Consent to Service of Process

[froze25]

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."

This is great, if its real. Does anyone have a link to the source so we can verify it and get a certified copy of it and file it into our evidence repository?

[Anthony Joseph]

This is great, if its real. Does anyone have a link to the source so we can verify it and get a certified copy of it and file it into our evidence repository?

I would not rely on any opinion of the Supreme Court (or any court) or on case law. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned at any moment; if your claim relies upon it, then it falls apart. All case law is for attorneys who cannot move claims as men so they require case law as precedent and then pray to the court that it allows them to use it as support for the complaint they bring before it.

A man prays to no court; a man does not require opinions of others to move a claim; a man does not rely on other cases/instances to verify what he claims to be true.

If you wish to use any opinion, case law, code, statute or other supporting information, use it as an exhibit only, NOT as a part of your claim, as a comparison for others benefit [cf. 'saving to suitors' clause 1789] in four corner brackets on your document. If it doesn't help you, who cares - it's just an exhibit.

You cannot verify any SC ruling because you did not rule on it; only the one who ruled can verify it. A certified copy means nothing unless the creator or writer of the document/law/code/statute/etc. comes forth and verifies it on and for the record.

[Keith Alan]

http://openjurist.org/769/f2d/1344/r...-j-donovan#fn3 x

I haven't read it, but this might be it.

[Freed Gerdes]

I collect a lot of what I perceive might be useful quotes in my reading, but you have challenged this one and I will have to do some more research to confirm its validity.
Here's one cite for you at this link: Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). This is actually a Word doc of an affidavit filed in Middle Pennsylvania District Court by one Denny Ray Hardin. I don't know Denny, but he presents a pretty strong case, with a number of supporting cites, among which is this exact quote from Rodriguez v Donovan. Denny (and I) may be somewhat misinformed, however, as Leagle.com (at this link: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19852113769F2d1344_11903) cites the case as having been heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the quote. The link Keith provided contains text identical to the text in the Leagle.com site (no doubt the sanitized version). Thus until I find the complete record and confirm that the court actually stated the subject quote, I will have to withdraw it. Although it is possible, as the case is about when courts have jurisdiction over agency rules, and Rodriguez' claim was that he was denied due process.

Blacks Law Dictionary states that codes are compilations of statutes, rules are guidelines for federal agents to interpret codes, and regulations are additional guidelines promulgated by agencies to guide how the statute will be implemented, and do not have the force of law. The Magna Carta made one major demand on the king: that he could not promulgate any statutes that were counter to common law. That principle still stands, although the federal government is trying to reverse the priority through their concept of 'public policy.' Public policy is shorthand for using democracy as an excuse for tyranny. AJ is right that SC rulings can be reversed, although that process moves slowly, and past SC rulings are an excellent guide to legal principles. Since 1933 the courts have been turning to the political left, trying to weaken common law. Many statutes are now based on Lex Mercatoria, bankers law, based on contracts. Since most of federal law violates the Constitution, it is clearly intended to apply only to US citizens, those bonded to the federal government by security agreements predicated on the liens arising from the use of Federal Reserve debt instruments (FRN's). These are not valid debt instruments, since they do not carry a promise to pay, but they circulate like non-endorsed (bearer instruments) bills of exchange. Since the creation of a lien (secondary liability claim) is concurrent with endorsing (the endorser guarantees payment in case the maker dishonors the bill), the actual bonding to the debt occurs when endorsing other bills of exchange, such as checks. Using currency conveys no liability, since the bill does not have to be endorsed to be negotiated. See Chitty at this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=L-o...page&q&f=false
[The book is 700 pages, but you can get the gist by reading the first five pages of each chapter...]

Article I courts in the US now operate under color of admiralty (the Constitution only allows criminal proceedings under admiralty or common law, and they sure aren't common law because there are no Constitutional protections). The courts are administrative, and are based on Roman law, Lex Mercatoria, now codified as the Unified Commercial Code. This is contract law, and it presumes that 'you' are under contract with the Federal government, through your use of FRN's, and thus they have jurisdiction, and you are a 14th Amendment citizen, with no Constitutional rights. So the actual quote from Rodriguez v Donovan is trying to recognize that all these federal rules, codes, and regulations only apply to citizens who have volunteered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate government. They do not apply to American citizens.

Freed

[JohnnyCash]

MJ, I checked out the link you provided, but I didn't get much out of it.

Thanks for that revelation. I'll start paying closer attention to everything Michael Joseph has posted now. That business trust strikes me as something very useful to hold property, and to start a bank account with.

[Anthony Joseph]

when a man learns to be, and act as, a man at all times, he will not require a new 'business trust' creation to claim and hold property

i; a man, am on this journey and getting close

[Keith Alan]

(Thinking out loud)

I'm having a new understanding about how consenting to service of process works, and also how the courts look at litigants. Since THE NAME is a creature of the State, it remains for the man to act as its agent, because the fiction can do nothing on its own. Same thing with pro se and pro per litigants representing themselves; they are representing THE NAME as attorneys.

So withdrawing consent to service of process is tantamount to abandoning THE NAME in the sea of Commerce, unless he assumes - or designates to another - the role of executor.

It's tempting to do just that - abandon THE NAME without appointing or designating a new trustee, but then the real life practicality of surviving in a commercial world becomes more daunting.

[Anthony Joseph]

i believe the 'Name' is a gift; and, my person; and, my property
who will come forward with a verifiable claim on the 'Name'; or, to disparage and/or deny my beliefs and/or my claimed property?

if someone serves your person process, that someone is required to bring forth an injured party to verify (in living voice) what is being claimed
if that does not happen, and someone continues to pursue the case, that is trespass [barratry] against your property which causes a man harm
bring your own case and claim in your court and sue for trespass/damages; use what was used against you falsely as the evidence of trespass and the starting point of calculating compensatory damages

you falsely claimed i owe you XXX, i now require the same XXX from you for injury to my person and property which did and does cause me harm

[doug555]

i believe the 'Name' is a gift; and, my person; and, my property
who will come forward with a verifiable claim on the 'Name'; or, to disparage and/or deny my beliefs and/or my claimed property?

if someone serves your person process, that someone is required to bring forth an injured party to verify (in living voice) what is being claimed
if that does not happen, and someone continues to pursue the case, that is trespass [barratry] against your property which causes a man harm
bring your own case and claim in your court and sue for trespass/damages; use what was used against you falsely as the evidence of trespass and the starting point of calculating compensatory damages you falsely claimed i owe you XXX, i now require the same XXX from you for injury to my person and property which did and does cause me harm

Click the starting point of calculating compensatory damages - see "Certified County Record" folder, in particular, ORDER FEE SCHEDULE- Schedule A, as an example of what I have done to calculate "compensatory damages" as instead fees for performing anyone's "orders", to provide NOTICE of a public act and record that must be given "full faith a credit" by those sworn to uphold their Constitution per Article IV. See more here.

Then click cards - print these cards to carry with you in your wallet for giving NOTICE when given "orders" that if they proceed in the instant matter, they, by their actions/ORDERS, knowing and intentionally stipulate to the terms of said ORDER FEE SCHEDULE. (Just like eating in a restaurant... an implied contract occurs when you "order" a dinner, that requires you to pay for it.) Notice that Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of their Constitution, says no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contract.

I believe that as more jurists arise, that they will need such a "deterrent" as this.

Please consider becoming a jurist in your county. Watch the video at http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/

[Keith Alan]

i believe the 'Name' is a gift; and, my person; and, my property
who will come forward with a verifiable claim on the 'Name'; or, to disparage and/or deny my beliefs and/or my claimed property?

if someone serves your person process, that someone is required to bring forth an injured party to verify (in living voice) what is being claimed
if that does not happen, and someone continues to pursue the case, that is trespass [barratry] against your property which causes a man harm
bring your own case and claim in your court and sue for trespass/damages; use what was used against you falsely as the evidence of trespass and the starting point of calculating compensatory damages

you falsely claimed i owe you XXX, i now require the same XXX from you for injury to my person and property which did and does cause me harm

Good points. Now what about the situation with the driver's license? Holding one is presumed to be consent to service of process. Yet going without one is sure to end up having the car impounded, whether lawfully or not.

I'm looking for a way to avoid all that. I'm trying to formulate a strategy that allows me to operate as a man, yet avoids getting entangled in their silly game.

I'm thinking that a man who refuses service is automatically grandfathered into a jurisdiction foreign to the US corporate. If that's the case, it should be possible to acquire diplomatic plates, or .

I'm still thinking out loud.

[Keith Alan]

*doug555

Say, about the implied contact; isn't there an implied contact when driving? Are implied contacts derived from public policy?

[Anthony Joseph]

presumption is not fact; someone is required to verify what he/she presumes to be true if he/she wishes

the DL is a license to either use or not use according to one's own choice; simply because you hold a DL, doesn't mean you are operating under it at that time

if someone presumes you are, require that someone verify that claim on the record with full liability

[doug555]

*doug555

Say, about the implied contact; isn't there an implied contact when driving? Are implied contacts derived from public policy?

BUT, "Is there probable cause to believe that I was driving, instead of just traveling by right?"

[Keith Alan]

Yes, I know what presumption is, and what the proper method of defeating it is. What if a way we're found to establish the presumption that I wasn't driving, but rather traveling or moving?

I don't want to battle with these people. I want to change their presumptions before they even get to me.

[Keith Alan]

BUT, "Is there probable cause to believe that I was driving, instead of just traveling by right?"

Yes, I think there might be, if only because the presumption has existed for so many years.

I look in California's vehicle code, and find their definition of driving means being physically in control of a vehicle. But I also find the code applies only to residents, either of "this" jurisdiction, or another.

If a person is an agent of the US or other instrumentality foreign to the State of California, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he is operating as a foreign agent, doing business in the State of California? Doesn't that validate the presumption?

Edit -- Really, it seems to me the entire question goes to residency. By definition, a resident has the intention of one day departing, returning to his domicile. United States citizens (14th Amendment citizens) manifest by their appearance in a foreign state their intention to return to their domicile. That status resides in THE NAME. As THE NAME'S agent, we consent to service of process either by presumption or by the act of registering to vote, applying for a driver's license, etc.