Consent to Service of Process

[doug555]

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 want driving?

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

Don't battle... You will do any of their "orders" per your ORDER FEE SCHEDULE as fair fees for your performance under your unimpaired right to contract.

Like in the "Pirates of the Caribbean", "It's all business".

Listen to Karls Lentz's Talkshoe call of 1/11/14... at about 1 hr 40 min mark it gets very interesting...
at 2 hr 14 min mark he talks about "driving"...
at 2 hr 25 min mark, Karl talks about loving to get "orders"... "but who is going to compensate me for carrying out your orders?"...

Karl says "I love taking orders... That's how I make money!"

at 2 hr 28 min mark, Karl says for big orders, "Put up a bond before I carry out this order, and put the money in escrow..."
at 2 hr 30 min mark, Karl says "It's all business!"

Hope this clarifies the power of contract that one has...

[doug555]

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?

One must rebut every presumption... look up the word "vehicle". Are you going to agree to that definition?

[Anthony Joseph]

if you try to decipher any code, you already lost

[Keith Alan]

One must rebut every presumption... look up the word "vehicle". Are you going to agree to that definition?

By accepting a driver's license, yes I would be agreeing. But if I don't have a license, I still think they would make the presumption in other ways. "Are you a US citizen? Are you a resident of the State of California?"

Never the less, I do see value in the process you are advocating. I am simply exploring another way, that's all. What if I have withdrawn consent? At that point they can't even talk to me. Yet there is still the problem of keeping my property in my custody (which I realize brings in yet another subject, my belief that I have a God granted usufruct in worldly possessions).

I've been thinking, and my goal would be to end up with some kind of plate or emblem being affixed to my car that the State would recognize.

[Keith Alan]

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

I missed your point earlier. I already think of the DL in that way. In case I'm pulled over, I already know what I plan to do - refuse for cause on the presentment and return the instrument to its proper place. In the event that doesn't fly, I have another plan in place.

[doug555]

By accepting a driver's license, yes I would be agreeing. But if I don't have a license, I still think they would make the presumption in other ways. "Are you a US citizen? Are you a resident of the State of California?"

Never the less, I do see value in the process you are advocating. I am simply exploring another way, that's all. What if I have withdrawn consent? At that point they can't even talk to me. Yet there is still the problem of keeping my property in my custody (which I realize brings in yet another subject, my belief that I have a God granted usufruct in worldly possessions).

I've been thinking, and my goal would be to end up with some kind of plate or emblem being affixed to my car that the State would recognize.

I am keeping the D/L in the event at some point in time, I may want to "drive", that is, hire myself out to "transport" "passengers" or "car-go" in their "vehicle".

It also is a convenient instrument that they accept as identification of the "Estate" that i, a man, am heir to, just as the "Birth Certificate" is.

IMO, their Jurisdiction attaches by a "cognizable event", I believe, and not until then, or else by your consent by agreeing with their adhesion trap-words.

But I see your dilemma, and cannot presume to tell anyone what to do in a particular situation, really. Just do the best you can with the knowledge you have so far. And there is so much to learn.. This BT is a good resource to share/leverage that knowledge though, and I wish more would participate.

[Keith Alan]

I'm beginning to think the BC contains the State's legal fiction, and by deceit and conditioning everyone is thinking it's their estate.

But really it's being used to put everyone in this 14th Amendment citizen status, and we go and use the thing as trustee or beneficiary, when in reality it's not ours at all. We've been acting as its agent, and nothing more.

What if everyone withdrew consent to service? The fictions would all fall away, and we'd be left dealing man to man with each other, our common law would resurrect, and the money would be real.

[doug555]

See this folder and especially read this document to see another dimension the to the BC issue...

[Keith Alan]

See this folder and especially read this document to see another dimension the to the BC issue...

http://thelawdictionary.org/child/#ixzz2qoTYyCCphttp://thelawdictionary.org/chirograph/#ixzz2qoVHfSZU
Finally, here is a link to a sample birth certificate http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1482943/...th-Certificate

[JohnnyCash]

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.

Yes, but what if you want a bank account? If you give the bank the SS# you'll get a FDR trust account. But here's a chance to get a trust account of your own choosing.

[Anthony Joseph]

a 'FDR' trust account? Is that what you believe? Did you decipher that on your own? Will you verify that claim with full liability? Will anyone else verify that with full liability? Who will make a claim against something that you claim is your property? Will you accept said claim and grant the claimant an opportunity to verify said claim in open court, on and for the record, under oath or affirmation?

Who is making the claim?
Will said claimant come forward now and verify said claim?

If not, there is no claim but yours in living voice and that stands as true until someone comes forward with the "balls", and the voice, to disparage, deny or make their own claim. Until then, you are the only man standing.

[JohnnyCash]

FDR seems pretty straightforward about it here, in his address before the Governor's Conference:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/...?rgn=full+text

And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we [the banksters] shall have made progress.

BTW, isn't persuasion the job of salesmen, agents, and propagandists?

[Anthony Joseph]

you may agree with an opinion written by someone who is dead; however, unless 'FDR' rises from the dead and verifies your interpretation of his words and intent as true, everything people say is purely conjecture

has anyone ever told you, "the value and energy you create and deposit in a bank is not your property; it is United States property held in trust and we can rightly administer it or take it at any time."?

do you believe a trial by jury in common law would result in agreement with that idea; people believing their sweat equity belongs to someone else and they have inferior rights to it?

if you believe something 'FDR' said or did effects your property then it does

if you say it is contract, and contract is the law; fine, bring the law before the court and on the record - is my name expressly written into that 'contract' (FED ACT)?

who will now verify that my property is subject to the 'FED ACT'? paper is nothing without verification in living voice

the 2nd dimension only has power if you give it power

[Michael Joseph]

presumption is rebutted in a VERY SIMPLE expression : "I have no trust in you"

If that is a fact - and ONLY a living soul can establish his identity - [tangent: or just provide evidence of identity] - then IF a living soul lacks trust THEN LET HIM ACT LIKE IT.

Adam and Eve - made Lucifer [Satan] their King in Trust. They ACTED in his law, under his authority - and they thought to establish themselves as gods. Theosophy 101.

Yehoshuah, however, sought to do the Will of His Father. Not my will but Thy Will be done. Yehoshuah ACKNOWLEDGES in his Deeds the Supremacy of Yehovah the Most High El.

Who here cannot see the analogy? If I ordain a new church and I change the day of worship - knowingly change it - and you bow under the church authority and start keeping the new day - then you - BY YOUR DEEDS - assert that you are subject to that church. Adam and Eve BY THEIR DEEDS - asserted the Dominion of Satan upon themselves AND their Posterity. Have you heard that one before? "Ourselves and our Posterity".

You want to argue words - that is a fools game. For the Trustee is always presumed guilty and he must prove his innocence. Who is your Husbandman? Is it Christ or Satan?

Is it Elohim or Mammon? Which is the same as the aforementioned choice. It's ALL ABOUT TRUST friends. Word games are for fools who are already trapped in the box. Play those games and you will be held in contempt.

Express and Implied Trust - Learn it. And you can escape Constructive and Resulting Trust.

Jer 17:5 Thus saith Yehovah; "Cursed be the strong man that confideth [trusteth] in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart [mind] departeth from Yehovah.

Jer 17:7 Blessed is the strong man that confideth [trusteth] in Yehovah, and whose confidence [trust] Yehovah is.

Now consider v. 7 in light of John 3:16


Joh 3:16 For Yehovah El Elyon so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son [Yehovah the Savior], that whosoever places his live in trust in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



Shalom,
MJ

[Anthony Joseph]

"i have no trust in you" = i do not believe we have a contract/agreement

therefore:

no breach exists
no harm done
no injury committed

is there any else i can help you with today?