Monday, July 29, 2013

Supreme Court Decisions to Support Our Freedoms

Here are some Supreme Court Decisions that you probably never heard of.

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) “All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process.
We, the People, created the governments and we did not give them the power to rule over us.

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187: “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”
This describes our current situation

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970): See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966); Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938): “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.
We cannot be tricked into giving up our un-a-lien-a-ble rights. This essentially voids most of the actions of our Congress, etc.

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95: “The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.”
The group who enacts the law must know what they have enacted. Congress is responsible for reading the bills before they are enacted.

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322: “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.” Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
Neither the State, nor the Federal Government, can require permits, or licenses. We, the People, have the right to pursue whatever business activity we desire without any interference from any of our governments. They were not granted any powers to regulate the activities of the Citizens.

The following is what the Supreme Court had to say about the Declaration of Independence.

The original words of the Declaration of Independence are in RED.

We hold these truths to be self-evident – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – that all men are endowed – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but – by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime – and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these – not grant them, but secure them – governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let (Editor’s Note: To let is to grant a charter or contract to a person or group who has made a proposal) or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. – Butcher’s Union Slaughterhouse and Livestock Company v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company Argued April 9-10, 1884 Decided May 5, 1884 – U. S. Supreme Court 111 U. S. 746.

Again, we are told that no government has the power, or the authority, to demand permits, licenses, charters, or other restrictive actions concerning our ability to pursue our happiness, i.e., any lawful business activity.

The Supreme Court says that it is our birthright to be able to pursue whatever lawful business we want.

Libertarianism, is it not just another "ism?"

 The same bird as the Republican and Democrat platforms. Although with the correct concept. As I'm seeing it, it's still requiring US citizens (what you consent to in order to vote) to give consent to the gov, and it makes you a slave to that system. To be a Federal citizen is to be a trustee (employee) of the federal government. Why they can "legally" tax and regulate you by your own consent.

You want to see all the bullshit disappear?

Then quit being a beggar, and learn your rights.

Quit pledging your allegiance to people who YOU should be the masters of. It is THEY who owe THEIR allegiance to YOU!

It works like this. The People -> Gov -> US citizens. Shit flows down hill.

US citizens / Federal citizens / corporate citizens, are NOT the People mentioned in our founding documents.

US citizens act as the trustees of the federal government by their own consent.

The federal government acts as the trustees to the People because the People created the government.


You don't have to reinvent your brain to understand these things. You just have to start using it.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Eddie Craig's Tao of Law Website

Eddie Craig is setting up a really good website for us to learn the law and how do deal with government officials Tao of Law. It's still under construction, but here's the link to Eddie telling us what will be going on with the site when it's up and running. 

In the meantime, I borrowed the link section from the above link so you can get a look at what's to come. (all the more reason for you to go to the above link and check it out!)This is going to be a great tool for everyone to use when Eddie gets it all up and running. I've been memorizing Eddie's Traffic Stop Practice Script for some time now whenever I get a chance. The below video is his audio version of this script.
"Eddie Craig's  Traffic Stop Practice Script , which will help you establish and maintain your rights during traffic stops and other encounters with police, and his  Cross-Examination Practice Script , which will guide you through cross-examination in court. You can also grab a copy of Eddie's  materials discussed on the April 4, 2013 Alex Jones Nightly News (382KB zip file).   If you have received a red-light camera ticket, have a look at the Red Light Camera Special Appearance Letter template."      

Also check out Eddies page on Facebook to see what's been going on. 

While your at it, take a listen to his video's on law and how to deal with the police on Youtube.

Here's a sample video on what to say to the police during a traffic stop. This is stuff EVERYONE should memorize.

Join in and listen to The Rule of Law Radio Show at on Mondays & Thursdays from 8PM - 10PM CST and Fridays 8PM - Midnight CST every week.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Pirates / Police

Got Willpower?

It's not just a war of truth or fiction. As always, it's a war of willpower.
Either you keep it, or you loose it. Assuming you had any to begin with.
The original fear. -- Chris Duke

Rights are not privileges

If someone is taking what you perceive as "rights" away from you, then you are a slave. Keep bowing down to your masters, or pick up a damn book or two!
-- Chris Duke

Standing Up To The Pirates

I meant to post this last week when it was going down, but I have been having some computer problems that have been keeping me from posting much here the past week. This is my friend Trent Goodbaudy riding up to the police who were harassing his sister on his bike. Good job Trent! Standing up to these pirates is what we all need to do for a better future.  

Trent has a website you should check out. Here's the link: Trent's link is also on the link list on the blogs sidebar so you can find it without having to hunt down this post again.
He has some stuff that is really neat in regards to the travel vs driving discussion.

Learn tax facts here:

Friday, July 26, 2013

Jeff hit the ball out of the park with this one!

According to AMERICAN LAW, starting with the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, governments are instituted among men to :


If one has not consented, government is only authorized to help secure rights - as in prosecute deliberate injury and adjudicate accidental injury - and NOTHING MORE.

No taxes on rights, on private property, on liberties (natural and personal), nor any restrictions on one's absolute power over one's domain.

That is the lost birthright of EVERY American.

Also known as the "Republican form of government" wherein the people are sovereigns, directly exercise that sovereignty (over their private property) and are served - not ruled - by government instituted to secure rights.

To this day, the courts remind us of that distinction when they use references to "The People" - not - "The Citizens."

The citizens serve the government, which, in turn, serves the people.
THAT is what we've been trained to forget.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

License and Registration, the conversion of natural unaleinable individual rights into micromanaged, monitored mere privileges.

License and Registration, the conversion of natural unaleinable individual rights into micromanaged, monitored mere privileges.

I am going to use the automobile as an example to explain exactly how this all works. The automobile is simply the easiest way to see the truth of it. The proess I am about to describe and explain applies to ALL activities where registration or license is involved. LICE...NSE, is permission, as the author of my book when I released it my position on this was made very clear. As the sole owner of my copyright, having entered into no privileged contractual agreements with civil government, licensing authority flows from ownership. I as the owner have the power to license agents to sell it on my behalf without violating copyright law. ALL licensing authority flows from ownership.

To begin, your motor vehicle license registration and title are not what you believe they are. Your title is not even title, it is CERTIFICATE of title. This certificate is a receipt for the rights and property you have traded to civil government that can be redeemed by canceling the registration agreement. EVERY SINGLE TIME it is that an American waives rights or transfers rights, property, or other security interests to the hands of government, it is ALWAYS done by signed hand written authorized consent submitted via application for registration.

Rights are not inALIENable, you can certainly alienate them by your signed consent in a contract. Rights are unALEINable, meaning they cannot be taken from you WITHOUT your consent. So the automobile. The moment you purchase a car and pay for it your receipt is your actual title, evidence, proof of purchase/absolute ownership, allodial title if you will. There is NO SUCH THING as an obligation of LAW to register this. Just like a bicycle you have all the authority you require to make lawful use of that property in the enjoyment of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, WITHOUT permission. As a matter of fact your automobile ONLY becomes DIFFERENT from your BICYCLE.....WHEN it is REGISTERED.

REGISTER, is a very old word holding it's origins in maritime admiralty law. Registration as a verb, means "to sign over for safe keeping", to leave to the discretion of another". This s evidenced because it is exactly what you are doing when you register your car. You are signing absolute ownership "allodial title" over to the State in return for partial, for a taxable privilege of limited liability protection. At this moment you are no longer claiming and exercising rights, but privileges. Registration is an act of abandonment, and your property is seized under maritime admiralty salvage. You further beg in your application to continue to use the property you are signing over under a protected privilege. The State having accepted ownership happily now permits you to use State property, the car you just signed over. A driver's license is NOT permission to own property, you are born with that right, it is not permission to use the nation common ways, again that is a natural right unanimously upheld by the supreme court in an impressive array of cases I will be happy to cite at the end of this post. Your license from the State is only permission to use State property, the car you just abandoned and they seized. And because you have voluntarily consented, the State now holds that allodial title as surety against you for your compliance to the terms and conditions of that voluntary registration contract which are encoded in the Motor Vehicle Code. That code IS NOT LAW. It is merely the terms and conditions of an agreement. LAW i the lawful defense of individual rights, this ACT is NOT LAW because it is a contract and all contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing as an obligation of law to agree. Agreement by it's very nature is consensual. In this registration agreement you waive ALL rights related to the property and activity as well. This is why a cop can arbitrarily seize or impound your car in violation of the due process clause of the 5th amendment. You waived your right to not be deprived of property absent conviction of a crime by a jury. ALSO the cop is not seizing YOUR car, they are seizing the STATE'S car, due to a material breech of the registration agreement. These cops are not enforcing law. They are enforcing the terms and conditions of the contracts of the corporate fiction defrauding the people. Refusing the privileged limited liability agreement and exercising the right is a big responsibility, but the only duty you must accept to exercise a right is to cause harm to no one through that claim and exercise of rights. You do not sacrifice the right by refusing the contract you actually only sacrifice the rights by accepting it.

Every time you subject yourself to the terms and conditions of a civil contract like this you receive a certificate in return for the rights and property you are signing over to the State. Certificate of Title, Certificate of Birth, Certificate of Marriage, firearms permits, building permits, hunting permits, fishing permits, pet ownership permits, ALL of these activities are lawful. All of the activities the licensing body is licensing MUST be lawful outside of the limited liability privileged licensing framework, otherwise the licensing body is licensing crime, and last I checked I could not get an armed robbery permit.

This is also the same authority which gives CPS it's power to come into your home without a warrant and seize your children. Again you waive ALL rights in these contracts including birth registration agreements. You waive the right to be secure in your person papers and affects. And again CPS is NOT seizing YOUR child, they are seizing the STATE'S child, whom was signed over to them for safe keeping in the birth registration contract. This is why the STATE can compel YOU to send THEIR child to their indoctrination camps, why they can compel parents to vaccinate THEIR child. Without a birth registration contract this authority does not exist over the parent. The parent is the highest authority over the child. The State has ZERO jurisdiction over anything which was not signed over to it voluntarily in a registration agreement. If they spelled it right and called it a BERTH registration it would be easier to see, they just change the spelling to confuse people. A birth certificate is a certificate of manifest. They have people in maritime admiralty law by getting them to act like boats engaged in foreign commerce of their own signed consent protected under a government contract of limited liability privileges. ECH of these contracts has their own terms and conditions throughout the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations. You can identify them quite easily they say ACT right in the title. Social security registration relates to the income tax, automobile registration relates to the Motor Vehicle Act, marriage registration has its own which I have admittedly not looked too much into, but ti is all the same, and all voluntary.

Statutes are these terms and conditions of these contracts. Statutory rules CAN be laws but every time that is true an lement of harm to another exists. They are not law because some lawyer wrote them and included them in a rule book, but because they derive from the supreme law of the land, the individual rights of the people. When these statutory rules infringe laws (rights are laws), they are void. ALL statutory rules are children of and restrained by the highest law, which is not the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, those are simply documents that protect rights and establish our form of government. A nation wide common law jurisdiction and a self governing constitutional republic. The highest law is literally the individual rights of the people, ALL rights, enumerated and not enumerated, ALL Americans may claim and exercise ANY right which causes no harm. Law is grounded in self evident truth. For example. It is self evident that there is no such thing as an obligation of law to sign your rights and property over to the state in order to make lawful use and enjoyment of them. It is self evident that no one needs permission to exercise a right, and that such permission when accepted converts a right into a privilege. It is self evident that ALL Americans are free equal, and KING, but their rule applies only to them self in a self governing Constitutional Republic. It is self evident that the conversion in technology and the conveyance of the day, did not grant new powers to government, so unless one can show me the registration and license/ license plate on George Washington's Horse's ass there is no more lawful authority to regulate your method of travel today than there was in 1776.

Here is some good case law now to support everything I have said. The spirit of law is excellent, but it is always good to have the letter that supports the spirit.
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813;
 Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added.]

The Right to Travel

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not
a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and
the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor
Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark,
214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile,
is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common
Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
[emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the
highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter
purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a
privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its
discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P.
171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a
Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in
whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of
Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and
obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to
enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In
State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and
obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is: "The
former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while
the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” “This distinction, elementary
and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City
of Spokane, supra.

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his
property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and
obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and
uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is
the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter
is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85
SE 781.

The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a
common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire
and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right,
in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the
existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or
wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose
of life and business."


"To adjudicate upon, and protect the rights and interests of
individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the
peculiar province of the judicial department. The judicial power "is the power to
hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the
citizens of the state." City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22, 223 P. 640, 644,
35 A.L.R. 872, 878. Nash v. Brooks, 297 N.Y.S. 853, 855-856.

Without standing there is no actual or
justiciable controversy and courts will not entertain such cases.
Clifford v Superior Court 45 Cal Rptr 2nd 333, 335

Freedom and Rights

"“The Individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.”

“His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can

only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.”

“Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure

except under warrant of the law.” “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale Vs.

Henkel., 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906). "

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a

license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce” Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105.

“Law of the Land” means “The Common Law.”Taylor vs. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) Justice Bronson. Webster’s definition of

“Law of the Land” at Dartmouth, 4 Wheat. 518, 581.The CONSITUION,as the law of the land, has to honor the COMMON LAW and then

the Federal or State laws have to abide under that...period. When it or they do not, they are LAWBREAKERS.

"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one
of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as
a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent
on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights
[remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private
property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442.

"The general
rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the
name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and
not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to
obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."16th
American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Finding that the statute conflicted with the Federal Constitution,
Marshall considered it “the essence of judicial duty” to follow the
Constitution.He concluded that “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of
the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be
essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are
bound by that instrument” It is a proposition too plain to be contested,
that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the
legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these
alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a
superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a
level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the
legislature shall please to alter it… . If the former part of the alternative be
true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the
latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the
part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Marbury
vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise ...of a constitutional Right cannot be
converted into... a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

Sui Juris Law on Facebook.

I decided to steal the whole thread to share it here. Sui Juris Law is a Law page on Facebook I learn from. There is so much information on this page on a daily basis, it sometimes makes my head spin. If you would like to join the group, contact me on Fb and I'll add you to it. It is a private group. Some sharp cookies in the group to learn from.

You ASSUME you own property with "legal title", but have you ever looked the term up in a law dictionary?

Legal title "carries NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, another person being entitled thereto... the antithesis of "equitable title.""

EQUITABLE OWNER ~ One who is recognized in equity as owner of the property, BECAUSE REAL AND BENEFICIAL USE AND TITLE BELONG TO HIM, even though bare LEGAL TITLE is invested in another.

The title to your car doesn't say "equitable title" does it? According to the definition, "real and benefical use and title" belong to another.

HOMEWORK: Write the DMV with your info (if you registered your car) and ask them who has equitable title/interest in "your" car.
  • Rick Carne State owns everything, has usufructuary rights to property owned by the state...when you registered it you transferred the equitable title to the State...just as lawful money is equitable title to Labor-credit asset

  • Rob Johnson Allodial ownership is the ONLY way to own property. ALL property, regardless of what form it takes, UNTIL you REGISTER it, is owned in allodium inherently. A banana for example. You buy a banana you own it it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. You may give it away, eat it, whatever. This is true regardless what form a property takes. The ONLY difference for example between a bicycle and a car IS THE REGISTRATION. And CERTIFICATE of TITLE is clearly NOT TITLE, not evidence YOU own the property, evidence the STATE owns it. Your license plate is a tax ID# for having pad the registration fee. Plates, registration, inspection, even license, are just items that merely impart to police officers that this is NOT privately owned property. It is similar to a public private partnership, but more akin to salvage in maritime admiralty. You ABANDON what you register. The beauty is in the truth. If YOU can sign something over to the state, you MUST first possess the lawful authority to do so. You MUST have any power you can give by transference.

    To be continued. This was a thread that was just posted a few minutes ago, so only two relevant comments so far. I may come back later and add others to this post. 

    More comments from the post. If you want to see the rest, I suggest you contact me and join the group. Unedited.
  • Ashley Nicole King I've been trying for three years to get a copy of my car's "certificate of title", and so far the state hasn't responded to that. I can't imagine trying to get more detailed information from them.
  • Blue Collar Moto I'm stealing this whole thread for the blog.
  • Rob Johnson Ashley, do you mean the manufacturere's certificate of origin, or certifiate of title, because you cannot even register a car without certificate of title you MUSt possess it.
  • Ashley Nicole King I had the title, but a former roommate threw out a lot of my stuff, and I can only surmise that my title was with that. So I've applied for duplicates through the standards means for such. But I do receive the registration paperwork by mail every year, so I'm able to renew the tags.
  • Rob Johnson If the State will not return to you the MSO/MCO, all you have to do is an affidavit declaring allodial ownership. You can use this as a template,
  • Ashley Nicole King Sweet! Thanks!
  • Rob Johnson Of course, this is what I do
  • Rob Johnson One of the reasons my members are so loyal. I go out of my way to help everyone whether or not there is anything in it for me
  • Ashley Nicole King I guess membership really does have its re.... wait, what am I a member of?
  • Glitch Johnson Please share that Blue Collar Moto. WOOT!
  • Jared Dalen Rob, sn't the Bill of Sale considered the allodial title of the property? Also, specified in the bill of sale, if you pay $20 silver dollars of substance would that not make it stronger?
  • BJ Raw I read this the totally opposite way. When you register, the state has legal title to it. AND NO REAL INTEREST. I have equitable title, I retain all ownership, they simply maintain a legal title register of such events.
  • Rob Johnson Be my guest Blue, everyone is welcome to steal/share anything I post and anything in this group. I appreciate credit being given like Cory Williamson did when quoting me.
  • Blue Collar Moto Always credit given Rob. Also a shout out for the page, which turns out to a shout out for your book. I try to do that at least once per week on the blog.
  • Rob Johnson BJ if it were the case that registration was simply a recording of events, I would not oppose it so the way I do. Equitable title, is evidence of maritime admiralty registration. Any time you are speaking of EQUITY you are talking about a privilege in ...See More
  • Rob Johnson Excellent Blue, way above and beyond the call of duty, noble honorable and admirable, the finest qualities of the human experience, in abundance within this group.
  • Jared Dalen BJ, if that was true, why do you then pay registration fees and are subject to arbitrary rules if you have equitable interest in the property?
  • Jared Dalen Here is a short article I wrote the other day. Would love to hear some feedback.


    Ok people, how many of you out there in own a car? What if I told you you don't actually own your car??? You may say, "but I have legal ti
    ...See More
  • BJ Raw I'd like to see the state prove in court that they own my car
  • Rob Johnson Well, you see they both CAN, and CANNOT. The registration contract you signed by your wet ink signature is the evidence that they own the property. However, because this contract has intentionally, deliberately, and through constructive fraud obfuscate...See More
  • Jared Dalen Well, if you registered it with the state, you are the grantor of a trust agreement that split the title into two, legal and equitable title. You are now the trustee and the state is the beneficiary.

    Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg
    ...See More
  • Michael Lamb II THEY can really care less about "proving anything in their courts". THEY are getting their revenue every year by willing participants.

    As soon as you cut off that "money gravy train", then you will see some kind of response.
  • Rob Johnson Different way of saying the same thing almost entirely on point. The only difference in my articulation is the inherent void nature of the states claims to ownership
  • BJ Raw Without them ever proving that they own it in court, I'm left to only think that this is all opinion. As soon as I state that I own it and ask them to prove the opposite, they have no case. If they owned it how would that ownership crumble so easy at the simplest of challenges?

    I am the moon. Until you ask me to prove it. Then I am not the moon. Was I really the moon before you challenged me on the issue?
  • Jared Dalen Rob does make an excellent point, it is based on a constructive fraud. But unless you rebut the presumption, it stands.
  • Michael Lamb II Bingo! Give Jared a prize!
  • Michael Lamb II The RAW Truth that we each have inherent Rights is really irrelevant if we do NOT claim and defend those Rights.
  • Rob Johnson you are exactly correct. The only reason they can force you to pay fines with respect to the violation of certain terms and conditions of the registration contract, which IS the motor vwhicle code, NOT LAW, but statute, IS by assumptions and PRESUMPTI...See More

  • Michael Lamb II You can inherently talk, but no one will know that you can talk, until you OPEN your mouth.