Two traffic stops snubbed.

[Rock Anthony]

My Comprehension of the Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[perk7375]

Sorry for not being clear.

I was talking about the DL.

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

[David Merrill]

Hi Rock;


Maybe somebody can help me out finding something I am sure I saved to disk. Somebody brought up a citation from a state's Revised Statutes that actually said that the driver license was not to be used for identification purposes! Did anybody catch that?

[Axe]

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

Whoa... Thanks David.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like you have definitely kept up your studies.

Become powerful you have. (voice of Yoda)

[Michael Joseph]

Speak the Truth

If one shows up and engages the Court - or "signs in" before entering the court - well there you have it. I have seen many a man who r4c'ed a presentment - only to show up before the judge and say "I just want to ensure my constitutional rights are protected". Well there you go. In one case, the Judge asked the poor fella, well, then when do you want to reschedule the trial?

Who protects a constitutional right? Rights are Property - and the Trustee is with the Legal Title for the Trust Corpus. Therefore to claim Against the Constitution is "Trustee de son Tort". Which will just lead to bigger problems.

by the way: The Court is being held on the side of the Road. The Trustee is conducting a survey - Name, DOB, DL and Registration? Sounds like a survey to me. And that survey goes directly to his districts - Federal Reserve districts. Do you have rights to be there? Or, are you in that overlay at all. It is all up to you. Do you think to usurp the Trustee or the de-jure officer in the Federal Reserve Districts and SPEAK for the NAME.

[David Merrill]

Whoa... Thanks David.

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



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

Sounds like you have definitely kept up your studies.

Become powerful you have. (voice of Yoda)

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

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

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


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Trust Guy]

Me: "Do pleadings perfect jurisdiction?"

All in All - A "Perfect" turn of phrase.

[motla68]

Speak the Truth

If one shows up and engages the Court - or "signs in" before entering the court - well there you have it. I have seen many a man who r4c'ed a presentment - only to show up before the judge and say "I just want to ensure my constitutional rights are protected". Well there you go. In one case, the Judge asked the poor fella, well, then when do you want to reschedule the trial?

Who protects a constitutional right? Rights are Property - and the Trustee is with the Legal Title for the Trust Corpus. Therefore to claim Against the Constitution is "Trustee de son Tort". Which will just lead to bigger problems.

by the way: The Court is being held on the side of the Road. The Trustee is conducting a survey - Name, DOB, DL and Registration? Sounds like a survey to me. And that survey goes directly to his districts - Federal Reserve districts. Do you have rights to be there? Or, are you in that overlay at all. It is all up to you. Do you think to usurp the Trustee or the de-jure officer in the Federal Reserve Districts and SPEAK for the NAME.

Yes, pretty much between the lines to survey: " what kind of benefits can we offer you today "?

" absolutely none today, I waive all of them, but if you need benefits from the trust today, here take these instruments from the dashboard ".

Often will have a puzzled look on their face and waive you on down the road, at best a warning. The real pricks who are often rookies will make a whole scene out of it, checking their computer and holding you there. I usually tell them you had better call your supervisor to the scene, it does not look like you know the limitations to your authority here... [another rookie benefit.] If your real lucky the whole district of police officers will be called to the scene like what happened to me January 2009, big party; I had a good chat with the supervisor and in the end was sent on my way.

[Michael Joseph]

Yes, pretty much between the lines to survey: " what kind of benefits can we offer you today "?

" absolutely none today, I waive all of them, but if you need benefits from the trust today, here take these instruments from the dashboard ".

Often will have a puzzled look on their face and waive you on down the road, at best a warning. The real pricks who are often rookies will make a whole scene out of it, checking their computer and holding you there. I usually tell them you had better call your supervisor to the scene, it does not look like you know the limitations to your authority here... [another rookie benefit.] If your real lucky the whole district of police officers will be called to the scene like what happened to me January 2009, big party; I had a good chat with the supervisor and in the end was sent on my way.

Right on. Trust Law 101. Just learn the parameters.

Leave all of the codes/statutes/ and other such stuff to the those who are bound by it.

Specifically I say it is wise to learn the codes to keep the servant with his/her survey, but those codes/statutes do not apply to me.

To the offficer with a gun: "How, sir may I benefit you today?"

To the attorner - "I have no trust in you".

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

It just dawned on me what you just did. You are not accepting service "as benefit" from Officer. However, as Envoy for Owner - WITHOUT the Trust [survey] - you offer up to the Trustee - a benefit from the Trust. It is a way of saying - I am without this survey.

I am Envoy for Owner. Owner is Registered Owner or cestui que trust and I will not commit Trustee de son Tort.

Very Good.

[motla68]

Right on. Trust Law 101. Just learn the parameters.

Leave all of the codes/statutes/ and other such stuff to the those who are bound by it.

Specifically I say it is wise to learn the codes to keep the servant with his/her survey, but those codes/statutes do not apply to me.

To the offficer with a gun: "How, sir may I benefit you today?"

To the attorner - "I have no trust in you".

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

It just dawned on me what you just did. You are not accepting service "as benefit" from Officer. However, as Envoy for Owner - WITHOUT the Trust [survey] - you offer up to the Trustee - a benefit from the Trust. It is a way of saying - I am without this survey.

I am Envoy for Owner. Owner is Registered Owner or cestui que trust and I will not commit Trustee de son Tort.

Very Good.

Good thinking, a long time ago I explained this to you, but back then it kind of went whoosh, right over your head because you were still attaching yourself to that trust at the time thinking you were enslaved by the COLB like the other patriots do out there, manifesting something that does not exist listening to all the garbage that is on the Internet. It is a joy to see them light bulbs turning on these days.

[Michael Joseph]

Good thinking, a long time ago I explained this to you, but back then it kind of went whoosh, right over your head because you were still attaching yourself to that trust at the time thinking you were enslaved by the COLB like the other patriots do out there, manifesting something that does not exist listening to all the garbage that is on the Internet. It is a joy to see them light bulbs turning on these days.

I can appreciate that. Thing is I cannot approve you, nor you me.

Plus one thing about me is that I cannot receive what I am not prepared to receive. Study to show Thyself approved.

I add that I now see the BC or COLB is not some kind of money it is a Trust Receipt. Yet i am not trustee or beneficiary; and yet my signature is required for the State Trustees to be about their business.

to the gainsayer answer me this: What is money within a Trust? Then, answer me this, is money intangible property? I ask in Rhetorical style. Money is Property of the State!

What you now gonna usurp the trustees on the Notes? Great then pay the bills.

[ellecdavis]

Legal Documents and Signatures

It was worth a look.


I was born in Colorado. So I think that must go on the theory and some limited definitions about the territorial US being limited to the District?

That's the tricky thing about definitions of the United States - even according to the Supreme Court there are three. So what you might do is explore around that section of code and see if you can bring us the applicable definition for the US?

The method of identification I describe can be found in law. Abatement for misnomer, or prolonging arraignment (pleading) until the prosecution gets nervous enough to dismiss. A Refusal for Cause would only be based on your God-given unalienable rights and if you identify yourself with the legal name, you show prima facie evidence you have accepted the fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME on the card. If you identify yourself properly the officer will not likely proceed against a different name than that of the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.

It is possible for the court to proceed against the man in his true name. I have not heard of it happening though. As for my persecution about the $20M lien, the officer lied on the Affidavit of Probable Cause so it could never get to trial, because the only alleged witness committed perjury about how I identified myself.

The way I remember it:

JACOBSEN: What is your name?
David Merrill: David Merrill.
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: (Silence.)
JACOBSEN: What is your last name?
David Merrill: Nobody can be compelled to incriminate himself.

The perjury there is that JACOBSEN said I would not tell him who I was. I am David Merrill and I told him my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

After reading this post, it made me wonder if it would apply with signatures as well. When issued a traffic ticket or a legal plea agreement, should one sign as their true name and not their legal name? For example, if I am issued a traffic ticket and the officer uses my legal name and I sign the ticket with my true name, when it comes time to R4C the ticket or if I even have to show up for a court appearance, will it make a differnce? Since I identified myself in writing with my true name and not my legal name, does this prove I have not accepted the "fiduciary responsibility for the charges against the FULL or LEGAL NAME" concerning the charge? I hope this makes sense. This is all very new to me.

Thank you,
Michelle Colmon

[David Merrill]

That is best accomplished by signing the Driver License with your true name only. Specify:

I am not showing you this card for identification purposes, my name as you see is Michelle Colmon there on my signature. I am only showing you the card for competency purposes; so that you understand I have passed the testing and have a valid insurance policy on this motor vehicle.

We have several reports of the officer returning from his vehicle after ten minutes of communications only to return the Driver License card with a brief verbal warning. One report, the officer returned asking what name the driver wanted on the summons; he mistakenly said, You do whatever your job requires. That acknowledged to the officer that the driver wanted the presentment at all. He would better have replied, I do not want you to write a citation.

I do not remember if that driver Refused for Cause.

[motla68]

I can appreciate that. Thing is I cannot approve you, nor you me.

Plus one thing about me is that I cannot receive what I am not prepared to receive. Study to show Thyself approved.

I add that I now see the BC or COLB is not some kind of money it is a Trust Receipt. Yet i am not trustee or beneficiary; and yet my signature is required for the State Trustees to be about their business.

to the gainsayer answer me this: What is money within a Trust? Then, answer me this, is money intangible property? I ask in Rhetorical style. Money is Property of the State!

What you now gonna usurp the trustees on the Notes? Great then pay the bills.

Lets investigate that Trust Receipt a little further though for the benefit of all in this forum.

- A holder of a receipt is usually known as the owner, but owner of what?

- A receipt is also known as a security, but what is it securing?

- The FRNS say on them " Faith and Credit for all debts Public and Private, The authenticated Certificate of Live Birth has the same kind of language:


Could this possibly just mean that this is the acknowledgement that a man born on such a date is one of the owners of the estate ( gift given from God - the earth ) and all charges are to be setoff with a security held in trust, and such trust receipt is proof of where said trust is setup at?
The Gutenburg deposited into trust via incun, is also acknowledgement of this gift given to man.

What does your insight tell you about this?

[Michael Joseph]

Lets investigate that Trust Receipt a little further though for the benefit of all in this forum.

- A holder of a receipt is usually known as the owner, but owner of what?

- A receipt is also known as a security, but what is it securing?

- The FRNS say on them " Faith and Credit for all debts Public and Private, The authenticated Certificate of Live Birth has the same kind of language:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]460[/ATTACH]

Could this possibly just mean that this is the acknowledgement that a man born on such a date is one of the owners of the estate ( gift given from God - the earth ) and all charges are to be setoff with a security held in trust, and such trust receipt is proof of where said trust is setup at?
The Gutenburg deposited into trust via incun, is also acknowledgement of this gift given to man.

What does your insight tell you about this?

My insight tells me that this has NOTHING to do with money. This is Trust Law.

My concerns that have yet to be satisfied are: 1. Am I in fact beneficiary in the estate?

Chisholm v. Georgia the opinions produced the following:

“To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”; and,

MJ's comment: These were the Settlors


“No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”; and,

The sovereigns without subjects are the Settlors; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and are joint tenants in the sovereignty. This begs the question of what is a tenant in common?

16. Tenants in common, are such as hold by several and distinct titles, but by unity of possession. 2 Bl. Com. 161. See Estate in common; 7 Cruise, Dig. Ind. tit. Tenancy in Common; Bac. Abr. Joint-Tenants and Tenants in Common; Com. Dig. Abatement, E 10, F 6; Chancery, 3 V 4 Devise, N 8; Estates, K 8, K 2 Supp. to Ves. jr. vol. 1, 272, 315; 1 Vern. It. 353; Arch. Civ. Pl. 53, 73.

17. Tenants in common may have title as such to real or personal property; they may be tenants of a house, land, a horse, a ship, and the like.

18. Tenants in common are bound to account to each other; but they are bound to account only for the value of the property as it was when they entered, and not for any improvement or labor they put upon it, at their separate expense. 1 McMull. R. 298. Vide Estates in common; and 4 Kent, Com. 363. Joint tenants, are such as hold lands or tenements by joint tenancy. See Estate in joint tenany; 7 Cruise, Dig. Ind. tit. Joint Tenancy; Bac. Abr. Joint Tenants and Tenants in Common; Com. Dig. Estates, K 1; Chancery, 3 V 1; Devise, N 7, N 8; 2 Saund. Ind. Joint Tenants; Preston on Estates, 2 Bl. Com. 179.

Now, this begs the question as to why my signature is required, IF all Rights, Titles and Interest [Property] is already in the United States held in Trust by the Military as Trustee. Is my signature a requirement upon the Trustee to perform the duties of State? If so, what is the consideration for my signature? Is not the consideration either one of the following two options:

1) HJR 192 - discharge of all debts; or,
2) Benefit of running a Federal Reserve Bank

But consider the former does not require money to be in circulation - the latter does. In the former, there must be an operation, black box, in nature that allows the User to issue upon the Trustee demand orders.

Then the BC or COLB is not a Trust Certificate, it is an event registered on a trust asset registry as Owner or Registered Owner in the Estate. Now the question begging to be answered is this a Beneficiary directed Trust? If so, then the beneficiaries have been mighty complacent. Asleep might be a better word. And the Trustee is doing what needs to be done to keep the Trust going - as any Trustee would be compelled to do.

This discussion is in the Wrong Thread. I suggest we move this conversation to another thread within Trusts section.

shalom,
mj

P.S. btw, money is a Trust Certificate. As its value is not known until said money is used.

If i, as beneficiary of a Trust, hold a Trust Certificate, said Trust Certificate indicates the percentage of interest that I have in the Trust Corpus. But the VALUE of the TC cannot be known until the Trust Corpus is exchanged for value with another. Therefore, the TC has no value until the value can be determined on exchange or sale.

Therefore, who or what determines the value of the TC?
Answer: Market places value.

Can a Trust Certificate held in the Trust Corpus be taxed?
Answer: No.

Why can't a TC be taxed?
Answer: Because its value is not known until the Trust Property has been exchanged or sold.