. but if trustee, when did i take an oath? Constructive Trustee? did I commit a tort?
Clearly Driving is said to be a privilege coming from legal right. So who holds that Property [privilege] in trust? Not me. You? I doubt it. So then who is responsible for that Right and the Privilege? If I am mere user of that privilege, I am not responsible and I cannot discharge any charges that issue as a result of that privilege.
State as fig leaves - a covering.
Isaiah 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.
David Merrill
06-20-11, 11:33 PM
Exactly! A friend of mine put the DL and Registration on the dashboard and told the Police Officer you may take them for your beneficial use; the police officer came back and said "have a nice day."
If the Property belongs to State, why not redeem it? Or make a demand that it be redeemed anyways. What is the difference between notes and what is bought with notes in light of "PROPERTY"? I mean lets talk plainly now - Is a Map the Land or is a map just a representation of the land. So then is Property the car or is Property just the "Right of Use"? Can you redeem Property? Have not you been making demands for Lawful Money? - I believe the code says "They shall be REDEEMED on demand".......
Isn't money Property? If you say no, then you do not comprehend money. Money only exists within a Trust Relationship.
I think the discussion is elucidated by this post.
In other words Schedule A is a list of assets belonging to the Trust.
Anthony Joseph
06-21-11, 02:17 AM
More ammunition to add to my arsenal...
The FRB attorneys are trying to make out (http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5240/doc10motiontostrikememo.pdf) that Scott Gregory was never injured.
I will describe the injury. At lawful money rates and redemption, Scott's $100 bill should buy over two ounces of gold. Look at the footnote (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/1108assets.htm) - $42.22/troy ounce of gold. Instead Scott's bill will buy only a fraction of that - Spot being $1540/troy ounce. So Scott can only purchase about 1/15 an ounce today with it.
If you divide $1540/$42.22 you get about 1/20 value of his $100 bill. The bill if redeemed should be redeemed at its lawful money value. Lawful money (US notes) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-.html) is not elastic nor is it to be used as reserve currency.
I am telling Scott!!
I am telling the magistrate!
If the magistrate forces me into an office of trust on the record, said magistrate will also be forcing me into false balances unless he/she consents that my redeemed lawful money cash is worth 20X the value of signature endorsed FRNs. More transgressions and dishonor on and for the record.
Michael Joseph
06-21-11, 02:17 AM
I think the discussion is elucidated by this post.
In other words Schedule A is a list of assets belonging to the Trust.
thank you. Assets like Driving Privileges and certain Rights belong to the Trust.
Rock Anthony
06-21-11, 05:39 PM
DISCLAIMER: The following are just some ponderings in my mind:
I will make it clear that I will help them in any way my character and capacity will allow which may include paying out of pocket to settle the matter, via lawful money only of course.
I just can't help but wonder if an offer to help them by paying out of your pocket is really necessary. The end game is to help them settle their own intangible affairs with their own intangible money.
Now I'm thinking that the extent of your assistance to them is to help them realize that you're not the fiduciary. That's it. And to help them with that realization you can remind them that you are forever without the money that is used within their trust structure. 12 USC 411
That, however, will be against my will and intent since the magistrate/judge will have to force their obligation upon me.
I'm also thinking that any magistrate can only thrust obligations upon whatever constructive trusts they create - not you. It appears that you're doing well to not get mixed into their stuff.
My only reason to reinstate the DL is for their benefit only;
Be careful. I'm thinking that only the trustee can have the DL re-in-state-d. I agree that to do so is for their benefit. But, going back to the fundamentals of trusts, whenever there is only one beneficiary, then the office of beneficiary is mutually exclusive of the office of trustee. So if the State is the beneficiary, where does that leave you - and you are the one that is reinstating the DL? Hmm. That might just be what their waiting for from you - for you to execute the executory constructive trust by acting to reinstate the DL.
Thoughts from anyone?
David Merrill
06-21-11, 06:13 PM
My thought is that AJ gets the DL reinstated by the trustee, at the trustee's expense. If the DoR will not do it or the court threatens to jail him, then he better get the card in possession at his expense.
I am not thinking so much as endgame. I am thinking about AJ's welfare. My objective is that AJ gets the whole thing on the record and in his evidence repository so we can learn from his experience - without getting bruised up about it.
Anthony Joseph
06-21-11, 06:24 PM
DISCLAIMER: The following are just some ponderings in my mind:
I just can't help but wonder if an offer to help them by paying out of your pocket is really necessary. The end game is to help them settle their own intangible affairs with their own intangible money.
Now I'm thinking that the extent of your assistance to them is to help them realize that you're not the fiduciary. That's it. And to help them with that realization you can remind them that you are forever without the money that is used within their trust structure. 12 USC 411
I'm also thinking that any magistrate can only thrust obligations upon whatever constructive trusts they create - not you. It appears that you're doing well to not get mixed into their stuff.
Be careful. I'm thinking that only the trustee can have the DL re-in-state-d. I agree that to do so is for their benefit. But, going back to the fundamentals of trusts, whenever there is only one beneficiary, then the office of beneficiary is mutually exclusive of the office of trustee. So if the State is the beneficiary, where does that leave you - and you are the one that is reinstating the DL? Hmm. That might just be what their waiting for from you - for you to execute the executory constructive trust by acting to reinstate the DL.
Thoughts from anyone?
As I understand this, the offer is to help in any way my declared character and capacity will allow. The instruction by me for them to settle their own account has been presented and received, however, there has been no response but the action of suspending the license. My offer of help is just as you describe; making it clear that I have respectfully and timely declined and refused the office of trustee/fiduciary to settle the account and my instruction is for them to administrate it internally. Trouble is, the judge may come back and say, "you must pay out of pocket to settle these fines and reinstate the DL." My response on the record will be that, "I am prepared to do that today, but I feel I am being wrongfully forced into an office of trust when I have made it clear that my express intent is to remain without that character, I don't feel I should have to take on the obligation of trustee." If the judge insists, that dishonor and transgression is now on the record and I have made it clear that the office of trustee has been wrongfully forced upon me rather than it being voluntary or by my acquiescence.
Also, it will be on record that I can only offer lawful money of exchange since my demand is clear and on record. I will be wronged even further on the record if I am forced to pay the amount according to the $1550/oz. gold window (FRNs) rather than the $42.22/oz. gold window (USNs). That transgression of false balances being thrust upon me will also be on the record.
I gain no benefit from reinstating the DL card. The STATE gains all the benefit from that action. My intents and purposes are righteous in nature and NOT for profit or gain. My use of that card prevents the roving agents/LEOs from committing unlawful trespass and kidnap/arrest against me. I am helping my fellow man and woman to not sin against me and I am protecting my children from unnecessary roadside strife and anguish which they are too young to understand.
My use of the DL tool is strictly at arm's length.
Anthony Joseph
06-22-11, 02:06 AM
I am still interested in any comments regarding this post...
I thought of one more issue that might arise here; the reinstatement of the DL may require that the "new" rules apply regarding necessary documents and info. A birth certficate, social security card and a utility bill, all obviously an attempt to indict through legal information.
My thoughts are when these documents and information are requested, "I can provide them to meet your requirement, and for your benefit only, absent capacity as trustee or fiduciary".
When you have Refused the Public Benefits of the Drivers License and declared that you are only using Lawful money, your Private Drivers License will be Flagged that they cannot Publicly charge you, "you are free to go just be careful and have a nice day".
Notify:
Department of Transportation
Attorney General
Chief District Judge
You: of the family You
A Private "Nation of One"
David Merrill
06-22-11, 09:01 AM
I am still interested in any comments regarding this post...
I thought of one more issue that might arise here; the reinstatement of the DL may require that the "new" rules apply regarding necessary documents and info. A birth certficate, social security card and a utility bill, all obviously an attempt to indict through legal information.
My thoughts are when these documents and information are requested, "I can provide them to meet your requirement, and for your benefit only, absent capacity as trustee or fiduciary".
When you have Refused the Public Benefits of the Drivers License and declared that you are only using Lawful money, your Private Drivers License will be Flagged that they cannot Publicly charge you, "you are free to go just be careful and have a nice day".
Notify:
Department of Transportation
Attorney General
Chief District Judge
You: of the family You
A Private "Nation of One"
Dear Anthony Joseph;
I am not certain this is happening or not but you may be pulling the oldest attorney trick on yourself! I am sure I mentioned that you better scout first. If you have setting this up on your mind - to go have this meeting unequipped with intelligence then you are becoming your own worst enemy. The attorney trick is to apply sophistry to the unimportant points until you forget about the important ones.
But then, maybe it is my imagination and you have not forgotten about sending in a friend to get the Register of Action and call you from the courthouse Records while photographing your entire case file - texting you details so you can tell them what you want in your USDC evidence repository before you go show your face (person is facade).
It would behoove you for example, to know if the clerk will handcuff you the moment you show your person.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Anthony Joseph
06-22-11, 12:31 PM
Dear Anthony Joseph;
I am not certain this is happening or not but you may be pulling the oldest attorney trick on yourself! I am sure I mentioned that you better scout first. If you have setting this up on your mind - to go have this meeting unequipped with intelligence then you are becoming your own worst enemy. The attorney trick is to apply sophistry to the unimportant points until you forget about the important ones.
But then, maybe it is my imagination and you have not forgotten about sending in a friend to get the Register of Action and call you from the courthouse Records while photographing your entire case file - texting you details so you can tell them what you want in your USDC evidence repository before you go show your face (person is facade).
It would behoove you for example, to know if the clerk will handcuff you the moment you show your person.
Regards,
David Merrill.
There is no basis or grounds for arrest of any kind since there has been no notice of a hearing or court date and no action whatsoever accept the suspension of the DL. As far as I understand, a suspended DL is not grounds for arrest unless one is "driving" and pulled over by an agent/LEO. It is not a requirement to have a DL unless one "drives". If I chose to never get behind the wheel of a car again, could I ever be arrested simply because the DL I used to use is suspended?
There is no "failure to appear" scenario so I am confused as to why one would think I could be handcuffed simply for inquiring about reinstating the DL card. What am I missing here?
David Merrill
06-22-11, 01:44 PM
There is no basis or grounds for arrest of any kind since there has been no notice of a hearing or court date and no action whatsoever accept the suspension of the DL. As far as I understand, a suspended DL is not grounds for arrest unless one is "driving" and pulled over by an agent/LEO. It is not a requirement to have a DL unless one "drives". If I chose to never get behind the wheel of a car again, could I ever be arrested simply because the DL I used to use is suspended?
There is no "failure to appear" scenario so I am confused as to why one would think I could be handcuffed simply for inquiring about reinstating the DL card. What am I missing here?
Ergo...
My Point!
You were issued some kind of citation or summons as I recall from the opening post. You refused it for cause and now we are presuming that abatement (for misnomer) held up and will hold up while you are pleading that you want the privilege of driving without being the fiduciary responsible for your actions while doing so?
This is why they call it a bench warrant. Well, you should think of it this way. The judge might have a warrant for your arrest setting there awaiting Registration of Appearance. If you knew about it in advance you would:
1) never show your face (facade/person) again, and make sure you never, ever get stopped in traffic, or;
2) be prepared with that bail amount, lawful money in your pocket and somebody witnessing and able to write that out in a check form if they no longer accept cash.
The fellow I mentioned is not a suitor, but he is local. The DA and traffic judge who recognized his jurisdiction arguments as Sovrun Citizen/Nutjob may have just been presuming he is a suitor. So they might have made up the No Cash rule just for him that one day.
If you want to go in uninformed, based on the presumption that you will not be arrested, then that is your choice. I was just reminding you that I suggest you scout out the paperwork in Records thoroughly first. If your scout takes in a camera, you can save a lot of quarters, he can call you while photographing and buy certified copies of documents you want in the USDC evidence repository before you Register an Appearance.
I do not think there is any way you can plead for your driving privilege without making an appearance as SURNAME, ANTHONY JOSEPH. Your position, argument if you will, is this hypothetical mental model that the Registry is actual Ownership of it - through Birth Certificate, Department of Revenue (Driver License) and Social Security Administration. - That the Owner should step forward and be responsible - you are the beneficiary...
Even if so, the Owner has told you to obey the traffic laws and you have signed surety of that when you wanted the Card to begin with. Just because I want to learn more about this mental model does not mean I believe it exists. Or that it covers infractions like traffic violations. If you have a SSN attached to your Driver License, that is a DoR taxation vehicle.
Which brings us to preparing you with an affidavit like I showed the other day (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?324-Registration&p=3249&viewfull=1#post3249). Are you encouraged enough to look that judge in the eye - under the penalty of perjury - and say, I do not have a Social Security Number, sir. - [Just because you used to and will continue to use your driver license card for competency purposes only? - Which brings us back to agreeing to stop at STOP notices etc...] I mean really; what does getting sustainance checks from the government when you are old have to do with competency?
Regards,
David Merrill.
How’s this for a twist:
Infant gets smuggled (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=smuggled+definitions&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=smuggled+def&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1251&bih=557&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b)in from birth; has foreign mother (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7258)gravid from a U.S. soldier. Infant has foreign b/c (http://www.employmentlawalliance.com/firms/parkerpoe/articles/eeoc-sues-south-carolina-employer-and-temp-agency-for-requiring-employee-to-produce-us-birth-certificate).
The U.S. soldier drops the ball and does not certify (http://www.ehow.com/how_8359277_certify-citizenship.html)the child.
The child now becomes adopted by another U.S. citizen and again parent the ball drops and does not certify the child. Is this child a resident so far?
This adolescence living in the United States for sixteen years attends school no questions asked until its time to get a job. Adolescence uses a friend’s ss#, employer questions, adolescence discharged.
Why did the child use the other ss#, because no one explained why it was needed?
Adolescence thru adulthood is somehow is issued a state issued license (http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/PDF/SCCF/CC039101.001.pdf), today police stop say you have a license but it’s suspended. Finds out why; pays fines; BMV happy it receives the legal tender but said no drivers licenses for you because you have no ss#, now go get one.
The SSA says no ss# for you because you don’t have a U.S. b/c. so adult gets a temp b/c from the state and a tin from the irs and still everything is not in a suitable condition for proceeding or functioning properly (http://www.ssa.gov/ss5doc/).
Is this adolescence up till now an alien lawfully admitted for residence in the United States although the adolescence is not a natural born citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constituti on)even though this adult is thirty-five years of age?
The adult is now married to an U.S. citizen (http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/FSM_htm/305_01_definition_of_u_s__citizen_fsm.htm)status does not change, has to hire an immigration lawyer for active citizenship (http://www.ehow.com/about_5050398_definition-immigration-law.html)now on waiting list.
What strikes me funny this is for an identification card in the IC 9-24-16-2 (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar24/ch16.html) (i) ineligibility to be issued a Social Security number; not for a IC 9-24-6 (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar24/ch6.html) and then you have this (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html) "Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many benefits and services without a Social Security number. You do not need a number to get a driver’s license, register for school, obtain private health insurance, or to apply for school lunch programs or subsidized housing",
Then you have this university saying under the Q & A (http://www.indiana.edu/~intlserv/core/transport/drivers_license.php): When I am ready for the written test, what do I have to take to the BMV? [/URL]
I can see why so many people get frustrated when they need something to make a living with.
I have not found what [URL="http://www.google.com/search?q=amended+by+P.L.14-1992,+SEC.50&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe="]amended by P.L.14-1992, SEC.50 (http://www.indiana.edu/~intlserv/core/transport/drivers_license.php)is talking about; I’m sure it out there.
Somehow this arrow has to make it to the bullseye.
Anthony Joseph
06-22-11, 07:32 PM
Ergo...
My Point!
You were issued some kind of citation or summons as I recall from the opening post. You refused it for cause and now we are presuming that abatement (for misnomer) held up and will hold up while you are pleading that you want the privilege of driving without being the fiduciary responsible for your actions while doing so?
This is why they call it a bench warrant. Well, you should think of it this way. The judge might have a warrant for your arrest setting there awaiting Registration of Appearance. If you knew about it in advance you would:
1) never show your face (facade/person) again, and make sure you never, ever get stopped in traffic, or;
2) be prepared with that bail amount, lawful money in your pocket and somebody witnessing and able to write that out in a check form if they no longer accept cash.
The fellow I mentioned is not a suitor, but he is local. The DA and traffic judge who recognized his jurisdiction arguments as Sovrun Citizen/Nutjob may have just been presuming he is a suitor. So they might have made up the No Cash rule just for him that one day.
If you want to go in uninformed, based on the presumption that you will not be arrested, then that is your choice. I was just reminding you that I suggest you scout out the paperwork in Records thoroughly first. If your scout takes in a camera, you can save a lot of quarters, he can call you while photographing and buy certified copies of documents you want in the USDC evidence repository before you Register an Appearance.
I do not think there is any way you can plead for your driving privilege without making an appearance as SURNAME, ANTHONY JOSEPH. Your position, argument if you will, is this hypothetical mental model that the Registry is actual Ownership of it - through Birth Certificate, Department of Revenue (Driver License) and Social Security Administration. - That the Owner should step forward and be responsible - you are the beneficiary...
Even if so, the Owner has told you to obey the traffic laws and you have signed surety of that when you wanted the Card to begin with. Just because I want to learn more about this mental model does not mean I believe it exists. Or that it covers infractions like traffic violations. If you have a SSN attached to your Driver License, that is a DoR taxation vehicle.
Which brings us to preparing you with an affidavit like I showed the other day (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?324-Registration&p=3249&viewfull=1#post3249). Are you encouraged enough to look that judge in the eye - under the penalty of perjury - and say, I do not have a Social Security Number, sir. - [Just because you used to and will continue to use your driver license card for competency purposes only? - Which brings us back to agreeing to stop at STOP notices etc...] I mean really; what does getting sustainance checks from the government when you are old have to do with competency?
Regards,
David Merrill.
What are the possible grounds for arrest and what could be nature of the "charge" for going to the DL bureau/courthouse and inquiring about reinstating the DL card? I ask this sincerely since I cannot think of an answer myself.
There is no case #, there has been no notice of "failure to appear", there is no mention or notice of any form of action whatsoever. If my process abated the cause whereby there exists no case or open action in court, then why/how could there be a bench warrant?
It seems to me that the DL card is now suspended/invalid - awaiting the payment or satisfaction of the summonses/tickets in question in order to revalidate it. If payment/satisfaction is all they are after and no actual crime has been committed, then I will offer my assistance in getting that done. If the mental model of the trustee paying for the infractions as per the trustee duties and obligations does not manifest positively, then that means the judge/trustee will force that obligation on me which means lawful money cash from my pocket and that will be on the record.
They want cash (revenue), first and foremost, it seems to me; getting handcuffed for merely asking about how to help in reinstating the DL card is a bit excessive in my opinion. I could be wrong but it seems unlikely.
I am only trying to comprehend the rationale behind your suggestions and advice as I do want to do this thing the right way. As always, I thank you for your help in that regard.
Richard Earl
06-22-11, 08:39 PM
Does the driver's license not get suspended only after a judgement is against you? What prompted the registrar to suspend the license in the first place, unpaid tickets with no judgement?
David Merrill
06-22-11, 11:56 PM
The court has apparently entered a default judgment and maybe a Failure to Appear charge. The bench warrant may be setting on a shelf and it will roll off to the clerk if AJ registers an appearance. Because of the entered paperwork though, there may be not active warrant, if they come looking for Anthony Joseph SURNAME that is out of line.
Hopefully my concerns are unfounded. If you do not want to scout it out first (intelligence) then fine. Hopefully you will get some audio record for us, however it goes.
Richard Earl
06-23-11, 12:06 AM
AJ, do you have a current register of actions since receiving the suspension?
edit: Nevermind, I see where we are.
Treefarmer
06-23-11, 01:16 AM
When you have Refused the Public Benefits of the Drivers License and declared that you are only using Lawful money, your Private Drivers License will be Flagged that they cannot Publicly charge you, "you are free to go just be careful and have a nice day".
Notify:
Department of Transportation
Attorney General
Chief District Judge
You: of the family You
A Private "Nation of One"
Are you presenting this statement as a theory that you are toying with, or are you indicating that you have taken actions along those lines of thought which have yielded certain results for which you have evidence, anecdotal or otherwise?
Treefarmer
06-23-11, 02:00 AM
I gain no benefit from reinstating the DL card. The STATE gains all the benefit from that action. My intents and purposes are righteous in nature and NOT for profit or gain. My use of that card prevents the roving agents/LEOs from committing unlawful trespass and kidnap/arrest against me. I am helping my fellow man and woman to not sin against me and I am protecting my children from unnecessary roadside strife and anguish which they are too young to understand.
My use of the DL tool is strictly at arm's length.
I agree that no benefit is gained from having a DL. This makes me think that I cannot be the beneficiary in this scenario.
I've been giving this topic a lot of thought because I'm currently in the process of getting a CDL, and so far every step of the way has stunk to high heaven, including the reason why I should need a CDL in the first place.
According to the CDL manual itself, my activity (transporting 14 or fewer paying mountain bike instruction customers to and from a trail in an old re-painted short bus) does not require a CDL.
I've contacted the Tennessee Department of Safety about this in writing and they refused to provide me with a written response in this matter. But they informed me by email and in a phone call that all I would need is an "F" endorsement on the class-D DL.
By contrast, the Tennessee State Troopers who inspect the vehicles of the outdoor outfitter companies for which I work have taken it upon themselves to demand CDLs for anyone driving a former re-purposed short (Headstart) school bus, no matter what the CDL manual or Department of Safety say.
It seems to me that the STATE is the beneficiary of the DL and we are being tricked into the office of trustee when we sign in the NAME of "our person" and provide "our SS number". Because we appear to enter into the office of trustee, which they offer to us (after all, getting a DL is "voluntary"), we then become stuck with the office of fiduciary.
They collect all the license fees and they get to invent ever more "laws", some of which are impossible to obey all at the same time, so that they can keep running up the punitive charges on us "drivers" and collect huge amounts of revenue.
I believe this makes them the receivers of benefits, and us the trustees who have to do all the paperwork and the paying, but who receive nothing of value in return.
Say it isn't so, but be ready to make your answer square up with the reality of DL fees, traffic fines and road blocks and stops.
Anthony Joseph
06-23-11, 02:55 AM
The court has apparently entered a default judgment and maybe a Failure to Appear charge. The bench warrant may be setting on a shelf and it will roll off to the clerk if AJ registers an appearance. Because of the entered paperwork though, there may be not active warrant, if they come looking for Anthony Joseph SURNAME that is out of line.
Hopefully my concerns are unfounded. If you do not want to scout it out first (intelligence) then fine. Hopefully you will get some audio record for us, however it goes.
I would have received some sort of notice that there is either a "failure to appear" action or a bench warrant out there for the SURNAME, ANTHONY JOSEPH trust vessel in response to my process. Instead there has been absolute silence other than Tallahassee notifying me that the DL card has been suspended.
If one has unpaid parking tickets and decides to "settle" before the next time one gets "pulled over", the scenario most likely does not involve jail or arrest.
The only correspondence sent so far has eluded to the same type of fact; the fines have not been paid in the "allotted" amount of time, license is now suspended, to reinstate please do thus and so... "we want cash".
The last time I dealt with something like this was when I first started becoming "aware" of how the system works. I attempted a "Ticket Slayer" method when I was "ticketed" for a collision some many years back. It was a case of someone stopping extremely short in the middle of the road to make a last minute turn. Unfortunately, I was caught in between and couldn't stop in time to avoid the car in front of me who had to jam on her brakes to avoid the "last minute turner". A Florida Trooper ticketed me for "RECKLESS DRIVING" and I submitted a "ACCEPTANCE UPON PROOF OF CLAIM" response to the summons. The result was a scheduled court hearing some two months later. I was operating from the seat of my pants but I remember attempting to get the oaths of office of every county judge who may be assigned to the case and getting the runaround about that. The one thing that stuck with me about that is when I called the judges office number to inquire about his oath of office and the secretary giving me a hard time about me not giving her a "last name". I told her my name is Anthony Joseph and I had no last name and she was getting rather belligerent about that. She finally put me on hold and when she came back on the line, there was a total 180 degree attitude and she explained to me exactly how to obtain the judges oath of office in a very apologetic and polite manner. That occurance has stayed with me and is ingrained in my memory forever; I stood my ground about my name and it manifested positively.
The day of the court hearing came and I paid attention to the "lack of testimony" dismissals for those who had no citing officer show up to court. When the NAME was called for the DL card I held, I remember distinctly that the judges assistant whispered to him, " this is the one with the 'paperwork' ". When I approached I made it known that the citing officer was not present. There was a brief stare in my direction, as if he was pissed that he couldn't nail me on my 'paperwork', and then the judge dismissed for "lack of testimony". I left and paid no fine.
Why should this time be any different as far as the potential for arrest? This time there is NO court date, NO case number, NO court action, NO notice of warrant, NO notice of ANYTHING other than the DL card is suspended. It will be reinstated as soon as the 'tickets' are "paid or satisfied". They await that action. My stance will be to instruct the trustee to fulfill the obligation since I am absent consent or trespass upon that office. If the judge dishonors his/her office and forces me to "pay", so be it; that transgression and my original intent will be on the record. My action from then on will be under threat and duress and my reasons for reinstating the DL card will be righteous in nature and NOT for personal profit or gain; I receive or gain NO benefit from using the DL card.
Richard Earl
06-23-11, 03:47 AM
I guess my curiosity is what communications took place between the police/court and Tallahassee. In some way, it seems your R4C has travelled to the licensing office.
David Merrill
06-23-11, 03:48 AM
I am not saying it is different. I have full confidence in abatement for misnomer and R4C Anthony Joseph. I think you know that.
I am saying scout it out before you go to resolve this. In the alternative you will likely some day be pulled over or maybe run into a sobriety checkpoint. Maybe Chex is onto something if you intend to continue driving with an expired license.
Base your decisions on intelligence. Not speculation.
Anthony Joseph
06-23-11, 12:51 PM
I am not saying it is different. I have full confidence in abatement for misnomer and R4C Anthony Joseph. I think you know that.
I am saying scout it out before you go to resolve this. In the alternative you will likely some day be pulled over or maybe run into a sobriety checkpoint. Maybe Chex is onto something if you intend to continue driving with an expired license.
Base your decisions on intelligence. Not speculation.
I do not intend to continue with an expired license. I intend to be dropped off at the DL bureau/courthouse and inquire about helping to settle the matter and reinstate the DL in the manner described herein, prepared with cash or check in hand, so I am not pulled over in the future and experience the scenarios you depict. I cannot conceive how that action on my part (walking into DL/court as a friend to help) will end up in an arrest. I do, however, sincerely appreciate the advice, help and concern about that as I feel it is genuine and heartfelt.
If I decide to not scout it out first and end up handcuffed, it will be my own responsibility for that decision.
My point is this: if the judge has, as you say, a bench warrant waiting for an 'appearance of the person', then I am still in the same boat as I am now. I will have to choose to continue on without a valid DL card and hope to avoid being pulled over, or, I will have to at some point try to help settle the matter which will result in an arrest. My scouting of that information doesn't change the scenario; the same circumstances will remain as they are now and all that is left is the decision by me about which way to go. Either go on without it, or face possible arrest for walking in and attempting to help settle.
If arrest is awaiting, I cannot avoid it no matter what intelligence I gather before hand, unless I decide to walk the path that Michael Joseph and Chex have offered as an alternative. Even that choice could result in arrest, however, they will be forever stuck by "no arraignment".
Rock Anthony
06-23-11, 02:54 PM
...A friend of mine put the DL and Registration on the dashboard and told the Police Officer you may take them for your beneficial use...
I've been imagining how this might play out:
Man: Officer, I am recording audio of this encounter. How may I help you.
Officer: License, registration, and proof of insurance.
Man: The documents that you mention do not belong to me. The DL and registration belong to the State, and the insurance card belongs to the insurance company. I will not give to you their documents because these are not mine to give. However, I will place them on the roof of this car where you may retrieve them for your inspection. Perhaps their information that is found on their documents will be of benefit to you.
Officer: What is your name and place of residence?
Man: My name is [True Name]. I have no place of residence.
Officer: Your DL says you live at 123 Apple Ave.
Man: The record speaks for itself - not for me. As I revealed earlier, the DL does not belong to me. I do not describe myself by way of someone else's property.Perhaps the officer will rather not be bothered and let Man go. Perhaps the officer will write a ticket. In any case, it would be nice to have an audio recording of such an encounter.
David Merrill
06-23-11, 04:09 PM
I do not intend to continue with an expired license. I intend to be dropped off at the DL bureau/courthouse and inquire about helping to settle the matter and reinstate the DL in the manner described herein, prepared with cash or check in hand, so I am not pulled over in the future and experience the scenarios you depict. I cannot conceive how that action on my part (walking into DL/court as a friend to help) will end up in an arrest. I do, however, sincerely appreciate the advice, help and concern about that as I feel it is genuine and heartfelt.
If I decide to not scout it out first and end up handcuffed, it will be my own responsibility for that decision.
My point is this: if the judge has, as you say, a bench warrant waiting for an 'appearance of the person', then I am still in the same boat as I am now. I will have to choose to continue on without a valid DL card and hope to avoid being pulled over, or, I will have to at some point try to help settle the matter which will result in an arrest. My scouting of that information doesn't change the scenario; the same circumstances will remain as they are now and all that is left is the decision by me about which way to go. Either go on without it, or face possible arrest for walking in and attempting to help settle.
If arrest is awaiting, I cannot avoid it no matter what intelligence I gather before hand, unless I decide to walk the path that Michael Joseph and Chex have offered as an alternative. Even that choice could result in arrest, however, they will be forever stuck by "no arraignment".
The paragraph in red does not agree with my logic. Therefore I gather your wife or a pal is not readily available to go to the courthouse and scout for you. I agree, that the clerk in Records will call Security as quickly as the Clerk in Filing or the clerk in chambers for the judge on your alleged case.
The scout would be carrying an audio recorder and camera. In the alternative so will you be. I am not concerned that you are trying to put responsibility onto me about this. You cannot even if you were the type to AJ. My concern is selfish - at least to this thread being edifying - that the deputy sheriff will delete or confiscate your Record that you will hopefully be sharing here. If you get it taken away, then you cannot share it and will be telling us your account instead of showing us what actually went down.
This is just traffic stuff but it can get nasty as you are dealing with the DoR.
Anthony Joseph
06-23-11, 06:48 PM
Here is a "civil inquiry" screen shot of the docket associated with this matter.
549
D-6 CASE FILE LABEL CREATED (http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/traffic_law/florida-d6-license-suspensions.htm)
No judge assigned here and no mention of my process. It looks like they are treating this as if someone ignored the "ticket" and did nothing. They want someone to show up in order to reinstate. I can, at that time make sure that my process was not ignored and then proceed with my instructions for having the trustee settle this "charge" and reinstate the DL. If the judge forces me to do it, I will be prepared for that and it will be on the record.
David Merrill
06-23-11, 10:59 PM
The correspondence on 5/18 - that was likely an electronic transaction to the DoR that sent you the Notice you showed us.
Thanks for scouting it first. This should be good! Thanks for sharing the record.
Richard Earl
06-24-11, 01:19 AM
Thank you for sharing. Right now, I see no plaintiff and no judge asssigned.
allodial
06-25-11, 01:47 AM
Perhaps consider a well-written letter appointing {DIRECTOR OF DMV/STATE REVENUE} as fiduciary for settling and closing the accounting associated with any cases cases in State of {STATE-NAME} associated with the DL/ID entity.
Anthony Joseph
VIA MAIL/FACSIMILE
To: {DMV Director Name & Address or the like}
Fiduciary Appointment.
I, ___________________________, on behalf of
SMITH ANTHONY J
DL or Tax ID # 12345495959595
c/o _____, hereinafter "the Driver"
I do hereby:
* authoritatively appoint you fiduciary for settling and closing the accounting associated with any and all cases or proceedings in the State of ___ which involve the Driver;
* accept and return any and all charges being made against the Driver by any agent or officer of the State of _______________.
Signature of the Driver: {Antony Joseph) for SMITH ANTHONY J
padreilluminato
07-09-11, 06:20 AM
Any updates on this ?
I know I have walked a few others through the R4C method, made it quite simple for them.
I do not care to make a repository for proof, and I do not care much as to be offering them a nice R4C registered envelope with the original issue and a notice.
I have done several R4C and instructed a few others with a simple writing on their original envelope presentment.
The one that was done about 4 months ago now was quite simple, it was also a traffic ticket and was sent back to original R4C Nunc Pro Tunc.
The individual was then in receipt of a notice which they made a determination the Ticket was in dispute and thus a court date would be assigned and the original R4C ticket was also returned to the individual. With a little more guidance, it was suggested he place all the documents back into another envelope but to make sure all the documents were marked R4C.
That was over 4 months ago, no other following letter for a scheduled court date, not a word.
Also instructed another to do the same, but some people like to flair it up a bit...lol
Never the less, it has been over a month now and no word or action has been taken.
Having proof of the process for R4C is also very crucial, but in these 2 circumstances it was not needed and the desired outcome was achieved.
Peace
PAdre
David Merrill
07-09-11, 04:12 PM
The drawback might become obvious with your next LEO encounter. - A bench warrant for Failure to Appear.
Maybe not though. Thanks for sharing. Could you please sanitize (Paint works well) some images for us?
David Merrill
07-09-11, 04:48 PM
Any updates on this ?
Basically. The update is that this is the same Anthony Joseph (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?345-Adventures-in-quot-Hospital-Land-quot)benched for a bit due to a nasty cut on his leg.
padreilluminato
07-10-11, 06:52 AM
Ahh yes, I recall the story, hope he is healing well.
Are you wanting me to snatize soem refused for cause documents David ?
If so, I do not have any at my disposal, they were done rather simplistic. Soem that I have done I have not even opened up the leters/notices, just wrote on their envelope and slipped it back into the mail.
Now I do a simple return to sender, only because if you do a refused for cause, the assumption is that you are the principal/trustee, and assume the Military post is the residence, hence the issuence of warrants.
One must break the ties with the body corporate, you were initiated into at birth. Your body and all other personal and real property was pledged to the state, thus a subrogation at birth from original blood line was terminated, and under the doctrine of parens patriae, you were adopted into the Nation, yes a bastard child.
Once we were of age, and decided to contract on our own, we engaged the system on the wrong side, thus an enemy of the state, and no right to redress, only broken down simple little commercial remedies.
As for the DL, is it needed, I believe not, but since you are on the wrong side, the public needs to be bonded (indemnified).
So Winston Shrout had some good ideas, but the only issue was, how to get to the actual bond that the Bank of Canada are holding ?
How could one BOND the public via the original pledge ?
When the SIN became active and beneifts were offered under it, the State took over and thus you lost your right to access the bond, thus for it to work, the BOND has to be accepted by the other party (Body Corporate), and you must leave the liability with them.
People claiming to travel without a DL, Insurance and plate are just looking for trouble, and in the case of a mishap, the public is not indemnified (third party insurnace), that is all they care about, if you have insured the public against any wrong doing from you.
Peace
Padre
EZrhythm
07-10-11, 07:56 AM
Who's looking for trouble? ;-)
There recently was a parking patrol officer admiring my non-plate so much so that he brought a co-worker all the way out just to show him.
David Merrill
07-10-11, 10:05 AM
Ahh yes, I recall the story, hope he is healing well.
Are you wanting me to snatize soem refused for cause documents David ?
If so, I do not have any at my disposal, they were done rather simplistic. Soem that I have done I have not even opened up the leters/notices, just wrote on their envelope and slipped it back into the mail.
Now I do a simple return to sender, only because if you do a refused for cause, the assumption is that you are the principal/trustee, and assume the Military post is the residence, hence the issuence of warrants.
One must break the ties with the body corporate, you were initiated into at birth. Your body and all other personal and real property was pledged to the state, thus a subrogation at birth from original blood line was terminated, and under the doctrine of parens patriae, you were adopted into the Nation, yes a bastard child.
Once we were of age, and decided to contract on our own, we engaged the system on the wrong side, thus an enemy of the state, and no right to redress, only broken down simple little commercial remedies.
As for the DL, is it needed, I believe not, but since you are on the wrong side, the public needs to be bonded (indemnified).
So Winston Shrout had some good ideas, but the only issue was, how to get to the actual bond that the Bank of Canada are holding ?
How could one BOND the public via the original pledge ?
When the SIN became active and beneifts were offered under it, the State took over and thus you lost your right to access the bond, thus for it to work, the BOND has to be accepted by the other party (Body Corporate), and you must leave the liability with them.
People claiming to travel without a DL, Insurance and plate are just looking for trouble, and in the case of a mishap, the public is not indemnified (third party insurnace), that is all they care about, if you have insured the public against any wrong doing from you.
Peace
Padre
These two posts play well off one another.
Who's looking for trouble? ;-)
There recently was a parking patrol officer admiring my non-plate so much so that he brought a co-worker all the way out just to show him.
Padre suggests that by understanding the trust structure you can be a responsible beneficiary. Whereas I have experience with "non-plate" adventures, including jail time.
If you can show a bond - like suggested - then you show responsibility. Therefore you might get by with a plate that displays an account number for at least $30K in escrow - in contemplation of an accident. RAP/RuSA was distributing Travel Warrants (http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3360/travelwarrant.jpg) - they called them. But there never has been any funding behind RAP/RuSA. So they are bogus driver licenses. If TURNER had funded bonds then maybe things would have turned out differently.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Metheist
07-10-11, 02:53 PM
Code words and esoteric knowledge feels good, but in the end, it comes down to the matter that the "State" can't have it both ways. Either there are facts, and an "impartial" adjudicator, or there is not.
I got a chuckle out of the cop telling you that what you say "doesn't mean anything..."
I'd ask him to prove that in their kangaroo court...
But, I'm sadistic when it comes to court proceedings...
allodial
07-10-11, 08:41 PM
If TURNER had funded bonds then maybe things would have turned out differently.
He's promulgating the use of Bishop Bonds, but yet he--. It probably goes without question that Tim Turner's level of competence comes to question as does the question as to whether he on the Misinformation Squad. Re: Tim Turner, there are questions that could start "If he really knew what he was doing..." or "Since he knows what he is doing why is he misleading...".
The RAP and Travel Warrants are clearly an attempt thwart remedy through planned negative propaganda--aka "Conspiracy Against Rights", "psychological operations" or "propaganda".
"Licensing is the best means to determine that drivers meet a minimal standard of competence. It is a justifiable, reasonable and desireable exercise of the police power of the State." State v. Skurdal 235 Mont. 291 http://www.mediafire.com/?a0i6gxaac89af4s
By sworn and subscribed affidavit state that you gave notice to the police officer of the capacity under which the DL was in use and it is your will and intent that no other capacity other than that of it being proof of competency was in operation at the time. What are they going to do, rebut it?
EZrhythm
08-26-11, 08:27 PM
Why go to the trouble to even do all that?
allodial
08-27-11, 01:51 AM
If you can show a bond - like suggested - then you show responsibility. Therefore you might get by with a plate that displays an account number for at least $30K in escrow - in contemplation of an accident. RAP/RuSA was distributing Travel Warrants (http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3360/travelwarrant.jpg) - they called them. But there never has been any funding behind RAP/RuSA. So they are bogus driver licenses. If TURNER had funded bonds then maybe things would have turned out differently.
Regards,
David Merrill.
USDOT # record has bonding/insurance tied to the LEO search. Probably a lot easier to deal with them than anyone at the State level.
David Merrill
08-27-11, 09:29 AM
USDOT # record has bonding/insurance tied to the LEO search. Probably a lot easier to deal with them than anyone at the State level.
Fascinating!!
Do you have any of the Registration Application to get DOT registration on your private motor vehicle?
Anthony Joseph
08-27-11, 03:42 PM
FINAL UPDATE... for now
Unfortunately this round ended in a somewhat deflating fashion according to what I expected to occur in a court setting. My wife's car registration came up for renewal during this escapade and when she attempted to renew, she was denied since the registration for her car also has the LEGAL M. NAME with a suspended license on it. In other words, due to the DL card I use being suspended, they will not allow a registration renewal for a car with that name on it.
So, I had to expedite the correcting of this situation and I went to the DL bureau/courthouse to help with that issue. I found it extremely easy and quick to resolve this issue with cash regardless of the verbiage contained in the presentments sent which stated that an appearance before a judge was required and a signed "clearance document" from the court was needed in order to reinstate the DL.
NONE OF THIS EVEN CAME UP. I handed cash over to the clerk and presto, reinstatement. There was a room semi-full with people and when I arrived, I didn't even sit down to wait. I was taken right away and instructed that when payment was made upstairs at the clerk of court, bring the receipt and the DL will be reinstated for $60. NO clearance document, NO judge, NO ANYTHING... just cash. It was made real easy for me and I was in and out in less than fifteen minutes while I witnessed people still waiting to be called.
I only did this because I did not want my wife to have to deal with an expired registration with our children in the car. They don't need to deal with that unnecessary strife so I ended the situation this way for now. I still have the entire process documented in my evidence repository for the next occurance.
BTW, when asked for a signature I wrote "Lawful Money". I will upload that doc when I have a chance.
allodial
08-27-11, 11:21 PM
Fascinating!!
Do you have any of the Registration Application to get DOT registration on your private motor vehicle?
With a credit card one can apply online. Its probably a lot easier to apply online and then send in an update by fax. By mail or by fax are alternatives.
A division of a private family trust that I oversee has a USDOT # with a not domestic mail addy and fax # --no other contact info. Communications from USDOT are like this: "To John Henry, as Attorney-In-Fact of Family Trust...". They communicate by fax on a regular basis.
Link to the MCS-150 is here (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/forms/r-l/mcs-150-instructions-and-form.pdf).
To knowledge, no State plates are required if the automobile is free from a car note or mortgage or the like. If you remove State tags on a car with a note they will presume one to be up to commit larceny. One can do the following for completing the form:
#1 and #2 your choice
...
#22 Interstate -- the treaty protection zones are Interstate--this keeps you out of the district-states. Choosing intrastate and local DMV will probably bother you.
#23 OTHER and "Not for hire", "Private", "Exempt", "Immune" etc.
#24 *only* OTHER and "No cargo" choosing "household goods" is not a smart idea IMHO.
Also If I recall correctly, technically without the 'car carriage' on top, the underlying wheel-base is a 'truck'.
David Merrill
08-27-11, 11:43 PM
Nearly overwhelming! - Those two posts...
Thanks guys.
Anthony Joseph;
It sounds like they had that strategy in mind for you so they could 'dodge the bullet' so to speak. Tell us; is your driver license signed Anthony Joseph?
allodial
08-27-11, 11:50 PM
There was posting issue. This is to add clarification..
#22 Interstate -- the treaty protection zones are Interstate--this keeps you out of the district-states. Choosing intrastate and local DMV will probably bother you. The idea is that get in your private automobile, leave your private land or your dominions then as soon as you reach the street/highway/road you commence transit through the UN-OAS-NATO zone to the shopping mall and then right back to private land.
#24 *only* OTHER and "No cargo". WARNING: choosing "household goods" is not a smart idea IMHO. No cargo also means no human chattel!
I have traveled sans State plates with USDOT # with family crest on custom tag on front and rear or automobile, no problems. Once what appeared to be a Police or State DOT SUV trailed behind me for a good deal of the trip on Interstate/Interstate and then he exited the highway and headed toward a street known to be heavy with semi traffic. Suppose he had better things to do.
if one does it online, one can always follow up by a fax to the USDOT's Chief Counsel to clarify your intent. Be courteous. USDOT personnel have been quite upstanding.
Also: others have reported cross country trips with no pullovers and just displaying USDOT # only.
David Merrill
08-28-11, 03:28 AM
It bounced off the brain trust with a warning.
A division of a private family trust that I oversee has a USDOT # with a not domestic PO Box and a fax # --no other contact info.
How can this be done without imitating or impersonating a federal or state employee?
Anthony Joseph
08-28-11, 01:47 PM
Nearly overwhelming! - Those two posts...
Thanks guys.
Anthony Joseph;
It sounds like they had that strategy in mind for you so they could 'dodge the bullet' so to speak. Tell us; is your driver license signed Anthony Joseph?
It is signed Anthony Joseph d.b.a. ANTHONY J XXXXXXX.
allodial
08-28-11, 05:30 PM
How can this be done without imitating or impersonating a federal or state employee?
#1 for MAILING ADDRESS one can put private in front among other things. Instead of PO Box one can put "private box ####". Family trust does not have any SSN or an EIN.
#2 put stickers on the bumper that read "PRIVATE" or "NOT FOR HIRE" ..put it on the tag even or on the USDOT decal..depending on how you do it
#3 One can send memorandum of law or the like indicating your reservation of rights or the like, your intent so as the clarify. Keep the 'application' form and related documents on hand. Or at least copies thereof.
There is a drop-down on the online USDOT application for UNKNOWN STATE..not sure of the usefulness of that selection.
#4 Interstate selection only removes it from being intrastate. No 'State employee' relationship ..its interstate.
#5 "near" before CITY, STATE is to remove 'resident of city' presumption.
A division of a private family trust that I oversee has a USDOT # with a not domestic PO Box and a fax # --no other contact info.
Should read private box not PO Box. There is such a thing as a "private box" or a "private bag". Private != resident (public office holder). Not domestic = not U.S./Metro Federal/state employees are neither private nor non-domestic. 'near' City, State is to remove the presumption under a city-residence contract.
Example:
private 40 Baker Lane
near Chicago, Illinois not domestic
private box 9493
near Chicago, Illinois [12345-9493]
One can ask about the +4 numbering for the private box.
General post office is also an option.
Anthony Joseph
08-28-11, 06:56 PM
I actually obtained a US DOT# and held it for a year or so while I contemplated about transitioning over. I received a notice that without the mandatory inspection, the # would be cancelled. I told them there is nothing to inspect since I believe I entered any vehicles as "leased" when needed. I don't remember exactly what was said on the phone but it ended with the US DOT# being cancelled.
Any thoughts on that?
allodial
08-28-11, 08:51 PM
I actually obtained a US DOT# and held it for a year or so while I contemplated about transitioning over. I received a notice that without the mandatory inspection, the # would be cancelled. I told them there is nothing to inspect since I believe I entered any vehicles as "leased" when needed. I don't remember exactly what was said on the phone but it ended with the US DOT# being cancelled.
Any thoughts on that?
If you went for the "Household Goods Methodology" that is probably why they are asking. The only kind of cargo should be: OTHER: NO CARGO. If you are transporting cosmetics, toiletries...no surprise they want an inspection. As attorney-in-fact for the trust I have yet to receive ANY information asking for an inspection just information about basic programs and the alcohol awareness training which due to status they immediately acknowledged that it was not required training.
Goods and personal property are two different things. Goods are in stores. "Personal property" is "your stuff" better yet, "private possessions".
Also the family trust isn't a motor carrier just acting AS IF a carrier for the purposes of aiding easy friend-foe-neutral identification while in transit.
RE: NAME
For the name of the "motor carrier" one can enter "John Henry, as Motor Carrier" to limit the scope of usage of the name to that specific role (from general to special). One can utilize name of a family trust. One could even put "John Henry, as Motor Carrier" for name and put the John Henry Doe for the 'trade name'. I prefer the house estate or family trust method. For the signature/role/office: Attorney-In-Fact, Agent, Authorized Representative are all sufficient.
Consider:
John Henry as Attorney-In-Fact for John Henry, as Motor Carrier d/b/a JOHN HENRY DOE.
John Henry, as Attorney-In-Fact for JOHN HENRY DOE, AS MOTOR CARRIER.
If you're using the SSA/EIN entity as an intermediary (its a trust or an estate in case you didn't know), that's fair enough. You could put John Henry, as Motor Carrier in field #1 and JOHN HENRY DOE in field #2. However, I'd enter "not domestic" and "private" into the address fields. You can also do change of address with the SSA and also with the IRS and also with the State DMV. Key is be thorough not half-on-half-off. But again your situation may be different from mine. I am wholly without any State ID, Driver License or SSN whatsoever.
"Goods" means all things which are moveable at the time of the sale or at the time the buyer takes possession, including goods not in existence at the time the transaction is entered into and goods which are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction on real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not they are severable therefrom. "Goods" also includes merchandise certificates.(North Carolina General Assembly)
JohnnyCash
04-04-12, 02:18 AM
In this particular court every defendant is brought to a table in a small room with a "LET's MAKE A DEAL" prosecutor.
1 Prosecutor: "Legal Name"?
2 Defendant: My name is True Name.
3 P: Excuse me?
4 D: My name is True Name.
5 P: This isn't you? "N-A-M-E"?
6 D: I go by True Name.
7 P: Is this you though?
8 D: I'm here by restricted appearance, to prevent fraud on the court. Is the court aware that all presentments were refused for cause timely?
9 P: I dunno what you're talking about.
10 D: Right there [pointing to file], refused for cause.
11 P: I don't even care about that, is this you? I need to know, if it's not you we gotta get the f.. OK well step outside then .. we gotta get the file. So what's your name?
12 D: True Name.
13 P: True Name?
14 D: The ticket was handed to me.
15 P: is, is this you, were you the person stopped on ..
16 D: yes
17 P: Route 66 January 7th in the town of X?
18 D: yes
19 P: by a XX state police officer
20 D: yes
21 P: ok. So what do you want, a hearing before a magistrate? Is that what you're looking for?
22 D: I want it dismissed ..
23 P: I'm not dismissing it. But if you want a hearing before a magistrate ..
24 D: I did not identify myself as "LEGAL NAME" on January 7th
25 P: you said you were somebody else?
26 D: I said: "I'm showing you this license for competency not for identification."
27 P: for what?
28 D: Competency. Competency to drive.
29 P: I don't understand what you're talking about.
30 P: So let's have a hearing before the magistrate, ok
31 D: ok
32 P: That's not gonna be today. You gotta come back on ... May 4th ok? You got any .. proof, bring it in, witnesses
33 D: thank you
34 P: we'll see ya.
David Merrill
04-04-12, 11:46 PM
Yes, I can imagine how the prosecutor would not care about that misnomer. It is the court that the suitor would be concerned if there is fraud or not and it sounds like the R4C is in the case file. So the court is not being defrauded, the Police Chief sent that R4C process over and it may also be found (presuming an evidence repository) on PACER. I is accompanied with a clerk instruction (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6976/clerkinstructionformal.pdf) that tells the judge the case number in the federal courthouse.
The distict attorney is not the judge/magistrate.
His refusal for cause went south though when he agreed to do business by saying "ok". He should have kept saying, No, I don't want to come back or speak to the magistrate.
He wandered away from the task at hand, to prevent fraud on the court.
JohnnyCash
04-05-12, 02:30 PM
Yes! I agree. Right there at line 30 the offer was made and he accepted it at 31. And yes, the prosecutor/DA is not the judge/magistrate. Very educational; thank you.
David Merrill
04-05-12, 11:38 PM
A lot of these courts are like cattle chutes.
Looking at that transcript maybe he best have said that is what he came for, to prevent fraud on the court but he got sidetracked into speaking with the ADA. It would appear that the ADA sealed the business appearance by making it another day...
Do you see it that way?
The fellow came to prevent fraud on the court but never got to the court. He got distracted by the ADA.
Bear Eagle
04-06-12, 05:46 AM
It seems to me the best way to avoid fighting a citation is to NOT have one issued. Which begins with the LEO. When an LEO approaches a car, he/she PRESUMES the person behind the wheel is a "driver." It is during the confrontation, one must exercise one's right to travel and rebut the LEO's presumption.
To that end, I have created a Notice of Travel. This notice is based upon my past experience with traffic citations. To date, I have not used this notice of travel and therefore CANNOT guarantee any success with it. As I always travel in a safe manner, it is unusual for an LEO to pull me over. Over the last 3 years, I have been pulled over twice and issued citations, both were dismissed without fines or points accumulating against my license.
Sooner or later I will be pulled over and the LEO will ask me for a DL, registration and proof of insurance. I have all of these, in case I am ever "driving." I rarely am. If asked, I will say to the LEO, "I need to hand you this first." I will give to the LEO my notice of travel and a homemade ID card. Reproduced below is my Notice of Travel.
This Notice of Travel is specific to Delaware. I do not expect the LEO to know what to do with this. However, Delaware code is quite clear that during "fresh pursuit" the LEO can demand ID. (I agree with this as a matter of good public policy. Most criminals are caught during routine traffic stops. Let the LEOs deal with the criminals, so I do not have to.) The code does NOT specify what form the ID must take. One could give the LEO a name. Even better, crib it down on a piece of paper and hand to the LEO. Better still is to hand over a homemade ID card for that specific purpose. Mine has a disclaimer that this card is for ID purposes only and servers no other purpose and that it is compliant with Del. code. Beyond my name, it states my DOB, address for my house and picture of myself. It is my hope the LEO will decide that I am exercising my right to travel and let me go about my way. If you think this has merit, please use as you see fit and adjust according to your state code.
Delawarejones
Great idea Delaware. I now will have to start looking at Laws from Texas. I have only used this once in the last 2 years, for I have not dealt with the road trolls except for once in these 2 years.
When he asked for the DL I said I have one but done use it.
He asked why.
I ask him if I was carrying passengers, goods, or providing any type of service.
Tacit response.
I told him I was traveling in the private, and not engage in the public at the time.
He then told me that the State in its authority has deemed it so.
I asked him by what authority does the State make such claims when involuntary servitude has been outlawed?
Tacit response.
I asked him if involuntary servitude is against the Law.
Tacit response from him.
I remained very clam and friendly with him the entire time, and he responded in like manner.
The back story to this situation that makes it interesting is that two years ago I had two felony Warrants issued on the name. The Felony charges did not stick, but they left the Warrants active on the name. I did not know this. So after he figured out who I was via the plates on the Car, that is when about 10 of them show up for the felony stop.
All that ended up being taken care of, as they called the Country I live in and learned about the "mistake", and I was let go without further incident.
I thought at the time maybe they let me off because of the FUBAR situation that occurred, but that is not the case, because one of the others troopers there, a Commander, wanted to take me to jail anyway.
So they must have had no other reasoning Lawfully to detain me further or proceed with coercion.
So I have established my footing in a situation and situations that would appear to be the opposite. Which is really surreal considering my past personal interactions and relationships with the road trolls.
(On another note)
I have been here reading for about a little while, and want to thank everyone for their work. I used to be very angry because I was searching for remedy so badly, and only getting BS information, disinformation, and down right deception. It is sites like this one that give remedy and true sincere study into what is taking place, and at least try to find solutions. I am finding that our Country was established for us to truly rule in. We are to be the creators of Law. Through the Court of Record primarily, and that Law thus created is for us alone and our Personal Contracts and dealings.
And in reality, its so very simple, though the process can be tedious. Patience is a virtue.
And once the true depth of what is allowed us is realized, one can truly reflect on it, and say that they are glad to understand, and have a system in place to use and apply to ones own personal freedom and liberty.
It has taken me many years to get to this point. And though here, yet I am still very far away from where I want to be in my personal knowledge and application of such.
David Merrill
04-07-12, 01:33 AM
It may feel roundabout to get to my point but take a look at the top of Page 2 (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2005/freewillvgodswill.pdf). There is something there about no man can be redeemed by a religion that he does not trust. Conversely there is no redemption in a process that a man cannot understand.
I ponder this lately.
Something seems key in understanding the redemption of lawful money, for identical reasons. A suitor called me up out of the blue today to tell me he had a revelation about the term "mammon" in the Holy Bible. He said it was for derivatives. How about that? Every time I have ever heard a sermon touching on that passage the preacher has never made any distinction between silver and gold for traditional money, and the first fiat - and subsequent IOU's, then notes like insurance policies FDIC and even a marketplace for gambling on foreclosures and death (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySgpT8P5mG8) called guess what? Derivatives. I liked that thought. America escaped mammon between 1789 and 1861.
Wrap your mind around remedy, and it will execute smoothly. Basic metaphysics in the natural law (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_la metaphysique.jpg).
allodial
04-10-12, 02:35 AM
I actually obtained a US DOT# and held it for a year or so while I contemplated about transitioning over. I received a notice that without the mandatory inspection, the # would be cancelled. I told them there is nothing to inspect since I believe I entered any vehicles as "leased" when needed. I don't remember exactly what was said on the phone but it ended with the US DOT# being cancelled.
Any thoughts on that?
The Mandatory Compliance notice stuff I've come across appears to be spam from someone selling 'compliance training'.
allodial
04-10-12, 02:45 AM
If a 'signature' is not required for the citation, they are likely going back to the 'application' for determining fiduciary relationship.
allodial
04-10-12, 02:48 AM
...derivatives...
Well in the inner circles of the banking industry when they started removing the restrictions on interstate bank ownership, investing in warrants, derivatives and swaps were 'all the rage'. Go figure.
JohnnyCash
05-07-12, 03:56 AM
As followup to post #173, the date for our defendants "hearing with magistrate" arrived. Well aware business appearance may have previously been perfected he went ahead anyway. He was again shuttled into a one-on-one with the State's Attorney. Brief discussion where defendant stated he wanted it dismissed, attorney said he wasn't dismissing it, then admitted he couldn't dismiss it, didn't have the authority, etc. He was made to wait, probably while the citing officer & magistrate were readied, and they went ahead with a little show trial. Defendant raised several points but magistrate found no merit in any and decided in State's favor.
Anyway, defendant is now that much the wiser and the event provided the impetus for defendant to file a full evidence repository. While he may have lost a skirmish, he's confident the war is won.
EZrhythm
05-24-13, 02:04 AM
So, what ended up happening?
JohnnyCash
06-22-13, 07:13 AM
Defendant was convicted, paid the $140 fine, and rolled on down the road. I do have another suitor anecdote to relate though...
At the beginning of this year I managed to get 3 tickets - one each month for the first 3 months. January was for speeding & lane violation by town cop, second for speeding by State Patrol, and third (March) for lane viol. by State Patrol. Wasn't trying to get them but it could be related to the combination of sports car, Dr. Pepper, and loud rock 'n roll (unconfirmed theory). This offered a chance to apply some of what I've learned here at Planet Merrill. Not to keep you waiting though, I lost 2 and won one. 1 for 3. Now for the details.
FIRST. Told the town cop I was not showing the DL for identification. He must have found my words unusual because he then questioned my well-being. He must've doubted his own ability to make that determination as he radioed nearby EMT personnel to come & question me. They apparently found me sane enough, and the cop having conferred with another who arrived continued the questioning (like how I was known to others) & finally handed me a citation which I later timely R4C'd back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
SECOND. Here again I tried not to identify with the fictional IT, the LEGAL NAME trust on the DL. But thinking back on it later, I failed when the officer asked if the car was registered in my name and I answered "yes." I R4C'd the citation timely back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
THIRD. This stop was short, very little was said, and the officer had no objection to it. I R4C'd the citation timely back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
Subsequently I received notice that the driver was convicted on 1 & 2 and must pay fines to avoid suspension. I paid the fines and the DMV also notified that driver must do safety training: http://i.imgur.com/3O7VG3U.jpg
On all notices there was nothing listed under "Court" heading.
Also of note, the State Patrol legal returned my original R4C citations 2 & 3 with a cover letter: http://i.imgur.com/za7xW3i.jpg
I did not appeal or do the payment option as directed; I ignored them. I never heard another word about citation #3 or paid its fine. That was my win. Hoorah for R4C!
Those are the facts and here is my take. It seems I'm too quick and ready to supply answers. If you're in this situation and later realize you may have answered wrong ... then consider appealing the citation and filing an affidavit of truth into the case. I've done that before and won (found "not responsible" when no prosecution showed). I should also say on citation #1 I forgot to R4C the back of the ticket (the instructions); could've been pivotal.
SECOND. Here again I tried not to identify with the fictional IT, the LEGAL NAME trust on the DL. But thinking back on it later, I failed when the officer asked if the car was registered in my name and I answered "yes." I R4C'd the citation timely back to his boss with a copy to my court & evidence repository.
I am just bouncing off this #2 statement here, like David states record forming 101.
This description has been updated since I last been here: Legal name http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+name
Legal name is the name that identifies a person for legal, administrative and other official purposes. A person's first legal name generally is the name of the person that was given for the purpose of registration of the birth and which then appears on a birth certificate (see birth name), but may change subsequently. Most jurisdictions require the use of a legal name for all legal and administrative purposes, and some jurisdictions permit or require a name change to be recorded at marriage.
This is actually the most common method, since most women who marry do not petition a court under the statutorily prescribed method, but simply use a new name (typically the husband's, a custom which started under the theory of coverture where a woman lost her identity and most rights when she married (Really now? woman loose their identity and most rights when married).
The legal name may need to be used on various government issued documents (e.g., a court order). The term is also used when an individual changes their first or full name, typically after reaching a certain legal age (usually 18 or over, though it can be as low as 14 in several European nations).
A person's legal name typically is the same as their personal name, comprising a given name and a family name. The order varies according to culture and country. There are also country-by-country differences on changes of legal names by marriage. (See married name.)
Birth certificate: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Birth+certificate
Mary Elizabeth Winblad (1895-1987) birth certificate A birth certificate is a vital record that documents the birth of a child. The term "birth certificate" can refer to either the original document certifying the circumstances of the birth or to a certified copy of or representation of the ensuing registration of that birth. Depending on the jurisdiction, a record of birth might or might not contain verification of the event by such as a midwife or doctor.
History and contemporary times
A Soviet birth certificate from 1972.
The documentation of births is a practice widely held throughout human civilization, especially in China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Persia. The original purpose of vital statistics was for tax purposes (lol and still is) and for the determination of available military manpower.
Births were initially registered with churches, who maintained registers of births. This practice continued into the 19th century.[1] The compulsory registration of births with governmental agencies is a practice that originated in the United Kingdom in 1853.[2]
Most countries have statutes and laws that regulate the registration of births. In all countries, it is the responsibility of the mother's physician, midwife, hospital administrator, or the parents of the child to see that the birth is properly registered with the appropriate government agency.
The actual record of birth is stored with a government agency. That agency will issue certified copies or representations of the original birth record upon request, which can be used to apply for government benefits, such as passports. The certification is signed and/or sealed by the registrar or other custodian of birth records, who is commissioned by the government.
The right of every child to a name and nationality, and the responsibility of national governments to achieve this are contained in Articles 7 and 8 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality..." (CRC Article 7) and "States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations..." (CRC Article 8).
[3]"...it's a small paper but it actually establishes who you are and gives access to the rights and the privileges, and the obligations, of citizenship" - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, February 2005.
What is stopping us from "selling" (actually redeeming) the car from the TRUST (legal name) into the hands of the man (true name) and then recording that fact with the District Court Clerk and then informing the Department of revenue of that record?
Since I can put whatever I want into the TRUST, I should be able to redeem something from the Trust and have it recognized by the STATE.
To me, this is just another power of lawful money redemption.
With my recorded demand and use of lawful money per 12-USC 411, I can redeem not only the car, but the Drivers license, the plates and the VIN from the lien of the Federal Reserve and the subjugation of system.
RE-venue would then be illegal and unlawful trespass/seizure on those items. I would have to see a passport from the re-venue officer or the courts before any items could be seized.
And what would be a passport from the STATE? A return by the STATE to Lawful money use, of course, I doubt that is going to happen any time soon...
That leaves the STATE no Standing on the Land without habeas corpus or a living victim of injury or actual property damage.
Hey have you tried this yet? If so, how's it going?
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.
Keith Alan
02-18-14, 03:38 AM
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.
Simplicity is beautiful.
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?
Simplicity is beautiful.
I concur!
Although, this guy lives in Washington state, so maybe cops are more laid back there...?
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?
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 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1103-US-Notes-are-redeemable&)is in your name than whose is it?
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 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1103-US-Notes-are-redeemable&)is in your name than whose is it?
Ahhhh, I missed that! Thanks!
salsero
02-20-14, 12:41 AM
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.
EZrhythm
02-22-14, 07:51 PM
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.
EZrhythm
02-22-14, 07:55 PM
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.
allodial
02-23-14, 02:35 PM
Make copies, take pics.
The birth certificate afaik = State property. The name on the birth certificate = State property.
“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.”
Afaik, private property (de jure) is not "in this State".
Anthony Joseph
02-23-14, 05:44 PM
something called "State" may maintain the position that it "owns" property; yet, said "State" cannot make claim to property (requires vocal chords)
“The ultimate ownership of all property..."
all that tells me is that ownership and property are two different things
non-living entities can hold "titles" (dead paper) in ownership; only man can make a claim (living voice) to property
sambking
05-05-14, 05:19 PM
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
AllanNR
06-15-15, 04:57 PM
I have my own account to add to this ongoing saga.
I got pulled over yesterday for speeding. Officer approached and waited while I gathered my documents. I noticed my licence had JUST expired last month on the 31st but I presented it anyway and said very loudly and clearly.
" I am not presenting this as identification, only to show competence", he replied "but this is your identifica...." to which I smiled at him and basically said whatever with a shrug of my shoulders. He says ok in a muted tone and walks back to run me through the system. 20 minutes later a patrol sergeant shows up and I say to myself "whichever way this goes this should get interesting". I see him poked into his patrolmans side window and then sticking his head out kinda giving me a mean look in the rearview to which I YAWN. PS walks over and says in a very polite tone "excuse me sir did you know your licence has expired" I replied "I JUST saw that now when I presented it". "Ok thank you" and walks away. 20 minutes later the patrolman walks back over with all my papers and nothing else. "I apologize for taking up your time and inconveniencing you sir" "we are having a computer glitch at the moment so were gonna let you go" " my sergeant is not happy about it". I smile and say thank you and actually share a laugh with the patrolman about safe driving and off I GO.
question: can I keep driving with an expired licence and just keep presenting it as proof of competence?
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. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm)
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
06-16-15, 05:28 AM
I got pulled over yesterday for speeding. Officer approached and waited while I gathered my documents.
... ... ...and walks back to run me through the system.
question: can I keep driving with an expired licence and just keep presenting it as proof of competence?
#1 - What documents? Could you provide a copy?
#2 - Runs what through the system? Your true name (First - Middle), name on documents?
#3 - Can you keep driving with an expired license? - Absolutely. Will the outcome always be the same as you experienced? It's possible but not likely across the board although you may have solid standing with your paperwork with certain agencies such as the one you ran in to. They may have been fibbing about the system being down or they weren't fibbing (most likely as I actually hear "system is down" on occasion) and used that as an excuse to let you go...not running your true name through if in fact that is what you provided.
* I state these things having much experienced with stops.
AllanNR
06-16-15, 10:33 AM
#1 - What documents? Could you provide a copy?
#2 - Runs what through the system? Your true name (First - Middle), name on documents?
#3 - Can you keep driving with an expired license? - Absolutely. Will the outcome always be the same as you experienced? It's possible but not likely across the board although you may have solid standing with your paperwork with certain agencies such as the one you ran in to. They may have been fibbing about the system being down or they weren't fibbing (most likely as I actually hear "system is down" on occasion) and used that as an excuse to let you go...not running your true name through if in fact that is what you provided.
* I state these things having much experienced with stops.
DL, registration, insurance and I redeem LM
Holding the expired DL is Travelling Dead as with respect to persons all are dead in law if the paper or D.L. is? or has? expired? only my competency is permitted or left to drive or travel whats the a valid safety issue are we still competent without respect to persons what validation do i need to renew my true name with myself without respect for persons my name appears on DL or it does,nt if every thing expires the driving test is void of a competent identification
allodial
06-17-15, 04:47 AM
#1 - What documents? Could you provide a copy?
#2 - Runs what through the system? Your true name (First - Middle), name on documents?
#3 - Can you keep driving with an expired license? - Absolutely. Will the outcome always be the same as you experienced? It's possible but not likely across the board although you may have solid standing with your paperwork with certain agencies such as the one you ran in to. They may have been fibbing about the system being down or they weren't fibbing (most likely as I actually hear "system is down" on occasion) and used that as an excuse to let you go...not running your true name through if in fact that is what you provided.
* I state these things having much experienced with stops.
AFAIK you can continue "driving" if you surrender your license. If you have reservations concerning your license you can make them known to the DMV or whatever it is otherwise they might regard you to be fully agreeable to "the contract". I traveled with a motorist competency card (www.naturallyprudent.com/IMQ.html), once got bothered for no reason by a bored cop, two more showed up and a duty officer (many stripes) he told them to stop bothering me and told the one to give me an escort because I wasn't sure where a certain location was. Didn't provide any SSN or "State" ID. Also, as remains true to this day, wasn't a resident of that State at the time or of any of the 50 States.
Somebody out there thinks they own you.
Wouldn’t you like to have their name, address and phone number?
From the pdf......
“He said, ‘who owns this car?’ And I piped up and said, ‘the State,’ and he said, ‘just a minute,’ and he walked back to his car and he was there quite a long time. I trust he was radioing in to headquarters and when he came back he simply said to my wife, ‘carry on, ma’am.’
[Richard] I was recently drafted into the den of inequity through a little citation and with a very learned friend of mine we put together a significant amount of documents and basically exploded their whole day.
But when I want in there, I went in with a transcript or a dialogue or a writing and basically when the judge called my name, I said, ‘let the record so show that I am Richard Lee, an American, sovereign man, one of the preamble people living on the land evidenced by the annexed documents in the contract record.
Let the record so show that I have accepted the judge’s oath of office as a private binding contract between you and me. This is a private binding contract by me to you to uphold my rights under the common law separated from the statutory law.’ And he just kind of drove right on forward from there and I had about six or eight of these little paragraphs all put together and every time he asked me a question I just went right into the next one and right into the next one. And on the court notes all he wrote on there was ‘defendant led [read?] contract law rights,’ that’s all he said.
[Eric] It doesn’t make any difference what they say; as soon as they start asking me a question my next response is going to be, ‘just a minute, I’m sorry, your honor, but just in the fact that you’ve asked me a question that constitutes an acknowledgement that you don’t have jurisdiction over me because jurisdiction isn’t something that you need to establish as of this minute.
This cop …or whatever it might have been, this cop gave me a ticket six weeks ago or two weeks ago or whenever and you need to establish jurisdiction over me as of the time the cop gave me the ticket.
So where is your proof going back to that day? And additionally, your honor, you are of the judicial branch.
If the executive branch, the police officer and the prosecutor—they’re both in the executive branch—they are the ones who are claiming that the state has jurisdiction over me or the government has jurisdiction over me—you are supposedly a neutral party although you state receiving a paycheck from the same treasury so I don’t know how you can possibly purport to be neutral and whenever you start asking me questions any purported neutrality is totally destroyed because now you are acting on behalf of the executive branch.
So you have violated your own separation of powers doctrine and as soon as you start asking me questions you have acknowledged that you don’t have jurisdiction.
I don’t have to answer to any of your questions. You’ve got to already have the answers to those questions in the file of the District Attorney or the prosecutor. And how is it that you’re asking me questions? You’re the wrong guy.
It should be the prosecutor who’s asking me these questions but, obviously, you don’t think the prosecutor is competent or you’d allow him to ask the questions instead of you. I would never answer their questions.
You’re going to hold me in contempt of court? Where’s your authority to do that?
Besides, understand something, your honor, I want to apologize because I consider myself to be a respectable and a courteous man and I would never, ever say anything to anyone where I would be intentionally offensive and if I’ve said anything that personally offended you I sincerely apologize and I want you to understand something, I have no contempt whatsoever for this court. I have a great deal of respect.
I takes a man with a lot of character to sit on that bench up there—I didn’t say good or bad—a lot of character to sit on that bench up there and do the job that you’re doing and I commend you for that. I wouldn’t want to have your job. You’re going to stand up every day and take money from people who you know can’t afford to pay it. So I don’t have any contempt for this court, but that doesn’t mean that you have any jurisdiction over me.
You’ve got to prove that I volunteered into your jurisdiction which you can’t do and for you to claim that I’m being in contempt of you because I am calling you on that issue is absolutely asinine and you know it.
That’s what I would tell him.”
PDF Address (http://www.freedom-school.com/eric-williams/02-25-2006.pdf)
As they say if your going to play a old record your stylist has to be sharp. Court is just venue a person is just a trust.Finger Prints are they a living Man,s or his created persona the Decedent's Trust is indemnity and identified salvage yet dead in law are ESTATE TRUSTS PERSONS are public trade what,s just when it comes to IDENTITY its just you and not me? If a private person is afforded the proper court venue his true identity is common knowledge his Name will be styled John Henry; Doe if [DOE JOHN HENRY] [JOHN HENRY DOE] [John H Doe] [John Henry DOE] and finally his true Name John Henry ;or JOHN HENRY; under governments authority we are all JUST DOING OUR JOBS who is it realy thats doing a poor job with RESPECT for persons that verbatim minus all the perry [masonic] mason cases without any instrument but a Christ complex a Man was never found guilty in JUST any PERSONS COURT the solution for any living Man is to find JUST that a 2nd and 3rd living Man or Woman acting like one [Joking ladies] So one gets herd not herded or driven to drive without a TITLE or give a Man,s personal will lent to a license to be traded on bonds NAMED and CHARGED TO SUIT A ORDER STUCK WITH A GOVERNMENT BILL foot print finger print FINE PRINT Its private like not for profit like Christ the name is just words find one thats true and cant hide behind a trust.empty loft or one for rent fill it with the truth and its rent free.air it out if it stinks a rock is what opens the window the broken record club what,s between shores .
CLIENT NAME
CLIENT MASTER NUMBER LICENSE ISSUE DATE CLASS EXPIRY DATE
DD MM YY DD MM YY
RESIDENCE ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS (If different than residence)
STREET ADDRESS AND NAME, APT. NO. STREET NUMBER AND NAME, P.O. BOX, R.R. NO., APT. NO.
CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE POSTAL CODE CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE POSTAL CODE
- -
I am surrendering this driver’s licence because:I WISH TO TRAVEL UNDER FULL LIABILITY AND I
X?X I do not want to comply with a demand made by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. If I wish to resume driving I will
first comply with any demand made by the Registrar in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act. I understand that
my driver’s license will be suspended under Section 280(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act (“fail to comply”). If the license
is surrendered prior to the required date the reinstatement fee may be waived.
? I am not operating a motor vehicle at this time for the following medical or physical reason:
____________ __________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________
I understand that my driver’s license status may be changed to unlicensed and if I wish to resume driving I will
comply with any demand made by the Registrar in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act.
? I have been advised to do so by a physician.
? the above noted client is unfit to drive due to: __________________________________________________ _
Contact Information:
Name: ____________________________________ Phone Number:___________________________
Relationship to Client:________________________ Date (D/M/Y):_____________________________
(If 3rd party)
Signature: _____________________________________
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY - To be completed by RMV CSR
Driver’s License surrendered at (Location): ______________________ Date (D/M/Y): ____________________________
Accepted by (User Name) IT SEEMS NO ONES FORCING A LICENSE ON YOU ARE YOU FORCING A Claim I DON,T NEED ONE ON THEM .
Appointing the DIRECTOR or REGISTRAR at the office of DMV to settle claims against the license and or its holder the driver has no fiduciary level is the babies diaper full who owns the diaper cant leave a mess why do they reinstate a dia per to bond and insure future movements who loves the mess cleans the mess. allodial thanks for dropping Fiduciary Names the babyshitters club I surrender or I appoint Alodi shuffle
Beat a traffic ticket today. http://s4.postimg.org/xl00sh4b1/20150722.jpg
Told the Clerk magistrate I was there by Restricted Appearance, I was True Name but the citation was issued to LEGAL NAME and was about to tell them how I identified to LEO at roadside, "I'm showing this DL for competency to drive not for ID," but before I could get it out the police officer started muttering "not responsible." The clerk looks at him like "Not responsible?" LEO: "Not responsible."
That was easy (https://youtu.be/3YmMNpbFjp0).
I am not responsible who was asked. the witness if he was responsible for the information or filed complaint the Restricted Appearance means your not responsible either now who brings it has to pay for it clerk is eating this one
Fairly quickly, after a few verbal skirmishes but with success the DoR swapped out the digital pads with much smaller ones. That is when we went to True Name signatures. Another thing now is that you wait for at least ten days and receive the new license card by mail. I suspect "non-assumpsit" and "without prejudice" are signature add-ons of the past. Likely you will not get your card at all until you correct the signature.
What I keep kicking myself about is that several months ago I received an email with a state statute that clearly said that the Driver License was not to be used for Identification Purposes! I don't recall saving it, and I have tried several times to find it and cannot. My memory is really good and I recall just letting it get by because of a priority-shift. Maybe a mood; I just thought, Every state has probably got a clause like this in the statutes and didn't bother saving it...[/QUOTE]
The notation "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY," “NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFICIAL FEDERAL PURPOSES” or a similar notation on the front or back of a state-issued driver’s license indicates it does not meet the standards for the issuance and production of a compliant card under the REAL ID Act (for information on REAL ID, see http://www.dhs.gov/secure-drivers-licenses). David The REAL ID ACT supported competence notates trust . A Golden Thread c/o David Merrill greatest hits 2016 IDENTIFICATION Another thing now is that you wait for at least ten days and receive the new license card by mail. I suspect "non-assumpsit" and "without prejudice" are signature add-ons of the past. Likely you will not get your card at all until you correct the signature. The correct endorsement vs a live Signature. this thread is a seasoned repository some essential cherry picking. Non solicited site advisory everything read is gifted in experience and conscience. however their exists privately opportunity for ones tribute or his donation a sites bread @ butter yet still enough giant crumbs will enable a pragmatical to busy. : officious. opinionated. : relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic. pragmatic men of power [police] have had no time or inclination to deal with …COSTS of this Collection of Crumbs formed in a thick sliced rebuttal Suitor Bread. Revisiting the truth.
David Merrill
03-17-18, 02:11 AM
What I keep kicking myself about is that several months ago I received an email with a state statute that clearly said that the Driver License was not to be used for Identification Purposes!
That is right. I do not use the driver license card for Identification Purposes.
the State Driver License was not to be used for Identification Purposes! .
The notation "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY," “NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFICIAL FEDERAL PURPOSES” or a similar notation on the front or back of a state-issued driver’s license indicates it does not meet the standards for the issuance and production of a compliant card under the REAL ID Act I suppose this is why they mail them out Get a security checkup for the DISTRICT non compliant states if any exist NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR OFFICIAL FEDERAL PURPOSES” So its a going to be a real non compliance act not presenting a Real ID for competence only or is it. What was acceptable but now is not?
REAL ID Enforcement: Washington OR. ID. MT. ND MN CA
EXTENSION
Washington has an extension for REAL ID enforcement, allowing Federal agencies to accept driver's licenses and identification cards from Washington at Federal facilities, nuclear power plants and federally regulated commercial aircraft until October 10, 2018.
Secure driver's licenses and identification documents are a vital component of a holistic national security strategy. Law enforcement must be able to rely on government-issued identification documents and know that the bearer of such a document is who he or she claims to be. REAL ID is a coordinated effort by the states and the Federal Government to improve the reliability and accuracy of state-issued identification documents, which should inhibit terrorists’ ability to evade detection by using fraudulent identification. So if u asked your DMV how the my local LEO became a terrorist and how i should inhibit his reliance on such holistic identification when i claim my true name only My competence only being presented and not the bearer of any documented identification State or Federal government-issued or Private .
obligatory REAL ESTATE ID whose competent to Identify Me and my competence Real ID enacted or acted upon.
radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips that can be used to store data and transmit it via radio waves: Sounds like A SIM CARD once enough people are carrying the cards, officials other than border guards may wish to take advantage of the ability to track and identify people at a distance.
"Police will be really tempted to seek the authority to identify people in public spaces. The temptation will be irresistible to use the technology," whats in your wallet never belongs to you or does it but unlike bar codes, a line-of-sight between the tag and reader is not required.
One technology is designed for identity management that must come in close contact with the reader in order to be read. The other, designed for applications like tracking pallets of goods through a warehouse, can be read at a distance.
"The problem is that we're using the pallet technology [for driver's licences]," LEO can track you from a great distance and you're not going to know that they are keeping track of you. just human cargo whats your tracking #
The fact that the cards can be read by anyone with a CARD reader and not just border officials there is little people can do with the identification number that is the only information on the driver's licence chip.
Advanced Card Technologies Association of Canada disagreed, arguing that each identification number is linked to an individual who can be tracked using the number.
"I'll know that it's you," "and everywhere you go, when I find that PIN number, I can use that to further identify who you are, where you live, other things about you."However, the provinces issuing the cards said they are also preventing that kind of tracking by providing a special sleeve of metal mesh called a Faraday cage, which prevents the cards from being read at a distance.the sleeve used in used to protect enhanced driver's licences in the states of Washington and Vermont. Boston-based computer security firm RSA Laboratories, tested the sleeve used by Washington State and found that even while inside the sleeve, an enhanced driver's licence can be read from half a metre away.
United States will start requiring Canadian visitors to show their passports at land and sea border crossings to the U.S. unless they have an enhanced driver's licence. The RFID chip is supposed to make the licence harder to duplicate for use in identity fraud.What is RFID?
RFID is technology which works on radio frequency and it is used for the auto-identification for the different object.
The RFID system mainly consists of two parts.
1) RFID Reader or Interrogator
2) RFID Tags
In this RFID system, this RFID reader continuously sends radio waves of a particular frequency. If the object, on which this RFID tag is attached is within the range of this radio waves then it sends the feedback back to this RFID reader.
And based on this feedback, RFID reader identifies the object.
RFID tags:
Now, three different kinds of RFID tags are commercially available.
1) Passive tags
2) Active tags
3) Semi-passive tags
These passive tags do not have any power supply. They used to get their power from the incoming radio waves from the Readers.
While active tags have a power source for their internal circuitries. And for sending the response to the reader also, it uses its own power supply.
In the case of semi-passive tags, they have a power supply for internal circuitries, but for sending the response it relies on the radio waves received from the Reader.
Operating Frequency:
This RFID system is mainly operated in three frequency bands.
1) LF: Low-Frequency band
2) HF: High-Frequency band
3) UHF: Ultra High-Frequency band
The exact frequency of operation varies from country to country.
Operating Principles:
Most of the RFID systems operate on any of this two principles.
1) Load Modulation
2) Backscattered Modulations
Applications of RFID:
1. Institutions: Library, Hospitals, Schools, and Colleges
2. Transportation and Logistics
3. Access Control
4. Sports
5. Animal Tracking my thats cold
If the ticket isn't in the system or cant be legally docketed until 72hrs have elapsed. Then ones intent should start at the clerks window with two more true names . as at this point identification is who is in the district or who cant be principal . If r4c means 4 cause i am not a DRIVER in your system yet .. I have 3 days to contest keeping it out of the trust or case not yet bonded . Clerk my accuser knows this and wishes me to wait a full 3 business days or the contract will be voided as I have refused his ticket offense offer. This being a old thread identification hasn't been a issue when the case gets bonded mickey mouse can call hiself a rat or DRIVER having been called competent with commercial insurance. The re-venue is court insurance that bond gets sold . Make a case without bond . A waiter hands you a bill for $100.00 meal u had a coffee the waiter has the original bill who puts it into the system .
I am hopefully way off in my terminology and this is essentially a distortion when it comes to trust law. The contract is physical i show at a restaurant bill of exchange and its consumption i show up on a docket a written order to a person requiring the person to make a specified payment to the signatory or to a named payee; a promissory note. . curing appearances and defects on paper is not placing any orders and promissory noted tickets. negotiating instructions and instruments are on the Bill.
If the ticket isn't in the system or cant be legally docketed until 72hrs have elapsed. Then ones intent should start at the clerks window with two more true names . as at this point identification is who is in the district or who cant be principal . If r4c means 4 cause i am not a DRIVER in your system yet .. I have 3 days to contest keeping it out of the trust or case not yet bonded . Clerk my accuser knows this and wishes me to wait a full 3 business days or the contract will be voided as I have refused his ticket offense offer. This being a old thread identification hasn't been a issue when the case gets bonded mickey mouse can call hiself a rat or DRIVER having been called competent with commercial insurance. The re-venue is court insurance that bond gets sold . Make a case without bond . A waiter hands you a bill for $100.00 meal u had a coffee the waiter has the original bill who puts it into the system .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.