Saturday, August 17, 2013
Give a man a fish...
"Give a man a fish, and he's starving by morning.
Give a man a fishing pole and teach him to use it, and he'll go fish when he gets hungry.
Give a man a badge and teach him nothing, and he'll beat the piss out of the guy with a fishing pole, steal his fish in the name of law, and tell him to have more by tomorrow or he's going to jail."
-Dean Clifford
Get more from Dean @ http://deanclifford.info/
Give a man a fishing pole and teach him to use it, and he'll go fish when he gets hungry.
Give a man a badge and teach him nothing, and he'll beat the piss out of the guy with a fishing pole, steal his fish in the name of law, and tell him to have more by tomorrow or he's going to jail."
-Dean Clifford
On Taxation.
Again, this subject deserves much more attention than one simple comic can even begin to get into. Look forward to a lot of information on 'taxation is theft' in the near future here on the blog. In the meantime, check out this link. http://taxfacts.tripod.com/ Taxfacts.tripod is one of the best sites to get into what it's all about and what's been going on. The link is also on this blogs sidebar for easy reference.
Jury duty
Jury duty deserves it's own post and not just a picture, but this was funny and I barley have time to share some good stuff my friends have been posting this morning.
Arrest
It may help to know the definition of the words crime [1], and corpus delicti [2] to understand why I even posted this. If you don't know the definitions of things, then how are you ever to understand them?
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
arrest v. 1) to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person. Once the arrest has been made, the officer must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first practical moment, and either cite the person to appear in court or bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two business days), and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" can not actually arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold someone briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for "false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving unnecessary holding. 2) to delay the enforcement of a judgment by a judge while errors in the record are corrected. (See: warrant of arrest, false arrest, probable cause, Miranda warning)
Read the full definition on this link. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
arrest v. 1) to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person. Once the arrest has been made, the officer must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first practical moment, and either cite the person to appear in court or bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two business days), and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" can not actually arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold someone briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for "false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving unnecessary holding. 2) to delay the enforcement of a judgment by a judge while errors in the record are corrected. (See: warrant of arrest, false arrest, probable cause, Miranda warning)
Read the full definition on this link. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
[1] crime
/krīm/
Noun
| |
Synonyms
|
Usufruct and Allodium
By: Jared Dalen
"If you pay taxes on things you THINK you own, i.e., land, you don't actually own it. You have FEUDAL ownership. Items that are held in true ownership, allodium, are not subject to taxes.
al·lo·di·um ~ land owned absolutely; land owned and NOT SUBJECT to any rent, service, or other tenurial right of an OVERLORD (the State).
Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.""
ALSO, look up "usufruct", very telling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct
"If you pay taxes on things you THINK you own, i.e., land, you don't actually own it. You have FEUDAL ownership. Items that are held in true ownership, allodium, are not subject to taxes.
al·lo·di·um ~ land owned absolutely; land owned and NOT SUBJECT to any rent, service, or other tenurial right of an OVERLORD (the State).
Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.""
ALSO, look up "usufruct", very telling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct
The DMV scam: How your right to travel has been converted into a mere privilege.
By: Jared Dalen
Lets
be honest here. Do you sign a contract before reading it? That would be
a pretty stupid thing to do, I'm sure most would agree... OK then, when
you go register your car with the state and get a driver's license, did
you happen to READ the motor vehicle code of your respective state?
Odds are 99.9999% of people DID NOT.
This short article applies to Nevada as it relates to the DMV and the motor vehicle code, BUT, this information is universal because every state is set up in the same fashion...
Firstly, we need to establish that the people of America have a RIGHT to travel. It does not matter what they choose to travel in and the courts have upheld this FACT!
"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
"Personal liberty, or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by the its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Section 202, p, 987
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
"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."
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;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
"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 for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
I think the above court cases and authority from Corpus Juris Secundum as well as American Jurisprudence is QUITE clear. Traveling, even in an automobile, is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that cannot be licensed or converted into a crime, but, "that Right DOES NOT extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for PRIVATE GAIN."
From my discernment of the Nevada Revised Statutes regarding "motor vehicles," it has come to my attention that a "motor vehicle," by appropriate definition, is "every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo".
The above definition is taken from Title 18 USC § 31(a)(6). I realize this is the federal government's definition of "motor vehicle," but the federal definition has authority via the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) and encompasses the same meaning as my deconstruction of the Nevada Revised Statutes. You will see below that the NRS follows the lead of the federal definition albeit "hidden" by legalese.
According to NRS 485.050 “Motor vehicle” defined. “Motor vehicle” means every self-propelled VEHICLE which is designed for use upon a highway.
NRS482.135 “Vehicle” defined. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 482.36348, “vehicle” means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may beTRANSPORTED or drawn upon a public highway.
NRS 482.36348 “Vehicle” defined. “Vehicle” means a MOTOR VEHICLE or a recreational vehicle. The term includes a recreational vehicle designed to be mounted upon or drawn by a motor vehicle.
Title 49 USC § 1502(1) “commerce” means TRADE or TRANSPORTATION in the jurisdiction of the United States—
TRANSPORTATION ~ The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a CARRIER. See Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L. Ed. 827; Interstate COMMERCE Coin’n v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 4 17. 14 Sup. Ct. 1125, 38 L. Ed. .1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 100, 5 Sup. Ct. S26, 29 L. Ed. 158. (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition)
NRS706.036 “Common motor carrier” defined.“Common motor carrier” means any person or operator who is held out to the public as willing to TRANSPORT byVEHICLE from place to place, either upon fixed route or on-call operations, passengers or property, including a common motor carrier of passengers, a common motor carrier of property and a taxicab motor carrier.
CARRIER ~ Individual or organization engaged in TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR GOODS FOR HIRE. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
To boil down the above definitions into simple terms, a "motor vehicle" is used for the "transportation" of passengers or goods for hire on the public highways for monetary gain. To register one's private property with the Department of Motor Vehicles is to voluntarily apply for the benefit/privilege of trade/commerce on public roads. Therefore, a "driver's license" is:
NRS 483.065 “Driver’s license” defined. “Driver’s license” means a license issued under the laws of this State authorizing a person to drive a MOTOR VEHICLE in this State.
NRS483.063 "Driver” defined. "Driver” means a person who is in actual physical control of a VEHICLE upon a highway.
NRS 485.110 “Registration” defined. “Registration” means the registration certificate and plate issued under the laws of this State pertaining to the registration of MOTOR VEHICLES.
(PAY ATTENTION!) NRS 485.090 “Owner” defined. “Owner” means a person who holds the LEGAL TITLE of a MOTOR VEHICLE.
Again, the definitions above compound on the fact that the voluntary act of "registering" to be an (legal) "owner" of a "motor vehicle" as a "driver" and obtaining a "driver's license" for the purposes of "transporting" passengers or cargo for hire on public roads for private gain is STRICTLY a act of commerce. Read it again!
I would also like to bring up the point of "legal title" in the definition of "owner" per NRS 485.090. The term "legal title" denotes the creation of a trust. The following are definitions are material to the subject matter herein:
LEGAL TITLE ~ One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect and possession, BUT WHICH CARRIES NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, ANOTHER PERSON BEING EQUITABLY ENTITLED THERETO; in either case, THE ANTITHESIS OF "EQUITABLE TITLE". It may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title; or full and absolute title or apparent right of ownership WITH BENEFICIAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE IN ANOTHER.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
LEGAL OWNER ~ The term has come to be used in TECHNICAL CONTRAST to the EQUITABLE OWNER, and not as opposed to an illegal owner. The legal owner has title to property (legal title), although the title may actually carry NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY other than a lein.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
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.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP ~ The OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF ONE WHO HAS EQUITABLE AS CONTRAST TO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY... (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
EQUITABLE INTEREST ~ The interest of a BENEFICIARY under a trust is considered equitable as contrasted with the interest of the TRUSTEE which is a LEGAL INTEREST BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE HAS LEGAL AS CONTRASTED WITH EQUITABLE TITLE. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
TRUST ~ A legal entity created by a GRANTOR for the benefit of designated beneficiaries under the laws of the state and the valid trust instrument. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
BENEFICIARY ~ ONE WHO BENEFITS FROM THE ACT OF ANOTHER. A PARTY WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OR OTHER ARRANGMENT. Examples include the beneficiary of a TRUST... (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
TRUSTEE ~ PERSON HOLDING PROPERTY IN TRUST... ONE WHO HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO PROPERTY "IN TRUST" FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER PERSON (BENEFICIARY) AND WHO MUST CARRY OUT SPECIFIC DUTIES WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
FIDUCIARY ~ A person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that if a trustee... A person having the duty, CREATED BY HIS UNDERTAKING, to act primarily for another's benefit...
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
Lets recap again; YOU:
1) Have legal title to property you assume is yours.
2) Have a fiduciary duty for the benefit of the beneficiary that holds equitable title to the property you think you own.
^How did this happen!!!! Lets go back and see what exactly happened...
You bought a car. At that point you have COMPLETE (allodial) title to that car which is known as the Bill of Sale. Then, without understanding law (reading the fine print aka motor vehicle code of your state), and because "everyone is doing it", you voluntarily registered YOUR car with the state which created a trust agreement. Under this trust agreement that you voluntarily granted (GRANTOR), you gave equitable title to the state and made them the beneficiary and you a trustee in which you agree to their arbitrary rules and fees as a fiduciary... You getting pissed yet? You should, because if you are the "legal owner" of your home and "legal guardian" of your child, somewhere down the line you voluntarily agreed to give up equitable interest in YOUR property. Unfortunately there are two maxims of law that allow this to happen.
*Ignorance of law is no excuse.*
*Let him who wishes to be decieved, be decieved.*
How about a shot of reality from the beneficiary's mouth:
Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State (equitable owner); individual so-called "ownership" (legal owner) is only by virtue of Government (beneficiary), i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER (your the trustee); and use must be in accordance with law (fiduciary duty) and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
If you knew the defintion of "allodium," you might realize that a person who owns property in allodium has "land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to FEUDAL duties or burdens." Hmmm, feudal duties and burdens like LAND TAXES? Like renewal of registration and other fees for the enjoyment of "your" car???
Lastly, I want to make it very clear how you are viewed by your beloved government "by the people and for the people" after it changed in the 1860s from a constitutional republic to a federal democracy... Usufruct!
USUFRUCT ~ The right of using and enjoying and receiving the profits of property THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER, and the usurfructuary is a person (YOU, the trustee who holds legal title!) who has the usurfruct or right of enjoying anything in which HE HAS NO PROPERTY (equitable) INTEREST.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
Hate to burst you bubble, but as long as you willingly consent to be governed by this reconstructed federal system, you consent to being a vassal -- a voluntary slave -- for your lord, the state, in modern feudal times. If one thing remains constant, it is history repeats itself.
P.S. In case you are unaware of the significance of the term "vassal". This is taken from Wikipedia:
"A vassal or feudatory is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context [of a] feudal system... The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. The term can be applied to similar arrangements in other feudal societies."
IT IS TIME PEOPLE WAKE UP AND SEE THE MATRIX FOR WHAT IT IS! You have been deceived purposely so the establishment can collect revenue from you as a human resource and gain control over you by the waiving of fundamental rights for "benefits and privileges" from the state. THIS IS ONLY A SAMPLE OF WHAT HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM YOU!
MORPHEUS:
"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."
NEO:
"What truth?"
MORPHEUS:
"That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage.
Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind."
This short article applies to Nevada as it relates to the DMV and the motor vehicle code, BUT, this information is universal because every state is set up in the same fashion...
Firstly, we need to establish that the people of America have a RIGHT to travel. It does not matter what they choose to travel in and the courts have upheld this FACT!
"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
"Personal liberty, or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by the its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Section 202, p, 987
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
"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."
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;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
"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 for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
I think the above court cases and authority from Corpus Juris Secundum as well as American Jurisprudence is QUITE clear. Traveling, even in an automobile, is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that cannot be licensed or converted into a crime, but, "that Right DOES NOT extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for PRIVATE GAIN."
From my discernment of the Nevada Revised Statutes regarding "motor vehicles," it has come to my attention that a "motor vehicle," by appropriate definition, is "every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power AND USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo".
The above definition is taken from Title 18 USC § 31(a)(6). I realize this is the federal government's definition of "motor vehicle," but the federal definition has authority via the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) and encompasses the same meaning as my deconstruction of the Nevada Revised Statutes. You will see below that the NRS follows the lead of the federal definition albeit "hidden" by legalese.
According to NRS 485.050 “Motor vehicle” defined. “Motor vehicle” means every self-propelled VEHICLE which is designed for use upon a highway.
NRS482.135 “Vehicle” defined. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 482.36348, “vehicle” means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may beTRANSPORTED or drawn upon a public highway.
NRS 482.36348 “Vehicle” defined. “Vehicle” means a MOTOR VEHICLE or a recreational vehicle. The term includes a recreational vehicle designed to be mounted upon or drawn by a motor vehicle.
Title 49 USC § 1502(1) “commerce” means TRADE or TRANSPORTATION in the jurisdiction of the United States—
TRANSPORTATION ~ The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a CARRIER. See Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L. Ed. 827; Interstate COMMERCE Coin’n v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 4 17. 14 Sup. Ct. 1125, 38 L. Ed. .1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 100, 5 Sup. Ct. S26, 29 L. Ed. 158. (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition)
NRS706.036 “Common motor carrier” defined.“Common motor carrier” means any person or operator who is held out to the public as willing to TRANSPORT byVEHICLE from place to place, either upon fixed route or on-call operations, passengers or property, including a common motor carrier of passengers, a common motor carrier of property and a taxicab motor carrier.
CARRIER ~ Individual or organization engaged in TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR GOODS FOR HIRE. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
To boil down the above definitions into simple terms, a "motor vehicle" is used for the "transportation" of passengers or goods for hire on the public highways for monetary gain. To register one's private property with the Department of Motor Vehicles is to voluntarily apply for the benefit/privilege of trade/commerce on public roads. Therefore, a "driver's license" is:
NRS 483.065 “Driver’s license” defined. “Driver’s license” means a license issued under the laws of this State authorizing a person to drive a MOTOR VEHICLE in this State.
NRS483.063 "Driver” defined. "Driver” means a person who is in actual physical control of a VEHICLE upon a highway.
NRS 485.110 “Registration” defined. “Registration” means the registration certificate and plate issued under the laws of this State pertaining to the registration of MOTOR VEHICLES.
(PAY ATTENTION!) NRS 485.090 “Owner” defined. “Owner” means a person who holds the LEGAL TITLE of a MOTOR VEHICLE.
Again, the definitions above compound on the fact that the voluntary act of "registering" to be an (legal) "owner" of a "motor vehicle" as a "driver" and obtaining a "driver's license" for the purposes of "transporting" passengers or cargo for hire on public roads for private gain is STRICTLY a act of commerce. Read it again!
I would also like to bring up the point of "legal title" in the definition of "owner" per NRS 485.090. The term "legal title" denotes the creation of a trust. The following are definitions are material to the subject matter herein:
LEGAL TITLE ~ One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect and possession, BUT WHICH CARRIES NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, ANOTHER PERSON BEING EQUITABLY ENTITLED THERETO; in either case, THE ANTITHESIS OF "EQUITABLE TITLE". It may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title; or full and absolute title or apparent right of ownership WITH BENEFICIAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE IN ANOTHER.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
LEGAL OWNER ~ The term has come to be used in TECHNICAL CONTRAST to the EQUITABLE OWNER, and not as opposed to an illegal owner. The legal owner has title to property (legal title), although the title may actually carry NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY other than a lein.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
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.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP ~ The OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF ONE WHO HAS EQUITABLE AS CONTRAST TO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY... (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
EQUITABLE INTEREST ~ The interest of a BENEFICIARY under a trust is considered equitable as contrasted with the interest of the TRUSTEE which is a LEGAL INTEREST BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE HAS LEGAL AS CONTRASTED WITH EQUITABLE TITLE. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
TRUST ~ A legal entity created by a GRANTOR for the benefit of designated beneficiaries under the laws of the state and the valid trust instrument. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
BENEFICIARY ~ ONE WHO BENEFITS FROM THE ACT OF ANOTHER. A PARTY WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OR OTHER ARRANGMENT. Examples include the beneficiary of a TRUST... (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
TRUSTEE ~ PERSON HOLDING PROPERTY IN TRUST... ONE WHO HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO PROPERTY "IN TRUST" FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER PERSON (BENEFICIARY) AND WHO MUST CARRY OUT SPECIFIC DUTIES WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
FIDUCIARY ~ A person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that if a trustee... A person having the duty, CREATED BY HIS UNDERTAKING, to act primarily for another's benefit...
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
Lets recap again; YOU:
1) Have legal title to property you assume is yours.
2) Have a fiduciary duty for the benefit of the beneficiary that holds equitable title to the property you think you own.
^How did this happen!!!! Lets go back and see what exactly happened...
You bought a car. At that point you have COMPLETE (allodial) title to that car which is known as the Bill of Sale. Then, without understanding law (reading the fine print aka motor vehicle code of your state), and because "everyone is doing it", you voluntarily registered YOUR car with the state which created a trust agreement. Under this trust agreement that you voluntarily granted (GRANTOR), you gave equitable title to the state and made them the beneficiary and you a trustee in which you agree to their arbitrary rules and fees as a fiduciary... You getting pissed yet? You should, because if you are the "legal owner" of your home and "legal guardian" of your child, somewhere down the line you voluntarily agreed to give up equitable interest in YOUR property. Unfortunately there are two maxims of law that allow this to happen.
*Ignorance of law is no excuse.*
*Let him who wishes to be decieved, be decieved.*
How about a shot of reality from the beneficiary's mouth:
Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State (equitable owner); individual so-called "ownership" (legal owner) is only by virtue of Government (beneficiary), i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER (your the trustee); and use must be in accordance with law (fiduciary duty) and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
If you knew the defintion of "allodium," you might realize that a person who owns property in allodium has "land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to FEUDAL duties or burdens." Hmmm, feudal duties and burdens like LAND TAXES? Like renewal of registration and other fees for the enjoyment of "your" car???
Lastly, I want to make it very clear how you are viewed by your beloved government "by the people and for the people" after it changed in the 1860s from a constitutional republic to a federal democracy... Usufruct!
USUFRUCT ~ The right of using and enjoying and receiving the profits of property THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER, and the usurfructuary is a person (YOU, the trustee who holds legal title!) who has the usurfruct or right of enjoying anything in which HE HAS NO PROPERTY (equitable) INTEREST.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
Hate to burst you bubble, but as long as you willingly consent to be governed by this reconstructed federal system, you consent to being a vassal -- a voluntary slave -- for your lord, the state, in modern feudal times. If one thing remains constant, it is history repeats itself.
P.S. In case you are unaware of the significance of the term "vassal". This is taken from Wikipedia:
"A vassal or feudatory is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context [of a] feudal system... The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. The term can be applied to similar arrangements in other feudal societies."
IT IS TIME PEOPLE WAKE UP AND SEE THE MATRIX FOR WHAT IT IS! You have been deceived purposely so the establishment can collect revenue from you as a human resource and gain control over you by the waiving of fundamental rights for "benefits and privileges" from the state. THIS IS ONLY A SAMPLE OF WHAT HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM YOU!
MORPHEUS:
"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."
NEO:
"What truth?"
MORPHEUS:
"That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage.
Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind."
Friday, August 16, 2013
LEGAL TITLE vs EQUITABLE TITLE
By: Jared Dalen
Ok people, how many of you out there in the Matrix own a car? What if I told you you don't actually own your car??? You may say, "but I have legal title!" Lets be honest, have you ever bothered looking up the term "legal title" in a law dictionary? Lets take a look at some definitions from Black's 6th Edition shall we? Alrighty then...
LEGAL TITLE ~ One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect and possession, BUT WHICH CARRIES NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, ANOTHER PERSON BEING EQUITABLY ENTITLED THERETO; in either case, THE ANTITHESIS OF "EQUITABLE TITLE". It may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title; or full and absolute title or apparent right of ownership WITH BENEFICIAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE IN ANOTHER.
WOW, lots if big words in there. One of which being "equitable title." It is also noted that this equitable interest is vested in another person. Interesting... Before we venture into the word "equitable", lets take a look at "legal owner. " You are the legal owner are you not?
LEGAL OWNER ~ The term has come to be used in TECHNICAL CONTRAST to the EQUITABLE OWNER, and not as opposed to an illegal owner. The legal owner has title to property (legal title), although the title may actually carry NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY other than a lein.
Again, in contrast to equitable owner. Guess we better see who this "equitable owner" is! I would define "equitable title" but under the definition it says to "see equitable owner"...
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.
"Legal title is invested in another" (YOU) and "real and beneficial use and title belong to him." We'll who is "him" and actually owns the equitable interest in "your" car? We'll find that out shortly after a couple more definitions like "equitable ownership"...
EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP ~ The OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF ONE WHO HAS EQUITABLE AS CONTRAST TO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY...
EQUITABLE INTEREST ~ The interest of a BENEFICIARY under a trust is considered equitable as contrasted with the interest of the TRUSTEE which is a LEGAL INTEREST BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE HAS LEGAL AS CONTRASTED WITH EQUITABLE TITLE.
I hope it is starting to become very clear that somewhere between you buying the car and then receiving this "legal title", you have given up equitable interest in YOUR car. By the above definition it states you are a trustee that has legal title to the property. This may bring more questions like what is a "trust", "trustee" and this mystical "beneficiary" who has equitable title over YOUR property.
TRUST ~ A legal entity created by a GRANTOR for the benefit of designated beneficiaries under the laws of the state and the valid trust instrument.
BENEFICIARY ~ ONE WHO BENEFITS FROM THE ACT OF ANOTHER. A PARTY WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OR OTHER ARRANGMENT. Examples include the beneficiary of a TRUST...
TRUSTEE ~ PERSON HOLDING PROPERTY IN TRUST... ONE WHO HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO PROPERTY "IN TRUST" FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER PERSON (BENEFICIARY) AND WHO MUST CARRY OUT SPECIFIC DUTIES WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary.
Well, well, WELL, isn't this interesting!!!! Lets see, a trust is created by a grantor for the benefit of the beneficiary in which the trustee holds legal title and owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. Feel good about your legal title now? Lets take a look at another term to hammer this home, "fiduciary"...
FIDUCIARY ~ A person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that if a trustee... A person having the duty, CREATED BY HIS UNDERTAKING, to act primarily for another's benefit...
Lets recap again; YOU:
1) Have legal title to property you assume is yours.
2) Have a fiduciary duty for the benefit of the beneficiary that holds equitable title to the property you think you own.
^How did this happen!!!! Lets go back and see what exactly happened... You bought a car. At that point you HAD equitable title to that car which is known as the Bill of Sale. Then, without understanding law, and because "everyone is doing it", you voluntarily registered YOUR car with the state which created a trust agreement. Under this trust agreement that you voluntarily granted (GRANTOR), you gave equitable title to the state and made them the beneficiary and you a trustee in which you agree to their arbitrary rules and fees as a fiduciary... You getting pissed yet? You should, because if you are the "legal owner" of your home and "legal guardian" of your child, somewhere down the line you voluntarily agreed to give up equitable interest in YOUR property. Unfortunately there are two maxims of law that allow this to happen.
*Ignorance of law is no excuse.*
*Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.*
How about a shot of reality from the beneficiary's mouth:
Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State (equitable owner); individual so-called "ownership" (legal owner) is only by virtue of Government (beneficiary), i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER (your the trustee); and use must be in accordance with law (fiduciary duty) and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
If you knew the definition of "allodium" (in regard to land), you might realize that a person who owns land in allodium has "land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to FEUDAL duties or burdens." Hmmm, feudal duties and burdens like LAND TAXES? Like renewal of registration and other fees for the enjoyment of "your" car???
Lastly, I want to make it very clear how you are viewed by your beloved government "by the people and for the people" after it changed in the 1860s from a constitutional republic to a federal democracy... Usufruct!
USURFRUCT ~ The right of using and enjoying and receiving the profits of property THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER, and the usurfructuary is a person (YOU, the trustee who holds legal title!) who has the usurfruct or right of enjoying anything in which HE HAS NO PROPERTY (EQUITABLE) INTEREST.
Hate to burst you bubble, but as long as you willingly consent to be governed by this reconstructed federal system, you consent to being a vassal -- a voluntary slave -- for your lord the state in modern feudal times. If one thing remains constant, it is history repeats itself.
P.S. In case you are unaware of the significance of the term "vassal". This is taken from Wiki:
A vassal or feudatory is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context [a] feudal system... The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. The term can be applied to similar arrangements in other feudal societies.
Better start questioning the world around you, because this is only the tip of the iceberg...
Ok people, how many of you out there in the Matrix own a car? What if I told you you don't actually own your car??? You may say, "but I have legal title!" Lets be honest, have you ever bothered looking up the term "legal title" in a law dictionary? Lets take a look at some definitions from Black's 6th Edition shall we? Alrighty then...
LEGAL TITLE ~ One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect and possession, BUT WHICH CARRIES NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, ANOTHER PERSON BEING EQUITABLY ENTITLED THERETO; in either case, THE ANTITHESIS OF "EQUITABLE TITLE". It may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title; or full and absolute title or apparent right of ownership WITH BENEFICIAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE IN ANOTHER.
WOW, lots if big words in there. One of which being "equitable title." It is also noted that this equitable interest is vested in another person. Interesting... Before we venture into the word "equitable", lets take a look at "legal owner. " You are the legal owner are you not?
LEGAL OWNER ~ The term has come to be used in TECHNICAL CONTRAST to the EQUITABLE OWNER, and not as opposed to an illegal owner. The legal owner has title to property (legal title), although the title may actually carry NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY other than a lein.
Again, in contrast to equitable owner. Guess we better see who this "equitable owner" is! I would define "equitable title" but under the definition it says to "see equitable owner"...
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.
"Legal title is invested in another" (YOU) and "real and beneficial use and title belong to him." We'll who is "him" and actually owns the equitable interest in "your" car? We'll find that out shortly after a couple more definitions like "equitable ownership"...
EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP ~ The OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF ONE WHO HAS EQUITABLE AS CONTRAST TO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY...
EQUITABLE INTEREST ~ The interest of a BENEFICIARY under a trust is considered equitable as contrasted with the interest of the TRUSTEE which is a LEGAL INTEREST BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE HAS LEGAL AS CONTRASTED WITH EQUITABLE TITLE.
I hope it is starting to become very clear that somewhere between you buying the car and then receiving this "legal title", you have given up equitable interest in YOUR car. By the above definition it states you are a trustee that has legal title to the property. This may bring more questions like what is a "trust", "trustee" and this mystical "beneficiary" who has equitable title over YOUR property.
TRUST ~ A legal entity created by a GRANTOR for the benefit of designated beneficiaries under the laws of the state and the valid trust instrument.
BENEFICIARY ~ ONE WHO BENEFITS FROM THE ACT OF ANOTHER. A PARTY WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OR OTHER ARRANGMENT. Examples include the beneficiary of a TRUST...
TRUSTEE ~ PERSON HOLDING PROPERTY IN TRUST... ONE WHO HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO PROPERTY "IN TRUST" FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER PERSON (BENEFICIARY) AND WHO MUST CARRY OUT SPECIFIC DUTIES WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary.
Well, well, WELL, isn't this interesting!!!! Lets see, a trust is created by a grantor for the benefit of the beneficiary in which the trustee holds legal title and owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. Feel good about your legal title now? Lets take a look at another term to hammer this home, "fiduciary"...
FIDUCIARY ~ A person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that if a trustee... A person having the duty, CREATED BY HIS UNDERTAKING, to act primarily for another's benefit...
Lets recap again; YOU:
1) Have legal title to property you assume is yours.
2) Have a fiduciary duty for the benefit of the beneficiary that holds equitable title to the property you think you own.
^How did this happen!!!! Lets go back and see what exactly happened... You bought a car. At that point you HAD equitable title to that car which is known as the Bill of Sale. Then, without understanding law, and because "everyone is doing it", you voluntarily registered YOUR car with the state which created a trust agreement. Under this trust agreement that you voluntarily granted (GRANTOR), you gave equitable title to the state and made them the beneficiary and you a trustee in which you agree to their arbitrary rules and fees as a fiduciary... You getting pissed yet? You should, because if you are the "legal owner" of your home and "legal guardian" of your child, somewhere down the line you voluntarily agreed to give up equitable interest in YOUR property. Unfortunately there are two maxims of law that allow this to happen.
*Ignorance of law is no excuse.*
*Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.*
How about a shot of reality from the beneficiary's mouth:
Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State (equitable owner); individual so-called "ownership" (legal owner) is only by virtue of Government (beneficiary), i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER (your the trustee); and use must be in accordance with law (fiduciary duty) and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
If you knew the definition of "allodium" (in regard to land), you might realize that a person who owns land in allodium has "land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to FEUDAL duties or burdens." Hmmm, feudal duties and burdens like LAND TAXES? Like renewal of registration and other fees for the enjoyment of "your" car???
Lastly, I want to make it very clear how you are viewed by your beloved government "by the people and for the people" after it changed in the 1860s from a constitutional republic to a federal democracy... Usufruct!
USURFRUCT ~ The right of using and enjoying and receiving the profits of property THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER, and the usurfructuary is a person (YOU, the trustee who holds legal title!) who has the usurfruct or right of enjoying anything in which HE HAS NO PROPERTY (EQUITABLE) INTEREST.
Hate to burst you bubble, but as long as you willingly consent to be governed by this reconstructed federal system, you consent to being a vassal -- a voluntary slave -- for your lord the state in modern feudal times. If one thing remains constant, it is history repeats itself.
P.S. In case you are unaware of the significance of the term "vassal". This is taken from Wiki:
A vassal or feudatory is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context [a] feudal system... The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. The term can be applied to similar arrangements in other feudal societies.
Better start questioning the world around you, because this is only the tip of the iceberg...
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary
MAXIM.
- An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.
- Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.
- The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain bow the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.
- The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210. The following are some of the more important maxims.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Notice on my car parked on the street.
PRIVATE PROPERTY
NOT FOR HIRE
FOR NON COMMERCIAL USE ONLY
NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL. NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT.
Anyone associated with, and not limited to, the tow truck driver and parking enforcement official will be charged with Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Extortion, and will be held accountable and personally liable for their actions in a Federal Court Of Law.
ANY
REMOVAL OF THIS PERSONAL CONVEYANCE WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM
THE OWNER WILL BE TREATED AS A CRIMINAL ACT OF PIRACY!
This car is not used in commerce and therefore is not subject to California Motor Vehicle Act.
NOTICE
TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT:
ANY ATTEMPT TO EITHER TICKET OR REMOVE THIS
PERSONAL CONVEYANCE WITHOUT THE OWNERS WRITTEN CONSENT SHALL RESULT IN A LIEN BEING PLACED ON YOUR BOND, AND POSSIBLE
REVOCATION PENDING ADJUDICATION IN SUPERIOR COURT.
A forced contract fee in the amount of $50,000 if any agent or person acting within or outside of their authority of office, or in a personal manner in or out of their jurisdiction, will also be applied to any and all persons removing this personal conveyance without written consent from property owner, made payable in real money. Removing this private property is an act of forced contract, and is in violation of constitutionally protected rights.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Sui Juris - Getting THE TRUTH in the Record (Condensed Version) By Pamela and Will Gaston
"The only way to get the Truth past the attorneys and
judges is to plead your case yourself, in your Lawful Sovereign capacity.
Sovereign Rights are Inherent Rights, only claimable by the Natural Man or Woman
who lives and breathes and pleads their own case, the literal meaning of Sui
Juris. A representative cannot claim Sovereignty for someone else, nor can an
attorney exercise your Sovereign Rights in a courtroom. To force a Natural Man
or Woman, free, innocent of any crime UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY OF A Crime, to give
their sovereignty away to be represented by another is unconstitutional.
The attorney/bar association scheme is called "confusion of caselaw and conflicting legal theories" and we do not play that game in the courtroom. It is a facade to keep up the appearance that you need their expertise and authority to understand the law. You do not want to try to learn to be an attorney. You are your Natural Person speaking for himself, truthful, factual statements about whatever has happened to you. Sui Juris litigants insist on being treated respectfully, not as victims incapable of aggressively pleading their own cases and fighting for themselves. Attorney pleadings go on for pages without substance, like a preacher who sermonizes for an hour and says nothing of any meaning - you do not do this. Your truth is amazingly powerful and your whole goal is to speak it and enter the Truth into the Public Record.
An innocent, Natural Man or Woman is literally "above the Law". He or she stands ON a constitutional foundation as revealed below.
(1) GOD (Our Creator); (2) YOU (Child of GOD)- Sui Juris - All Natural Law and Birthrights come from Our Creator, and these rights must be protected by RESTRICTING the Government with; (3) THE STATE & FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS AND BILLS OF RIGHTS, on which you stand and which establishes and RESTRICTS; (4) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND "THE STATES", which includes all 3 branches of government, and all elected and appointed officials, and all bar members and attorneys; (5) Below ALL of the above is the COUNTERFEIT CORPORATE IDENTITY OR "STRAW MAN", which is a fictitious identity attached to you in the Counterfeit Reality.
The Constitution does not bestow rights on anyone. Your Inherent Rights come from your Creator. You possess them yourself naturally.
The Constitution is a restriction on the government, not on you, preventing your sovereign, Inherent Rights from being violated. Your Sovereignty exists literally where you stand, and by birthright, reiterated by the Constitution.
Yet most people mistakenly think of themselves "below" the standing of an attorney. Seeing themselves BELOW government, they are "standing under" or "understanding" that they gave their rights up when they agreed to allow someone else to "represent" them.
(Now you know what you just gave the judge when he asked if you "understood" what he was doing to you in court! And you said "yes", NOT understanding at all that it means you "stand under" in agreement with his process. The court from then on says you "admitted" that you "understood" the "charges").
An Inherent Right is a RIGHT, not a privilege, the exercise of which cannot lawfully be restricted with a tax or license or permission by the government.
The foundation outlined above, rightfully outlines the hierarchy wherein our freedom and Republican Authority of the People is found and which Authority must be asserted and exercised."
Link to the full condensed version: http://familyrights.us/how_to/suijuris/sui_juris.html
The attorney/bar association scheme is called "confusion of caselaw and conflicting legal theories" and we do not play that game in the courtroom. It is a facade to keep up the appearance that you need their expertise and authority to understand the law. You do not want to try to learn to be an attorney. You are your Natural Person speaking for himself, truthful, factual statements about whatever has happened to you. Sui Juris litigants insist on being treated respectfully, not as victims incapable of aggressively pleading their own cases and fighting for themselves. Attorney pleadings go on for pages without substance, like a preacher who sermonizes for an hour and says nothing of any meaning - you do not do this. Your truth is amazingly powerful and your whole goal is to speak it and enter the Truth into the Public Record.
An innocent, Natural Man or Woman is literally "above the Law". He or she stands ON a constitutional foundation as revealed below.
(1) GOD (Our Creator); (2) YOU (Child of GOD)- Sui Juris - All Natural Law and Birthrights come from Our Creator, and these rights must be protected by RESTRICTING the Government with; (3) THE STATE & FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS AND BILLS OF RIGHTS, on which you stand and which establishes and RESTRICTS; (4) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND "THE STATES", which includes all 3 branches of government, and all elected and appointed officials, and all bar members and attorneys; (5) Below ALL of the above is the COUNTERFEIT CORPORATE IDENTITY OR "STRAW MAN", which is a fictitious identity attached to you in the Counterfeit Reality.
The Constitution does not bestow rights on anyone. Your Inherent Rights come from your Creator. You possess them yourself naturally.
The Constitution is a restriction on the government, not on you, preventing your sovereign, Inherent Rights from being violated. Your Sovereignty exists literally where you stand, and by birthright, reiterated by the Constitution.
Yet most people mistakenly think of themselves "below" the standing of an attorney. Seeing themselves BELOW government, they are "standing under" or "understanding" that they gave their rights up when they agreed to allow someone else to "represent" them.
(Now you know what you just gave the judge when he asked if you "understood" what he was doing to you in court! And you said "yes", NOT understanding at all that it means you "stand under" in agreement with his process. The court from then on says you "admitted" that you "understood" the "charges").
An Inherent Right is a RIGHT, not a privilege, the exercise of which cannot lawfully be restricted with a tax or license or permission by the government.
The foundation outlined above, rightfully outlines the hierarchy wherein our freedom and Republican Authority of the People is found and which Authority must be asserted and exercised."
Link to the full condensed version: http://familyrights.us/how_to/suijuris/sui_juris.html
As any reasonable person can understand
I've had court clerks deny my paperwork for the stupidest things in the past. Not anymore.
The Court Cannot Deny Your Petitions for 'Want of Form'
or 'Insufficient Process' All it has to be is 'as any reasonable person can understand'.
"And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil
cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want
of form, but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and
matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ,
declaration, or other pleading, returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in
cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his demurrer as the
cause thereof. And the said courts respectively shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and
every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as
aforesaid, and may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings upon such
conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by their rules prescribe (a) "
Judiciary Act of
September 24, 1789, Section 342,FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch. 20, 1789
Due Process provides that the "rights of pro se (Sui Juris) litigants are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers; if court can reasonably read pleadings to state valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with pleading requirements" (Spencer v Doe, 1998; Green v Branson 1997;Boag V McDougall, 19982; Haines V Kerner, 1972)
"Right to proceed pro se (Sui Juris) is fundamental statutory right that is afforded highest degree of protection" DEVINE V INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOLBD., 11TH CIR. 1997
Due Process provides that the "rights of pro se (Sui Juris) litigants are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers; if court can reasonably read pleadings to state valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with pleading requirements" (Spencer v Doe, 1998; Green v Branson 1997;Boag V McDougall, 19982; Haines V Kerner, 1972)
"Right to proceed pro se (Sui Juris) is fundamental statutory right that is afforded highest degree of protection" DEVINE V INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOLBD., 11TH CIR. 1997
Pirates
A
peace officer operates under common law. What we have here today are
nothing more than statute enforcement / revenue collecting pirates.
--Chris Duke
--Chris Duke
Court Expediency Negates Rights?
"There
is an aggressive trend overall to say "the expediency of the court"
negates our rights. It is also used to say "the People will have to give
up some of their sovereignty for the good of the community". This is
now taken to the bigger level, "give up your sovereignty in the best
interest of the GLOBAL community". All Lawmaking has become a matter of
what is the "best interest of the STATE, or the Courts, or the Agencies,
or the Community" never the People or the individual."
--By Pamela and Will Gaston
--By Pamela and Will Gaston
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Introducing another new publisher / author on the blog.
Rick C. Rick is responsible for turning me onto the Sui Juris law site over on Facebook. I've learned a lot since then and welcome his input here on the blog. Rick has a lot of great stored data to share. I left out your last name Rick until you post up to see if you want to use it here or not.
Here's an example of his stuff.
CITATIONS:
The CITATION process can be handled much easier; through the mail. When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him! He is alleging that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an
acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your
signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or
CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT;
PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
You can cancel that CONTRACT however my rescinding your CONSENT, within three
business days of entering into such a CONTRACT. So across the face of the
CITATION you should print or type in large print, the following words:
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT
And I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty]. Admiralty is the Court
and Royalty represents your Sovereignty. Either way is appropriate. Sign your
signature underneath in blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under
your signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308. This is another way to
declare that you may not be held
responsible for this contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.
Serve Cancelled Citation back it on the Clerk / Court, along with a Certificate
of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This kills the
CITATION; removes your CONCENT and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at
the same time. It really is that simple!
NOTE: A Certificate of Service is a letter that first identifies the Citation
and then defines how and when you returned the document to the Court and is
signed. If not denied, it becomes a truth in commerce by Tacit Procuration.
Remember to keep a copy of everything, in case the Clerk attempts to trash your
response, which certainly will not happen with a Certificate of Service or if it
is mailed back by the Notary. The Notary is actually a Deputy Secretary of State
and is more powerful than the Court Clerk!
Public Notaries originate from the time of the Egyptian and Roman Scribes who
were the purveyors of certified documents, which are sworn affidavits. Certified
documents and sworn affidavits are truth in commerce. [e.g.] Birth Certificates
are certified documents on bonded
paper. The word bonded is derived from bondage as in slavery, which makes all of
us Bond Slaves to whoever retains custody of our original Birth Certificates. I
bet you believed that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves and it did
for a short time and then the Birth Certificate and the 14th Amendment enslaved
us all!
SUMMONS and LAWSUITS:
The SUMMONS process, whether it is defined a Civil or Criminal Action, is once
again an offer to CONTRACT, despite what words are to command your appearance or
response. It too can be cancelled just by following the same procedure as the
CITATION process above. A million dollar lawsuit is no different than a CITATION
and both can be cancelled! Hard to believe, isn't it?
Does your lawyer know about this? You bet he does but he is not permitted to
embarrass the Court and besides, Court is where he makes his money!
NOTE: How many of you have ever attempted to avoid Jury Duty? All you had to do
was cancel the SUMMONS [OFFER to CONTRACT]; notarize it and mail it back to the
Jury Commissioner. Don't worry, they won't bother you because you are obviously
too smart and may influence their Jury! The Jury [controls] the Court and not
the Prosecutor and Judge and if you know that, they lose and the defendant wins,
which is why they prefer only the dumbed down candidates to serve on Jury.
There are a few matters or issues that are next to impossible to circumvent or
quash because of the depth of corruption within these pseudo Courts, such as
child custody and the division of property resulting form a divorce. The Birth
State claims the custody of your children pursuant to the Birth Certificate and
records them under the Department of Transportation as a State owned Vessel!
The CITATION process can be handled much easier; through the mail. When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him! He is alleging that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an
acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your
signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or
CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT;
PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
You can cancel that CONTRACT however my rescinding your CONSENT, within three
business days of entering into such a CONTRACT. So across the face of the
CITATION you should print or type in large print, the following words:
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT
And I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty]. Admiralty is the Court
and Royalty represents your Sovereignty. Either way is appropriate. Sign your
signature underneath in blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under
your signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308. This is another way to
declare that you may not be held
responsible for this contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.
Serve Cancelled Citation back it on the Clerk / Court, along with a Certificate
of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This kills the
CITATION; removes your CONCENT and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at
the same time. It really is that simple!
NOTE: A Certificate of Service is a letter that first identifies the Citation
and then defines how and when you returned the document to the Court and is
signed. If not denied, it becomes a truth in commerce by Tacit Procuration.
Remember to keep a copy of everything, in case the Clerk attempts to trash your
response, which certainly will not happen with a Certificate of Service or if it
is mailed back by the Notary. The Notary is actually a Deputy Secretary of State
and is more powerful than the Court Clerk!
Public Notaries originate from the time of the Egyptian and Roman Scribes who
were the purveyors of certified documents, which are sworn affidavits. Certified
documents and sworn affidavits are truth in commerce. [e.g.] Birth Certificates
are certified documents on bonded
paper. The word bonded is derived from bondage as in slavery, which makes all of
us Bond Slaves to whoever retains custody of our original Birth Certificates. I
bet you believed that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves and it did
for a short time and then the Birth Certificate and the 14th Amendment enslaved
us all!
SUMMONS and LAWSUITS:
The SUMMONS process, whether it is defined a Civil or Criminal Action, is once
again an offer to CONTRACT, despite what words are to command your appearance or
response. It too can be cancelled just by following the same procedure as the
CITATION process above. A million dollar lawsuit is no different than a CITATION
and both can be cancelled! Hard to believe, isn't it?
Does your lawyer know about this? You bet he does but he is not permitted to
embarrass the Court and besides, Court is where he makes his money!
NOTE: How many of you have ever attempted to avoid Jury Duty? All you had to do
was cancel the SUMMONS [OFFER to CONTRACT]; notarize it and mail it back to the
Jury Commissioner. Don't worry, they won't bother you because you are obviously
too smart and may influence their Jury! The Jury [controls] the Court and not
the Prosecutor and Judge and if you know that, they lose and the defendant wins,
which is why they prefer only the dumbed down candidates to serve on Jury.
There are a few matters or issues that are next to impossible to circumvent or
quash because of the depth of corruption within these pseudo Courts, such as
child custody and the division of property resulting form a divorce. The Birth
State claims the custody of your children pursuant to the Birth Certificate and
records them under the Department of Transportation as a State owned Vessel!
PAUPER'S OATH
By: Jeff Ganaposki
Way back in time - before socialism - before FICA - before 1935, there was the dreaded PAUPER'S OATH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath
Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.
One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
“ I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."
.............
In case you did not catch all the subtle ramifications, allow me to expound:
1. Exceeding $20 parallels the 7th amendment's requirement for the value in controversy to EXCEED $20 in order to trigger access to the RULES of the common law. (Common law is nice to free peoples. )
2. Recipients of public charity had to swear that they owned NOTHING more than $20 worth or they were ineligible.
3. As paupers, they were also "status criminals," excepted from constitutional protections.
Coincidentally, after FICA, FDR abolished the Pauper's oath for recipients of "Relief" and other "benefits."
Of course, the people didn't realize that by signing up for FICA, they were pauperized, literally owning nothing more than $20. As "contributors," all their labor and property were pledged as collateral on the public debt.
Government is so nice - they let us keep the stuff - as long as we make a "return of income" and pay skim to the D.C. lords. But ultimately, "they" have first dibs on everything... by our consent.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
[The site coyly avoids mentioning that FICA is the means by which all YOUR goods and labor back their worthless IOUs.]
So, do you think that folks in the 1930s would have willingly signed up with FICA if FDR didn't lie and say that "Relief is not charity!"
(In reply to my query, the Congressional Research Service stated that entitlements are synonymous with gifts from the public treasury. That's legal speak for "we're not going to admit that recipients are paupers at law.")
Way back in time - before socialism - before FICA - before 1935, there was the dreaded PAUPER'S OATH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath
Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.
One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
“ I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."
.............
In case you did not catch all the subtle ramifications, allow me to expound:
1. Exceeding $20 parallels the 7th amendment's requirement for the value in controversy to EXCEED $20 in order to trigger access to the RULES of the common law. (Common law is nice to free peoples. )
2. Recipients of public charity had to swear that they owned NOTHING more than $20 worth or they were ineligible.
3. As paupers, they were also "status criminals," excepted from constitutional protections.
Coincidentally, after FICA, FDR abolished the Pauper's oath for recipients of "Relief" and other "benefits."
Of course, the people didn't realize that by signing up for FICA, they were pauperized, literally owning nothing more than $20. As "contributors," all their labor and property were pledged as collateral on the public debt.
Government is so nice - they let us keep the stuff - as long as we make a "return of income" and pay skim to the D.C. lords. But ultimately, "they" have first dibs on everything... by our consent.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
[The site coyly avoids mentioning that FICA is the means by which all YOUR goods and labor back their worthless IOUs.]
So, do you think that folks in the 1930s would have willingly signed up with FICA if FDR didn't lie and say that "Relief is not charity!"
(In reply to my query, the Congressional Research Service stated that entitlements are synonymous with gifts from the public treasury. That's legal speak for "we're not going to admit that recipients are paupers at law.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)