Driving As Commercial Activity. Pay as you Go! Photo © by Jeff Dean (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Anon4fun recently posted a comment on this blog involving the alleged “commercial” nature imputed by the courts to anyone who is driving an automobile. According to Anon4fun,
“Re: Your comment of: Driving as a “commercial” activity.
“In the eyes/minds,etc., of ALL the courts I am aware of, a, or any “driver of a motor vehicle” IS engaging/participating,etc., in commercial activity. Every word/term used in the motor vehicle code is a commerce word/term,e.g “passenger.” We know that a passenger is a “paying customer.” I don’t think it is “just coincidental” that the Court in Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645,said,in pertinent part: “A traveler by automobile;” and not a “driver of a motor vehicle.”
“At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed.” Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.”
Virtually anyone who’s studied traffic law has run into one or more court cases that appear to describe all “driving” as “commercial activity”.
Many people who’ve tries to resist traffic laws, have done so by denying that they are engaged in “commercial activity”. I suppose a few may have succeeded with that line of defense. I presume that most have failed.
But it occurs to me that if driving is always deemed to be a “commercial activity,” maybe we should go with the flow. Maybe we should use “commercial activity” the way a judo expert uses his adversary’s weight and momentum to defeat his adversary.
In the end, the issue may not be whether we are engaged in “commerce,” but where we are engaged in “commerce”.
I.e., Article 1.8.3 of the federal Constitution expressly declares the power of the federal government to regulate “commerce among the several States” (of the Union). So far as I know, Article 1.8.3 includes the only express reference in the Constitution to “commerce”. Note the express language: ”commerce among the several States“.
Note also that the term “interstate commerce” does not appear in the federal Constitution. The question, then, is this: as used today, are the terms “interstate commerce” and “commerce among the several States” synonymous?
I don’t know where or when the term “interstate commerce” first appeared. I don’t doubt that the word can be found in Supreme Court cases at least back into the 1800s. I don’t doubt that as originally used by the courts, “interstate commerce” may have been a kind of “shorthand” for “commerce among the several States”. It may also have been shorthand for commerce between only one State of the Union and a territory (like Guam, US Virgin Islands) or even with Washington DC.
But note that “commerce among the several States” of the Union clearly refers to commerce between two or more States of the Union. I.e., commerce between The State of Texas and The State of New York would be “commerce among the several States” and could therefore be regulated under Article 1.8.3. But commerce between The State of Texas and Washington DC would not be “commerce among the several States” since Washington DC is not a State of the Union. It’s conceivable that “interstate commerce” may have been initially intended to describe commerce between only one State of the Union and a “territory” like Washington DC or of the Territory of New Mexico or other territories before they became States of the Union.
Whatever the definition for “interstate commerce,” it appears probable that any “commercial activity” that includes any territory would be inconsistent with Article 1.8.3–which expressly applies to only the “several States” of the Union. It may follow that any statutory definition of “commerce” or “interstate commerce” that includes territories and/or Washington DC would not be “commerce among the several States” as defined by the Constitution at Article 1.8.3.
Therefore, I strongly suspect that, sometime after A.D. 1933 and the onset of New Deal, the term “interstate commerce” may have been redefined to signify commerce between one or more of the administrative divisions (TX, CA, FL, NY, etc.) of the territory of the United States often referred to as “this state”.
There would also be a third form of “commercial activity”: intrastate commerce.
The term “Intrastate commerce” might be currently defined by federal statute to mean “commercial activity” completely within one of the administrative divisions (say, TX) of the territory of the United States (“this state”). But I could also define “intrastate commerce” to mean “commerce confined entirely within the borders of a single State of the Union” (like The State of Texas). If I introduced my definition of “intrastate” commerce into a court case, who would deny my definition under oath, on the record and in front of a jury? Who would dare testify to the jury that we weren’t really within The State of Texas, but were instead in “TX” and/or “this state”?
Let’s suppose that there are truly three varieties of “commerce”: 1) among the States of the Union; and 2) in the territories of “this state”; and 3) within a single State of the Union.
If that were true, then whenever the court referred to “commerce” or “commercial activity,” the court’s language would be imprecise and ambiguous. When the court says “commercial actitivity,” is it talking about “commercial activity” among two or more of the State of the Union, in the territory of “this state” or exclusively within a single State of the Union?
So, what would happen if I were accused of engaging in the “commercial activity” while driving an automobile and I testified that, “Yes, indeed, I was engaged in ‘commerce among the several States‘ of the Union as per Article 1.8.3 of the federal Constitution–or in the alternative, I was driving in intrastate commerce within the borders of a single State of the Union“?
I’m not denying that I was engaged in commerce. I’m admitting the “commerce,” but I’m only admitting it within a State of the Union. I am betting that the courts of “this state” may have no authority or jurisdiction over acts committed within the borders of a State of the Union. More, I’m betting that, faced with an effective presentation of the “The State vs this state” dichotomy, the court will be extremely reluctant to proceed.
(As part of my admission that I’m engaged in “commerce,” I might even carry a handful of silver dimes in my pocket and give one silver dime as a gift to anyone who was about to ride in my automobile as a “passenger”. Then, when the “passenger” entered my vehicle, I would charge them one silver dime as payment for my commercial services. Now, under Article 1.10.1 (“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”), I have just charged and been paid one silver dime and thereby created more evidence that my “commercial activity” was performed within the borders of a State of the Union. A passenger who had paid me one silver dime and was willing to testify to that payment would be a second witness to my claim that I’m driving “commercially”–but only within a State of the Union. It’s conceivable that I might be safer with a “passenger” in my vehicle than driving by myself, since my “passenger” could testify I was “driving” in the venue/plane of The State of Texas.
Heck, I might even make up ten or twelve of those “dime cards” that included text referencing Articles 1.8.3 and 1.10.1 of the Constitution and defined that particular dime as being a payment for riding as a passenger in my car within the borders of The State of Texas–one of the other “several States” of the Union. If I produced such dime card in court as evidence that payment for my “commercial activities” was made in silver and within a State of the Union, I’d have a better chance of winning my defense.)
Now what? Under the authority of Article 1.8.3 of the federal Constitution and/or the logic of my definition of “intrastate commerce,” I have just testified that my “commercial activity” took place within the borders and venue/plane of a State of the Union. Within the States of the Union, the federal government has only limited powers specified in Article 1 of the federal Constitution. I doubt that any governmental agency can operate within the States of the Union without using gold or silver coin. I am confident (but not certain) that what currently passes for government does not want, and may not even be legally able, to enter into the States of the Union.
If so, once I’ve admitted under oath that my “commercial activities” (as per 1.8.3) are taking place within a venue that implicates the States of the Union, I suspect that the gov-co might have only three choices: 1) deny that I was engaged in any “commercial activity”; 2) claim on the record that my “commercial activity” was “interstate” (in “this state”) rather than “among the several States” of the Union as per 1.8.3 or exclusively within a single State of the Union (intrastate commerce); and 3) drop the case.
I’m not suggesting that my hypothetical strategy is guaranteed to work in a “legal” sense. I’m suggesting that it has a high probability of succeeding in a “political” sense. Yes, the prosecutor may have a bushel-basket full of statutes and court cases that define “interstate” and even “intrastate” commerce to take place in the territory of “this state”. Legally, he can probably defeat my arguments. But once I’ve expressly testified under oath, on the record, and in front of a jury, that all of my commercial activities took place within the borders of one or more of the “several States” of the Union, will the prosecutor dare to refute my testimony by claiming that my commercial activities actually took place in the fictonal “territory” of “this state”? Will he make such admissions in front of a jury? I doubt it.
I don’t doubt that a decent prosecutor can beat me as a matter of law. But–assuming the “The State vs. this state” dichotomy is real–will any prosecutor risk exposing “this state” on the record, just to convict me of driving without a license? Nothing’s impossible–but it ain’t likely.
NDT
September 10, 2012 at 4:26 AM
The issue of ambiguity should be addressed by Baron Parke’s rule (aka the golden rule of statutory interpretation). It can be applied to person as well as vehicle, and In my experience it causes serious problems for civil law.
Yartap
September 10, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Al,
I responded to one of Anon4fun’s post with what the courts are ruling now as follows:
“Don’t forget also, the courts have ruled that “anything” with the “possibility” of being transported across state lines “is, now, interstate commerce.”
I wish I could put my hands on the name of the case; but basically, the court has said that if You sell goods to Another, within your state, and the Other person sells the product, You sold to Him, to an out of state Buyer, this would mean that YOU are also engaged in “Interstate Commerce.” Thus, the gov-co. expanding its grasp upon the non-interstate commerce public.
Further, it use to be that the courts looked upon the production of income or income side as commerce and not the “retail” purchasing of goods side or the “consumer side” as commerce for regulating. But, now, a person or “retail consumer,” who drives down the street to a local store to “buy” a product is considered as engaged in commerce.
Now, to carry out the logic of the so-called government, if a “retail consumer” buys goods that came across state lines from a local store or buys goods that has the “possibility” of crossing state lines, then the buyer is engaged in interstate commerce. Thus, a retiree or non-income producer, who buys goods, can be regulated with the commerce clause. Now, they have us all! So, it is not a matter of “where” commerce is conducted, anymore. Thus, the transfer of IntraState into InterState commerce.
To fight this transfer of meaning, one must get the courts and gov-co. to define and answer these questions: “Just, what is “IntraState” Commerce? How does one engage in IntraState Commerce? What is/are the difference(s) between IntraState and InterState Commerce? How is the “means” of transportation involved with Commerce? To what extent is a means of transportation involved with Commerce? How does a “means of transportation” engage in IntraState Commerce? Does IntraState Commerce even exist?
And one must approach gov-co. as a blood flowing man or woman and not as a corporation or trust. Plus, one must use a JURY with a general understanding of the true differences between Intra and Inter State Commerce to offset the government’s intrusions with their understanding between the two meanings.
Adask
September 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM
“Intrastate commerce” takes place exclusively within a “state”.
“Interstate commerce” takes place when the commercial activity crosses from one “state” into a second “state”.
The question is What kind of “state” are we talking about? A State of the Union? Or something else?
As for getting a judge to define the meaning of “interstate” or “intrastate” commerce, thass naw hees yob. But YOU can define the words you use in YOUR paperwork. If your definitions are implicate a venue within a State of the Union, and are so clear and concise that they make perfect sense to a jury–then the prosecutor will have a very difficult time introducing some alternative definition that implicates a venue outside the borders of your State of the Union.
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM
To Alfred
I have a case somewhere around here where A United States Court of Appeals( I don’t recall the circuit) said in pertinent part: “There is a State within the State.” Based on what I remember, i.e. “There is a State within the State,” do you want me to see if I can find it & send you the citation?
Adask
September 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Yes, indeed.
Yartap
September 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Al,
I’m sorry. Your right. I meant to say just the prosecutor has to define what Intra and Inter State Commerce is with my Discovery.
The “this state” court Judge’s job is to interfere with testimony and evidence; and what the jury can and cannot hear. Ha!Ha!Ha! If I show up to court, which is highly unlikely, due to jurisdiction. Ha!Ha!Ha!
Norm
September 30, 2012 at 12:31 AM
This is actually in reply to a great analysis of yours concerning a “Drivers License”. You were doing some detective work concerning..driving on an expired/no license vs driving on an expired/no license that was under less than honorable conditions…for lack of better words.
Im from Georgia and was in a situation where the cop realized I had an expired license (honorable conditions). He gave me a ride home and helped me push my jeep into a driveway. No official action on his part.
I get my license free as a disabled veteran of the USMC. I went down to the DMV and told the lady..this 5 year renewal nonsense is a pain in the rear end. That was in 2008….she asked me with such a sheepish look…is 2023 ok? I was shocked with a open mouthed grin.
So I have a license that expires in 2023.
The way I see it two things are possible…they arent losing fees with me, so a license to infinity is possible. The second consideration is you are onto something.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Hello Yartap.
Re: Your comment of: “….one must get the courts and gov-co. to define and answer these questions:
“ Judge says” I’m not here to answer your questions. It’s clear that you need an attorney. Then he goes through the if you can’t afford one BS,& your objection falls on deaf ears & a heart of stone. Sometimes their deaf ears somehow become “conveniently” opened & we get a response to our objection e.g. “Now if you open your mouth & utter one more word about me appointing the public defender to represent you I’m going to give you 30 days for contempt, do you understand me?
Yartap,is yes,one more word? Is NO!! one more word? Here is just part of what we are up against”
A long,LONG time ago,many years ago, a, in my opinion, very perceptive wise man said:We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.”
My sordid experiences with gov-co confim that statement to be an UNDERSTAEMENT.
James Barnes
September 10, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Here ya go I’d like comments on it, has loads of info on driving v Traveling and I’ve researched about 80% of the cites and they are all accurate, although I haven’t sheppardized them. If a right can not be converted (sic Unalienable) then these very fundamental rules cannot be changed. Then again when dealing with a Black Robed criminal with armed dumbed down ignorant thugs at his disposal. what do you do take it up the shoot and say gee that ice cream is good while you eat the corn filled crap they are trying to fed you.
Love and Peace to you all
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Hi James, Re: your message on September 10, 2012 at 6:00 AM
There is no way to say it better!!!
Don
September 20, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Hello James Barnes !!
If I may ask,dear Brother, which one of “the several states” do you live in? I would practically guarantee, it is one that existed BEFORE the 14th amendment. I may be wrong & if I am, this makes your message made on September 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM even more interesting & that is an understatement.
James Barnes
September 10, 2012 at 6:01 AM
Sorry forgot the link
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Don
September 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Hi James
Re:”The most sacred of his liberties,” do not exist anymore. There is nothing sacred anymore as it once was. You may not agree but I sure don’t want you to lose everything you may stll have to understand.You are good man. I can tell this also from my heartbreaking hard knocks.But There is a glorious future awaiting around the bend. The barbarian savages we are up against are EVIL RUTHLESS,& GODLESS. Those are some of their good points. Keep in touch. I am your brother. I love you & I am not ashamed to say this.If there is anything I can do to help in any way,please contact me.Phone number is: 505-865-9293. E-mail is: donaldbailey02@comcast.net
Shalom
Don
September 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM
Hello, James Barnes
IF “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime as Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489, says,why in your opinion, are some of us jailed for claiming & exercising a constitutional Right? I believe you already answered this when you said:”Then again when dealing with a Black Robed criminal with armed dumbed down ignorant thugs at his disposal…”
The way things are today, here is what the Miller v.U,S court should have said:
The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right CAN and WILL BE converted into a crime.
Adask
September 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM
I wonder if the answer to you question might lie in the meaning of “crime” as compared to the meaning of “penal offense”. It might be roughly correct to say that a “crime”–like murder or robbery–is, essentially, an act in violation of God’s law. But a “penal offense” is merely a civil offense with attached criminal penalties. The penalty for “penal” may be “criminal,” but “penal” itself is “civil” in nature.
The idea that all “crimes” are now “commercial” parallels the idea that all modern “crimes” may now be “penal offenses”.
So, while it may be true that the the exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted to a true “crime,” maybe the exercise of such constitutional Rights can be converted to a “penal offense”. If so, I’d bet that such conversion was presumptive and might be defeated by expressing denying a “civil” relationship with the plaintiff and putting the prosecution in a position where they had to allege that the defendant’s acts constituted true “crimes” (not “penal” or “commercial” offenses). I suspect that today’s system might be lawfully incompetent to prosecute a true “crime”. All they may be able to do is “commerce,” “civil” and “penal”.
Gary Lee, House of Russell
September 21, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Don, If I understand some of what I read here, for example, if the Right to travel is Constitutionally protected (under the 5th Amendment to The Constitution For The united States of America, as amended A.D. 1791, according to the Supreme Court), then it cannot be converted into a crime (also according to the Supreme Court, BUT, if you have a drivers license (at least here in California)you had to have had an SSN to get it, and as State Citizens of one of the several States of the Union aren’t even eligible to apply for an SSN, one would have to be a statutory or territorial U.S> or United States citizen to have a drivers license in the first place. Again, if (big if) I understand what I read correctly, federal citizens do not have any Constitutional rights, they have civil right, so the “conversion” of a Constitutional right into a crime never actually has to take place. As is pointed out many, many times in Alfred’s blogs here, it is probably presumed you are a federal citizen of some kind, unless YOU set the record straight. Supreme Court has said many times, one does not need to be a US citizen to be a State Citizen. Supreme Court has also said many times the privileges, rights and immunities enjoyed by US citizens are NOT the same as those enjoyed by State Citizens. Of course, all of this is presuming I actually understand what I am reading…. : )
Adask
September 21, 2012 at 7:48 AM
There is no such document as “The Constitution for the united States of America”. The phrase “united States of America” does appear in the title to what we call the “Declaration of Independence”. The proper name for that document is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”.
A lot of people have jumped to the conclusion that the proper name of this country must therefore be “The united States of America”. But, within the context of the “Declaration,” there’s no more reason to believe the proper name of this country is “The united States of America” than there is to believe the proper name is “The thirteen united States of America”.
The “Declaration” only created thirteen, completely independent states/nations. Five years later, those same thirteen, independent States combined to form a confederation and perpetual Union with the proper name “The United States of America”.
As used in the “Declaration,” the word “united” is not capitalized any more than the word “thirteen” is capitalized because neither is part of a proper name or noun. The words “thirteen” and “united” are not capitalized because they are used as adjectives.
The presumption there is a document styled “The Constitution of the united States of America” is simply false.
There are two documents that are somewhat confused. First, we have the “constitution” of “The United States of America”. That’s the document that created/constituted the confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. What’s the title for that document? It’s the “Articles of Confederation” of A.D. 1781.
Ten years later, another document was adopted that created/constituted a completely different entity called the “United States”. That “constitution” of A.D. 1791 does not include a proper name in the original document. However, the proper name for that document has come to be “The Constitution of the United States” because that document created/constituted a brand new government (probably national in nature, rather than federal) called the “United States”.
If that’s not sufficiently confusing, the Preamble to “The Constitution of the United States” declares in part that “We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Lots of folks have decided that the proper name for the “Constitution” of A.D. 1791 must therefore be “The Constitution for the United States of America”. I disagree. I believe the phrase “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” is telling us that that the Constitution adopted in A.D. 1791 was intended for the benefit of the confederation and perpetual Union previously created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781.
If you read the Articles of Confederation and compare them to The Constitution of the United States you can see that “The United States of America” (created by the Articles of A.D. 1781) is much different from the “United States” (created by the “Constitution” of A.D. 1791). The confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” includes only State of the Union. There is no provision for territories or Washington DC in the Articles and/or “The United States of America”. The territories and what became Washington DC are first provided for in “The Constitution of the United States”.
Thus, I would argue that so long as I am within The United States of America, I can’t be in a territory of “this state”. On the other other hand, so long as I claim or assent to be “in the United States,” I could be in a territory or Washington DC.
I am convinced that there are no territories or Washington DC within “The United States of America”.
In any case, there is no such entity whose proper name is “The united States of America”. Likewise, there is no “constitution” entitled “The Constitution For The united States of America”. If such document existed, why would they capitalize the words “For” and “The” but neglect to capitalize the word “united”? It makes no sense historically or grammatically.
Those of you who are tempted to refer to a document named “The Constitution For The united States of America” are relying on an authority that does not exist. It’s possible that you might be able to use the term “The Constitution For the united States of America” if you defined it in your paperwork to mean “The Constitution of the United States,” but why bother? Why base your defense or your argument on the authority of a document that does not, in fact, exist? It can only lead to defeat.
tlotman
September 10, 2012 at 8:12 AM
I wonder if that is why the police will ask, “Where are you going?” The y want to see if you are engaging in interstate commerce or not.
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Hi tlotman
Re: I wonder if that is why the police will ask, “Where are you going?”
I ask “Officer,what is your probable cause for asking? He/she says with his/her hand on his/her pistol: “Probably cause I want too,step out of your motor vehicle,turn around,spread your legs & put your hands behind your back. Officer,what is your probable cause for arresting me? He/she says: probably cause I want to,shut it up. If you are here in New Mexico, it’s “Calla usted”,
James Barnes
September 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Since I began my study of law, mind you not with the years behind me Al has, but still with due intensity. I’ve been falsely arrested twice, once even on a false warrant for failure to appear. While not cooperative and very aggressive verbally (belligerent claimant) I was never physically aggressive (I let those violent idiots do that.) I was let go both times without action, because with all their intimidation, threats and bs I would not sign nor agree to anything, except under threat (making that instrument invalid and extorted) and was very careful about ANY questions I did answer or statements made. I’ve never committed a crime as an adult (I was a pretty wild kid) and all their actions are out of ignorance and fraud, and therefore actionable under law. While spending short times in a cage for their horse manure while their bosses told them what idiots they are. I’ve always been let go, only because they had not a leg to stand on. Make sure you state out loud when being falsely arrested you are cooperating under protest, threat, duress and coercion and know the legal definitions of those words. If you do get to a court never understand what words they are saying to you unless you have studied them legally and state. I cannot make a legal determination about what you are asking me, I need a translator unless you’d like to translate into English for me judge, or ask when asked if you understand, if that means, do I comprehend you (which you don’t) or I agree with you (unless you’ve harmed someone or their property and haven’t offered restitution) you shouldn’t. the more you study the easier it gets, but at some point it all clicks and becomes very simple. Law is not nor is meant to be complicated (that’s provable) Even a simple man is supposed to be able to comprehend it. If it such an incomprehensible mishmash of crap (IE the IRS Code it’s totally void) Even judges say they have no clue what it says, which makes it a total and utter fraud. Christians aren’t supposed to presume, but you have to, and only presume what you can back up with facts and evidence (know those 2 definitions by heart to.) Look up Trezevant v Tampa for how much false imprisonment is worth if you want to pursue action against them and learn and use affidavits they are very powerful, remembering never to lie on them.
Peace Out.
NDT
September 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM
The question can be used to evidence your legal status. A direct response suggests obligation,
and defensiveness suggests guilt.
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM
To: NDT
RIGHT !!! Heads you win & tails I lose.
Yartap
September 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM
tiotman,
Nooo! They ask because they want to know if you are going over to their girlfriend’s house. Ha!Ha!Ha!
moongoddess18
September 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM
You can always challenge jurisdiction based the Department of Transportation verus United States and united states of America at least that is what I currently done and I have not heard a word from the Appeals yet. Will keep you informed.
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM
To:moongoddess18
You, by appealing, says a lot. As all the so called lawyers say: GOOD LUCK.!! Personally, I wish you the best.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 10:52 PM
To:moongoddess18
What did the Court you appealed from, say, that caused you to appeal?
applescence
September 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM
According to the Supreme Court, if you have an SSN, you are a citizen (franchise) of District of Columbia, and as it is foreign to the several States, when you “leave” D.C,, you do so under the “interstate commerce clause” and, as such can be “regulated and controlled” . Since an SSN is MANDATORY to get a “drivers” license, that in itself tells you who must have one.
I have returned my drivers license, plates and all “titles” to the DMV and have cacelled all contracts and /or agreements with the STATE OF CALIFORN IA and the DMV. According to AG Janet Reno and Solicitor General Seth Waxman (I think that was his name), activities regulated by the DMV are “integrally related to interstate commerce”. “Motor vehicle” is a contrivance used in the “transportation of passengers or property for hire or compensation”, in the US Code, and the same basic statement is in California’s Motor Vehicle Code at CVC 260, where it states the a “commercial vehicle is the type of vehicle required to be registered under this code….used in transportation of persons or property for hire, compensation or profi”, then goes on to state in the next paragraph that “passenger vehicles are not commercial vehicles”, which infers that passenger vehicles are NOT the vehicles required to be registered “under this code”.
I have no SSN, no driver’s license and no p[lates on any of my cars or trailers, though I do have a little sign at each of the license plate locations that says
PRIVATE CAR NOT FOR HIRE
NO CONTRACT WITH CA DMV
NOT COMMERCIALper CVC 260
I have not been bothered other than one stop because the officersaid I was wearing my seatbelt “inproperly”. Well, gee, officer, I have no agreement with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA DMV (the drivers license) to follow the regulations of the motor vehicle code. I am “without” the DMVs jurisdiction. Have a nice day! He seemed to know what that meant.
Adask
September 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM
Can you tell us which Supreme Court case declared the SSN to signify citizenship in District of Columbia?
Don
September 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM
To: applescence
Re: I was wearing my seatbelt “inproperly”. WHAT !!! YOU HEINOUS CRIMINAL !!! AND I BET YOU ARE NOT ASHAMED ONE IOTA. I had better calm down. Brother Alfred has sensitive ears.
Don
September 11, 2012 at 3:31 AM
I have something similar & the “powers that be” (Bless their hearts) refer to it as a HOMEMADE LICENSE PLATE. I try,in vain, to explain that it is not any kind of LICENSE> It is an affidavit of Identification. That’s when “backup is called.”
Don
September 11, 2012 at 3:47 AM
To:
From:Don
Re: Your statement of:”He seemed to know what that meant.”
This leaves me hanging. Please be a little more specific.What happened next? Did he write up a citation? If so,what did he do with it? How did this situation end up?
applescence
September 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM
In recent review of the requirements for obtaining a California drivers License, I discovered that a valid Social Security Number is required for obtaining a California Drivers License:
Social security number (SSN) requirement
The Social Security Act allows any state to use the SSN to establish the identification of an individual. The California Vehicle Code requires the collection of the social security number.
All applicants must submit to DMV their social security number. Evidence of your social security number is required only on applications for an original commercial driver license and any request to correct a SSN that is already on the driver record data base, regardless of the class. The SSN is considered confidential and will not appear on the photo license or be encoded on the magnetic stripe. Any documents that the department is authorized to release to the public will have the SSN masked. The SSN is electronically verified with Social Security Administration while you are in the DMV office for all DL/ID card transactions, if it has not already been verified. (emphasis added)
As a state citizen of the California Republic, I do not have, nor am I legally eligible to apply for a Social Security Number:
The authority to issue Social Security Numbers (SSNs) is found in 20CFR §422.104. The section describing persons who are legally eligible to apply for an SSN states:
Title 20: Employees’ Benefits
PART 422-ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
Subpart B- General Procedures
§ 422.104 Who can be assigned a social security number.
(1) A United States citizen; or
(2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence….
(3) An alien who cannot provide……
For purposes of this section, the “United States citizen” is described in 20 CFR §422.104(a)(1) is a statutory “citizen of the United States” described in 8 U.S.C. §1401, but not a constitutional “citizen of the United States “ as described in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The difference between a statutory and a constitutional citizen arises from the difference in the meaning of the term “United States” as used in the Constitution versus “United States” as used in federal statutory law. This person is born in a federal territory and not within any state of the Union. This is confirmed by the following definitions:
TITLE 8>CHAPTER 12>SUBCHAPTER 1>Sec.1101 [Aliens and Nationality]
Sec 1101 – Definitions
(a)(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands of the United States.(emphasis added)
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36): State [Aliens and Nationality]
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands of the United States
TITLE 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER 1- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215-CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES
Section 215.1: Definitions
(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii. .(emphasis added)
And US Code, pertaining to Chapter 42:
42 USC Sec. 27 01/07/2011 (111-383)
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 42 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 1 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
SUBCHAPTER I – GENERALLY
-HEAD-
Sec. 27. Definitions
-STATUTE-
The terms “State” and “States,” as used in this chapter, shall be
held to include the District of Columbia.
-SOURCE-
(July 9, 1918, ch. 143, ch. XV, Sec. 8, 40 Stat. 887.)
And from IRC Title 26, Chapter C, Employment taxes: Social Security:
Sec. 3121(e)(2).
For purposes of this chapter –
(2) United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.
20 CFR §422.104 clearly states who is eligible for a Social Security Number. Nowhere here does it include a citizen of The United States of America, a state citizen born in, living and domiciled in one of the 50 states of the Union, not on a federal enclave, in the constitutional sense, as eligible to apply for a Social Security Number. Not only is participation in Social Security program and Social Security numbers not be required by law for a citizen of one of the fifty states of the United States of America, but a citizen of one of the fifty states would actually be committing fraud when filling out Form SSN-5 “Application for Social Security Card” if they check the box “U.S. Citizen”, by declaring themselves to be a statutory “U.S. Citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401, thus applying for a “benefit” they are not legally entitled to.
In 1914 the Supreme Court stated that a U.S. citizen, when they leave the District of Columbia, are under the interstate commerce clause. As such, they can be regulated, controlled, and taxed.
“You, as a U.S. citizen, are here in California under the interstate commerce clause. You can be regulated and controlled, you have no rights whatsoever except what they want to give you — civil rights. “
I will see where I have the exact case. I know the year was 1914, and there are examples since this case, but it was the first one I have come across where citizens of DC were said to be under the “interstate commerce clasue”, whatever tha may be.
As far as the SSn goes, you already know that when normal people, having been deceived and lied to about the requirement to hav an SSN in the first place, check that little box that says “US citizen”, they don’t realize that, under penalty of perjury, they have just declared themselves to be territorial citizens of the District of Columbia,, now subject to the auspices and whims of Congress, rather than the protection of the Constitution, which is why “unconstitutional” is a non-factor 90% of the time if the person crying “unconstitutional” has an SSN. They SAID they were a territorial citizen, even if they were lied to, so, no Constitution for them!
Of course, I could just misunderstand the whole system, in which case they will hunt me down and throw me in some obscure prison for the rest of my life…. : )
Yartap
September 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM
applescence,
Thank You! Great work!
Jethro
September 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM
“The Social Security Act allows any state to use the SSN to establish the identification of an individual.”
Look at how “individual” is defined under “administrative procedure” “Records maintained on individuals”:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
5 USC § 552a–
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
See any mention of one of “We the People”, “Citizen of one of the several States” or the like? I don’t.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Hi Jethro,
Individual sure has a lot more letters in it than man.”They” certainly have lost interest in “saving ink & printing costs.” I asked a Treasury agent many years ago why a period was not at the end of :This “NOAT” is legal tender for all debts public & private & he said: “The period was deleted to save ink & printing costs.
James Barnes
September 10, 2012 at 8:39 PM
The question to be answered applesence is have you studied a law dictionary and the rules of statutory interpretation so you can even understand all those codes (look up the definition of code if you don’t get it) you just printed? They require an SSN for this (look up that require too) Ok Apple, I require a Ham sandwich, does that in anyway obligate you to give me one? Idiot in MS said You are required to give me ID when requested (If I had and ID that belongs to the STATE that would be true and they do belong to the issuing agency), however no one is ever required to do the impossible.
How many of you know must legally is synonymous with may most of these words have 2 senses imperative and directive.clarify when they use ambiguous word, Are you saying that I’m obligated to do the impossible there officer? They are to stupid to even understand this, but trust me the judge will.
Peace Out
Don
September 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Re: The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands of the United States
Yes indeed. HOWEVER, the courts also say what is written in “includes,” is not limited to what includes says is included in includes.
Anon4fun
September 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM
The theory I was exploring on the “Answering For Another” page works here too, so I’ll add it for everyone’s consideration. The idea being that the all-caps likeness to your name (e.g. JOHN SMITH) is actually your job title as an employee of the private company in Washington DC which has replaced the people’s government. In this capacity, driving is easily construed as a commercial activity, regardless of whether or not you have a driver’s license. The only necessity is that you are acting as an all-caps fiduciary of the United States, which the government seems to presume you are doing at all times if you have taken any of their all-caps documents. This theory, which is just a minor tweak of the basic framework Al has presented, appears to very simply cover all the facts about the commercial nature of driving and be contradicted by none of them. Further support for this interpretation comes from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition:
commerce – Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and the transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and by sea. [...] The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country. National Labor Relations Act, § 2.
Don
September 11, 2012 at 12:23 AM
To:Anon4fun & James Barnes
From:Don
Are you aware of the difinition of “Motor Vehicle” in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 2, § 31
Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means 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.
No response is necessary or needed. Just something sent I wanted to share.
palani
September 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM
One place I worked had a Korean engineer immigrate to the U.S. He was telling me that he tried to get a drivers license and was refused because he had no SSN. I suggested to him that what they were telling him that he did not need a drivers license if he had no SSN but he looked thoughtful for a second or so and then said “no, that cannot be so”. He rushed down to get the SSN so that he, like everyone else, could have a drivers license.
Don
September 11, 2012 at 2:41 AM
Palani, since you had outgoing concern for your Korean friend, I believe he would have come up against something similar as the following,unless of course he had further counseling from you,as things transpired.
This was just one of the issues I had in trying to explain to the 5th judicial district court judge,James Shuler,that his order,as the S.Ct of N.M.said.later was made wihout authority AND invalid,that It was impossible for me to obey his order because I do not have and never was issued a valid binding SSN. I tried to explain that S.S. IS a voluntary system and that nobody is required by ANY Law to obtain/get a SSN.Shuler responded by saying: Well if I was you I would forthwith volunteer to get a SSN because if you don’t obey my order it is not going to be a pretty picture.He said:, “Now is there anything else you don’t understand”? I said: “There is one thing I do understand.” He said: “Oh really,well tell me.” I said, I have outgoing concern for you & I don’t know for sure what the backlash consists of for I know enough to know that you do not have the authority to issue an order like this.” OH REALLY,he said. Well just don’t obey my order and we’ll see how much authority I have. Of course he said this with great emphasis. I said: I will do my best to honor & obey your order but I will do so under stress,duress & under force of arms,however,if I can prove to you that I have made a good fath effort to do so & get no where,will you grant a stay of execution pending appeal? Shuler said: “You cannot appeal my order because technically it’s an injunction and injunctions cannot be appealed. I did go to the MVD but short & sour,they will not even let you take the written test unless you satisfy the SSN demand,requirement. SO, I started on my appeal work, regardless of what Shuler said. I certainly did not want to tell him he was lying through his teeth & to kiss my grits. At that time you had 30 days to appeal. about two weeks later I had a neighbor,Alvin Morris,take me over to Walmart & lo & behold a deputy sheriff, Michael Click happened to be there too,saw me,why he was there, I don.t know, but he approached me & asked if I had obayed juh shooluh AWDUH aine ghat cho NM dryin lahsunce.He arrested me in the store, FOR not obeying Juh Shooluh AWDUHH & you know where I was “TRANSPORTED” to. If you know how to bring up cases on the internet, I don’t, the citation is:
882 P.2d 57 (1994) 118 N.M. 466 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Donald B. BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14769, 14809.
I still made a good faith effort to obey/honor as you say,
Jethro
September 11, 2012 at 8:14 AM
“Shuler responded by saying: Well if I was you I would forthwith volunteer to get a SSN because if you don’t obey my order it is not going to be a pretty picture.”
If it were me, I’d have asked Shuler, “Who’s going to sign that SSN application – you? It’s your order, so why won’t YOU sign it?”
mr Lee
September 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM
What To Do When Confronted by Police
He’s talking from a perspective of having a license and tags on the car, but still standing up for your rights, what do ya’ll think?
James Barnes
September 11, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Rule of Law has a lot of good info, but I see them as pay-triots and If you are trying to really help people you help them first and they will help you for saving them from these criminals. Well, honorable ones will anyway. His info is valid but he doesn’t give specifics on how to thwart the entire encounter. I’ll eventually get to that onto the blog. What has actually worked for me twice now and I’m moving farther into the system with one step at a time. I’m a crippled broke vet but I’m not demanding a dam dime to fight these demons. It’s my duty to all humanity and to my God to do what is right and just and stand against the evil and plain ignorance arrayed against us.
God Bless you all
Don
September 12, 2012 at 1:05 AM
This video gets “interesting” after you are 15 minutes into it. Personally I don’t thik this individual,excuse me,man, is a pay-triot.
James Barnes
September 13, 2012 at 7:27 AM
Rule of Law Requires Pay for access Don. While most people who really need this information are poor or lower middle class that are being literally robbed by what are supposed to be bastions of justice. This is what I define as a pay-triot.
Adask
September 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM
For what it’s worth, I believe the workman is worthy of his hire. People who work at discovering the truth about our “legal system” are entitled to be paid for their efforts.
But I also agree that that which has been freely received should be freely given. Insofar as our Father YHWH ha Elohiym lets us “see” certain truths, we have an obligation to share those truths with others at no charge.
The two principle seem contradictory. For now, I am able to support myself by other means so I can make access to my notions available for free. I like making this info available for free. I feel good about it. I could be wrong, but I see this blog (at least some of it) as service to the Good LORD. I like NOT selling my information because as soon as you start selling it, you become obligated to prove it and even maintain it. That obligation binds the author to defend his previously-sold ideas rather than continue to present each new insight that may in part add to an existing theory, but also implicitly admit that the previously-sold theory was flawed.
If you’re going to sell these ideas, you pretty much have to instill confidence in the buyers by telling them how incredibly smart you are, and how infallible your ideas must be. That’s all a bunch of crap, of course. But I see the various guru’s advertising how smart and infallible they are, and I just laugh. I’ve been at this legal reform stuff for nearly 30 years, and I have yet to see any legal strategy that’s absolutely infallible. The best you can hope to buy or even hear is a theory that increases the probability that you might win in court.
That’s the truth of the matter and that truth is not conducive to selling strategies or insights. People want certainty. Certainty sells. Confidence sells. Unfortunately, there’s not much certain in this life other than the Good LORD. The Bible warns against placing confidence in man.
You have to learn to embrace the uncertainty. You have to learn to welcome and celebrate the uncertainty. Why? Because, if you can overcome your fear of the uncertainty, and still proceed, you are probably proceeding based on nothing more than faith. Win, lose or draw, proceeding into the uncertainty based primarily on faith is a good thing.
In any case, I’m not selling whatever ideas or insights I may have. I warn people regularly to take my ideas with salt. They are certainly not perfect. I don’t advise anyone to follow my lead. I merely hope that you’ll consider what I’ve written. If my notions seem to work for you, let us know. If they don’t work, let us know that, too. I may make mistakes on this blog, but I have no vested interest in lying or promoting ideas that are known to be false. Half the reason I write this blog is to educate myself, and seek correction from others.
In any case, I have no problem with the “pay-triots”. If they sell an idea or strategy for $5,000 to 20 people, some might criticize their greed. I do not. I guarantee that at least one of those 20 customers will realize that he can sell the same strategy for $1,000 to 200 people and make lots of money. And one of those 200 people will start selling the same strategy to 1,000 people for $29.95. And soon enough the strategy will be available to all for free.
The problem is not selling strategies. The problem is selling false confidence. Anyone who tells you that his strategy is infallible, foolproof, certain to work, etc. is, in my experience, a liar, a con-artist or a fool. Nothing works every time in law. Nothing. Anyone who tells you different is a liar or a fool.
If you want to buy strategies, buy strategies. But if you want to buy confidence (faith), you are about to play the fool. The confidence you buy cannot be the faith that is freely given. If your confidence is based on your purchases, you are heading for catastrophe.
James Barnes
September 10, 2012 at 9:02 PM
With the incident in MS here is another example of how to protect yourself. Everything I’m doing is under protest, threat, duress and coercion now that has been stated. They bring in an Recognizance Bond Form I sign it under Protest TDC, CO brings it back and says if you don’t sign it without that you’ll stay here for 2 months until you see a judge (this is real and direct extortion) Since everything I’m soing in there is already under PTDC I say fine criminal bring me another one and signed it … My Sig look up the ellipsis … which means I had oither things to print but was threatened with further false imprisonment. If that ever went to court, they are screwed and especially the jail administrator Benny Parrish because he knew he was acting criminally even issuing this. I could tell by the way he was acting, when we were talking about it beforehand.
64 hours and 23 minute at 1.8 million dollars a day is a lot of money (if you can call it that) However I did have an offered and accepted contract with the officer that falsely arrested me for 100 dollars per hour or portion thereof in specie of these united States for America, for any unlawful force used against me. Arrests are always presumed unlawful unless he can prove riding peacefully in a car is really a crime? That contract works out to between 220,000 FRNs and 580,000 FRNS. If I choose at my discretion at anytime to pursue this they are so screwed, it isn’t funny. Of course that’s in an honorable court with a real justice. I believe most of the judges are just criminal revenuers stealing from ignorant men and women intentionally dumbed down and enslaved.
Peace Out
Don
September 11, 2012 at 12:05 AM
To:Alfred.
From:Don
you say in pertinent part: “In the end, the issue may not be whether we are engaged in “commerce,” but where we are engaged in “commerce”.
I recall my Father telling me that his father told him that there was no problem to put the family in the “Oldsmobile” on Sunday,drive to church without having a driver license,registration,& proof of Insurance because it was not required. My Dad went on to say,but today,if I was at the ol home- place,& used the car to do the same thing,leave the ol homeplace,go to the same church with you,& Ronald(my brother) & the little woman (my mother),I have to have a driver license, registration and insurance.
I will not add anymore to the conversation because it may confuse the point I HOPE to get across & with hopefully some responses, I, as well as others will be able to understand more about this “VENUE” issue. Let’s say that point A is the “ol homeplace & point B is the church.Now,if it’s a venue issue,why was it not a venue issue for my Grandpappy? Yes, I know it’s a good question but I would like a good answer.
Adask
September 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM
So far as I can see, the territories of “this state” did not begin to “officially” supplant the States of the Union until A.D. 1948 when the feds enacted the laws that were codified at 28 USC 81-130. Each of those sections of Title 28 apply to one “state”. It’s not proven, but it’s probable that these statutory “states” may be the legal manifestation of “this state”.
Once these new, territorial “states” were declared to exist, they didn’t go into full force and effect in a single instant. They were probably brought “on line” slowly, a little at a time. After all, the governments of the States of the Union were still arguably solvent under Article 1.10.1 (which mandates gold and silver coin for State payments of debt) until A.D. 1968, when the feds stopped redeeming silver certificates. Thus, it appears that the government agencies of “this state” were growing from A.D. 1948 to A.D. 1968, at the same time the governments of the States of the Union were withering. Once there was no more gold or silver coin in circulation (A.D. 1968), I believe that the governments of The States of the Union were rendered insolvent and unable to function. I suspect that the agencies of “this state” became predominant after A.D. 1968.
So, the question becomes, WHEN did you granddad make the alleged statements to your father about not needing a drivers license. If the statement was pre-1968–and especially pre-1948–the statement was probably true. If he’d made the statement after A.D. 1968, the statement might’ve been technically mistaken, but grandpa may not have understood that what had been true earlier in his life (he didn’t need the DL) when he was still within a State of the Union might no longer be true if the States of the Union had been supplanted by “this state”.
In order to understand the law, you have to have some sense of history. Things that were true in the venue/plane of The States of the Union might cease to true after a new venue of “this state” was created. The law is just like a tomato in the grocery store; it’s only good for a certain period of time. You have to understand and be sensitive to the time context and the venue/plane context in which any law is applied to understand that law. That which was true in one time/venue is not necessarily true in another time/venue.
Don
September 11, 2012 at 10:19 PM
To:Alfred,
I asked for a good answer & got a GREATone.Thanks a “bushel & a peck.” Yes,just more of those stealthy encroachments. I just saw your response re: “a State within the State” a few minutes ago.I have suitcases full of material so it may take a while to find it.Strange tho,that I clearly remember some things the courts said out of all those full suitcases. I don’t mean to mix apples with oranges here but in looking for the case where the court said: “There is a State within the state” I am looking at a “Supreme Court of the United States” February Term, year of 1799. Dewhurst v.Coulthard,in all caps. Below that, it’s,Ex parte Hallowell,in all caps. DEWHURST v.COULTHARD & Ex parte HALLOWELL.I bring this up for the all caps legal beagles who still think,as I did for a long time,that the all caps surname is an issue. Once again, the court use of all caps goes back to at least 1799 & probably even further. Now I will post this & see all my errors,typos,etc.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM
To Alfred,et.al.
What follows is my response to your comments showing above(supra)on September 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Now,I believe I see it clearly.I will try to use the “kiss method” to explain,which should be easy for ME to do.Let’s say that Japan won the second World War. “Their” powers that be come into The “united States” & “reconstruct” everything to their satisfaction.” I can,under those circumstances,understand that everything the Forefathers did to establish a “Perpetual Union” is OVER because we have been taken over by a foreign country who defeated us at war. STILL, there would be people here fighting for & standing up for “their Rights” which truly no longer exist. After all, We lost the war.Satan,& through his agents consisting of “gov-co have “taken over,” changed the VENUE” via “Reconstruction” procedures,etc.,yet some of us still fight for & stand up for our rights,which no longer exist because we have been invaded by a “FOREIGN ALIEN ENTITY.” It’s as though we are trying to figure out how Japan won the war & IF we can figure that out we can do something about it & reclaim our rights. Knowing HOW Japan won the war will not change anything.Once in a while there IS a WIN in court. This gives the rest of us hope & we think that, well apparently, somehow we just didn’t present it right so we go back to the drawing board,”study” some more to see what we missed, overlooked, etc..Since that “rare win” gives us hope that we can win too IF we can just “get it right” To me, it’s like playing the Lottery, Yes, sooner or later there will be a winner or winners but most of us by far will lose. But the battle we are in has tragic results for the losers. I know of one “Person” who was filing papers at the County Clerk’s office to establish his true identity, the venue issue, etc.He said he could not file everything he wanted to,at once,because of the filing fee, which he paid via Morgan Silver Dollars. The second time he went to the County Clerk’s office in the “Courthouse” he was arrested & “charged” with “CRIMINAL TRESPASS.” Unfortunately, this happened on a friday, & he stayed in jail until until Monday afternoon. Then he was taken over to a Magistrate for the “arrangement.” It had already been arranged.He explained to the MAGGOT that the S.Ct.of NM said that the charge of criminal trespass did not apply to being on courthouse grounds or in the building. The MAG said: “I disagree,” 30 days. I found out later they put him in a torture chamber called the “blue room” to “get his mind right,” for thirty “three” days. He was a walking zombie for quite a while after that. I KNOW, I was with him. I submit this incident only for the purpose of hoping others will see what we are really up against. I will no longer be a glutton for punishment, I will no longer try to “beat a dead horse.” BUT I most certainly WILL let those agents of Satan know that that they are in for a terrifying RUDE awakening. It’s the end result that matters in all things & I KNOW THAT KNOW THE END RESULT.Thy Kingdom come.
applescence
September 11, 2012 at 1:04 AM
While I am not sure about the venue issue, though when Alfred discusses it, it make a lot of sense, as far as travelling in your car goes, IF you are a STATE Citizen of one of the Several States, you have the right to travel freely on the highways of your state (all 50 are consistent) for personal reasons, and the courts, both US Supreme, as well as numerous State Supreme Courts have determined that as long as you are not engaged in commerce, defined as “transportation of passengers or property for hire or compensation”, you have the unalienable right to travel the highways free from police harassment. DMV regulations apply only to “commercial traffic” and commercial vehicles, so “venue” is never discussed, IF YOU ARE A STATE Citizen. If you have an SSN, and you leave DC, you have to be licensed and can be regulated and controlled. State Citizens cannot even get a license, becaus an SSN is MANDATORY. Tells you who really has to have a license, unless you are driving a delivery truck or a cab…….
Don
September 11, 2012 at 2:59 AM
To:applesence,
From: Don
I do not know who your response is meant for but IF it was meant for me,Don, tell me how,then, my grandfather had to be a, as you say,STATE Citizen,but his son was not. Read my comment to Palani. I just sent it in.
Anon4fun
September 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM
applescence: >>State Citizens cannot even get a license, becaus an SSN is MANDATORY.<<
You seem to be saying that someone can't be both a State citizen and act in whatever capacity having an SSN implies. Is this your intended meaning? If so, could you explain why you think this? As of now, I see no reason why a State citizen should be unable to bear the fiduciary duties that having an SSN and/or an all-caps "JOHN SMITH" job title (according to one interpretation) imply. Doing so seems essentially the same, in terms of consistency with State citizenship, as going to work for the local drugstore under a job title like SODAJERK, which obviously does not forfeit State citizenship.
applescence
September 11, 2012 at 9:36 AM
I do not suppose I am saying someone cannot be both, but I am not sure how yet that I can have an SSN and not have some sort of obligation under that SSN (like IRS taxes or payment to SSN, for example. Alfred has many times mused on the Alfred Adask v. ALFRED ADASK, as has mary Elizabeth Croft, as to how we “manage” that fictitious entity without getting stuck “representing” or being a “representatve” for that entity when govco chooses to pick on it.
As I have neither the experience nor education that most of you seem to have here, I am here to learn for myself how this big picture all goes together. Maybe one can be both, like a free man and a socialist subject, depending on the situation’s needs. Certainly, the simplest things, like making a living (easy part) and its subsequent banking (kind of a pain because people in banks refuse to learn anything or follow their own rules, just like the DMV) require a bit more perserverance and creativity on our part.f we decide to minimze our participation in the “corporate” world of the Unitted States.
I have read that our sur-name has some relationship to our standing, but then, I am still learning. That’s why I am here. Alfred and all of you who participate in his blog provide incredible insights into how to make this all work without going crazy. : )
Gary Lee, House of Russell, sui juris
Don
September 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM
To:applesence,et.al
Short & sour, He/She who has a SSN is most definitely SUBJECT to IRS rules,etc. Since a “this State” driver license can be “created” for us IF we don’t have one & instantly revoked after it is created,as happened to me, I’m positive in that sense that I have a SSN too,except it’s something “they” will not revoke. Create & revoke a STATE driver license so they can “legally” (but unlawfully) arrest me for “driving” on a REVOKED license which is WORSE than “driving” on a suspended Lie sunce. But no way will they revoke the SSN because they want to keep me/us under obligation. CHEERS !!!
Don
September 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Hello again applescence;
I thought for many years that our Christian name & Surname used in all caps meant a commercial commodity but I think that,in & of itself MAY be incorrect. However, I am still inclined to believe that the REVERSAL of our “true identity,” i.e. putting the surname first & the Christian Name last,in all caps IS what they use as ID for/of a commercial commodity. IF you have access to a Birth Certificate,the Christian Name IS first & Surname is last BUT notice the “emblem/icon in the center of the page & what is written there. “Department of Commerce.” Ain’t no doubt about it there HoseA. Now I’m looking for HoseB.
Don
September 21, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Hello applesence
You say in pertinent part:
“I am here to learn”
I hope most of us are here to learn. I know I am here to learn,but the problem I am having is, as you say: “how to make this all work without going crazy.”
Anon4fun
September 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM
applescence:
I don’t claim to have it all figured out either. I am also here to learn and maybe add a thought or two including constructive criticism. An example of this is about the popular theory that the all-caps likeness to one’s name belongs to a strawman, corporation, or other fictitious entity. From what I’ve seen so far, that dog don’t hunt. It seems a better fit to consider the all-caps phrase to reference a role, character, or capacity one accepts in a similar manner to taking a job with a local business. Many things fall into place under this model, including the government’s constant presumption that we are engaged in commerce where they have a beneficial interest.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM
To Anon4fun
re:your comment of: “I don’t claim to have it all figured out either.”
My question is: Have WHAT not all figured out? How & why we are in the mess we’re in? Is this what you do not have all figured out? If you or I,or both of us together figure it out,is that going to change anything? It really does appear that Palani has it all figured out, & I know Palani AGREES, but I don’t see where or what it has changed. If anything, it seems to me it is getting worse. Maybe the more we figure it out,the worse it will get. Are you aware of “The Olivet prophecy in the Holy Bible?”
applescence
September 12, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Anon4fun: Mary Elizabeth [Croft] seems to have come across infor that our sur-name (Croft, in her case, for example) is somehow the key to permanantly removing your self from their system, while still allowing yourself to work within the necessary framework to accomplish tasks that can now only be accomplished in “this venue”, whatever that venue happens to be. Mary Elizabeth’s website is http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net , and she sent me to http://www.naturalgod.com/NaturalCommerce.html, which has information similar to, though a little different from my “Affidavit of Truth”, expanding the scope of information covered and parties upon whom it is served.
Don
September 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM
To Everyone
We need to throw a little humor into this NIGHTMARE so here goes. Thanks Palani for directing me to this website. HERE GOES.
Satan was being expelled from Heaven. As he passed through the Gates, he paused a moment in thought, turned to God and said, I hear a new creature called Man is soon to be created. This is true, God replied. He will need laws, said the Demon slyly, prompting God to indignantly exclaim, What! You, his appointed Enemy for all Time! You ask for the right to make his laws? Oh, no! Satan replied, I ask only that he be allowed to make his own. It was so granted. – Ambrose Bierce
How Tragic. Tragic comedy
Jerry Lee
September 12, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Do YOU have A SSN???? That is the question being discussed here.
I would have to say…You do not. The “older” SSN cards said “Property of the Social Security Administration and not for Identification.
Besides the ‘Name’ is in all Caps. This should be a “DEAD” give away it ani’t me babe. It was something created by the off shore Banker to collect another form of ‘income tax’ or excise tax for their limited liability company the Federal Reserve.
So the question begs; Do You have a Social Security Number?
After all You are not the owner of the card and of course the matter of being a civilly dead person or are YOU Man created in the image of God this should settle the question.
It is the old switch and bait, He who would be deceived let him be deceived.
In 1914 the Supreme Court stated that a U.S. citizen [Federal citizen], when they leave the District of Columbia, are under the interstate commerce clause. As such, they can be regulated, controlled, and taxed. Hendrick v. Maryland, 59 LEd 385
This is why Obumercare was justified by the nine clowns in DC. US citizens reside in their territorial ‘State’, which is not the ‘District’ as all of their codes say their State is without the exterior of the Union state.
An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.
Sims v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925).
“Persons” have names in all capitalized letters. Christian names are not in all capital letters.
Black’s Law Dictionary, “Christian name”: “The baptismal name as distinct from the surname. The name which is given one after his birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. Such name may consist of a single letter.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, “Surname”: “The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents…. The last name; the name common to all members of a family.”
Black’s Law Dictionary “Fictitious Name”: “A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.”
Gregg’s Manual of English: “A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre.”
Read that again. A name spelled in all capital letters is the name of a dead person. “Your government” considers you either a dead person or a fictitious name.
Oxford Dictionary:
“nom”: Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name.
“: War name. A name “Nom de guerre assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.
“Guerre”: War, and as a verb, to wage war.
U.S. citizens/persons were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress o n March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, same as IRS code.
[This is still in effect today, Title 12, Section 95 (a)].
The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.
I AM NOT A CORPORATION —- I AM NOT A DEAD PERSON — I AM NOT A PERSON
Fictitious names exist for a purpose; Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354.
SECTION 20 OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE….It is unlawful to use a false or fictitious name, or to knowingly make any false statement or knowingly conceal any material fact in any document filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of the California Highway Patrol
YOUR ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO CORRECT YOUR COMERICAL INVOICE {TICKET] TO REMOVE THE FICTITIOUS NAME AND MY PRIVATE CONVEYANCE(s) FROM YOUR COMMERCIAL VENUE TO REFLECT MY TRUE STATUS OF SUI JURIS NOT IN COMMERCE. All [tickets] commercial citations are a bill of exchange or negotiable promissory note so I will demand the original of any citation you may decide to issue, I will not be dishonored!
This is evidence do not destroy. All Rights Reserved, without prejudice, ud
Looks like a dead person driving, as all thing are possible in FICTION.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.” – Josef Mengele
Do ‘You’ have a Social Security Number?
Don
September 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Hi Jerry Lee
Re: “A name spelled in all capital letters is the name of a dead person.”
That’s what all the tombstones in the cemetery “say.”
Don
September 12, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Hello again Jerry Lee
Please send this,part of your post, to Alfred because there is a lot more said here than it seems to say. It is a double edged sword.
Fictitious names exist for a purpose; Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354.
Anon4fun
September 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM
Don: >>My question is: Have WHAT not all figured out? How & why we are in the mess we’re in? Is this what you do not have all figured out? If you or I,or both of us together figure it out,is that going to change anything?<>The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.<<
Thanks for sharing this. It confirms what I have been going on about here lately. Namely, that an all-caps name need not represent a corporate ENTITY (e.g. strawman or similar notion) only but can also represent a corporate CAPACITY (e.g. JOHN SMITH, being the job title of the living man John Smith in his role as fiduciary agent of the US government corporation).
Anon4fun
September 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM
(Note: This replaces my last post from a few minutes ago which the site’s software didn’t like and changed.)
Don: {My question is: Have WHAT not all figured out? How & why we are in the mess we’re in? Is this what you do not have all figured out? If you or I,or both of us together figure it out,is that going to change anything?}
The system that has entangled us is what I meant. Figuring that out is the first step. Taking effective action to extricate oneself comes afterwards and confirms the correctness of one’s theories at Step One.
Jerry Lee: {The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.}
Thanks for sharing this. It confirms what I have been going on about here lately. Namely, that an all-caps name need not represent a corporate ENTITY (e.g. strawman or similar notion) only but can also represent a corporate CAPACITY (e.g. JOHN SMITH, being the job title of the living man John Smith in his role as fiduciary agent of the US government corporation).
Don
September 12, 2012 at 10:11 PM
To: Anon4fun
Re your post: (Note: This replaces my last post from a few minutes ago which the site’s software didn’t like and changed.)
PLEASE do this for me.There have been some “abnormal” things happening for the last few days on this website,at least for me.If what I have experienced is because of what you say & show above i.e.the site’s software didn’t like and changed,then the site’s software might be doing a little more than that, e.g.,deleting, & even more than that too!!! I will explain later if you want me too. SO for starters,will you please cut & paste the entire comment I made & send it to: Don,from Anon4fun
gary lee, house of Russell
September 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Thank you Jerry Lee. Nice job of supporting in law cites. Usable stuff!
Randy
September 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Don’t forget what Marc Stevens has done for this kind of litigation. http://www.marcstevens.net : )
Don
September 13, 2012 at 11:44 PM
To: All interested INDIVIDUALS, I will not apologize for what follows.
An artificial person is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, as: “A body, company, or corporation, considered in law as an individual.” See Artificial, and, Artificial persons in Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition.(Sorry about that. Hey Anon4fun, want some more?
Although in ordinary usage both “individual” and “person” often refer to an individual human being, see, e.g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1152, 1686 (1986) (“individual” defined as a “single human being”; “person” defined as “an individual human being”), “person” often has a broader meaning in the law, see, e.g., 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“person” includes “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals”).WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. No. 97-1374 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 524 U.S. 417; 118 S. Ct. 2091; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4215; 141 L. Ed. 2d 393;
In Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 1948 Ed., defining the term, “human being,” it is written: “See monster.” The definition of monster, in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 1948 Ed., is: “A human being by birth, resembling a lower animal in some part . . .;” and, “a monster . . . hath no inheritable blood.” Accord also, 2 Bl. Comm. 246.
How about that Alfred, it not only says ANIMAL,Sorry, forgot about your sensitive ears, it also says lower animal.
Don
September 13, 2012 at 11:54 PM
To: ALL INDIVIDUALS including Anon4fun, more good news
According to the doctrine of Noscitur a sociis, it is written:
“Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, words take meaning based on their context or their association with other words in statute (ordinance, regulation, etc.)” Accord, DeSisto College, Inc. Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, 706 F. Supp. 1479, affirmed 888 F. 2d. 766; Staples v. Palten, 571 A. 2d. 97; State Farm Ins. Co. v. Gay, 526 So. 2d. 534; Banner Printing Co. v. Bykota Corp. 388 S.E. 2d. 844.
Did you see the word ASSOCIATION? with what?? association with what?
Anon4fun
September 14, 2012 at 1:12 AM
Don: {SO for starters,will you please cut & paste the entire comment I made & send it to: Don,from Anon4fun}
I don’t know what “send it to” means.
{“person” includes “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals”}
Okay, so “person” includes those things (and a few others). Let us now ask if “person” excludes a living man. The answer is no, as we find in Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st to 4th editions: “A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.” Thus we also discover that “person” can denote a capacity as well as an entity.
Don
September 14, 2012 at 3:17 AM
To:Anon4fun
From:Don
Re: your comment of: I don’t know what “send it to” means.
In the very top left hand corner of this message that hopefully you are reading,it says: To Anon4fun. Anon4fun is WHO this/my message is being sent to.
Right below the top where it says:To Anon4fun, it says:From Don.See it?
This is what I mean by asking you to send “it” to: Don,from Anon4fun}
IF you see/understand & NOW know what i am saying,It would look like what follows:
To;Don
From Anon4fun
Are you still puzzled? Do you now understand what “send it to” means? If you are still scratching your head,it is useless for me to say anymore in this message re: what I was ASKING you to do except to say I don’t want you to get the blame for what is stated in the beginning of this “Driving in Commerce Article wherein Big Al(as you call him) says:
“Anon4fun recently posted a comment on this blog involving the alleged “commercial” nature imputed by the courts to anyone who is driving an automobile. According to Anon4fun…….,”
First of all, Anon4fun DID NOT post the comment, I did. Second of all,where “Big Al” says:
According to Anon4fun, IS NOT according to what Anon4fun said. It is according to what I, Don said.
Can you straighten this out with “Big AL?” I don’t want you to be laughed at!! Let me take the heat,etc. On the other hand, if what I said is thought provoking, leave it as it is. I don’t mind anyone getting credit for anything I say or do that is good. Scroll up to the very top, as far as you can go,UPWARDS & you will see Anon4fun & According to Anon4fun & what Anon4fun allegedly posted/said,etc. I know you never noticed it before & maybe even now you still won’t see it.As YOU Anon 4 fun have told me,Don, repeatedly the following
This replaces my last post from a few minutes ago which the site’s software didn’t like and changed.)
Don
September 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM
To:Anon4 fun
Re: Your comment of: “Okay, so “person” includes those things (and a few others). Let us now ask if “person” excludes a living man. The answer is no,………….”
I.Don, believe you are 1/2 right. It depends on whether it,PERSON, when written, is “written” as a common noun or a proper noun.
If the word, PERSON, is spoken,it’s hard to tell whether the one doing the speaking is saying/ using “person” as a common noun or a proper noun. Now,are you a person or a Person? Show me ANYWHERE where gov-co spells “PERSON” as a proper noun,e.g.,i.e., Person. SHOW ME !!
Anon4fun
September 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Don said: {It depends on whether it,PERSON, when written, is “written” as a common noun or a proper noun.}
None of the definitions of “person” I have seen make this distinction. What is your source?
{Now,are you a person or a Person?}
First show me evidence this distinction is not yet another patriot canard courtesy of Big Brother’s little helpers.
Don
September 14, 2012 at 7:30 PM
To: Anon 4 funny
There are proper nouns & there are common nouns. As far as understanding the difference,
You may look it up in your, Urban Dictionary: Funk’n'wagnalls.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Funk'n'wagnalls
Anon4fun
September 14, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Awesome reply, Don. You addressed my objection squarely and wrapped everything up in a nice little bundle. I should have known better than to tangle with a scholar of your competence.
Don
September 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM
Glad to oblige.
Don
September 14, 2012 at 11:34 PM
FFor Anon4fun & any other individual/person/subject,etc.
1.- A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a “unique entity”,such as,Alfred,
John,Matthew,Citizen,etc.,& is distinguished from a common noun,which refers to a class of entities,e.g. cities, persons, corporations,etc.
2.-I will STILL give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not receiving ALL the information I send,but YOU are the only one that does not,as far as I can tell. I asked you to do something for me that would have resolved that problem & you did not do it & I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that the reason you did not do it is because you did not receive “THAT PART” of my message. It’s strange,that I don’t have “that” problem with anyone else. No one else,to the best of my knowledge says as you do,& MORE THAN ONCE,THIS. You say: This replaces my last post from a few minutes ago which the site’s software didn’t like and changed.” Apparently, based on what you say,the site’s software is not changing my comments,the site’s software is just deleting most of what I send to you & you only. SO,for this reason I think I’lI just take my toys & find another sandbox
Anon4fun
September 15, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Don:
I already know what common and proper nouns are. What I am asking for is evidence to support your claim that “person” can denote a living man if and only if it is the right one of these two types of nouns.
As for sending you a message, I will go back and reread your posts on the subject and try again to grasp their meaning.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Anon4fun
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I have tried to explain as best as I can, which is not good enough, that apparently most of what I send,in MOST of my messages TO YOU,are apparently deleted. So put yourself in my shoes. Will you keep on keeping on sending messages to ANYONE IF you felt he/she would not receive ALL of it? IF this particular was reversed between you & me,you would be forced to think that I was either overlooking what you sent or ignoring it or not receiving it.
Adask
September 15, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Could the word “person” include a living man? Probably.
But, for me, that’s not the issue. I believe that things defined as “persons” have certain things in common such as a similar or perhaps even identical set of rights. For example, the word “animal” has limits. There’s a lot of variety among “animals” but the word “animal” does not include things like rocks, trees, or the Arctic tundra. Thus, everything defined to be an “animal” has certain common denominators.
Similarly, I know that some, perhaps most, “persons” are legal fictions. I know that legal fictions have no claim on God-given, unalienable Rights. I worry that insofar as some “persons” have no God-given, unalienable Rights, it may assumed by the courts and the “system” that all entities called “persons” (even living men) must have no claim on God-given, unalienable Rights.
I admit that it might be possible for a “person” to claim God-given, unalienable Rights. But I’m not sure that’s true. In fact, I doubt that’s true. However, I’m sure that a “man” who identifies himself as being “made in God’s image” can claim the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our “Declaration of Independence”.
I want those God-given, unalienable Rights. So why should I take a chance on being defined by others as a “person” (which might not be entitled to claim God-given, unalienable Rights) when I could just as easily define myself (under Genesis 1:26-28 and the “Declaration”) to be “a man made in God’s image and endowed by my creator with certain unalienable Rights”?
Maybe the word “person” is OK. Maybe it’s dangerous. Why take the chance by consenting to be defined or treated as a “person”?
Insist on being defined as a man made in God’s image, etc.. If the court makes no objection, well, then some of our fears and concerns may be mistaken. Maybe “person” includes “men made in God’s image”.
But if the adversary and/or the court openly resists your claim to be such “man,” then you’ll have evidence that the courts depend on viewing each of us as “persons” or “animals” or anything other than a “man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. With that evidence, you will know that the court and the “system” is engaged in spiritual warfare against you . . . and against all of us. You’ll know by inference that our claims to be engaged in spiritual warfare are not frivolous, foolish or absurd–instead, you’ll know that our claims of “spiritual warfare” are right on. With that knowledge, you will be strengthened. For the first time, you’ll know for sure who your enemy really is–and you’ll also know who your savior really is. This is enlightenment.
I am a man made in God’s image and endowed my Creator with certain unalienable Rights and one of the People of The State of Texas. So long as I am recognized in that capacity, I am good to go into any court in this country. This does not mean that I’m convinced that I can’t lose in that capacity. But it does mean that, for me, in that capacity I could win.
More, I don’t give a damn if I win or lose in some man-made court. My litigative arguments are always intended to be heard by a “higher” court. I view my claim of being a “man made in God’s image” as an act of spiritual warfare. It may well be that despite embracing spiritual warfare, I may lose big-time in some earthly court. But that’s not an issue for a man engaged in spiritual warfare. If we were guaranteed to win every battle by claiming to be engaged in “spiritual warfare,” every jackass, hustler and pathological liar in the country would claim to be “spiritual warriors”. But “spiritual warfare” is not a “get out of jail free” card. In fact, in many instances (consider the apostles and the martyrs), “spiritual warfare” has turned into a “get into jail free” card. For me, the idea behind spiritual warfare is that you stand and resist a seemingly unbeatable foe not as an act of vain confidence in your ability to win on earth, but as an expression and evidence of your faith in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.
Spiritual warfare is not a act of martial arts and military prowess. It’s an act of faith. Each of us who fights in spiritual warfare is somewhat like (as our Army has advertised) “an army of one”. When I engage in spiritual warfare, I fight alone–except for the Holy Spirit–ruah ha kodesh. So, unlike the Army (which tries to make each soldier into an “army of one”), I fight in an “army of two”–me and the Holy Spirit. And that suits me fine. There’s nobody here but me and my invisible “friend”.
The object of spiritual warfare is not to defeat my ultimate adversary. That victory is reserved for God and the Christ. My object is to “stand firm to the end” and thereby help preserve my soul. My object is to show that my soul is worthy of salvation. I’m not talking about “works”. But I am talking about active expressions of faith through acts which demonstrate courage.
I don’t pretend to have full or perfect knowledge. I don’t fully understand the “spiritual warfare” that I’m groping to describe. I could be very wrong in a number of ideas that currently seem correct to me. But I also believe and “feel” that I’m on the right track. I am headed home like a salmon swimming up some stream to the place of its creation. I don’t exactly understand where I’m going. I don’t even understand why I’m going. And yet I am drawn towards my home in a way that is both mysterious and irresistible. Here I “swim”; I can do no other.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM
To: Alfred,Jerry Lee, Anon 4fun; & any interested individuals,subjects,etc.
Alfred said in pertinent part: “Could the word “person” include a living man? Probably. ”
I wish you had said “maybe” & I don’t mean to “nitpik.” It seems we all agree also that the word “person” MAY be referring to an artificial entity,and presuming that the word “person” may be referring to a living man,the following,I believe is PROOF that the word “person” as it IS WRITTEN IS a “living man,” considering everything else written therein.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.(Note also that “proper nouns” are used).
BUT,how do we know what the word “person” means when used/written “in a statute,ordinance,etc”
I have tried to use the common sense method to get my point across by saying: “Birds of a feather flock together.” It seems to me this is what Alfred did too in his understanding of: “Man or other animals.”
Noscitur a sociis (“a word is known by the company it keeps”): When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
The following COURTS agree.
According to the doctrine of Noscitur a sociis, it is written: “Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis,
words take meaning based on their context or their association with other words in statute
(ordinance, regulation, etc.)” Accord, DeSisto College, Inc. Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, 706 F.
Supp. 1479, affirmed 888 F. 2d. 766; Staples v. Palten, 571 A. 2d. 97; State Farm Ins. Co. v. Gay,
526 So. 2d. 534; Banner Printing Co. v. Bykota Corp. 388 S.E. 2d. 844.
Therefore, if the word person is defined as, “every natural person, firm, co-partnership, association, corporation, or other legal entity,” then we know that the word/term “person” as defined above IS an artificial person/entity by the doctrine of Noscitur a sociis.
In, City of Albuquerque v. Middle Rio Grand, 45 N.M. 313, it is written: “The Maxim, Noscitur a sociis, will be applied where the word is found in association with other words which indicate an intent to give it a limited or particular meaning . . . .”
Accord also, 41 N.M 403. “It is known by its associates.”
Don
September 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM
To: Alfred,
I know you have sensitive ears but KNOW FOR SURE that what you say in the following IS 100% TRUE
But if the adversary and/or the court openly resists your claim to be such “man,” then you’ll have evidence that the courts depend on viewing each of us as “persons” or “animals” or anything other than a “man made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. With that evidence, you will know that the court and the “system” is engaged in spiritual warfare against you . . . and against all of us. You’ll know by inference that our claims to be engaged in spiritual warfare are not frivolous, foolish or absurd–instead, you’ll know that our claims of “spiritual warfare” are right on. With that knowledge, you will be strengthened. For the first time, you’ll know for sure who your enemy really is–and you’ll also know who your savior really is. This is enlightenment.
Your entire message SAYS IT ALL in a nutshell. WHAT MORE can be said? It is beyond me. I hope to see you in “the world tomorrow” the next age of, eternity. What an honor & privilege it is to be with you!!!!!
Don
September 21, 2012 at 11:51 PM
To Alfred;
You say: “spiritual warfare” has turned into a “get into jail free” card..”
How well I know.
You also say: “There’s nobody here but me and my invisible “friend”.
He is not going to stay invisible much longer. The fat lady is about to sing… the swan song for gov-co INC.
Jerry Lee
September 15, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Let me interject a maxim of law, which may help explain My take on person.
Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions.
Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.
One may also say a Man may make a person but a person may not make a Man.
So status/rank is a person ‘in Society as most of You had said.
Do you belong to a ‘Society’?
The purported judges like to say that it’s their “duty is to protect society” — but which society?
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary states that there are two kinds of “society,”
one which is incorporated and noted in the law, and one which is not incorporated and not under the law!….In law would be common law.
I have a friend that is a newbie to the cause so I have try to explain the meaning of person. I call it my Peter Pan Doctrine. One sunny day we were discussing the meaning of person, it was at this instant I used the following demonstration.
You are a Living Man that cast a shadow you are real the other is just an image, you raise your hand the shadow raises ‘its’ hand, yes … now remove yourself from the sun and the shadow disappears.
Question to my friend if we made an image of his shadow and placed it in the sun would that image of the shadow create ‘Him’ the living Man?
Although it does not answer the question of status/rank it does show there is no person without Man/men as any type of person[s].
Even the 14th person must start with the living man.
Just as there would be no legal without lawful.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM
Hello Jerry Lee,
Re: Your message of/on September 15, 2012 at 9:23 AM
We can’t have ANY MORE “common sense reasoning” as you are using !! It doesn’t fit the mold,
so let’s not have anymore of it. (ha)
HEY! Remember the song, “Mother in Law?” I go around letting off some steam singing: Mother in
LEGAL, Mother in LEGAL,my Mother in LEGAL,she’s my Mother in LEGAL she’s a LEGAL Beagle,
my Mother in LEGAL
I abhor the words legal & license. can’t help it.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM
I regret to say I do not know for sure (remember) who said “earlier” that He/She was trying to get the judge to honor his oath of office. Who can say that what follows is not the truth?
Chief Justice Marshall, asks a relevant question and gives the answer in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 179, wherein, he said: “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for the government, if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a CRIME.” [ Comment: Chief Justice Marshall, does not say it becomes a civil matter or a civil rights violation, he says it is a CRIME, A CRIMINAL MATTER] !!!
Apparently Chief Justice Marshall did not take into consideration that a “change of VENUE” would alter his statement. But I,Don, believe Justice Marshall’s statement is STILL TRUE.
Anon4fun
September 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Adask said: >>So why should I take a chance on being defined by others as a “person” (which might not be entitled to claim God-given, unalienable Rights) when I could just as easily define myself (under Genesis 1:26-28 and the “Declaration”) to be “a man made in God’s image and endowed by my creator with certain unalienable Rights”?<<
If one's rights are indeed unalienable, then having them is independent of self-definition. Whatever "person" you choose to be in addition to what God made you effects only your exercise of those rights. Let us recall that Jesus Christ gave up the exercise of even his right to life in a clearly righteous cause. A man can surely act in the person of, for example, SODA JERK at the local drugstore without offending God. It could even be that his dutiful performance in this capacity was part of God's purpose in creating him.
Also:
Society. An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. In a wider sense, the community or public; the people in general. (Black’s 1st to 6th, emphasis added)
Adask
September 15, 2012 at 5:50 PM
My point is that, indeed, the rights of a man made in God’s image are unalienable, but the rights that attach to a “person” probably are not. If you are prepared to admit that you are a person, the court will accept your admission and judge you accordingly. It doesn’t matter if you are a man made in God’s image. If you admit to being a “person,” you will be treated as one.
We know for a fact that at least some persons (legal fictions like corporations, trusts, etc.) do not have God-given, unalienable Rights. I speculate that all “persons” may be presumed equal in this regard. Therefore, it seems possible, probable or even certain that no one acting as a “person” can claim God-given, unalienable Rights. So why take the chance? What is your objection to insisting that you are a man made in God’s image? Why do you seem to insist that being a “person” will not cause you to lose any rights? Why defend the capacity of “person” when the capacity of “man made in God’s image” is readily available, seemingly without liability, and easily argued as an element of one’s freedom of religion?
In the end, the question is not simply whether I do or do not have God-given, unalienable Rights. I have ‘em–no matter what.
The question is whether the government can be made to recognize me as a man endowed by by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. If I consent to act as a “person,” the government may say “Goody!” and therefore deny that I have any God-given, unalienable Rights. Is that denial a lie? Yes. Is it wicked? Yes. But insofar as I consent to be defined as a person, the denial of my God-given, unalienable Rights may be reasonable. The courts run on “reason”. If I admit, confess, or assent to being a “person,” and if a “person” has been defined as having no God-given, unalienable Rights–then the court will proceed on the basis that I have no such unalienable Rights (even if the court knows that’s not true) because I have implicitly said so.
How many times have you heard TV cops or lawyers say, “It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove”? You and I and the judge may all know that you have God-given, unalienable Rights. So what? If you can’t prove that you have such Rights, you got nothin’.
My proof runs as follows: 1) I am a man; 2) I am a Christian/Protestant; 3) My Bible says “One the 6th day God made man in His image”; 4) the “Declaration of Independence” declared that men such as myself are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; 5) the 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article 1.6 of The Constitution of The State of Texas guarantee my freedom of religion; therefore, 6) I am a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights–and no one can deny my claim without violating my freedom of religion. So far as I know, the freedom of religion is the last freedom that the courts will not easily challenge or resist.
Thus, in my opinion, my argument is pretty “tight” and likely to succeed. Who can or will argue under oath that I am not a “man” made in God’s image, or that I’m not “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights”? No one.
In fact, if I were being challenged in court, I would advance a more sophisticated argument than the 6 points I presented above. But those 6 points pretty much sum up what the argument would be.
Again, in court, it doesn’t matter what you, I or the judge knows–it only matters what you can prove. I am convinced that I can prove that, as a man made in God’s image, I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. I am very doubtful that you can prove that, as a “person,” you are also endowed with God-given, unalienable Rights. I see no reason to fight a war I might lose (based on assenting to be a “person”) when I could more easily fight a war that I’m convinced I can win (based on expressly claiming on the record to be a “man made in God’s image”).
We are not talking about what’s right. We’re not talking about what’s true. We’re talking about what can be proved in a court of “this state”. You must know that our courts routinely issue verdicts that contradict what any fool knows is true. But the courts are not about what people know; they’re about what people prove–which is frequently a lie.
If you don’t want to be trapped in a lie, you need to concern yourself not only with what is true, but also with what you can prove.
Don
September 22, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Alfred, re:your question where you ask:
The question is whether the government can be made to recognize me as a man endowed by by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
You bet your sweet boo-pee THEY not only can be made to, they WILL BE MADE to
Your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet
Isaiah 60:14
Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed.
Isaiah 10:1
, “And you experts (JUDGES) in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11:46
Jerry Lee
September 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Things to remember Bouvier’s Law Dictionary was used by the supreme court of “the United States of America” and Black’s law is the ‘Book of the Dead” or Bankers Bible used by The United States D. C. Supreme Court.One in-law the other copyrighted law.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Re Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,
For at least you & me,yes indeed. Unfortunately, our enemy disagrees.To them it’s just another history item. IT IS OF HISTORICAL INTEREST ONLY.BECAUSE,as they say, because of the MERGER of law & EQUITY & the DEVELOPMENT OF THE “law.” huh? THE DEVELOPMENT ?? The correct word should be, DESTROYING !!!
Anon4fun
September 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM
How about some solid evidence equating Black’s with the Book of the Dead, etc? By solid evidence I mean no quotes from Judas goat patriotards or, what this sounds like, thoroughly discredited BS-artists for the New Age like Jordan Maxwell.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Hi Anon4fun
Is your question & comment re: solid evidence equating Black’s with the Book of the Dead,directed to anyone in particular?
Thanks,
Don
Jerry Lee
September 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM
That is simple Black’s law is for fictional “persons”
Anon4fun
September 15, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Don:
The question is for anyone who can answer it.
Jerry Lee: >>That is simple Black’s law is for fictional “persons”<<
Not that I can see. On what evidence do you base this claim?
Don
September 15, 2012 at 6:32 PM
To: Anon4fun
What Jerry Lee is saying is,The Bouvier definitions are based on the “Common Law.” The modern day Black’s Law Dictionary are based on Statutory Law.
Anon4fun
September 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM
Adask said: {We know for a fact that at least some persons (legal fictions like corporations, trusts, etc.) do not have God-given, unalienable Rights. I speculate that all “persons” may be presumed equal in this regard.}
This speculation is unfounded, in my opinion. For example, I see every reason to think that one can take a job as the SODA JERK (a person) at a local drugstore without being presumed to be without God-given, unalienable rights.
{What is your objection to insisting that you are a man made in God’s image?
None at all. My objection is to the logically inconsistent proposition that acting as a person can forfeit one’s unalienable rights. I claim to be BOTH a man made in God’s image and a fiduciary (i.e. person) with respect to certain beneficiaries in certain contexts.
{Why do you seem to insist that being a “person” will not cause you to lose any rights?}
I considered it self-evident that my rights are unalienable and therefore cannot be lost. I read it on a blog somewhere.
{Why defend the capacity of “person” when the capacity of “man made in God’s image” is readily available, seemingly without liability, and easily argued as an element of one’s freedom of religion?}
Completely avoiding the capacity of person has HUGE consequences. For starters, it spells the end of civilization, which centrally relies on fiduciary duties.
Also, what God made in his own image is an entity, not a capacity. That which was made in God’s image is the substantial being acting in some capacity.
{The question is whether the government can be made to recognize me as a man endowed by by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. If I consent to act as a “person,” the government may say “Goody!” and therefore deny that I have any God-given, unalienable Rights.}
I think this is very close, but not quite correct. It may seem like just a detail, but it could be a critical detail. The government does not have to, and probably never does, deny your God-given, unalienable rights. What happens is you relinquish your exercise of these rights as part of a voluntarily assumed fiduciary capacity. One voluntarily relinquishes the exercise of certain rights when taking any fiduciary role, including that of all-caps United States person.
{I am very doubtful that you can prove that, as a “person,” you are also endowed with God-given, unalienable Rights.}
When, as we see is possible, this “person” is also a man, no proof is necessary, because God-given, unalienable rights are considered the self-evident endowment of all men this country.
Don:
Thanks for the clarification. I’m still looking for a trail of evidence to reconstruct this “Book of the Dead” claim from the ground up. This means citations from generally accepted sources, not personal opinions or characterizations.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM
To Anon4fun
Your message written on September 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM IS very “thought provoking.”
In your research efforts re: “I’m still looking for a trail of evidence to reconstruct this “Book of the Dead,” The lights may suddenly appear keeping this truth in mind & that is, knowing what you do know re: “non living entities” e.g. corporation,Trust(s)etc. AND Yahshua’s statement of: “Let the dead bury their dead.”
Don
September 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM
IT’S BACK !!
Working as a SODA JERK, IS an honorable profession, & Anon4fun has unalienable rights. BUT having these rights in & of itself DOES NOT put food on the table,pay the bills,etc.Working as a SODA JERK will put food on the table,etc. BUT, here is the CATCH. Gov-co has made it almost impossible IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE for Anon4fun to work as a SODA JERK, UNLESS, Anon4fun will become an artificial entity,etc. For example,get a SSN & unless you can walk,roller skate,ride a bicycle,take a bus,etc., to your place of employment,where you work as a SODA JERK,THEN, get a driver license so you have LEGAL permission from gov-co to use THEIR “motor vehicle” (they do give you an equitable interest in it,IF you follow the “rules”),then under those circumstances,gov-co considers Anon4fun a corporate entity & NOT, Anon4fun wiith unalienable rights. Remember the scripture that says,in essence,that no man might buy or sell UNLESS he takes/has the mark OR the number? Now, if we’re broke,we can’t buy anything, & if we don’t have anything to sell, then we are sort of “between a rock & a hard place” aren’t we? We are between the devil & the deep blue sea,you might say. Gov-co comes to the rescue,however, & makes an offer that is HARD to refuse,under our deplorable conditions. BUT what gov-co will not come right out & say is,e.g.,Look, you can give up your unalienable rights,accept our statutory rights (privileges) & you can put food on your table, & be able to have the necessary things you & everyone needs OR hang on to your unalienable rights & GRUB IT OUT!! GREAT Choice ain’t it Anon4fun.
Jerry Lee
September 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM
To Don:
Ouch!! Right on point. One must become a ‘Zombie” and jion the living dead. Great comment.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM
To Anon4fun
Re Your comment, in pertinent part, on September 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM.
Re:unalienable rights are considered the self-evident endowment of all men this country.
My question is: Considered by WHO to be the the self-evident endowment of all men this country?
Re:{I am very doubtful that you can prove that, as a “person,” you are also endowed with God-given,unalienable Rights)
This “person” above,means “a corporate person” a non living entity e.g., a corporation.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM
To Anon4fun
Re:{What is your objection to insisting that you are a man made in God’s image?
None at all. My objection is to the logically inconsistent proposition that acting as a person can forfeit one’s unalienable rights. I claim to be BOTH a man made in God’s image and a fiduciary (i.e. person) with respect to certain beneficiaries in certain contexts.
I think this is a GREAT answer & to me it is 100% correct,as stated,& without more information, e.g. as to what you mean re:a fiduciary (i.e. person) with respect to certain beneficiaries in certain contexts.
Jerry Lee
September 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM
I need to back track and try to interject my take on a State within a State brought up by Don and confirmed By Al in earlier comments. I do believe this is not so. Al has written on ‘this state’ and’ the state’ as being ‘their’ private corporate State which are located in the United States D.C. and have no boundaries but are Paper Tigers. Even ‘their” codes, revised or otherwise state this fact.
The Federal Constitution even stipulates at Article IV Section 3 – Clause 1…Admission of new States.
Power of Congress over territory and other property:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state….
This would be on mark with the maximum…Every Jurisdiction has it bounds.
That is why ‘their’ codes say Above, without the exterior of the State etc.
It is my belief as I have stated that even a Living Man has a Person in which all commercial intercourse is conducted via contract as ‘Contract makes the Law’ which is even higher than Constitutional Law. But it is in what law venue we contract in determents that persona we project as that Person/person. Each (contract) law has different duties and obligations. It is just that most of us do not know which sphere of law we are operating in so we lose.
Today all Courts operate as commercial for profit Courts and all U. S. citizen are the pawns in a system, which is civil under Military rule and has been since March 1861. That all Civil (privileges) Rights are Military in nature.
The Executive Dictator ie Commander–in-Chief under the Code of Federal Regulations has made all crimes commercial…CFR 27, Sec 27-11. It is the flag of His Office which is present in the courtroom.
You do have a right to choose what contract you may enter, as not only does the Federal Constitution but also all Union states have wording as such… law impairing the obligation of contracts.
Locus contractus regit actum. The place of the contract governs the act.
It is the use of the type of ‘Money’ that make our laws, debt notes better known a Federal Reserve Notes or worthless securities take your pick. This Military script is used in ‘their’ Military Courts; please note that courts today are ‘Forum Contractus’, a forum to contract.
Liberum corpus aestimationem non recipit. The body of a freeman does not admit of valuation.
The reference for the Book of the Dead was to denote that when one acts in the person of a U.S. citizen you are acting in private copyrighted ‘law’, as a corporate commercial citizen.
One last note, if the powers to be want to pay lip service to the Constitution(s), play ‘their’ game use that instrument to bind them.
So I will leave this post with this thought: You have God Given Unalienable Rights, You have no Rights, You are under Military Rule You are Free, You are Not Free, You are living, You are civilly dead, You may domicile in a Union state or You may be in a state of Insanity. I hope this has confused You as much as I did My self.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 12:47 AM
My DEAR Jerry Lee:
If anyone wants to argue any point you have made he/she is going to have a Double Barrel coming at umm, You & me. The only courts the flag you are speaking of is BY LAW the right court to be “displayed” in, IS a MILITARY COURT. Hey,by the way re the zip code which IS a Military federal regional VENUE “ID” looky here
51 Cal.4th 524 (2011)
1) “………. we conclude a ZIP code constitutes “personal identification information” as that phrase is used in section 1747.08. Thus, requesting and recording a cardholder’s ZIP code, without more, violates the Credit 528*528 Card Act. We therefore reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision.”
I believe it is “personal identification information” for other “reasons” too.
Jerry Lee
September 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Correction CFR 27, Section 72-11 not CFR 2secrtion [27]-11. Sorry for the type-o
Don
September 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Re: Correction CFR 27, Section 72-11 not CFR 2secrtion [27]-11. Sorry for the type-o
Sorry, your request for correction is denied. It was not posted timely.
Don
September 22, 2012 at 2:26 AM
Jerry Lee,
Re: your comment in pertinent part: a State within a State. The Appeals court said: “There is a state within “THE” state.” (caps are my emphasis)
I don’t remember if the word “state” was written as a proper noun or common noun in either of the two.times it was written, but the court did not say a state within a state
Adask
September 22, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Wikipedia defines “state within a state” as follows:
“State within a state (also Latin: imperium in imperio[1] or status in statu) is a political situation in a country when an internal organ, generally from the armed forces, intelligence agencies, or police, does not respond to the civilian leadership.
Sometimes, the term refers to state companies that, though formally under the command of the government, act de facto like private corporations. Sometimes, the term refers to companies that, though formally private, act de facto like “states within a state”.[2]
“Certain political debates surrounding the separation of Church and State revolve around the perception that if left unchecked, the Church might turn into a kind of State within a State, an illegitimate outgrowth of the State’s natural civil power.[3]
“Imperium in imperio was also the first state motto of Ohio, reflecting its great size and influence within the early United States.[4][5]”
A “state within a state” that “does not respond to civilian leadership” sounds just like “this state” which, apparently, is not subject to the Constitution of The State.
The references “private corporations” acting “de facto” as a “state” is also consistent with the “The State vs this state” dichotomy.
Jerry Lee
September 22, 2012 at 7:28 PM
Al, Thank you this is just more proof that we are Subject to Military Rule ie Dictatorship. All Presidents since Lincoln should be wearing a Military uniform to show their true allegiance to the ‘Office” of ‘Commander-in-Chief not the President.
Funny how ‘they’ suspense the Emergency Rule just long enough for the illusions of a free election for the Dummies then go right back under Military Rule with all their Dictatorial Policies in full Force and Effect against the people who are now classified as U.S. citizens and do not recognize the state native.
A great article on Martial Rule is ‘Prolegomena to Current Martial Rule’; place in your search engine about 200 pages on the lost of the Christian state.
This last note, for a de facto office to be created/occupied there must be a de jure office, ref: NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Anon4fun
September 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Don: {My question is: Considered by WHO to be the the self-evident endowment of all men this country?}
Considered by everyone who follows the law, since i It is a principle found in the organic law of this country, by way of the Declaration of Independence.
{re: a fiduciary (i.e. person) with respect to certain beneficiaries in certain contexts.}
This is just a general formula for the capacity type of person.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 12:23 AM
To:Anon4fun
@Considered by everyone who follows the law, since It is a principle found in the organic law of this country, by way of the Declaration of Independence.
Now you’re talking like a man after my own heart. I like to go back even further,e.g. The Mayflower Compact. Now we are in the same “ballpark” now we are with the “Common Law.” I have a case where the Court said: “By the Common Law & by the Holy Bible which is the source of the Common Law.” That Court, in essence, said that’s how their decision will be made. By the Common Law & byThe Holy Bible. ain’t that way no mo bro.
re:Considered by everyone who follows the law.
I don’t know of anyone in gov-co who does that & this is where the biggest hurdle is for us to overcome. My dear Anon4fun please don’t tell me that you are going or are in this war by yourself. Are there other people who will stand by you? please let me know.I said in an earlier message, in essence, With what you do understand re “non living entities” keep in mind what Yahshua(Jesus) said i.e.”Let the dead bury their dead.” It is the “way” although they were alive they were dead in “another way.” They would have been better off dead all the way.My Email address is: donaldbailey02@comcast.net-Phone is-505-865-9293. If EVER I can be of help, & IF I can I will.Jerry Lee is a wonderful counselor. He understands a lot more than I do,& so do you,about statutory law I think he knows enough about it that he doesn’t want to know anymore about it. He has seen & heard enough. Right Jerry Lee??? I might not have said that right. Shalom.
Jerry Lee
September 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM
To Don:
Thank you sir for your kind words and Al for this forum to express Our opinions.
Al has a much greater knowledge and has given to all of us who yearn for Freedom through the Christian Faith a voice. It is the absences of this voice which has started a inward demise of Our Country but one thing is for sure the Foundation stands. Fighting evil is not easy as life and property are but colatter damage in modern words of usage.
The chief reason all U.S. citizens’ need a license is they are classified the enemy of the “Foreign Corporation” aka United States D.C. as so declared by FDR.
The origin of the Trading With the Enemy Act with events of March 27, 1861. “Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order” under the Emergency War Powers Act (12 USC 95 a, b): On March 27, 1861, “seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. law of necessity,” meaning that there is “no law.” [12 Stat 319 has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties.]
Title 12 › Chapter 2 › Subchapter IV › § 95b
The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title, are approved and confirmed.
I think what most people forget ‘or’ the Secretary of the Treasury who uses the President as a mouth piece to dictate the demand of the Foreign interest that controls the United States Inc, for this is not of a Constitutional Office but is the privately owned corporate office for the Federal Reserve System and He is ‘paid’ by that enitity, (IMF).
I do believe the Law of necessity is commom law as one may use all force necessary and proper to defend life and property and not commerical in nature, anyone?
Don
September 17, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Hello again Jerry Lee,
Are you familiar with another Jerry,Jerry Day,re CAFR ? I really like the name of Jerry. I used to travel with Jerry Lee Lewis,(Whole lotta shakin goin on) years ago. When I first saw your christian name, I thought you were the Jerry Lee Lewis I knew.
Don
September 18, 2012 at 3:57 PM
To: Jerry Lee
You say in pertinent part: “………..and Al for this forum to express Our opinions.
Your messages are written with facts. I don’t recall ever reading “your opinion” in anything you have written.
Jerry Lee
September 18, 2012 at 7:21 PM
To: Don
No I am not He nor am I the ‘the Killer’ but did enjoy my grandson playing “Great Balls Of Fire” on the piano.
Yes I know about the Double Book entries, (CAFR) of the gov-co and have not heard of Mr Day.
It seems that this post was more on the subject of person then driving but was informative with that in mind.
The Law Of Persons:
“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition.” — American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910.
One thing not mention was the Strawman seems ‘it’ is the forgotten hero of the Swindlers for one really has to a Dummy to transfer their rights to the Sham man.
As for my opinion they are the Facts.
PS
All crimes are considered
Commercial crimes.
“Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime”.
27 CFR Sec 72.11 (4-1-02 Edition)
Don
September 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM
To:Jerry Lee,
Forgive me, if & when I get off point. I fail miserably in communicating with most people and I have never been able to understand why. It is impossible for “me” to correct something when I don’t know what the problem is. I remember my first contact with you, and it was a long time ago.I recall you telling me you lived in Ohio. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but my memory says Ohio. We discussed “property tax” which I call, “annual rental fee.”
Re: Person/person: I recall on one occassion, a city policeman pulling me over(an emergency situation), & when he asked for the “Big 3″ I said,in pertinent part: Officer I am not a person as defined in the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code. He immediately called for “backup” & he said: “Yeah, I have a person here that says he’s not a person.” I am convinced he thought I was “loony.” I have often wondered about that too. But anyway,I did not tell the officer that I was not a person. I told him I was not a person AS DEFINED in the NMMVC.
Re: All crimes are considered Commercial crimes. 27 CFR Sec 72.11
I tried to explain this to Judge Ross Sanchez, and the expression on his face said it all & in all honesty he asked me a question that left me feeling trapped. He asked: Do you want an in custody or out of custody competency hearing?
Dear Jerry Lee, how would you have responded to the question he(Judge Sanchez) asked? I cannot recall one iota how I responded if I did at all. So,e.g.The Judge asks “Jerry Lee would you like an in custody or out of custody competency hearing?” What would you have said or done.? Even today I cannot think “on my feet.”
palani
September 19, 2012 at 7:36 AM
“Do you want an in custody or out of custody competency hearing?”
A suitable response? “Would you care to accompany me or would you prefer a separate competency hearing of your own?”
Don
September 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM
OH NO !!!!! YOU DON”T COME INTO MY COURT TRYIN 2 TAKE OVER 30 DAYS !!!
Shalom, Palani. Thought you “evicted me.” I am serious when I say: I sincerely wish you would represent me in court & still if “I” am found guilty I would want to embrace you & thank you for your efforts. Palani, I sincerely mean this.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Palani,
P.S. THANKS for the good hearty belly laugh !!
Don
September 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM
Dear, Wonderful, Palani,
Let me back up somewhat. When I first read (red) your response, I laughed so hard it hurt.
I believe I made “suitable” responses in the past & was literally tortured for doing so. I do not enjoy being beaten to a pulp, subjected to LOUD EAR BURSTING DEMENTED NOISE the jailers call “heavy metal” MUSIC.” It is not music. It is demented noise. I did not enjoy being put into a torture chamber for the purpose,as the jailers said, to git cho mind RIGHT. SO, I became fearful to say anything. One time when I waddled to “court” in leg irons & handcuffs,I uttered not one word. I was shaking “like a leaf” FEARFUL of going through what I had previously gone through. The judge said: DONALD BAILEY !!! WADDLE ON UP HERE!!!. I was terrified. The officers put me in a straight back chair when we first got into the “vessel.” When I did not “waddle on up there” they picked up the chair with me in it * set the chair,with me in it,down in front of the judge. I did not waddle on up there because I was frozen with fear. I was found in contempt for refusing to speak. I think I can safely say that no one in this entire “venue” from the Atlantic to the Pacific has been found in “contempt of court” more than me. Anyway, I think those days & situations are over with at least for the most part.
If you find time,please tell me your thoughts, etc are, on, an ” In Camera Hearing.” I am not asking you to define it. If I told you that I was “scheduled” to have an “in camera hearing, what do think is going on?
palani
September 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Don
First off, if you are put in leg irons then they don’t expect you to go anywhere. What are you doing waddling anywhere? Sit down and stay put. Nobody going to court in chains can be presumed innocent in any way, shape or fashion. When presented with an opportunity to leave you should by all means take it otherwise you have volunteered.
As to an “in camera hearing” I presume you to be seated in a chair in front of a camera while imprisoned, possibly with a monitor to view the judicial actors on the bridge of his ship. As nothing is binding I suggest you should stay pleasant and repeat as follows: “If I appeared to consent previously I have never consented and I do not consent now.” In the likely event that nobody present speaks proper English you might ask if the court understands this statement and has any questions. If they have questions you simply repeat it.
Marc Stevens (of Adventures in Legal Land) has an entire 7 page script that he uses to impeach “witnesses”. While entertaining and mostly correct procedure many people (myself included) simply cannot think quickly on their feet. Participating in the process creates a form of joinder as well.
Were you born in the territory ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo? If so then why not look at your rights under this treaty?
palani
Don
September 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM
To Palani
I was born in The State of Virginia, A Republcan state in/of The united States of America
palani
September 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Don
Cool … one of the original 13. I guess I wouldn’t try to tie you into the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo then…. wouldn’t work.
Don
September 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM
I’m back in the saddle again,talking with Palani,my friend
I have tried to use it,i.e.Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo & other “heart touching” IN Law provisions. The court says they ALL are of historical interest only due to the MERGER of LAW & EQUITY & the DEVELOPMENT of THE LEGAL,excuse me,law You might like #3 below The courts classify it as pure frontier gibberish.
Donald-Blaine: [Bailey],
The Petitioner,
vs. Case #_________________
Governor Gary Johnson, Glenn T. Ellington, N.Mex. Taxation and Revenue Dept., Gordon Eden, N. Mex. Motor Vehicle Dept. N. Mex. Legislature, Respondents, All Individually and Officially.
NOTICE OF VENUE
BY AFFIDAVIT
“The State of New Mexico” )
) Affirmed
Bernalillo county )
I, Donald Blaine, am UNINCORPORATED, UNENFRANCHISED, a Free White Citizen, The Virginia (not VA) state Citizen, and a sojourner in New Mexico (not NM) state, supposedly a Republican state of The united States of America; AND BLAINE IS NOT Donald Blaine’s LAST NAME, AND BLAINE, DONALD, IS NOT Donald Blaine’s NAME, which is a MISNOMER; and
2. I, Donald Blaine, AM a member of The Posterity of We the People, as established by The Original Body Politic, secured, and is securing by The Statute of 1776 a/k/a The Declaration of Independence, and as restated in The Preamble of The Constitution FOR The united States of America of 1787; and
3. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT a RESIDENT (RES-PROPERTY) of NM, MN, AM, PM, FM RPM, M&M, NOR ANY “M” , NOR A RESIDENT OF VA, PA, or, MA, or, OR; AND,
4. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT a citizen, resident, or SUBJECT of The District of Columbia, i.e. “UNITED STATES” IN “ITS” CORPORATE CAPACITY NOR ANY OF “ITS” CLOSELY SUPERVISED UNITS e.g. “NM” in ITS CORPORATE CAPACITY; and,
5. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT a resident of ANY Federal or State District within a National or State “REGIONAL” AREA; and,
6. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT a citizen OF The United States as defined within the limitations of The Declaratory Fourteenth Amendment of The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OF 1868; and,
7. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT a member of ANY FOREIGN BODY POLITIC AS ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 OR AS AMENDED, i.e. NOT A CARD CARRYING SOCIALIST; and,
8. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT a member of the armed forces of The UNITED STATES; and,
9. I, Donald Blaine, AM NOT A Legal Entity SUBJECT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS, ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHERWISE, FROM ANY SO CALLED NM PEACE OFFICER OR ANY COURT, WHEN THE COURT OR THE PEACE OFFICER’S “VENUE” IS WITHIN A “LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE REGIONAL DISTRICT; and,
10. When the NM Courts and “peace Officers” jurisdiction IS Territorial OR Legislative/Executive this “jurisdiction cannot Lawfully EXTEND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF Bernalillo county, New Mexico, and when said offices cannot establish a territorial or REGIONAL jurisdiction to serve above stated process outside said offices jurisdiction, said offices exceeds “its” authority ; and,
11. I, Donald Blaine, AM causing, by this notice of venue, and informing you and your office that I, Donald Blaine, am not a citizen/Subject WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE REGIONAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, i.e. The District of Columbia a/k/a “D.C.,” OR The District of New Mexico a/k/a NM; and,
Further, Affiant sayeth not.
Subscribed and affirmed this ______________ day of __________________, in the year of our Lord and Savior, Yahshua (Jesus), the Christ, Two thousand and one A. D.
_____________-____________:_[_____________]______________________________
Donald-Blaine: [Bailey] Jure sanguinis (Blood), jure soli (Seal), Jure coronae (Crown),
We, the undersigned witnesses, do affirm that the above signatory, Donald-Blaine; [Bailey], is known to us and did affirm under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and did execute and affix the above signature and seal hereto.
______________________________ ______________________________
Witness Witness
____________________________________ __________________________________
____________________________________ __________________________________
Mailing location Mailing location
Jerry Lee
September 21, 2012 at 12:04 AM
To: Don
Yes Ohio it is. I do not know your circumstance of your court appearance but understand that the administrator of some agency wanted you to contract with his private company.
I do not give any legal advice my opinions are given freely and hold no merit except for my self with, as everything should be verified.
Today I do believe courts are for ‘Corporations’ not the living Man, until one invokes His court as the Magna Charta reads every man shall have “HIS” court. You are on their Stage. You were invited for the casting call as DONALD BLAINE BAILEY an Actor and You appeared for the part.
Look, it is like this, we are in a ‘LAWLESS’ corporate State. As we will win a few but lose more then I would care to venture. I too have done the affidavits, the certified mail under Notary etc. It is a gamble how much Our You willing to put on the line?
Chances are most of your family thinks you’re nuts to boot, this is just a side effect we share in common.
Judges sit only ‘in-law’ not statutory, code or other man made laws,
If the administrative clerk ie so called judge says it is ‘His’ court You must insist that one would be in the wrong court, that is if you have not ‘contracted’ your Unalienable Rights away. By one contracting with this Administrative agency (subject matter) you have obligated yourself to ‘its’ jurisdiction.
The porported judge was asking for your permission, constent for a hearing.In the common law there is not such a thing as an in custody or out of custody competency hearing?
My response would have been “ I will not consent, agree or contract with your private company as it is My Right not to be impar with the obligation of contracts provided Me in ***** of The New Mexico Constitution. I accept no benefit nor do I constent to any benefit and retain all my Unalienable Rigths in tact and have not wavied any of those rights past, present or will I in the future.
Forget the United States constituion you are in the Country of New Mexico with its own constitution which affords you the protection as a native of the several states.Remember the constitution attaches to you upon the “LAND” where you stand.
As always I like to throw things into the mix just to show people the powers to be could care less about “THE LAW”.
Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity, or admiralty and therefore CAN NOT ARISE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, to wit:
Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of the American Bar Association’s special committee on administrative *153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal, 574, 589, says: ‘* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct branch of the law.
It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law * * *.’ The court has recognized the principle with respect to the industrial insurance act that controversies arising under it are controlled by “special statutory proceedings exercised in derogation of, or not according to, the course of the common law.” (Italics ours.) Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878. [Emphasis added]
This is also held in the adjudged decision of State ex rel Nielson et al. v. Lindstrom, 191 P.2d 1009, 1015 (1948).
And this quote from the American Bar Association/State Justice Institute publication “CITIZENS JUSTICE 2000″…. page 44, Chapter V. “Common Law Courts”
“The ‘common law’ courts are not a part of the judicial system established by local, state and federal law. The term ‘common law courts’ refer to individuals who appoint themselves as judges and juries of claims against government officials or of disputes that others have filed in a legitimate court system. They do not recognize local, state or federal courts and tribunals.”
Did you not read legitimate court system against government officials?
So if the ‘common law court’ is a legitimate court system what in the he** are all the others??????????
I kinda remember that We the people may judge the Facts and the Law this is your due process, trial by jury not a jury trail big big differnce.
Sorry for the delay been busy, with this parting thought in mind; The Law of the Land feels good under foot, but the ‘Federal law’ under foot is more like Dog Crap once you step in IT…it Stinks, IT follows you everywhere and IT is harder than the beegees to remove, So Watch Your Step.
Don
September 22, 2012 at 1:38 AM
To:Jerry Lee
You say: “You were invited for the casting call as DONALD BLAINE BAILEY an Actor and You appeared for the part.”
If you call being awakened from sleep with two assault rifles being pointed at you, an invitation, it sure is a rude one.(Invitation)
You say I appeared for the part: Yes,in an orange jail jumpsuit.
You say: “Chances are most of your family thinks you’re nuts.”
I do not have any family left. But all my neighbors called me an anarchist. YES,& NUTS. A little child told me that his mom & Dad said I was a fruitcake. I moved to another venue in “this state.”
You say what your response would have been, & you gave a fantastic answer.
When I am in a madhouse & don’t know if I am coming or going it’s out of the question for me to answer anything with any sense. I think I said I stand on my made a matter of public record affidavits & further, I have nothing more to say
You say trial by jury, not a jury trail, big big differnce.
AMEN with a resounding N
You say: Forget the United States constituion you are in the Country of New Mexico with its own constitution which affords you the protection as a native of the several states.Remember the constitution attaches to you upon the “LAND” where you stand.
I have NEVER used any Provisions of the “Federal Constitution” in ANY so called “State Court.”
In this particular, ALL “charges” were dropped anyway & the “case” was dismissed with prejudice,
but I was a walking zombie for a long time afterwards because of the effects of the “sore trial.”
Jerry Lee
September 23, 2012 at 12:31 AM
To Don:
Good day Sir, sure sounds like you have come face to face with the Beast, I admire your fortitude to stand up for OUR Rights be it in a sister state for we are the people.
I did presume your were ‘summons’ to the house of the Beast and were not ‘escorted’ my the minions of the SS.
American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional Law…Duress, Section 21
“An agreement obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced. Duress, like fraud, rarely becomes material, except where a contract or conveyance has been made which the maker wishes to avoid. Like other voidable contracts, it is valid until it is avoided by the person entitled to avoid it. However, duress in the form of physical compulsion, in which the party is caused to appear to assent when he has no intention of doing so, is generally deemed to render the resulting purported contract void.”
Some of my thoughts on your post, although your case was dismissed ‘with prejudice’ please remember that case is still in custody of the ‘State’ for their review. To eliminate this in future cases have the case Dismissed With Prejudice, Vacated and Purged.
Then the case is not reviewable by the powers to be to build a case on your pass offenses/crimes etc. For if you go back now and request that Case you may still get a ‘Copy’ of that case, as it is ‘Public Record’.
To be charged with Contempt of Court that court must have some nexus or jurisdiction over you or your CONSENT. If not that charge of Contempt of Court is void without force and effect. That purported judge has no immunity where Constitutional Protected Rights are violated.
As stated before sue him/her in their private capacity not an official office.
Ref: American Bar Association/State Justice Institute publication “CITIZENS JUSTICE 2000″…. page 44, Chapter V. “Common Law Courtsin previous post to you my friend.
“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. V. Mcdonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
The RIGHT TO TRAVEL Vol 13 of Cal Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition, Sec 238:
“Although not explicitly mentioned in the federal Constitution the right to travel freely from one state to another is a basic right under the Constitution. The nature of the federal union and of constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations that… burden or restrict this movement. The right to travel freely… is secured against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or private… And the constitutional right to travel between states implies a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state.”
II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
“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.”
I will go further to say the 1st amendment gives one the Right to Travel from place to place without a Drivers License. Have you ever listen to the morning/evening radio on your way to work, church, school, shopping etc? Something like this “Good morning/evening Commuters” Aren’t you going somewhere to communicate, assemble and association with other people? This folks is Freedom of Speech and the Right Of Free Assembly And Association. You need NO LICENSE.
Two of the five constitutional guarantees in the first article of the Bill of Rights.
There is no federal common law of crimes. Central Bank, N. A. v First Interstate Bank, N. A. (US) 128 L Ed 2d 119, 114 S Ct 1439.
I also believe the Thompson vs Erie RR 1938 did away with General Federal Common Law.
ROAD. A passage through the country for the use of the people. 3 Yeates, 421.
HIRE, contracts. A bailment, where a compensation is to be given for the use of a thing, or for labor or services about it. 2 Kent’s Com. 456; 1 Bell’s Com. 451; Story on Bailim. 369; see 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 980, et seq;
HIGHWAY. A passage or road through the country, or some parts of it, for the use of the people. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 442. The term highway is said to be a generic name for all kinds of public ways. 6 Mod R, 255.
HIGHWAYMAN. A robber on the highway, I do believe this describes the Boys and Girls that have badges, gun and uniforms purporting to be some kind of enforcement Officer for a Private corporation.
Don
September 21, 2012 at 1:30 AM
Gary Lee, House of Russell
Your message of September 21, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Apparently you have not seen or read(red) 90% of the things I have posted,OR maybe some or most of them did not go through. Maybe what I see come up after I send a message does not come up for you & others. So what do I do if that is the case?
Scroll up & see if you see my message to Palani of September 11, 2012 at 2:41 AM. If you do, read(reed) it carefully. After that, & presuming you find it, we will go from there
Don
September 21, 2012 at 2:50 AM
Alfred Re: Crimes or Penal offenses,
Re: My comment of:The way things are today, here is what the Miller v.U,S court should have said:
The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right CAN and WILL BE converted into a crime.
You,Alfred say: I wonder if the answer to you question might lie in the meaning of “crime” as compared to the meaning of “penal offense”.
Here in pertinent part is what the top court in NM said:
“Defendant was convicted in magistrate court of speeding, driving without proof of financial responsibility, driving without a current vehicle registration, and driving without a driver’s license.”
Unless I am totally insane the two top courts in NM say the above are crimes,e.g.
This case presents two interesting questions. The first is whether a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and acting sua sponte may include in its sentencing order an injunction against further criminal conduct, AND,
It is fundamental in New Mexico that when a district court exercises its criminal jurisdiction And,
We reverse the injunction entered by the district court as part of Defendant’s sentence for violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. AND,
The good news is, at least to me, since the injunction ordered me to get the “Big 3″ before I could use my automobile, & the Top court reversed it saying the court did not have authority to order me to get the “Big 3″ then who does have the authority? e.g the top court said:
We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority.
So who does have the authority to order me to get a driver license, etc????
Adask
September 21, 2012 at 6:54 AM
The first implication is that obtaining a drivers license is voluntary. That doesn’t prove, but it is consistent with my notions that all of our “entries” into “this state” are presumed to be voluntary. It appears that they can’t compel you to leave “The State” (of the Union) to enter “this state”. However, they have a number of “tricks” by means of which they presume that you’ve “voluntarily” entered “this state”.
For example, are you really driving “your” car, or are you driving a car owned by “this state”? If “this state” holds title to the car you drive, “this state” can require you to have a DL before you can “legally” drive a car owned by “this state”. If you’re driving a vehicle owned by “this state,” it may be presumed that you’ve voluntarily left “The State” to enter into “this state”.
What about the place where you drive? Or you’re driving on the “right of way” located within “The State of Texas” (for example)? Or are you driving on a highway that’s been donated to, or purchased by an element of “this state”. If you’re driving on such “highway,” it may be presumed that you’ve voluntarily entered into “this state”.
If the previous conjecture is roughly correct, it may follow that you can defeat the presumptions created by using a car owned by “this state” or driving on a highway owned by “this state” by expressly denying those presumptions. If you can claim (especially under oath) that all of your actions took place within the borders of, say, “The State of Texas” (“The State”), the gov-co may be hard-pressed to prove otherwise under oath, on the record, in a public tribunal.
Don
September 22, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Alfred,
You asked: “For example, are you really driving “your” car, or are you driving a car owned by “this state”?
I, Don, say, If the “car” is not registered with & to “this state” & therefore has no license plate(s), I fail to see how “this state” owns the car.
The confusing thing to me,is this. When the S.Ct. of N.M. or maybe it’s NM, says, that the lower court does not have authority to order me to get the “Big 3, but the lower court DOES have authority to hold me in contempt & punish me for not obeying the made without authority order because of its contempt power,is insanity.
BUT, I still say that if any court does not have authority to order,e.g. You, Alfred to get the Big 3, who does? But, remember, the court does have authority to punish you if you disobey its without authority order because of its “contempt power.” BS !!! as far as I’m concerned I proved to anyone who has the wit to see it, that the courts are utterly corrupt & I feel good about that.
Richard
September 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Greetings. I myself have experienced torture at the hands of the “authorities” (Calif.) for driving with no license. (I cancelled/returned it after being fraudulently presented with a bogus citation by Nevada State Patrol in Nevada).
I did not consent to being arrested. They arrested me anyway, kidnapped/man-stealed my body, hijacked my auto, tortured me, and locked me up. They did this twice despite my presenting a well articulated “Petition in the Nature of a Demand and Notice of Abatement”.
I discovered that the keepers of the law do not themselves obey the law (rules and procedures included) – conclusion: there is “no law” except fraud backed by force – which is wholly and completely un-natural.
As per Jerry Lee’s comment: “I do believe the Law of necessity is commom law as one may use all force necessary and proper to defend life and property and not commerical in nature, anyone?”
I am there; ready to use all force necessary to defend my life, health, well-being and happiness.
I don’t want to know this shit! – the “law” that is – I was forced to learn to keep the wolves at bay so to speak. Knowing what I know now, I am locked-and-loaded. Bring it on pond scum of humanity.
Jerry Lee
September 23, 2012 at 1:18 AM
To Richard,
I have long since removed my self from the California republic but I will post a few more things that may help you in future.
Please read all of CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 15210.
This is just one section that might interest you but all is pertinent it is Commercial!
(7) Driving a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has not met
the minimum testing standards for that vehicle as to the class or
type of cargo the vehicle is carrying. In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply.
(q) “State” means a state of the United States or the District ofColumbia.
So with that being their code let me add the Federal definition to wit:
The California Motor Vehicle Code states in Section 15210(p) (7): “IN THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL DEFINITION, existing definitions under this code shall apply.
Listed below is that FEDERAL DEFINITION, which would negate and void all definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE as found in the CVC.
United States Code, Title 18
Section 31(a) (6) it states: “The term motor vehicle means 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”.
Section 31(a) (10) states: “The term ‘used for commercial purpose’ means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit”.
You have already mention CVC 260 which it sat it is the use that makes ‘it’ a motor vehicle… Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 223, 228.
The preceding judicial clarification of CMVC § 260a establishes that the type of USE, not the type of vehicle determines whether the vehicle is required to be registered and its driver licensed.
The original intent of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1905 allowed the registration of automobiles so that in case of an accident the identity of the citizen involved could be ascertained. In the current applications of the Vehicle Code, there are many other secret attachments to the registering of an automobile and the factor of “procedural unconscionability” is rampant see Shaffer v. Superior Ct. 39 Cal.Rptr2. 506:
Any one with a ‘CA’ Drivers license read the reverse side ‘The only purpose is to Drive a Motor Vehicle’.
Don
September 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM
Richard,
GO GITUMM BROTHER !! I WILL BE THERE WITH YOU IF YOU WANT ME TO !!!
Don
September 22, 2012 at 4:08 AM
To: Richard
I’m with you brother!! I wish we were neighbors. YEAH !! The Incorrigible reprobate barbarian savages probable cause for arresting you today is: Probably cause I want to!!
Anon4fun
September 22, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Adask said: >>A “state within a state” that “does not respond to civilian leadership” sounds just like “this state” which, apparently, is not subject to the Constitution of The State.
The references “private corporations” acting “de facto” as a “state” is also consistent with the “The State vs this state” dichotomy.<<
I think your perceptiveness in these matters has yet again put you onto something important.
My further speculation is that the all-caps likeness to your name refers to the (fiduciary) character you perform as in the state within the state.
John Smith : the state :: JOHN SMITH : the state within the state
Or,
John Smith : JOHN SMITH :: the state : the state within the state
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."
– William Shakespeare, As You Like It
Don
September 22, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Alfred,
You say: “There is no such document as “The Constitution for the united States of America”
Do you say this because of the little case word “united” ?
If I knew your answer would be yes, there would be no need for me to add the following, but since I don’t know, I will ask you this.
What is the document called,that starts out with the 3 words: “We the People” as showing below?
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
My understanding for YEARS is that the “paragraph” above is the “preamble,” but what is it the preamble of, IF as you say:
There is no such document as “The Constitution for the united States of America”
Adask
September 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM
In the same sense that I would say that (so far as I know) there is no document entitled “gONE wITH tHE wIND” I also say there is no such document of any legal authority entitled “The Constitution for the united States of America”. The words quoted might be a description of a particular document, but they are not the title or proper name of any document ratified by the People of The United States of America.
People look back on the Founders as if they were gods. Sure, the Founders were pretty sharp, but they also made some serious errors and oversights. For example, when they declared at Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts,” they screwed up big-time by failing to extend that limit to territories and the “district” what would later be called “Washington DC”. Similarly, they use the term “United States” to sometimes mean a singular “United States” and sometimes the several “United States”.
One of the Founders’ possible oversights was a failure to affix a proper name to the document we’ve come to call “The Constitution of the United States”. As you point out, the document begins with “We the People” rather than “The Constitution of the United States” or even “The Constitution for the united States of America”.
But, technically, the document actually drafted by the Founders was not “The Constitution of the United States” or even “The Constitution for the united States of America”. It was mere a proposed “Constitution” (of A.D. 1787) whose proper name might’ve been “The Proposed Constitution of the United States”.
As per Article VII of the “Constitution,” the proposed “constitution” (of A.D. 1787) didn’t become the real “Constitution” until after it had been ratified by the conventions of the People of nine States of the Union in A.D. 1789.
To discover the true name of the ratified “Constitution” we might look at the ballots presented to the conventions of the nine States. I haven’t done that, but it might be illuminating.
However, I have read the document drafted on or about March 4th, A.D. 1789 which served as a “cover letter” for the first 13 Amendments to the new Constitution proposed by Congress and sent to the various State legislatures. Those State legislatures subsequently chose to adopt 10 of the 13 proposed Amendments. Those 10 became commonly known as our “Bill Rights”.
So far as I know, the “cover letter” drafted by Congress carried no specific title, but has come to be called “The Preamble of the Bill of Rights”. If you Google “Preamble the Bill of Rights” you’ll quickly see several presentations of this “Preamble”.
That “preamble” includes the following text (highlights are mine):
“Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several states as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution. viz.
“Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
Note that the Congress refers to the ratified Constitution as both “the Constitution of the United States” and “the Constitution of the United States of America,” there is ambiguity. Both names may be deemed to have correctly named the “Constitution” that was ratified by the People in A.D. 1789. Or maybe there’s something going on here where the version of the Constitution proposed by Congress in A.D. 1787 is “the Constitution of the United States” while the version ratified by the People in A.D. 1789 would be “the Constitution of the United States of America”. I doubt that’s true, but it’s possible.
The fact that Congress referred to both “the Constitution of the United States” and “the Constitution of the United States of America” suggests that even Congress was unsure of the proper name for the document and, out of an abundance of caution or confusion, chose to refer to both names (or possible “descriptions”) in the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.
This much is certain: In the very same year that the Constitution was first ratified by the People, Congress makes no reference to any instrument entitled “The Constitution for the united States of America”. That tells me that there has never been any document of any authority that’s been ratified by the Congress or the People that’s entitled “The Constitution for the united States of America”. I conclude that basing any legal argument on the authority of “The Constitution for the united States of America” will be no more effective than basing legal arguments on the authority of “The Constitution for the united States of Mars.” In either case, the litigant will be basing his petition or defense on an instrument and authority which American courts are not bound to know or recognize.
Reliance on the authority of documents that aren’t recognized to exist strikes me as unwise and potentially self-destructive.
Don
September 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM
You, Alfred,say: The fact that Congress referred to both “the Constitution of the United States” and “the Constitution of the United States of America” suggests that even Congress was unsure of the proper name for the document and, out of an abundance of caution or confusion, chose to refer to both names (or possible “descriptions”) in the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.
My,Don’s,response is: IF Congress may have been unsure of the “proper name” for the”document,” I don’t understand how I could be expected to understand/know,etc.
BUT,Going back as far as the year of 1793 here in pertinent part is what The Supreme Court say:
CHISHOLM, Ex’r. versus GEORGIA.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2 U.S. 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 2 Dall. 419
FEBRUARY 1793, Term
“Under the constitution of the United States as first adopted, …..”
1st. The Constitution and Judicial Law are the sources from which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived. The effective passages in the Constitution are in the second section of the third article. ….” (End of quote)
My point is, as far back as 1793, The “above named Supreme Court,” say “what documents” their jurisdiction is derived from,e.g., the constitution of the United States Then they also add: “Judicial Law”
Anon4fun
September 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Don said: {Gov-co has made it almost impossible IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE for Anon4fun to work as a SODA JERK, UNLESS, Anon4fun will become an artificial entity,etc.}
SODA JERK is that artificial entity, though “entity” is not quite the right word. It is actually an artificial capacity.
entity. An organization (such as a business or a governmental unit) that has a legal identity apart from its members or owners. (Black’s 9th)
capacity. The role in which one performs an act. (Black’s 9th)
Since, after lo these many years of theorizing, little if any solid evidence of an “organization” (e.g. corporation, strawman, etc.) has turned up, we discard that model as likely nonsense in favor of the “role” (e.g. employee, fiduciary, etc.) interpretation of the all-caps person, which has actual evidence and explanatory power.
{…Look, you can give up your unalienable rights,accept our statutory rights (privileges) & you can put food on your table, & be able to have the necessary things you & everyone needs…}
The phrase “you can give up your unalienable rights” does not compute. Unalienable rights cannot be given up, by definition.
Don
September 24, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Anon4fun says: The phrase “you can give up your unalienable rights” does not compute. Unalienable rights cannot be given up, by definition.
Anon4fun, since you are going to STRAIN at knats & SWALLOW elephants, at least have the decency to put the complete words I write/say,instead of just PART of what I write/say. This is the FOURTH time I have asked you to do this in our exchanges.
What you did above,is an attempt to make others think I said that you, I, or anyone can give up their unalienable rights.I DID NOT SAY THAT !!! But I will later,infra,tell you “my opinion.”
I am trying SO HARD to help SOME OTHER “Person” & NO INDIVIDUALS, see the light at least on something I DO KNOW ABOUT, & I am looking for the light they can shine on me about things I am in the dark on.
I,Don,SAID: BUT WHAT GOV-CO GOV-CO GOV-CO WILL NOT COME RIGHT OUT & SAY
IS, e.g.,Look,you can give up your unalienable rights.(Message on September 24, 2012 at 12:14 AM)
NOW, I,Don will give my “opinion” (& you Anon4fun KNOW what that’s worth) on “giving up unalienable rights.”
Anon4fun,YOU say IN PERTINENT PART: “Unalienable rights cannot be given up, by definition.”
I, Don, say: “Oh Really? Is that right? Well tie a bib around my neck & feed me another LIE.
So, in other words we were given/inherited something whether we wanted it or not,& we can’t give it back or disinherit the same,e.g.that which is given cannot be given back or refused? We have to accept unalienable rights whether we want them or not? WOW ! I didn’t know that .
I kinda like SODA JERKING too. Where, in your opinion would you suggest I “APPLY” for a job? I want to see if there is even the slightest possibility that I may be “hired & working in the capacity of a SODA JERK, without being an artificial entity.” If I am asked by the employer what my SSN number is,I will tell him I don’t need one because I have Unalienable rights. If he asks me for a “picture ID” I will tell him I don’t have or carry ID because I know who I am,so I don’t need to have picture ID. With answers like that It is almost a guarantee I will be HIRED.
In other words they are forced upon us whether we won.t them or not?
Don
September 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Anon4fun says: “SODA JERK is that artificial entity, though “entity” is not quite the right word. It is actually an artificial capacity.”
Don says: Yes,SODA JERK IS the CAPACITY. BUT,gov-co says: “Anon4fun” is now an artificial ENTITY. We,gov-co have granted Anon4fun the PRIVILEGE of working in the capacity of SODA JERK because Anon4fun has SUBMITTED to our DEMANDS.
Hello, Anon4fun, Yes I did tell you that I was going to get off your back & out of your hair, BUT, I did not say for how long. (ha)
I know, you,Anon4fun are using “Soda Jerk” as an example of many other “professions” you could have used, e.g., Pipefitter, Ironworker, Boilermaker, Machinist, Auctioneer,Cab Driver.
Please tell me WHERE Anon4fun works or could work,in the capacity of a SODA JERK?
We will go from there, before Round 100 begins.
Anon4fun
September 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Don said: {Yes,SODA JERK IS the CAPACITY. BUT,gov-co says: “Anon4fun” is now an artificial ENTITY.}
Where do they say this? I have never seen the government make this distinction, even implicitly. Exactly where have they said one of their all-caps creations personally connected with someone is an entity as opposed to a capacity? I suspect they rarely if ever do so. Can you cite something specific?
Pending substantial evidence (i.e. beyond mere naysaying and guru-quoting) to the contrary, I maintain that JOHN SMITH (John Smith’s job title with the corporate government) and SODA JERK (John Smith’s job title at the local drugstore) both refer to capacities rather than entities. In fact, in most circumstances, John Smith will apply for the SODA JERK job in his pre-existing role as JOHN SMITH (with an SSN), so really he’s working for the corporate government in both characters. In other words, JOHN SMITH and SODA JERK are two functions of a single fiduciary capacity.
{Please tell me WHERE Anon4fun works or could work,in the capacity of a SODA JERK?}
At any of your finer neighborhood soda fountains.
Anon4fun
September 24, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Don said: {We have to accept unalienable rights whether we want them or not?}
No, your acceptance of them is not a factor. You already have them, want them or not, because you were created with them (Declaration of Independence). And you can’t get rid of them. That’s what “unalienable” means.
{I kinda like SODA JERKING too. Where, in your opinion would you suggest I “APPLY” for a job?}
You’re joking, right? As if I’m looking for competition ;)
{I want to see if there is even the slightest possibility that I may be “hired & working in the capacity of a SODA JERK, without being an artificial entity.”}
The more I search for one, the less there appears to be any such thing as this artificial entity. Where is the evidence of its existence? I’m willing to be wrong, just put up something serious. So far, all I see is a capacity, not an entity. What can you cite showing the government corporation relating to anyone as if he is an artificial entity rather than a living man acting as their fiduciary?
Don
September 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM
TO: Anon4fun
An entity is a person, department, team, corporation, cooperative, partnership, or other group with whom it is possible to conduct business.
Artificial is something “manmade”,e.g corporation, department.
We have living “natural” flowers & we have “manmade” non living artificial flowers
Anon4fun, & once again, says: “Unalienable rights cannot be given up, by definition.”
Well ,Anon4fun,let me ask you this.In your LEGAL opinionated mind,Can we be deprived of
them,i.e.,unalienable rights, by Guv INC.?
IF you respond to this message, Anon4fun, please respond to this question as it takes priority over anything else I, Don, have said.
palani
September 25, 2012 at 6:58 AM
@Anon4fun
“What can you cite showing the government corporation relating to anyone as if he is an artificial entity rather than a living man acting as their fiduciary?”
12 USC 411 in part reads “Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.”
Should you trade using FRNs you do so as an agent. An agent is not a living man. Instead AGENCY is a legal relationship established between two entities. AGENCY is an agreement, express , or implied. Qui facit per alium facit per se. An agency may be dissolved in two ways – 1, by the act of the principal or the agent; 2, by operation of law. Things that may be dissolved are artificial by their very nature.
Don
September 25, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Palani,
You are not any fun for Anon4fun.
He asks for “solid eveidence” and when it’s submitted to him, he ignores it, or disagrees with it, just like the magistrate aka Judge Steven Clark said,when I cited a S.Ct of NM case that should have had my case dropped or dismissed. Judge Clark said: Well I disagree. He disagreed with the top court. I have wondered IF anon4fun was really, Steven Clark.
In his, Anon4fun’s, last, at this time, message to me, he no longer asks for “solid evidence, he now wants “something serious.” He says in pertinent part: “just put up something serious.” (message on
September 24, 2012 at 9:56 PM,last paragraph. Palani, I will say to you,what all the lawyers once said to me; GOOD LUCK in your “exchange with Anon 4fun
Anon4fun
September 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM
palani:
“An agent is not a living man.”
I have been an agent many times, and I’m reasonably sure I was alive at the time.
“Instead AGENCY is a legal relationship established between two entities.”
This is one type of agency, to be sure. A second type is between a living man and an entity, while a third type is between a living man and another living man.
palani
September 25, 2012 at 6:51 PM
@Anon4fun
“I have been an agent many times, and I’m reasonably sure I was alive at the time.”
Furiosus solo furore punitur. A madman is punished by his madness alone.
Anon4fun
September 25, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Don,
Rather than wasting space by discussing the discussion and throwing out various personal characterizations, why don’t you finally get around to providing the requested citation from a generally recognized source to back up your earlier statements?
In case you forgot, what you’re citing is the basis for your claim that the corporate government addresses its all-caps persons as artificial entities rather than living fiduciaries. And of course a reiteration of Don’s assumptions and conclusions for the umpteenth time does not count as a citation.
Don
September 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Requested Citation ?? I don’t know what the hell you are talking about.Citation of/for what? Please cut & paste & post where you requested a citation from me.
What have I cited? Give me an example of one of my earlier statements.
You are right about the wasted space. It has been a total waste of space & time but attorneys get the Big Bucks for doing just that.
I don’t ASSUME anything. You show me ONE YES JUST ONE PLACE where I said, I ASSUME.
You keep mentioning, “citation,” I have no idea what you are referring to or what you are talking about.
From MOST of your comments, you are hellbent & determined to have most readers on this blog to see it your way or no way. What I post is based on the ring of truth in/of what MANY others say.
I have noticed also that you AVOID or EVADE some questions like the plague & it would be more space & time wasted in asking you why.Well I don’t have to ask you why, I’m convinced I know why
For one example of MANY, I asked you IF we can be DEPRIVED of unalienable rights? You better believe I know why you didn’t answer it. Tell you something else. You have more than met you match with Palani.
Anon4fun
September 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM
Don: {Requested Citation ?? I don’t know what the hell you are talking about.Citation of/for what? Please cut & paste & post where you requested a citation from me.}
Request for citation #1:
- – - begin quote
Anon4fun
September 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM
[...]
Don said: {Yes,SODA JERK IS the CAPACITY. BUT,gov-co says: “Anon4fun” is now an artificial ENTITY.}
Where do they say this? I have never seen the government make this distinction, even implicitly. Exactly where have they said one of their all-caps creations personally connected with someone is an entity as opposed to a capacity? I suspect they rarely if ever do so. Can you cite something specific?
[...]
- – - end quote
Request for citation #2:
- – - begin quote
Anon4fun
September 24, 2012 at 9:56 PM
[...]
{I want to see if there is even the slightest possibility that I may be “hired & working in the capacity of a SODA JERK, without being an artificial entity.”}
The more I search for one, the less there appears to be any such thing as this artificial entity. Where is the evidence of its existence? I’m willing to be wrong, just put up something serious. So far, all I see is a capacity, not an entity. What can you cite showing the government corporation relating to anyone as if he is an artificial entity rather than a living man acting as their fiduciary?
- – - end quote
We just added request for citation #3:
- – - begin quote
Anon4fun
September 25, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Don,
Rather than wasting space by discussing the discussion and throwing out various personal characterizations, why don’t you finally get around to providing the requested citation from a generally recognized source to back up your earlier statements?
In case you forgot, what you’re citing is the basis for your claim that the corporate government addresses its all-caps persons as artificial entities rather than living fiduciaries.
- – - end quote
This post contains request for citation #4.
{I don’t ASSUME anything. You show me ONE YES JUST ONE PLACE where I said, I ASSUME.}
I didn’t say you say you assume. I said you assume. One way to solve this crisis of assuming is to anchor your edifice on a solid foundation by building a citation-based case rather than just making apparently capricious pronouncements and getting upset when someone questions them.
{You keep mentioning, “citation,” I have no idea what you are referring to or what you are talking about.}
citation
n.
1. The act of citing.
2.
a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
b. A source so cited; a quotation.
3. Law A reference to previous court decisions or authoritative writings.
(TheFreeDictionary.com)
{For one example of MANY, I asked you IF we can be DEPRIVED of unalienable rights?}
I answered this already. Before I do so again, you need to try a little more convincingly to answer the question I asked you first.
{You have more than met you match with Palani.}
You mean the FRN citation? That was invalid and on its face due to its assuming a key element of the very conclusion palani was supposed to be proving, namely that agents are necessarily artificial entities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
palani: {Furiosus solo furore punitur. A madman is punished by his madness alone.}
Let’s see.… No, that isn’t an on-point citation either.
Don
September 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Anon4fun,
It is now,5 minutes past 9pm & I just saw your message of:September 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM. I do not know the time zone you are in so I do not know how long your message has been posted. Anyway,before I read(reed) your message, I have got to get some rest. I am worn out. I will respond whwn I am rested up unless I die in my sleep and if I do, consider me richly blessed.
palani
September 26, 2012 at 6:37 AM
@Anon4fun
“namely that agents are necessarily artificial entities”
I seriously doubt that a madman would be capable of reading the following passage from Hobbes Leviathan (ch XVI) and coming to a conclusion that meets your criterion so consider this posting to be for the benefit of those reading who possess such reasoning. An agent acts for another. His actions represent the words and actions of another.
A Person What
A PERSON, is he “whose words or actions are considered, either as his own,
or as representing the words or actions of an other man, or of any
other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.”
Person Naturall, And Artificiall
When they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall Person:
And when they are considered as representing the words and actions
of an other, then is he a Feigned or Artificiall person.
Don
September 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM
To:Palani
You say in pertinent part: “I seriously doubt that a madman would be capable of reading the following passage………..:”
This statement is true in & of itself, but, IF, & I say IF it is in anyway & to any degree, meaning
Anon4fun may be mad, I cannot buy that. Anon4 fun is sharper than a razor. He is no way or to
any degree,a madman, in my heart. Then again, my heart has a mind of its own. I am still forcing
myself to believe that Anon4fun is my Brother,in,”The Christ.” I believe the problem is,at least at
this time, he cannot, or does not see the picture “within the picture.” I have the same problem in a
lot of matters,etc. It also seems to me that what we have here, is, Lawful v. Legal. Anon4fun has
many mountains of ammunition to back up his stand/position from the “legal viewpoint.” BUT, I will
say this. We are close to finding out if anon4fun is, “for real.” Stay tuned !!
P.S. I have asked him before if he was a licensed attorney. He said he was not
Don
September 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM
TO: Alfred:
You say in pertinent part: A “state within a state” that “does not respond to civilian leadership” sounds just like “this state” which, apparently, is not subject to the Constitution of The State.
N.M.5th Judicial District Court, Judge, Fred A. Watson said to me,regarding the word “Constitution,”
” If you open your mouth & utter that word (constitution) one more time I’m going to find you in contempt & sentence you to 30 days.
I was reading a provision from the New Mexico State Constitution that is word for word like the 9th Article in the Federal. “The enumeration of certain rights………”
SO, that’s enough for me to understand that the Constitution of The State is foreign/out of order/inappropriate,etc IN the “Statutory Courts of “Record” we are subjects to & of. This means those of us who haven’t been able to get out or know how to get out of their “VENUE.”
Anon4fun
September 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Palani:
Okay, I’ll be sure to bring a copy of Leviathan with all the relevant passages underlined next time I’m in a legal situation.
Don:
It seems to me that the Adask School of legal theory is more about practical results than a philosophy of what the perfect system would look like. When you step into the ring against an opponent, it’s a tough contest involving not only the law in its ideal form, but also politics. This makes what is merely legal also relevant, in addition to what is lawful. That’s why I keep mentioning the legalisms.
palani
September 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM
@Anon4fun
“Okay, I’ll be sure to bring a copy of Leviathan with all the relevant passages underlined next time I’m in a legal situation.”
I accept that you have ceded the point in question.
Anon4fun
September 26, 2012 at 4:35 PM
palani: “I accept that you have ceded the point in question.”
Point ceded only in jurisdictions where Leviathan has force of law.
palani
September 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM
@Anon4fun
“Point ceded only in jurisdictions where Leviathan has force of law.”
Hobbes ends with:
For such Truth, as opposeth no man profit, nor pleasure, is to all men welcome.
Don
September 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Anon4fun
Re “:…. only in jurisdictions where Leviathan has force of law.”
“jurisdictions” ?? force of law? What you are really saying is: It must, absolutely MUST be “Statutory Law”
ALL the LAW we need, could be written on a post card.
Don
September 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM
TO:Palani & Anon4fun,
Since I do not see any “exchanges” going on between you two friends, allow me to interject something I saw a while ago that to me, is heartbreaking. A little girl, I would say, between 4 & 5 years “young” was holding a sign at least twice her size,and the sign said: “Please don’t make me collateral damage.” There was a time in my life that I would not have known or had any idea what the words on the sign meant. If the sign said: Please don’t murder me,I instantly would have known.
Anon4fun, the little gil is regarded as “COLLATERAL!!??” How TRAGIC !! Anyway, the video in essence tried to explain what was happening in the food & water supply & said it was leading to MASSIVE collateral damage. Well, I don’t think “colleteral” has/have unalienable rights, at least to the point of preventing the potential damage, collateral, that is. It makes me both sad & angry.
Anyway, Now listen Anon4fun & Palani. This is an ORDER,or maybe it’s an offer,still haven’t figured that one out yet. But, Palani, It is an ORDER &/or an OFFER, which ever is appropriate
Let’s not have any chop chop sour grape exchanges between you two. Consider the possible collateral damage it may cause. I love you both !!
palani
September 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Here for education, information and entertainment. Nothing more serious. Peace.
Don
September 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Palani,
In other words my “massive collateral damage” post was just too serious? If so, I hope your & Anon4fun’s unalienable rights prevail against the “massive collateral damage.”