Expired tags ticket

[brreitsma]

I just realized this morning that my tabs were due at the end of June instead of at the end of July as I had thought. Parked outside my job today and had a citation on the window. I was going tommorrow to get new ones. Any way the system has royally screwed my family over and dragged us through a lot of beuracratic red tape that kept us apart a long time and I want to use this as an oppurtunity to give them a taste of their own medicine.

I am wondering if anyone knows forms to fill out or right to travel case law and common law statutes and interpretations as well as U.C.C. law that could be used to fight this in a trial as I want to go through jury selection and take this to trial, dragging it out as long as possible. Can anyone help me with steps to take. I know I probably won't win but I want to use this to sock it to the system so to speak.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by brreitsma

I just realized this morning that my tabs were due at the end of June instead of at the end of July as I had thought. Parked outside my job today and had a citation on the window. I was going tommorrow to get new ones. Any way the system has royally screwed my family over and dragged us through a lot of beuracratic red tape that kept us apart a long time and I want to use this as an oppurtunity to give them a taste of their own medicine.

I am wondering if anyone knows forms to fill out or right to travel case law and common law statutes and interpretations as well as U.C.C. law that could be used to fight this in a trial as I want to go through jury selection and take this to trial, dragging it out as long as possible. Can anyone help me with steps to take. I know I probably won't win but I want to use this to sock it to the system so to speak.

Plead not guilty and take it to trial. That will cost a lot of time and money and piss a lot of people off. In the opening and closing argument you can ventilate your frustrations with the system to six people. More than six during voir dire, when you get to interview and disqualify jurors.

Read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. As I recall there is an attorney argument in that book that is quite logical and at the same time self-defeating. Stuff like that.

The one argument I would enjoy hearing about is during voir dire, you disqualify any jurist for believing Jesus arose from the dead based upon Hebrews 11:1 -

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

That scripture spits in the face of Rules of Evidence:

Your honor; anybody who believes that a man was stone cold stinky-dead for three whole days, and was Resurrected based on one book full of parables and other conflicting and contradictory, highly symbolic material is completely unfit to be ruling here on anything! Shall we find out how many potential jurors believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

You may be new here - welcome. You should be aware you are being ridiculed over even speculating you have common law rights by statute:

http://quatloos.com/qforum/viewtopic.php?t=1028

Originally Posted by UGA Lawdog

What exactly is a "common law statute"? Any ideas?

So I suggest you get real revenge instead of pissing people off and probably having to pay out the nose in fines and court costs. The attorney in the black robe, upon hearing how you simply brought it to trial because you don't like that system anyway might do rediculously capricious things like make you pay the jury's wages that they lost out on to sit there...

I am speaking from experience. Once a potential juror asked to be excused because he wanted to hang me (for a traffic offense) before the voir dire. I believe you will have much better success to simply understand the blending of law and equity in 1938. There is no such thing as common law anymore but more dangerously something mutated and UGA Lawdog thinks that is the common law today.

I suggest you simply take the most basic equity argument before the revenue cause for which you are being persecuted - failure to pay a tax called motor vehicle registration. It is an ownership tax meaning that you only have Certificate of Title on the car. The state owns your car and as long as you pay fealty (tax) on it you are granted usage by the year.

That is really what you are mad about huh?

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

Take it to trial but make one simple argument. Bad faith. Do not waiver:

If I had known, if I had been informed in good faith, I could have redeemed lawful money and owned my car, not having to pay registration/ownership tax, I would have redeemed lawful money from my very first paycheck ever.

No guarantees, but this will probably save everybody a lot of time and money - especially you. Buy a certified copy of the law on the video by calling (719) 520-6200 and sending $2.25 for Reception #207015932. Get it entered into your case jacket right away. Underline and highlight the sentence:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Do not plead and be certain to object when the attorney in the black robe takes power of attorney and pleads not guilty for you.

You will have to remember that you were conditioned into doing this to yourself. You have nobody else to blame. You displayed your desire for the state to own and control your car by having the expired stickers. You asked for the regulation you would expect the state to exert on the state-owned cars next to your car.




Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Pay particular attention that you do not sign any agreements or even acknowledge verbally on the record of any future court dates. If they prod you for permission to proceed from you, make sure that you Refuse for Cause. That is to say you tell them expressly or write it across the face that you do not want to show up and waste any more time on the matter.

[David Merrill]

I can still write all I want on Quatloos! UGA Lawdog;

Remember to post a link here so that the Quatlosers can read my snippets in context!

Yes, Florida, we all know he is crazy as a loon. But since he refuses to get help, that makes him fair game for ridicule in my mind.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

What if I can prove logically and technically that J.the C. did indeed 'rise from the dead'? There was certainly the earthquake that is described in the account, rending apart the 'veil' in the temple (maybe a kind of doorway).

Other contemporary sources outside the Bible indicate that there was an earthquake that year and the Sanhendrin (High Council of State/ Supreme Court) was moved from the Temple, an acknowledged seat of power and authority, to a commercial area (shopping mall) for the remainder of it's history in Jerusalem.

Imagine if the U.S. congress was moved to a strip mall in Alexandria Va. Something happened, some way or another.

What the rules of evidence indicate is that, contrary to popular belief theought the centuries, J. the C. was not 'killed'... a logical contradiction for those who worship Him as God (how do you kill God?). He was alive on Wednesday, and he was Alive the following Sunday. Therefore he lived.

Rules of Evidence.

[David Merrill]

It sounds as though you are talking about the difference between surviving the Crucifixion and being Resurrected from the dead.

I am fully convinced that Jesus lived for many years after the Crucifixion.

Jesus himself told people that he was alive, and not a ghost. I think what you will have difficulty with is proving that Jesus is God - at least any more than anybody else is.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Here is an example of logical analysis of the Bible testimony. I might go through the account about the Crucifixion but I do not agree with Robert Graves point by point:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ll_Lazarus.zip

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

That's exactly the issue- is there a difference?

Some other interesting points:

The crowd cried for "Barabbas" to be released. Barabbas of course means "Son of God the Father". Someone was released.

A Muslim tradition has it that somehow Jesus was actually standing next to the cross, laughing at his captors, as a simulacrum was somehow crucifed. At any rate that tradition says He escaped crucifixtion.

This ties in to the Gnostic tradition of a twin being crucifed in his place. Thomas was the disciple "most like Him" ie- a twin.

WTF?

[David Merrill]

Since the author of the thread seems to have left us here to hijack, I will get back on point upon bbreitsma's return.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

That's exactly the issue- is there a difference?

Some other interesting points:

The crowd cried for "Barabbas" to be released. Barabbas of course means "Son of God the Father". Someone was released.

That is an interesting interpretation. However my Hebrew tells me Barabbas is more literally "My father's son" without any theophoric implications like Yah or El. My interpretation is that this was Peter, convicted of violence in Roman-occupied Israel for the sword in the Garden where Jesus was taken captive, cutting a Herodean guardsman's ear.*

A Muslim tradition has it that somehow Jesus was actually standing next to the cross, laughing at his captors, as a simulacrum was somehow crucifed. At any rate that tradition says He escaped crucifixtion.

Interesting.

This ties in to the Gnostic tradition of a twin being crucifed in his place. Thomas was the disciple "most like Him" ie- a twin.

I have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas. Therefore I do not buy into the Twin Theory.

WTF?

* We have to consider what Peter's motivations were in buying two swords. Judas had left earlier that evening and had a much better understanding of Zechariah's Worthless Shepherd prophecy. Judas was to return to the Supper and slay Jesus to fulfil prophecy - the final prophecy that remained unfulfilled.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Peter was hiding- he fled the 'courtroom' after being fingered as a Galilean by some of the locals. He denied Jesus 3 times before the morning rooster crowed. When was he siezed?

I can picture a crowd, probably composed of a mixture of people, like any mob- the merely curious, paid provacateurs, varied and sundry persons...
The announcer asks, "Jesus or Barabbas" It could be hard to discern what was meant, if both names (to some ears perhaps) could mean the same guy... like "Do you want Santa or Mr Claus". Maybe some got confused..

However the force of 2000 years of traditional understanding should be given due weight- the man was crucified and he rose from the dead. Sounds possible. I can believe it. This sacrifice substituted the resultant defunctive temple sacrifice (made procedureally impossible by the earthquake) and crowned Him King of all Israel forever, fulfilling many prophecies and divine legal requirements. Having been divorced under the Old Covenant there was now a New One to make 'lo ammi' (not my people ) 'my people' once again, called by a new name in a new land as per Isaiah (new name='christians') so it can be understood theologicaly. Somehow this bridges the gap betwen the national Israel heritage and the larger kingdom of the whole world that is yet to come.

All this 'higher-criticism' of the Bible, while a necesary step on the the road of evolution, is probably about as valid as other modern disciplines- like the medical profession, lawyers, psychology, etc. It's real but ends up like Frankenstein's monster- way out of control.

How bout that- all this about the Temple sacrifice sounds like the situation right now. It is impossible to pay debts at law, the entire venue for that having been removed/destroyed, so we are only left with equity- if we come in good faith. Zero out the account with the pre-paid exemption by the grace of God Himself. All the answers to everything must be in the Bible, somewhere.


Actually I am willing to consider anything- maybe that makes me a bad juror. What I would like to know, as a juror, is what testimonial evidence is there that the 'PEACE and DIGNITY of the STATE' has been somehow breached. This is a required statement that appears one way or another on every indictment but is it ever proven on court? Rules of Procedure clearly state that whatever is failed to claim under oath in court is to be struck from the indictment. While appearence may cure defects in jurisdiction there are still due process rules. How do we know the STATE is a PLAINTIFF if this is never offered to us jurors in evidence?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Actually I am willing to consider anything- maybe that makes me a bad juror. What I would like to know, as a juror, is what testimonial evidence is there that the 'PEACE and DIGNITY of the STATE' has been somehow breached. This is a required statement that appears one way or another on every indictment but is it ever proven on court? Rules of Procedure clearly state that whatever is failed to claim under oath in court is to be struck from the indictment. While appearence may cure defects in jurisdiction there are still due process rules. How do we know the STATE is a PLAINTIFF if this is never offered to us jurors in evidence?

Alas, that is the separation of church and state right there. You believe that a man can be brought back to life by the supernatural power of God? And how many times have you seen this done?

That was my point.

This is why it is outside your domain as a juror to be concerned with law and that is left with the attorney at the bench. He is who decides what will reach your ears. The attorney in the black robe is approved by the state to be in charge of rules of evidence.

It is a pretend display, a show or morelike a spoof on what used to be a jury. The jury is left to determine fact but ask this and watch the trial fall apart:

Your honor, regardless of the jury's decision, do you have the power to overturn that decision?

So it is not up to you to decide if a corpus dilecti (injured party) actually exists. As well it should be.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This Court, therefore, urges the Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet Reno, currently under the Political Leadership of President Bill Clinton to answer to the charge of failure to hear a grievance that is brought before its duly appointed Courts, and it has 90 working days in which to show cause as to why this case should not be heard before this Court and to submit documents showing that it has conformed with all treaties, conventions and wishes of the native peoples and with states accepted or annexed under the Constitutional principles and Noahide law, which was adopted as Law in the United States by Congress.

By avoiding giving his name, Peter avoided being properly identified in the Bible as Barabbas. But that is my interpretation of being identified three times as a disciple of Jesus.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[weishaupt1776]

Contact Greg at ticketslayer.com

We have been using it here at SJ and have had much success. Tell him we sent you. (I believ he gives an SJ discount)

I could help you alot should you decide to use this process

Which state are you in ?

Could you please provide the statute you are chraged with and a link to your state's rules of procedure and code?