If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you would like to post in these forums please send a PM directly to David Merrill.
All transactions on PayPal and elsewhere are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money as found in Section 16 of the Fed Act and at Title 12 USC 411.
Thank you so much for enjoying StSC! If you are getting popups please try clearing your browser cache.
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
Leave a comment:
Guest replied
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.
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.
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.
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'.
It may feel roundabout to get to my point but take a look at the top of Page 2. 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 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.
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.
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.
Leave a comment: