| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Jan 2004 : 17:02:21
|
Paul,
Well, if you have a DL, then you have entered into a contract with them, and thus they have jurisdiction. I don't care what form of "appearance" you try to make in their court. Sorry about the bad news.
Lewis |
 |
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2004 : 19:33:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Well, if you have a DL, then you have entered into a contract with them, and thus they have jurisdiction. I don't care what form of "appearance" you try to make in their court. Sorry about the bad news.
In all the traffic cases I've read, there is a near unanimous opinion that the DL is NOT the result of a contract. It is, as the name says, a license or permit.
Having the DL does not by itself grant any particular court subject matter jurisdiction to hear a traffic case. Florida county courts, from what I've read, cannot hear such a case unless there's been property damage. I believe the DMV is the proper place for a hearing. (No, I've never done it.) An extract from my compilation:
---
Even though it has been ruled that after certain traffic infractions were decriminalized that "county courts were to remain vested with jurisdiction over these matters" (Nettleton v. Doughtie, 373 So.2d 667, hn. 3), a ruling from Alachua County has not been overturned that "it is a violation of a separation of powers provision of the State Constitution for a judicial officer to sit as a hearing official in a noncriminal traffic infraction case." (State v. Carr , 373 So.2d 657) And because the jurisdiction of "county courts shall be uniform throughout the state." (Fla.Const. 5-6), a court being not merely a place but necessarily composed of officers with judicial powers (Fla Jur 2d, Courts, s. 1), no county judge outside of Alachua County can rule he has authority to sit as a traffic hearing official, because to do so would inflict non-uniformity of jurisdiction of County Courts.
---
Yes, this is for Florida and does not apply outside of the state, but the point is that one needs to study and understand the laws of one's own state to know exactly what to do. Never assume that a court has authority to do anything - but they do if you give it to them blindly.
But I suspect general stratgeies that have been posted here and can be found on the 'net are useful to try. All is not lost. What is needed, really, are "traffic" groups in each state to study out all the laws. But it may be too late to start that study, so a generic "Was that an administrative or judicial 'not guilty'?" or similar ploy may be the better option. |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2004 : 21:26:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Paul,
Well, if you have a DL, then you have entered into a contract with them, and thus they have jurisdiction. I don't care what form of "appearance" you try to make in their court. Sorry about the bad news.
Lewis
Lewis:
If the the application for driver's license was signed with U.C.C. 1-207 or "all rights reserved" or the equivalent does that change the circumstances.
Marty |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2004 : 12:12:33
|
Hi Marty,
Since you obviously don't understand what UCC 1-207 is for, why are you using it?
Not meant to be blunt, just a logical question.
Lewis |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2004 : 21:36:43
|
Lewis:
We have been told that Howard Freeman wrote the following:
Your Honor, my use of "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the "Remedy" provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in book I at Section 207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or Agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And, that reservation serves NOTICE upon all Administrative Agencies of government: National, State and Local that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the "compelled benefit" of any unrevealed Commercial Agreement.
Do you agree with Howard Freeman, Lewis?
Marty |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2004 : 21:58:44
|
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.
BTW, does your employer pay Social Security withholding from your paycheck? If so, there is another way you have given the courts jurisdiction over you.
It is really hard getting free of Babylon, but little by little I am finding out how to do so. I will gladly share with anyone what I think I know, and what I think works. But, you have to remember that what works for me may not work for you. A lot of it is believing in what you do, and truly knowing that you are a FREE child of the Redeemer.
Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
godslawissupreme
Regular Member
Canada
30 Posts |
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:)
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
DerekR
Junior Member
USA
20 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2004 : 00:06:43
|
| Prove that. |
|
|
|
DerekR
Junior Member
USA
20 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
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 |
Edited by - DanielJacob on 27 Jan 2004 13:28:00 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
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…
|
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
I was just arrested!
