| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Paul88 |
Posted - 02 Jan 2004 : 05:31:55
I didn't completely stop on a stop sigh. He pulled me over and gave me 5 tickets and arrested me. 1 for not having driver lic, 1 for not having insurance papers, 1 for not having registration papers, and 1 for stop sigh, and 1 not sure for what nothing is checked. He arrested me because there was a warrant for my arrest for unpaid ticket, and he also towed my vehicle. I am so pissed off because i was handcuffed and treated like some type of a criminal!!!! I am so sick of this **** and I cannot take it anymore, please everyone tell me what steps should I take now.
Thank You so much.
P.S. After this I am totally ready to fight them till the end!
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Paul88 |
Posted - 04 Feb 2004 : 21:46:37
I understand PAUL - Strowman, and Paul - god given name. But I am not showing up to court. I have to put everything in writing. |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 04 Feb 2004 : 20:09:51
Greetings Paul,
THEY will be looking for PAUL to appear. If Paul appears, in Restricted appearance, as a minister of Messiah Yahushuah, to clear up the matter concerning PAUL LASTNAME, and HIS mistakes, you may have the upperhand.To the natural man, this is foolishness, for HE discerns not the things of the Spirit. The spirit of Messiah Yahushuah compels Us to be about Our Father's business. He gives Us the Liberty to travel about. If one is serving mammon-commerce, then the U.S. will LICENSE you, for these un-righteous acts. Simple stuff, if, one's constitutional government is written as recorded in the Sermon on the Mountain Top {Zion}.
Just who will appear before their administrative tribunal, Paul, or PAUL. They will only talk to PAUL, else they are facing the Truth, and they get a bit hickey with that. THEY don't want to believe in the resurrection! By the Way, Messiah...is pure spirit. Paul, of SAUL fame, stated, that it pleased the Father to reveal His Son, in him [Paul}. Messiah, {Christ} in You, is the hope of glory. Ready to die the CIVIL DEATH? Ye are a chosen vessel. Now, bring the ship home. Yahushuah has given ye the pass-port...with His shed Blood. And they overcame by the Blood of the Lamb, and, the Word of their Own testimony...and they loved not their lives [CIVIL] lives unto the death.
It is all so real. |
| Paul88 |
Posted - 04 Feb 2004 : 19:15:54
Thats great, but what about my situation? I don't have UCC1-207 on my DL yet. I was thinking about using this following documents.
1. AFFIDAVIT DENIAL TRAVELING IN COMMERCE
2. Right to Travel
3. Affidavit of Truth
4. Affidavit for traffic ticket
They all can be downloaded here
http://www.s91585471.onlinehome.us/affidavit.rar
I recived a file from the court after I called and requested affidavit by special visitation.
I recived a document where I have to expalin myself and plead.
Let me know what you think.
Thank You
And god bless.
|
| gsgkill |
Posted - 30 Jan 2004 : 21:34:50
http://www.thetruthseekers.com/money/article_496.shtml
I have been Studying Winston Shrouts stuff. He is taking a traffic ticket and writing across the ticket thank you for your kind offer I except this for value (What ever the fine is) then he writes please send me the check within 7 days to (He gives his Notaries address. He notarizes a copy of the transaction so he can prove it takes place and he has the notory send it by certified mail. I can't explain the whole process as I'm still studying it. But the ticket is a negotiable instrument. It's a offer for you to pay
and in UCC equality = of the law is paramount. Which means it must go both directions. Of course there not going to send you a check or tell you it goes both direction.. But to ignore you they become in dishonor. It winds up they lean the assets of the person they sent it to and force the court by it's own code to execute on the UCC contract. Forcing Attorney's, Mayors, Court Clerks into chapter 7. I have two very poor quality video tapes. The first 30 minutes of watching it my heart started beating real fast then I got a Headache. I got really excited. Winston explains the process in great detail. The Link above is his site. Below an article on a linked site
REMEDY AND RECOURSE
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law. The Recourse is if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged--not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the U.C.C. 1-207. UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes--in any way, shape or manner--under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing -without prejudice UCC 1-207' on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone.... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
When you use -without prejudice' UCC 1-207 in connection with your signature, you are saying: -I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.' What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes--you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government--federal, state and local. If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103--the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says: The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt, you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to 'buckle up.' However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 1-103.6, which states: The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action. Tell the judge, -Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code.' I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.' If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: -Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court made a legal determination that the sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?' Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, -yes,' then you say: -I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination.' Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION--TRAFFIC COURT
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.
1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court appearance for about three weeks away. (At this point we need to remember the government's trick: -I'm from the government, I'm here to help you.' Now we want to use this approach with them.)
2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say, -I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to save the government some money (this will gets his attention). I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record. I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a court of record.' You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a court of record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not in a traffic court, where there is no record. When you get into court there will be a court reporter there who records every word the judge speaks, so the judge is much more careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better situation there than in a traffic court. If there is no record, the judge can say whatever he wants--he can call you all sorts of names and tell you that you have no rights, and so on--and deny it all later.
3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving through a yellow light, or whatever, and this is a violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, -Do you understand the charge against you?'
4. -Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short questions.' Judge: -I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take the stand.'
5. -Is this the instrument that you gave me?' (handing him the traffic citation) Officer: -Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other portion of it.' -Where did you get my address that you wrote on that citation?' Officer: -Well, I got it from your driver's license.' (Handing the officer your driver's license) Is this the document you copied my name and address from?' Officer: -Yes, this is where I got it.' -While you've got that in your hand, would you read the signature that's on that license?' (The officer reads the signature) -While you're there, would you read into the record what it says under the signature?' Officer: -It says, 'Without prejudice, UCC 1-207.'' Judge: -'Let me see that license!' (He looks at it and turns to the officer) -You didn't notice this printing under the signature on this license, when you copied his name and address onto the ticket?' Officer: -Oh, no. I was just getting the address--I didn't look down there.' Judge: -You're not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this case. This case is dismissed.'
6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out--he could say that the officer was not observant enough to be a reliable witness. He did not want to admit the real nature of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record that you had written 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your license, the judge knew that he would have to admit that:
a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your driver's license;
c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with the Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists, but there is no injured party; and
d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.
7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question: Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court made a legal determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to its attention? If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that legal determination, and that if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common law action--under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work just as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use the UCC with the IRS before we get to court.
|
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 15:59:54
Lewis,
Got this off of the "Informer" web site.
quote:
They are United States v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. 0C66W145329 347, Federal Rules Decisions 564. Head note #1 states "Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) § 7323 (a); 40 U.S.C.A. § 304i; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 55 and (c), 60 and (b), 81(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Admiralty Rules 2, 10, 21, 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1355"
And this case;
United States of America v ONE 1966 CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK et al. Civ. A. No. 526 cited at 56 Federal Rules Decision 459 where in they state the controlling laws are, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) §§ 7325 (3); Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rules A, C (4,6), 28 U.S.C.A..; Federal Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60 (b) (1,2) Fed. Rules, Civ Proc. Rules 55 (b), (1,2), 60, 28 U.S.C.A.
Yes, Title 28 is totally based on Admiralty and is the admiralty law Title for the Congress to operate under their 1789 Judiciary Act and the process is Civil, when you are hit with a "Revenue crime". Now how many knew that revenue crimes are a Civil Matter? You have a lot to learn dear reader.
Also, are you familiar with The Book of the Hundreds? The process for the non statutory abatement is what David has so cleverly altered to proceed with process from our court with Judicial Review. There is also the added value of having the Clerk of Court for the district court of the United States serve as our court Clerk. We have been wondering how we put the teeth in the abatement process, well, I think it is possible by having the U.S. Marshall, under the direction of the Clerk of Court, to do that.
What do you think?
Peace brother.
|
| Livefree |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 12:05:00
Lewis,
Enjoy your new found freedom from FNB. I had to remove myself from several yahoo groups--too distracting; time to focus. [Most] of your answers are within you. 
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 11:48:14
Daniel,
I don't have the case number, but I have uploaded the Petitioner's pleading to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SavingstoSuitor/files/Lewis/
It is the "libel in review.doc".
There is some very important references in his pleading. I think you will recognize them when you come acroos them in it.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 09:12:22
Lewis,
quote:
I am slowly getting my mind around the Savings to Suitor clause of the Statutes at large and the rules of Admiralty that make ALL statutes, codes, regulations, etc. void to those who know how to use it. I have just been reviewing a court case from 1995 (no David didn't know about it) where Savings to Suitor was used to shut down all attacks from the IRS/IMF, and made the corporate United States liable for the levy.
Could you possibly share the case cite with us?
Peace brother. |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 08:54:15
quote:
Common law abatement pleas can keep you out of their traffic court, but I don't yet know how you get your impounded car back. This common law right could be extinguished by a treaty, but so far as I know has not been, yet.
This is why the Saving to Suitors process that David introduced here has legs. Common Law remedy can be had by the same process. In getting the auto back would be the same process except a counterclaim in the form of Detinue. When the default cures then the U.S. Marshall goes and gets the car and delivers it to you.
I really think this will work.
Lewis? Livefree?
Peace to all…
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 29 Jan 2004 : 01:44:02
Livefree,
I just removed myself from FNB. It is going in some directions I can't agree with. Too many sheeple grasping at straws, and any new idea to come along that they don't have to work for.
I am slowly getting my mind around the Savings to Suitor clause of the Statutes at large and the rules of Admiralty that make ALL statutes, codes, regulations, etc. void to those who know how to use it. I have just been reviewing a court case from 1995 (no David didn't know about it) where Savings to Suitor was used to shut down all attacks from the IRS/IMF, and made the corporate United States liable for the levy.
As I understand it, if you do a Certificate of Search, in the U.S. District Court that is local to you, against the VIN number of your vehicle, and there are no claims against it, then you can remove your state issued license plates and be on your way. Any revenue agent who stops you will have to acknowledge that the state (or states) have no claim against the vehicle and thus he cannot issue a citation for no plates. I am planning on going down to USDC on monday and running all my vehicle VIN numbers and getting Certs for them. Then goodbye tags on the 2 which have tags on them. It will be a valid test. If it works as advertised I will post a message about my experiences here. If not, I will post that as well, as soon as I can. :-}
Are we having fun yet?
Lewis |
| Lewish |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 20:41:59
Hi Daniel Jacob,
There are quite a number of states (the organic ones) who are trying to instate the original 13th amendment to the Constitution. You might want to take a look at this website:
http://www.amendment-13.org/trc.html
Lewis |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 13:25:03
Lewis,
I'll take your suggestion under consideration. I am going to be making a journey this weekend and I may need to take this approach. Not sure how it will work in my particular case since they will be more concerned as to why I don't have DL, Registration, Insurance, etc., etc.
Concerning the New Hampshire matter, I wonder if HB 1342 has anything to do with some in the New Hampshire legislature trying to get a resolution on New Hampshire's comfirmation of the Titles of Nobility Amendment.
Peace.
Daniel |
| Lewish |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 13:09:57
Livefree,
You are a member of FNB. Have you been following the case against Ben? Do you know that he is still awaiting the final judgment? Did you know that Bruce got the ledgering in the case from the Clerk and that "they" are making $600,000.00 a day for every day that the trial drags on? Why would they quickly go to judment and give up all that money?
It is all about money folks. Or the appearance of money, as FRNs are not money and have no value, but they act as if they are and do. As long as they can keep the curtain closed, it will continue. But, the curtain is getting threadbare, and starting to rip apart. Have you heard about HB 1342 in New Hampshire. I have not been able to verify it yet, but the claims are that it will allow court personnel to be paid in gold or silver coin. This will allow the courts to operate under law and under the Constitution and not under equity and contracts.
Peace to all. Hang on, it about to be a real bumpy ride,
Lewis |
| Lewish |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 12:54:24
Daniel Jacob,
You might want to get together with everyone who will listen and have them start this. Every time they get stopped in a roadblock, have them get the officer's name and badge number. Then tell the officer "I want to report a felony." Then tell the officer that you can prove that XXX bank (supply the name of a local bank) is committing fraud against the public everytime they claim to be loaning money and that you demand an investigation. Then tell him "IF you don't report this and get an investigation started, I will go to the U.S. Marshall's Office and swear out a warrant for Misprison of Felony against you."
If enough people would do this, it would put a stop to this non-sense.
Just my thoughts,
Lewis |
| DerekR |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 00:52:37
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
Lewis,
How can they "draw against" the court judgment check if you never pay it?
His argument is that this is why they suspend your DL. So that you will pay the fine, and they can then draw against it.
|
| DerekR |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 00:06:43
Prove that. |
| Lewish |
Posted - 26 Jan 2004 : 23:15:11
Hi Alisa,
Because they have to issue a court judgment to suspend your license. This is a check that they deposit into an account to draw against. It is another way for them to generate revenue. The Judgment is bonded out and earns interest. That is what they are after.
Lewis |
| Lewish |
Posted - 26 Jan 2004 : 14:20:30
Hi Marty,
You are still missing what I am trying to say. So, I assume that means I am doing a bad job of trying to say it. So, here goes another try.
You signed UCC 1-207 on your Driver's License. Fine. That suspends any unrevealed contracts relative to the DL. What you are failing to see, and I obviously have failed to get across is, that Traffic Tickets have nothing to do with having a Driver's License. They are taxes put forth by the Dept. of Revenue. If you meet certain conditions, you get taxed. Just like, if you own land, you pay real estate taxes, whereas if you rent you don't.
Your DL is just the registration number by which you are taxed, just as a Deed of Trust has a registration number on it for tax purposes. Do you suppose that signing the Deed of Trust with UCC 1-207 will prevent me from getting taxed on my real estate?
Does this make it any clearer to you?
Peace to all the Redeemed,
Lewis |
| godslawissupreme |
Posted - 26 Jan 2004 : 06:37:37
Dear Just Me Still,
You haven't given us any proper information, as for us to be helpful for you.
One did you have a UCC 1 Filed for you to control your entity?
Two did you have an contractual agreements, established at any time?
Three which State or Jurisdiction ??? Very important as rules vary?
Four was the vehicle in question, still under Manufacturers Statement of Origin or Under the Trust Account with the Government Authority?
Five as far as the insurance bond and the towing of the vehicle goes depends upon who is the true and real owners, go ?
Six common sense states that a stop sign, is a stop sign. So why didnt you Stop then? There is not excuse to not stop, being responsible for your actions is what god wants us to be accountable to him. Under Exodus 20 :) and we have to follow Government authority until we are fully under gods care and control.
Seven you shall have to learn to follow the steps to become a non entity, and become gods child again.
If you are serious about this process, it shall require some time and money requirements.
as far the court goes, you are in their process as of now and you may have no lawful recourse, due to any contract you have binding upon in the past.
So the vehicle is impounded? hmm , see about getting it out asap. and follow there lawful process to get its release. It shall minimize the financial burden.
Good Luck and Next time please consult with the Bible prior to just going and doing, whatever you feel inclined to do on a moments notice.
Please think about what you have done in your past as to get you in this Situation to begin with And then Be Blessed :)
God bless and feel free to contact me, if need be GodsLawIsSupreme
PLease Note any Law that is in Comtemplation of Gods Law. you are under Gods Supreme Law to follow his laws and Keep them also:)
|
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 25 Jan 2004 : 22:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Marty,
No, I do not agree with Howard. UCC 1-207 only restricts the contract on which it is signed. It has no effect on any other contract. If I put UCC 1-207 on my water bill, do you think the police will pay any attention to it. Then why should they pay attention to something you put on a card from some agency other than theirs? You have also not demonstrated that you understand the contract you entered into with your acceptance of their license to do something that would otherwise be illegal.
Peace,
Lewis
Lewis:
You say "U.C.C. 1-207" only restricts the contract on which it is signed.
The focus of this discussion is the STATE issued driver's license.
In making an application for that driver's license it is our understanding that the STATE's position is that the applicant entered into a contract in which they waived their "unalienable right to travel" and contracted for a "privilege to drive".
These terms the STATE presumes that the applicant agreed to are "unrevealed terms in a commercial agreement".
By using "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" on the contract that is signed it is believed that the signer cannot be lawfully compelled to perform to the unrevealed terms of the contract because he or she did not enter into a contract with "those terms" knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally.
Marty
|
|
|
