Consent to Service of Process

[Keith Alan]

[Anthony Joseph]

Ask a question of the man in the uniform when he/she demands a DL or anything else from you, "Is that an order?" If he/she says no, "I'll be on my way then, have a nice day." If he/she says yes, "I'll be happy to fill your order, i must inform you however, that i will send a bill for that order."

If you were ordered to do something by another man, then be compensated accordingly for it.

I was not operating under the license at that time, who will come forward and testify under oath that i was.

"Why do have a tag on your car and DL then?" this is supposed evidence of operating under contract.

Let me ask you this...

Do you use the windshield wipers every time you move your car?

Do you remove the headlights from the car in the day time and put them back on at night?

A tool can be used whenever you deem it necessary. Think about it.

[Keith Alan]

My thinking is that if done properly, being stopped in traffic would turn out just fine. If I were to be issued a summons I could forward it to the Secretary of State or Governor.

Now if my car happened to be paid for with lawful money, no duty to register it would exist either. The state's claim on it would be voidable.

[Anthony Joseph]

Will anyone verify in open court that he/she/it has a vested interest in your property (car) regardless of registration or what type of "money" was used to "pay" for it? Has anyone heard any verifiable testimony from anyone of such a claim? Has "the state" ever notified anyone of its vested interest in your car? Or, do we actually have evidence of letters sent that deny any such thing?

If someone hands you a summons (ticket), consider it a present and give it back. Find out immediately who is prosecuting a case against you and notify him/her that you believe the summons was issued in error. Offer to settle the matter by requiring to speak with the injured party.

I don't know Mr. or Mrs. STATE OF XXXXX, i don't believe we ever met. If you choose to pursue this case, i will require the accuser ['Plaintiff'] appear and verify the claim against me on the record in open court. Is this not a common law land? Do i not have a right to face and question my accuser?

Form and keep the record of your good faith effort to settle out of court on the private side. Notify the prosecutor that you will file a claim against him/her for trespass [barratry] if he/she pursues the case and does not produce the 'Plaintiff' to verify the claim in open court.

[Keith Alan]

Will anyone verify in open court that he/she/it has a vested interest in your property (car) regardless of registration or what type of "money" was used to "pay" for it? Has anyone heard any verifiable testimony from anyone of such a claim? Has "the state" ever notified anyone of its vested interest in your car? Or, do we actually have evidence of letters sent that deny any such thing?

If someone hands you a summons (ticket), consider it a present and give it back. Find out immediately who is prosecuting a case against you and notify him/her that you believe the summons was issued in error. Offer to settle the matter by requiring to speak with the injured party.

I don't know Mr. or Mrs. STATE OF XXXXX, i don't believe we ever met. If you choose to pursue this case, i will require the accuser ['Plaintiff'] appear and verify the claim against me on the record in open court. Is this not a common law land? Do i not have a right to face and question my accuser?

Form and keep the record of your good faith effort to settle out of court on the private side. Notify the prosecutor that you will file a claim against him/her for trespass [barratry] if he/she pursues the case and does not produce the 'Plaintiff' to verify the claim in open court.

I'm not interested in fighting with these people. I'm finding in the state's own code how to resign from any agencies I might be party to. If I resign as agent, then I return to being an inhabitant, and no longer would be a resident.

If I'm subsequently stopped, my expectation would be to simply refer the officer to the person authorized to accept the services being offered.

[David Merrill]

This might be interesting.

Going around without plates limits you. Even if you get your point across you cannot drive to other cities and enjoy your immunity.

My suggestion is to avoid the ownership (property) tax on the vehicle as evidence you own it outright. Then if you get any citations utilize your posture as outside the Federal Reserve Districts to establish a proper court setting. They will always dismiss, usually for no witness, meaning that the officer will not be at arraignment and other preparatory hearings. Then again if they set up a proper court for your constitutional style of administration of justice; proper oaths and procedures you will be responsible for restoring our intended justice system to America, or at least educating the local administrators of the process they are doing by rote.

[Keith Alan]

Yeah plates can be a problem:

17459.**The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.(Amended by Stats. 1971, Ch. 622.)**

But it occurs to me, that the certificate of ownership and registration should be held by the Secretary of State.

Edit -- Maybe they'll let me have an exempt plate. Hahaha

[ag maniac]

From another forum -- February 2013

[Keith Alan]

**CORPORATIONS CODE - CORP

TITLE 3. UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS [18000 - 24001.5]

**( Title 3 enacted by Stats. 1947, Ch. 1038. )

PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS [18000 - 18420]

**( Part 1 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 178, Sec. 10. )18200. *(a)*An agent designated by an unincorporated association for the service of process may file with the Secretary of State a signed and acknowledged written statement of resignation as agent of the unincorporated association. The resignation is effective when filed. The Secretary of State shall mail written notice of the filing to the unincorporated association at its address set out in the statement filed by the association.(b)*An unincorporated association may at any time file with the Secretary of State a revocation of a designation of an agent for service of process. The revocation is effective when filed.(c)*Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), service made on an agent designated by an unincorporated association for service of process in the manner provided in subdivision (e) of Section 18200 is effective if made within 30 days after the statement of resignation or the revocation is filed with the Secretary of State.**

So between returning the the driver's license, certificate of title, and registration, all that remains is to resign or revoke the agency for the unincorporated association, which my guess is the THE NAME.

I don't know how to prove it though.

[Anthony Joseph]

I'm not interested in fighting with these people. I'm finding in the state's own code how to resign from any agencies I might be party to. If I resign as agent, then I return to being an inhabitant, and no longer would be a resident.

If I'm subsequently stopped, my expectation would be to simply refer the officer to the person authorized to accept the services being offered.

Which part do you consider "fighting with these people" from what i wrote?

If you try to decipher codes which you did not create or write, you will be deemed competent in the code (legal) world; and, you will be liable for "violating" said codes.

How many statutes and codes are "out there" now? Tens of thousands; maybe more?

I do not wish to know or learn them, since that effort is futile anyway; but, more importantly, i do not believe said statutes/codes have anything to do with i; a man. Who will make a verifiable claim that i; a man, am subject to said statutes/codes?

If you believe a contract you entered into now does you more harm than good, simply present a notice of rescission - "short and sweet". Always stay in honor; and, offer to make whole any man you do wrong or harm to the best of your ability.

A man has no obligation to a 2-dimensional entity; a mistake can be corrected at any time.

[Keith Alan]

@Anthony Joseph

Anthony, my thinking is that the entities in place are as you say, fictional, but directed by flesh and blood people. Some of them have taken oaths and made bonds to perform certain obligations in the offices they represent. Others are simply members of various social organizations.

The entities created are tools people use in order to accomplish certain goals and purposes in society.

Lately I've been focusing on birth certificates, because I believe the organization NAMED thereon is one of those fictional legal entities, established ostensibly for my benefit.

I've investigated extensively the commercial process you were describing, and to me, it seems premature to begin seeking private remedy for public error. I think it should be the last course of action taken, after all other avenues have been explored and exhausted.

THE NAME is a public organization, and it should be possible to turn it off or have it redirected to better serve the public. Even though I'm not the one who created it, it does exist in law for my benefit and society's.

However, I've been playing trustee/agent, and consenting to service of process, out of ignorance. If I begin acting in the private, without first clearly defining the line between public and private, I can hardly blame public servants for overstepping their authority.

I also realize that I don't have a legal obligation to train these people in their jobs, since I'm not the one who created this situation. But I also realize - by way of analogy - that I have no obligation to use an umbrella when it rains.

It seems better to seek peace with these people, and use the processes already in place, before going to battle in court.

[Anthony Joseph]

If someone serves you, it is someone else wanting to battle you in court, no? What i suggest is to attempt to settle the matter on the private side before court with the moving party who serves you; that is what man does, try to work it out privately before bringing into a public forum. If the server of process will not deal with you privately, what then?

A public meeting in court is what follows when a private settlement is not made. Do you not believe you have a right to face your accuser? Do you not believe you have a right to move your court according to your rules if you believe someone is moving a false claim against you? Without an appearance by the accuser to verify what is claimed against you, there is no case.

The process i am describing is not commercial; it is moving, holding and keeping one's court of record at common law as an inherent right of man.

Why do you believe that is either commercial or "fighting with these people"? If anything, it is you trying to avoid a fight.

[Keith Alan]

If someone serves you, it is someone else wanting to battle you in court, no? What i suggest is to attempt to settle the matter on the private side before court with the moving party who serves you; that is what man does, try to work it out privately before bringing into a public forum. If the server of process will not deal with you privately, what then?

A public meeting in court is what follows when a private settlement is not made. Do you not believe you have a right to face your accuser? Do you not believe you have a right to move your court according to your rules if you believe someone is moving a false claim against you? Without an appearance by the accuser to verify what is claimed against you, there is no case.

The process i am describing is not commercial; it is moving, holding and keeping one's court of record at common law as an inherent right of man.

Why do you believe that is either commercial or "fighting with these people"? If anything, it is you trying to avoid a fight.

I think it is commercial because there are commercial presentments being made and responded to. It's fighting because court begins upon the presentment being made, and court is where civilized battles are fought.

The person being presented has some options: accept, refuse, counter, acquiesce. But no matter what, he is being made to respond.

In the case of a law enforcement officer making a presentment, a man is forced to respond. There is a fight being made against him.

Now let me say I agree with you that attempting to deal with these presentments in the way you suggest is reasonable. But it's not for me. Even when demanding lawful money, a person receives commercial presentments in the form of banking credit or Federal reserve notes. When he makes his demand for lawful money, he's making a counter offer that the issuing authority must accept according to the statutes.

I've received agencies from various governments, but I have the ability to counter offer according to the statutes that the issuing authorities must accept.

[Freed Gerdes]

Interesting session you guys have going on. I agree with AJ that when someone serves process on you, they are offering to fight. Keith, you are correct that you can fight back, concede, or abandon your position. AJ is just making a counter-offer to select the weapons (which under code duello, was always in honor - you challenge, I get to select the weapons). The state of NC says common law is valid in the state; I suspect most states have a statute admitting that. So AJ is just invoking his best weapon of common law, under which the SC has already ruled in Rodriguez v Ray Donovan (1985) that: "all codes, rules, and regulations are for federal officers and employees only, and not for natural humans/Creators; they lack Constitutional protections and due process, and raise serious questions about separation of powers." So AJ's position is that he obeys common law, and thus Lex Mercatoria does not apply to him, whether he has filed any documents to that effect or not. This position already incorporates the argument under UCC 1-308 that 'I have not knowingly and voluntarily surrendered any of my Constitutional rights.' And I agree that one should always attempt to settle disagreements man to man in private, rather than take the squabble into the public forum, so let me fix your prior comment: "and court is the last place

[Michael Joseph]

Years ago I wrote the JAG and demanded that they perform their duty under military rule to squash the attempt of a private association [BAR] attempting to wage war upon an ignorant people by and thru the United States Post Office. A lawsuit is a Declaration of War. There is no other way to look at it. But it is war waged in a virtual space - not with bullets but with Estates.

And as long as the Grantor is alive anything he does is considered to be a part of his or her estate. Again years ago a huge law firm 2500 + lawyers tried to get service upon my person - but that of course would require me to identify me. I have written exhaustively concerning identity but few seem to get it. I am the only one who can identify me and in fact - I really can't identify me because I am not sure each morning if I am actually me. If you just stop for a moment and think - throw out all the crap you THINK you know and just meditate on that issue and you hopefully will begin to see.

There is no way for me to identify you - absolutely zero way. However, I can identify your fruits - which will tell me where your trust lies - which tells me which Kingdom you serve. 'And ye shall know them by their fruits'.....'Faith absent deeds is dead'....

Getting service upon one who is wise is impossible. I just love to watch the faces turn beat red when some angry marshall yells but I know who you are - my simple response - "prove it". Roflmao.

Consider these words carefully: Meditate on them and you will hopefully begin to see:

Luk 11:53 And as He was saying these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urgently press upon Him, and to provoke Him to speak of many things:

Luk 11:54 Watching Him, and seeking to catch something out of His mouth, that they might accuse him.

====

Psa_49:10 For it must be seen that wise men die, Likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, They leave their wealth to others.

Pro_18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, And his mouth calleth for strokes.

Pro_18:7 A fool's mouth is his destruction, And his lips are the snare of his soul.

Shalom,
MJ