Two traffic stops snubbed.

[David Merrill]

I agree that even appearing to decline to plea would be interpreted as Registration of Appearance pro se. Not letting the judge do his job is the same as threatening his career. It is uncomfortable to let him cross the prosecutor, who is there in his courtroom with literally every case he hears.

One thing that I note too about BY's recollection of the transcript. He claims that he remembers it exactly, maybe he even recorded it to transcribe?

I believe if it is accurate that it is very important.

Do you see how he asked the judge if he could move the court for a dismissal but never actually did so? The judge granted him permission to move the court and waited for BY to do so. The judge got silence and after waiting a while, the judge dismissed the case suae sponte.

BY understands the concept about any appearance will perfect jurisdiction not to be caught on the record moving the court. That would be Registration of Appearance and suddenly things would go typically where the judge just railroads the Defendant through the revenue mill.

[Michael Joseph]

I agree that even appearing to decline to plea would be interpreted as Registration of Appearance pro se. Not letting the judge do his job is the same as threatening his career. It is uncomfortable to let him cross the prosecutor, who is there in his courtroom with literally every case he hears.

One thing that I note too about BY's recollection of the transcript. He claims that he remembers it exactly, maybe he even recorded it to transcribe?

I believe if it is accurate that it is very important.

Do you see how he asked the judge if he could move the court for a dismissal but never actually did so? The judge granted him permission to move the court and waited for BY to do so. The judge got silence and after waiting a while, the judge dismissed the case suae sponte.

BY understands the concept about any appearance will perfect jurisdiction not to be caught on the record moving the court. That would be Registration of Appearance and suddenly things would go typically where the judge just railroads the Defendant through the revenue mill.

"the more i fought, the more powerful he became....so what do we do - Nothing.....it's his board now, the only way to win is not to play" - Tron Legacy

[Shuftin]

Any Appearance ..... perfects Jurisdiction

that means...

physical appearance

a mail in Plea

filing a Motion, other than a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

hiring an Attorney

Close but Go/NoGo [military term]. Yes, an appearance can be a physical appearance. But then again, an appearance can also be paperwork [once filed]. Either/or can be construed as being an "Appearance." An appearance alone does not, has not, and will never "Perfect Jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction is gained purely by "Process." Jurisdiction is never ever GAINED solely by an "Appearance."

NOTE: there is a "Special Appearance" before the Court and also there is an "At Arms Length" appearance before the Court. Neither of which gives the Court jurisdiction.

A Courts jurisdiction MUST be stated (Clearly) in the paperwork [Process].

i.e. "This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because 'Blah blah blah'."

Start reading some Supreme Court cases or if nothing else, some Appellant cases. The first few paragraphs should suffice.

Jurisdiction is gained always by "Process," never by "Appearance."

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Close but Go/NoGo [military term]. Yes, an appearance can be a physical appearance. But then again, an appearance can also be paperwork [once filed]. Either/or can be construed as being an "Appearance." An appearance alone does not, has not, and will never "Perfect Jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction is gained purely by "Process." Jurisdiction is never ever GAINED solely by an "Appearance."

NOTE: there is a "Special Appearance" before the Court and also there is an "At Arms Length" appearance before the Court. Neither of which gives the Court jurisdiction.

A Courts jurisdiction MUST be stated (Clearly) in the paperwork [Process].

i.e. "This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because 'Blah blah blah'."

Start reading some Supreme Court cases or if nothing else, some Appellant cases. The first few paragraphs should suffice.

Jurisdiction is gained always by "Process," never by "Appearance."

see here ....

Quote =

Any Appearance ..... perfects Jurisdiction

that means...

physical appearance

a mail in Plea

filing a Motion, other than a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

hiring an Attorney

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now ....

go back to the NY definition of " Appearance Ticket " posted a bit back, we were discussing a traffic issue, where the Process starts with an Appearance Ticket

>>by Appearing, You are giving the Court Jurisdiction due to acquiescing to the " Simplified Traffic Information " filed by Offiucer Friendly

now, if You do not appear, the Court is not able to acquire Jurisdiction, because there is no Process ...

PS...

New York abolished " Special Apperance " some years ago

PSS

there is no such thing as an " at arms length " appearance in New York

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

"the more i fought, the more powerful he became....so what do we do - Nothing.....it's his board now, the only way to win is not to play" - Tron Legacy

in a NY traffic Case, this is essentially correct

they cannot issue a Warrant of Arrest for FTA, because there has been no Summons, no Process

of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL

[Shuftin]

in a NY traffic Case, this is essentially correct

they cannot issue a Warrant of Arrest for FTA, because there has been no Summons, no Process

of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL

If it isn't in writing [process] i.e. wet ink, then it never happened. Spoken words tend to dissipate, vanish, and disappear in the brisk breezy breeze of Legalese BS.

Let's join heads just for a moment. Can a NY judge "Suspend ones Driver's License" because??? Well, just because??? Well??? Um??? Because!!! Umm, umm, well, because!!! Jeeze, well, um, just because!!!

A police officer need not even be involved at all. A judge can play the children's game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. Blind-fold the judge, spin him around three times. Then point the judge in the general direction of a chart, chock full of citizen's Driver's License's numbers. Ask the judge to pin the donkeys tail to one of Driver's License's numbers.

Driver's License suspended. Why??? Well, umm. "Just Because."

You get my drift SL.

You also understand my stance on defense. Or do you? Here I see red meat ready for devouring.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

4-a. Suspension for failure to answer an appearance ticket or to pay a
fine. (a) Upon receipt of a court notification of the failure of a
person to appear within sixty days of the return date or new subsequent
adjourned date, pursuant to an appearance ticket charging said person
with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter (except one
for parking, stopping, or standing), of any violation of the tax law or
of the transportation law regulating traffic or of any lawful ordinance
or regulation made by a local or public authority, relating to traffic
(except one for parking, stopping, or standing) or the failure to pay a
fine imposed by a court the commissioner or his or her agent may suspend
the driver's license or privileges of such person pending receipt of
notice from the court that such person has appeared in response to such
appearance ticket or has paid such fine. Such suspension shall take
effect no less than thirty days from the day upon which notice thereof
is sent by the commissioner to the person whose driver's license or
privileges are to be suspended. Any suspension issued pursuant to this
paragraph shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (j-l) of
subdivision two of section five hundred three of this chapter.

[Michael Joseph]

in a NY traffic Case, this is essentially correct

they cannot issue a Warrant of Arrest for FTA, because there has been no Summons, no Process

of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL

The DL is property of the State. State as Grantor and poor ignorant soul, as Trustee for LEGAL DUMMY.

In the end just as Bob Dylan sang "you got to serve somebody, and it may be the Devil [world] or it may be the Lord [Yehovah] but you are gonna have to serve somebody."

----------------

Therefore "your DL" is somewhat of a misnomer. Said DL is being Held in Possession by a Trustee. Therefore said DL is Never mine only it is a Grant of Privilege.


But you already know these things.

Shalom,
mj

[David Merrill]

It is easier to understand as a bond worth about $250. The state presumes that you, the enemy of the bank since 1933, are a criminal for even having that Department of Revenue license. [You hoarder of gold, you!] It keeps you free by a supersedeas bond forming an ongoing appeal that keeps you from being remanded to the barred jail.

One patriotic fellow with his head in 1995 as far as I am concerned brought that to light for me. He challenged jurisdiction and got a letter saying there was a warrant out for his arrest. He went downtown and sure enough was handcuffed so he called for somebody to pay $250 bail bond. [By check only btw. They know about Redeeming Lawful Money around here. If I had been there at the time I would have had the account-holder strike through the Pay to the Order of:] Then they let him go back to the jail without bars.

[Jmi52]

so the LEO thought he had gotten a sucker...until I pulled out my copy of the law and began reading that to him. From that point on, he took a more cautious approach. But still insisted on issuing me a ticket, which I gladly took as he might just as easily have impounded my property for no tags and no driver license. I knew I could defeat him in court, that's why I was pleased to only receive the ticket.

Would you mind telling me from what source you were able to copy this law? I would like to print this for my own records

[AllanNR]

check out my post in the DL not presented as ID thread for my account of putting this successfully into action. THANK YOU David you are truly a servant of the Most High.

Yaweh Elohim baruch David Merrill.

[pumpkin]

"of course, what the Judge does... is to suspend Your DL"

It seems without jurisdiction he can do no judicial act whatsoever.

[Michael Joseph]

The DL is property of the State. State as Grantor and poor ignorant soul, as Trustee for LEGAL DUMMY.

In the end just as Bob Dylan sang "you got to serve somebody, and it may be the Devil [world] or it may be the Lord [Yehovah] but you are gonna have to serve somebody."

----------------

Therefore "your DL" is somewhat of a misnomer. Said DL is being Held in Possession by a Trustee. Therefore said DL is Never mine only it is a Grant of Privilege.


But you already know these things.

Shalom,
mj

I have to revise this post in light of more recent comprehension of the term UNDERTAKING. The Statute creates the liability and thus the consideration for contract to the Public Trust. Therefore in application for license one Undertakes FBO himself of whom he/she is a member of the Public Trust. Therefore one Undertakes in quasi-contract.

Immediately the mind will say but where is the value? Or, where is the consideration? The value is keeping the peace for yourself and others in society.

So in fact, I think I am wrong to say the holder of license is trustee. Rather, license holder undertakes in contract. Therefore if license holder does not obey the bylaws which govern the license, then those who have the power to administrate said license may decide to revoke the license. In effect, one who does not keep the bylaws [obey] does not keep one's word, thus the Tort is against the Trustee who issued the license.

"Those who, though not appointed trustees, take on themselves to act as such and to possess and administer trust property for the beneficiaries, such as trustees de son tort. Distinguishing features ... are (a) they do not claim to act in their own right but for the beneficiaries, and (b) their assumption to act is not of itself a ground of liability ... and still there is status as trustees precedes the occurrence which may be the subject of claim against them."

" To be liable as trustees de son tort, strangers to the trust must commit a breach of trust while acting as trustees. Such persons are not appointed trustees but take on themselves to act as such and to possess and administer trust property."

In a sense, once the licensee disobeys the bylaws which govern said license, then he/she should immediately make the livery of the legal title to said license to the de-jure trustee OR he/she should discharge any charge which issues upon said licensee.

A constructive trust does not arise because of the expressed intent of a settlor/creator, one who establishes a trust. It is created by a court whenever title to property is held by a person who, in fairness, should not be permitted to retain it. It is frequently based on disloyalty or other breach of trust by an express trustee (the person appointed or required by law to execute a trust), and it is also created where no express trust is created but property is obtained or retained by other Unconscionable conduct. The court employs the constructive trust as a remedial device to compel the defendant to convey title to the property to the plaintiff. It treats the defendant as if he or she had been an express trustee from the date of the unlawful holding of the property in question. A constructive trust is not a trust, in the true meaning of the word, in which the trustee is to have duties of administration enduring for a substantial period of time, but rather it is a passive, temporary arrangement, in which the trustee's sole duty is to transfer the title and possession to the beneficiary.

[xparte]

I would have had the account-holder strike through the Pay to the Order of:] Then they let him go back to the jail without bars.to the Order following orders taking orders fullfiling orders filing orders excectuive orders defying orders.account-holders zero the balance cancel thar order. Everyone brings a cheque to balance in a trust situation.

[xparte]

We also made another observation regarding citations - that many of them seem to include an error! For what purpose, do you imagine? Appearing for the NAME all tickets Surname FIRST MIDDLE or SURNAME FIRST MIDDLE or SURNAME First Middle.a upper lower case Name is a common law Name lawful as witnessed.U showing up is why it corrects that mistake the legally dead you are claiming that body NAMED on the ticket a warrant for a dead guy hardly .90000 DL# is my account if a bill shows up its for the dead in law to pay Graveyards are full of NAMES accounts Estates the living fight probate daily because blood from a stone means nobody is going home BC DC between certificates birth & death be your own coroner R4C is information on missing facts evidence or evident a re venue in the works Style the Name/case sensitive or correct the Name case filed according to jurisdiction upper lower case vs basket case all upper case .If CONN EDISON Bills a dead hydro account and it gets paid the power remains on its the accounting service not the NAME who pays.If disconnected or service gets suspended its only till 0 balance same as DL suspension till tickets payed up .ORDERS and bills.Do you sit in the dark or burn candles do you need a generator to claim power if hydro suspends there power u dont steal it if DMV suspends there licenced driver stop driving commercially and accepting bills try dead guys dont drive .com for more safe traveling tips true name is true game.