Consent to Service of Process

[EZrhythm]

Attachment is fixed. Document sample shows places for two witnesses. If witnesses don't already have their own seal then they may print their name along the inner border, thumb print in red or blue or draw/print out their own seal symbol.

"In California I have filled out a Statement of Facts with, "I want to junk this motor vehicle".

The DMV provides the form.

I received a receipt on the spot. If there are outstanding parking tickets attached to the account they may pester that those need to be paid first. One time I was in front of a friendly clerk who said that I could pay them later and then the "junking" process would be completed but she handed me a junked status receipt anyway. I walked out to the vehicle that now had a junked CoT and drove away.

For those who are not convinced of the status after these steps they may always ask an officer to run the VIN.

I would save the junked receipt in case the vehicle is sold to another party who wishes to put it back under a "STATE OF... " security interest. (Wants to re-register it.) They will need the receipt.

[mikecz]

Question...

Instead of junking the car, have you tried obtaining the Manufacturers Statement of origin? I've read a few threads on it and it goes something like this...

The MCO is "surrendered" to the state, who then registers it and issues a Certificate of title. I'm thinking the the certificate is just proof of ownership, much like a deed is. In order to prove you own the vehicle, there is a chain starting with the MCO that the vehicle passed through starting with the Manufacturer, to another party (if it's used) then to you. You don't need to register it with the state, but, you may need the title to prove you own it.

Between this issue (plates/dmv)
My home (land patent)
And income taxes (lawful money)
Even my citizenship (Birth Certificate / SSI)

I think we have all been deceived...

[EZrhythm]

The car isn't actually what is junked in this process only the CoT.

The DMV's don't even retain the MCO once they are allowed to classify the vehicle as a vessel and issue a CoT. If one can retain the MCO with a new purchase and prevent the DMV from creating a file, that is great but in either case, whether buying new or used, it is not vital to obtain the MCO. They are mainly issued for the purposes of a commercial warehouse/transportation receipt. We are free to create our own title. Also remember that a sales receipt is too considered a title.

[Freed Gerdes]

Congress claims the right to regulate motor vehicles through the Interstate Commerce Clause, and Congress has defined a 'motor vehicle' as any self-propelled carriage used to transport persons or cargo for hire in commerce. So the state-issued Certificate of Title to a Motor Vehicle is a fraud intended to create an adhesion contract; you agree to have your car treated as a motor vehicle, even though it isn't, just like a W-4 is an agreement to have your income treated as taxable, even though it isn't. You don't own any motor vehicles, just like you don't own any firearms (a weapon with a short smooth barrel which fires projectiles by chemical propellant). In recent conversation with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles in NC, I stated that I could not conclude that I had a duty to register my privately owned car. He cited the state law, which requires 'all motor vehicles' to be registered, insured, inspected, and plated. When I mentioned that my car was not a motor vehicle, he got abrupt and suggested that 'I try that, and we will let the judge decide.' The issue will still come back to whether you are surety for the NAME, and the driver's license in the NAME would suggest that you are a surety, otherwise why did you get the DL? There is no legal requirement for an American Citizen to have a DL, so this is a right converted to a privilege and taxed/fee'd. A license is required for engaging in a privilege; no license is required to engage in a right. Always lots to unravel...

Freed

[Brian]

Congress claims the right to regulate motor vehicles through the Interstate Commerce Clause, and Congress has defined a 'motor vehicle' as any self-propelled carriage used to transport persons or cargo for hire in commerce. So the state-issued Certificate of Title to a Motor Vehicle is a fraud intended to create an adhesion contract; you agree to have your car treated as a motor vehicle, even though it isn't, just like a W-4 is an agreement to have your income treated as taxable, even though it isn't. You don't own any motor vehicles, just like you don't own any firearms (a weapon with a short smooth barrel which fires projectiles by chemical propellant). In recent conversation with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles in NC, I stated that I could not conclude that I had a duty to register my privately owned car. He cited the state law, which requires 'all motor vehicles' to be registered, insured, inspected, and plated. When I mentioned that my car was not a motor vehicle, he got abrupt and suggested that 'I try that, and we will let the judge decide.' The issue will still come back to whether you are surety for the NAME, and the driver's license in the NAME would suggest that you are a surety, otherwise why did you get the DL? There is no legal requirement for an American Citizen to have a DL, so this is a right converted to a privilege and taxed/fee'd. A license is required for engaging in a privilege; no license is required to engage in a right. Always lots to unravel...

Freed

"otherwise why did you get the DL? " Well officer I have this DL in case I AM operating in commerce, as not having it would then be illegal. At this current point in time I am engaged in my right to travel from point A to B in a non-commercial inherent right to move freely across the land in whatever method I choose to convey myself on the public roadways held in trust for the people by the XYZ government I am currently in. Do you have any facts to disprove what I have just sworn too?

[Freed Gerdes]

Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license. Showing an operator's license to the LEO is proof that you have consented to the loss of your rights, since you went to the trouble of obtaining an operator's license, which proves that you are a surety for the public trust (ie, you have confirmed the presumption that you have no rights, only those privileges granted/licensed by the state).

Freed

[Anthony Joseph]

Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license. Showing an operator's license to the LEO is proof that you have consented to the loss of your rights, since you went to the trouble of obtaining an operator's license, which proves that you are a surety for the public trust (ie, you have confirmed the presumption that you have no rights, only those privileges granted/licensed by the state).

Freed

Really?

So, in your opinion, a man does not have the capacity to decide when to act through his person; or, if he is operating under a license at any moment in time?

[Brian]

Sadly, the license you carry is described as an 'operator's license,' and is not valid for commercial driving. That requires a commercial license. Showing an operator's license to the LEO is proof that you have consented to the loss of your rights, since you went to the trouble of obtaining an operator's license, which proves that you are a surety for the public trust (ie, you have confirmed the presumption that you have no rights, only those privileges granted/licensed by the state).

Freed

What about say a private building contractor who uses his light truck(s) and trailer(s) to move equipment and supplies between worksites? Isn't he operating in commerce, using the public roadways to conduct/facilitate his business? It is my thought that, that is something that the state can license/regulate and is the point on non-CDL DL. CDL's are for heavier vehicles whose primary thing is being on the roads driving/carrying loads of materials.

[Moxie]

...how does one show afterwards that it is Yahweh's property with stewardship instructions?

The car (and other items) could be put into a self-supporting ministry or a trust.

[Moxie]

If i record title in public venue, is it notarized first?

I had mine notarized since no freedom friends live anywhere close by.

[Moxie]

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.

I hear you.

We probably know how to not appear as DRIVERS by now, right? :-) With all these great threads! Like removing all STATE interest from the car, returning the DL, not using certain words to identify our activity and selves to police. The question is, once this is all done, will the police "get it"? Some will. What about those who don't? We can cross all the t's and dot the i's, but there are still no guarantees. I answer to Yahweh and was still arrested for traveling freely.

Why was I arrested after traveling freely for just a month? This is the million dollar question. It might have been wise of me to get out of the car when police told me to, like described here:

Matthew 5:40-41 - If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

But in the heat of the moment, I was thinking more along the lines of I had not committed a felony, no injured party, just traveling freely, there was no probable cause, no lawful warrant, no need to present ID, and I know who I am, so why should I budge when this cop is supposed to be protecting my rights in the first place?

Q: Does everyone know that hindsight is 20/20? ba-da-BOOM

Hindsight #1: After much asking around, and more study, I think when they (four cops present) asked to see a drivers license, presenting my freedom ID would have satisfied them. Even though it wasn't necessary. Because they had no positive ID on me and kept referring to me as Jane Doe. Showing them the freedom ID would have spelled it out for them that I was not in their jurisdiction and perhaps they would have let me go.

Hindsight #2: If I got out of the car to satisfy the cops' request, if I objected to it on the record, they would have let me go. Or so I have been told.

Hindsight #3: The cop inside the jail told me this as I was shackled in chains passing through the dark, hellish bowels of the jail -- "why didn't you just sign the ticket?" And that's true. I could have just signed it, "without prejudice" there on the side of the road and refused it for cause later. But my reasoning at the time was -- I am free, I have a right to contract with whomever I want, and I definitely don't want to contract with the city!

Hindsight #4: And someone else pointed this out to me -- why didn't I stay in honor and do a conditional acceptance with the cop? "I'll sign your ticket if you can prove I am subject to your jurisdiction." But at the time, my conditional acceptance skills were not very developed.


Hindsight #5: Was I really ready to travel freely? Preparing the car was the easy part. But the roadside stop can pitch a million and one curve balls. And preparing for allll those type curve balls would require such excessive study time that one would never get out and travel freely. Defacto is that way by design: so we have a Pyrrhic victory in the end.

Oh, and it's not just battling law enforcement, it's battling sheeple. You know, when the neighbors see your car parked nearby and people in traffic think, "who does she think she is with that -- that -- unusual plate on her car! Look at it, Abner!!" (picture Gladys Kravitz from that 1960s sitcom, Bewitched. She was the Stevens' nosey neighbor.) People in traffic drove wayyy farther away from me. Maybe they thought I was a diplomat. Maybe they thought I was a "crayzee who could endanger people."

I had to explain my arrest to my roommate, my family, my customers, and my students. They didn't get it. At all. Whatsoever. And still don't. It tarnished my reputation and it was absolutely humiliating in my already fragile condition from being in jail for a week. I know that's not long compared to a lot of people here who have been through worse. But no matter how I explained it to them, no matter what law I showed them, they didn't get it, or it was too overwhelming to them. Their reasoning was, "Well if it's so "lawful," then why did you get arrested?!" See? They are socially conditioned to believe the police are doing their jobs correctly. But to this day, I still have post traumatic stress flashbacks from these events. Anyway, I didn't eat for 3 days in solitary. It was either eat their poison, or avoid it to preserve what little mental strength I had left. I was already very dehydrated. They try to dehydrate your brain so you can't think straight by giving you mini Dixie cups of tap water. Anyway, I am not trying to discourage anyone by sharing this. Just telling you what I wish I was prepared for back then. The story gets even worse, but that's the idea. And I know freedom is not free. But dang.

[Keith Alan]

My latest thought is to gift the vehicle title to the US, but retain possession of the car. In the State of California, drivers (operators, users, movers, whatever) who drive US vehicles are not required to be licensed.

[Anthony Joseph]

My latest thought is to gift the vehicle title to the US, but retain possession of the car. In the State of California, drivers (operators, users, movers, whatever) who drive US vehicles are not required to be licensed.

"Render unto Caesar..."

Release the "unclean thing" (TITLE/OWNERSHIP) and return it back from where it came - the realm of the dead (paper, commerce, 2nd dimension).

Retain exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment of the property (right of use of a thing) as man - heir to the earth.

A claim of OWNERSHIP/TITLE in the realm of the dead is an abandonment of heirship in the realm of the living.

[Keith Alan]

"Render unto Caesar..."

Release the "unclean thing" (TITLE/OWNERSHIP) and return it back from where it came - the realm of the dead (paper, commerce, 2nd dimension).

Retain exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment of the property (right of use of a thing) as man - heir to the earth.

A claim of OWNERSHIP/TITLE in the realm of the dead is an abandonment of heirship in the realm of the living.

Yes, exactly. I suppose all one would need do is write them in as the new owner on registration, and that would be that. I haven't figured out the insurance question yet, but I will.

[Anthony Joseph]

Yes, exactly. I suppose all one would need do is write them in as the new owner on registration, and that would be that. I haven't figured out the insurance question yet, but I will.

OWNER is responsible for any "registration" or "insurance" requirements; and, everything associated with facilitating such.