How do I avoid registering my car?

[AndyK]

Deleted -- wrong reply for this thread.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by AndyK

The government is the elected and appointed representatives of the people. If the people believe they are being subjugated or oppressed, they have a legitimate response: vote the bastards out.

Until you get out and do something, like run for office or take part in a serious political action, the only thing you can do is rant about the situation.

This is why I call that particular kind of trolling clever and insideous. AndyK is knowledgeable enough to understand what he says is untrue. He is just treating the poor idiot-soooueey juris nutjobs like little children.

This is why I asked about the forum. Most traffic tickets are handled pro se. The few cases that involve legal representation are done by attorneys who are experienced in the topic. A pro se litigant or defendant who comes into traffic court challenging jurisdiction, arvuing that he was not in commerce, or that he was not driving a car is going to lose. Traffic court judges don't have the patience to walk an antagonistic pro se litigant through the details of inappropriate pleadings or misguided motions.

Thank you AndyK, that is because arraignment happens on the side of the roadway whey one admits to being Noachide with the license. You are just saying that government regulates your right to travel and that is what you want government to do. You say it with the State placards and by paying the State taxes on your property in order to get the placards.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Plates.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Notice.jpg

It is very similar to what AndyK's trolling is all about. If you do not like the things he writes, just click on his handle, bring up his bio and click "Ignore Member". Whatever you do, do not Reply. He is enjoying this agitation way too much.



Regards,

David Merrill.

So, David as the arraignment happens on the roadside – the traffic officer is both judge and jury - does the resulting appearance in administrative court merely seal the deal, as the officer has already judged the persona guilty? Is that what also happens when mail that has been accepted is read at the kitchen table? Judged and found guilty by the opening a envelope? So, that would mean that public policy law is administrative because it is dealing with insurance?

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 [To take away; detract] of, or not according to, the course of the common law." Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878.

[RickA]

I had to stare at my 21" LCD monitor for about 5 minutes reading your post over and over as I could not believe it. With VERY little research you can find that voting is nothing but a hoax and has been for many, many years. It has been documented for a very long time all the fraud that happens in that hoax.

Please don’t ask me to prove it... just open your eyes, see what has been even provided by the mind control media such as 60 minutes etc. Dead people have been voting for hundreds of years... just take a peek at politics surrounding New Orleans over the last 100 years... they don’t even hide it there.

Voting is useless... this country is NOT a democracy for one ( I challenge you to type in this forum in response to my post "the pledge" that you used to recite in school) When you only have a few choices... really only two KNOWN political parties (yes I know there are more... but you would be surprised how many people think there is only republican/democrat) That is not a democracy... only two choices... sometimes 4 for a specific office... that is inches away from a dictatorship... you just get the lie of choosing which dictator. Democracy/voting/mob rules is pure crap... because no matter what... SOMEONE is being forced to do what he or she doesn’t want to do. That .... is NOT freedom.

To take that a little farther. If we, individually, can not or, will not, govern ourselves accordingly first then, we will be governed by others. If we govern ourselves accordingly then, we will not be so easliy led to believe that voting for a man/woman to govern us is such a grand idea.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by free_martha

So, David as the arraignment happens on the roadside – the traffic officer is both judge and jury - does the resulting appearance in administrative court merely seal the deal, as the officer has already judged the persona guilty? Is that what also happens when mail that has been accepted is read at the kitchen table? Judged and found guilty by the opening a envelope? So, that would mean that public policy law is administrative because it is dealing with insurance?

That is accurate but I think William Thornton said it better in his lectures, much of which I gave away to a suitor. [He does not speak of it here in this snippet, but you can see what he looks like: http://friends-n-family-research.inf...m_Thornton.wmv ] The trial is a show, before peers in order to reenact the facts and law about what happened on the roadside - in large part to determine if the arraignment was properly executed.

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 [To take away; detract] of, or not according to, the course of the common law." Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878.

I read about Administrative Law in AmJur 2d years ago and what really stood out was administrative government is "government in miniature" which through expediency had no checks and balances of normal government. Therefore it could not possibly function in a free society without judicial oversight to watchdog it.

Thank you for the though-provoking insights into the matter.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thank you for the though-provoking insights into the matter.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David: I am curious now.. what then is the difference between Admirality law and the law used and known as the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)? I noticed in the quote preceeding, that it was a Colonel that rendered the written decision.

Jerry.

Hey Jerry, maybe administrative law is just the kinder, gentler term for military law? There has to another term for it, as the s*it would hit the fan if it was called what it truly is.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

David: I am curious now.. what then is the difference between Admirality law and the law used and known as the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)? I noticed in the quote preceeding, that it was a Colonel that rendered the written decision.

Jerry.

Good question I suppose. That is I will presume that it is a valid question. Maybe it is because the UCMJ and the Admiralty are the same in origin that it must be presumed there is no serious distinction between them. I have little experience with the UCMJ itself and albeit I have Military Law - A Handbook for the Navy and Marine Corps by LCDR Edward M. Byrne, JAGC, USN on my shelf here, I have barely cracked it open. I find it (attached) interesting that a previous owner stamped the inside cover with a signature left-hand pentagram.

My fairly uninformed claim is that there can be no essential difference between admiralty and military law. Being that they originate the same. Note the Knights Templar mentioned with the pentagram below. Richard Lionheart, basically the Crusader of the Crusaders returned and used the doctines of military conquest, that is to say any captain of a vessel is a military officer protecting the hull and its contents, to justify forfeiture of the treasures of Jerusalem by religious elevation of righteousness (Christianity). Muslims were criminalized even though it was Sala Hadiin (Salidin) who showed compassion:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...en_snippet.wmv

This was done by importing the Laws of Oleron and Black Book of the Admiralty as a basis for British Law. It was the Knights Templar essentially, wealthy British land barons who drafted and forced the king to sign the Magna Charta.

What I have gotten into to some deeper meaning is the Rules for Courts-Martial United States. And there is essentially no distinction between that and what you will see going on in any traffic trial. And county court criminal side for that matter.

Of course Great Britain around the War of 1812 was the world's standard of admiralty power due by and large to maritime engineering work of my direct ancester Christopher Wren who among other things designed the International Date Line and Meridian system of the Globe used for naval navigation.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[squirrel]

Sorry for the bad link. try this one.

You'll have to go down to 502.79 and click.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/502/

[David Merrill]

I am crosstalking out of a response I gave a PM. I will not share more details but think this may be helpful than just citing a success story and showing you photos of an unnamed fellow's car.

I agree but not in detail. Utilize the county clerk and recorder for your court clerk. In the same sense that a couple applying for a marriage licence both/each marry the State for life (long after they have separated in divorce either party may chase monie (alimony, patrimony etc.), from the other through the state. You become the highest court in the land.

As far as FRNs go, any dispute about them is a cause with agents of a foreign state if you are a man on the land. If you are a man on the land, then you are a criminal for endorsing FRNs. It is pretty simple but understanding this you could go to the county clerk (Motor Vehicle Registration) and simply tell them that your cars have absolutely no dollar value. They will refuse to renew your tags because there is no tax on no dollar value. Remove your tags and simply say that to the police officer and bring the county clerk and the deputy into any hearings that ensue.

The Certificate of Search works much simpler than the process you define above. Equivalently it is telling the police officer that he (as agent of a foreign principal) has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Agents of a foreign principal are required to file and get judgment when they enter into the USA. Of course if you identify yourself a citizen of the US with a license, you kill your own character and abolish any diversity of citizenship between you and the agency of the Fed.


Regards,

David Merrill.