Drivers License

[freemyggle]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/searc...le9.htm#s9-602

9-602

[gldskr]

Elect

Don't worry so much about form, concentrate on function. You need the license as a consequence of your employment, so get one.

Having a DL does not affect your right to travel except when you are the driver of a motor vehicle. Those are identified by registration and state issued plates. In this instance you are required to abide by all statutory rules. When you get home, hop in your unregistered vehicle and go about your business, exercising your right to travel.

It is not you that is applying for the license as you would have no need for one, but an artificial entity would. You are applying on behalf of this artificial entity and are lending consciousness to it, as in a trustee capacity. It is useless to write "without prejudice" on the signature line because who's rights are being reserved? The artificial entity, which as we know, has limited rights.

As David Merrill has said; he has no SSN or DOB unless he so chooses, do the same when it is advantagous to you.

Think of it this way; when you're driving a motor vehicle you're acting as a chauffeur for the artificial entity, a commercial activity that can be licensed and regulated. When at home, you're exercising your fundamental right. Once the players are determined, the game is easier to understand and course of action becomes simpler.

gldskr

[weishaupt1776]

And then you wake up and THEY attach the National ID requirement to the DL

LEMME GUESS, it's the strawman's biometric data that's gonna be on the card, right?

Keep voting folks, maybe this will all go away

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Elect
It is useless to write "without prejudice" on the signature line because who's rights are being reserved?

It wasn't useless to those who didn't receive a traffic citation after they were stopped because they had signed the license card with those words.

The artificial entity isn't signing, the human being is and is taking on the presumptive adhesions of the quasi-contract. Hence, the man signing is the one who's rights are being reserved.

[gldskr]

Originally posted by ezrhythm
The artificial entity isn't signing, the human being is and is taking on the presumptive adhesions of the quasi-contract. Hence, the man signing is the one who's rights are being reserved.

If one assumes the responsibility of a trust by acting as its trustee, the rights and liabilities are spelled out within the indenture itself. There are no presumptive adhesions as the man presumably knew what he was doing. He cannot claim to to be exercising personal rights when the circumstance clearly indicates otherwise.

I don't doubt that there have been successes by using the words "without prejudice", but I would suggest that that was due to the ignorance of the parties involved.

Originally posted by weis
And then you wake up and THEY attach the National ID requirement to the DL

LEMME GUESS, it's the strawman's biometric data that's gonna be on the card, right?

Obviously a trust cannot act on its own, but THEY do not put a gun to the man's head and force him to be the trustee, he does so voluntarily, with full knowledge of all liabilities. If the trust indenture requires the man's biometric data he may decline to apply for the trustee position.

gldskr

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Obviously a trust cannot act on its own, but THEY do not put a gun to the man's head and force him to be the trustee, he does so voluntarily, with full knowledge of all liabilities. If the trust indenture requires the man's biometric data he may decline to apply for the trustee position.

gldskr

And what if they give you a 'Real ID' that features your fingerprints from when you were, hypothetically, previously "booked" before imprisonment? Or your footprints from when you were a baby?

I suppose you could argue that those footprints aren't yours since the human body, on average, fully replaces all of its cells every seven years or so.

Could you just refuse the ID card?

What happens when you are 'traveling' about in your unregistered, uninspected car and a LEO pulls you over and tickets you for driving without a license, registration, etc.? Would you have to go to the courts and explain to them you were not "driving" a "motorvehicle"? What happens when the "judge" laughs and throws you in an insane asylum?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

If the judge laughs and has one thrown in the loony-bin, or jail, or whatever, this is a challenge that many face all the time every day.

And the subject of a seperate thread.

But as to driving a "motor vehicle", this is defined as a "device used for transportation of persons or property". Thats public info.

(each state has a similar wording-look up "motor vehicle")

So that's a question you could bring up in court, which requires proper pleading of the issue. Do it right and the case may well be dropped (rather than establish a clear official recent precedent) and then maybe even sue them and get paid.

The pleading has to attack the probable value of the complaint- the element of the offense that is "definition of vehicle". No vehicle, no vehicle charge.

This has been covered recently in a few other threads.

But its chaos out there, I can state from personal experience- the MAN will do anything w/o regard to law and order. But to my way of thinking, thats even more reason to know the law and understand whats happening- for a better defense! Trying to please a chaotic master is a losing proposition- it works a lot worse than others in my experience.

This is why it may be useful to understand why there already is free access to a legitimate DL and registration under international and state law anyway- as a foreign driver/vehicle. Could be an easier way to get to the same place. (more threads here on that as well)

[rentiap]

FreeFromContract:
Sorry to have taken so long to respond to this post.

I happen to have one of those documents in my hands at this moment.
And guess what so do most of the rest of you.

I have authorization that was authorized by the state of California to me as recipient holder of a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH; To do business in that all caps business name that has given me P.O.A. to bind UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA in every business dealing that I do.

That legal name Identifies me as the agent for UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA.

And of course as long as I sign every document.
Per___(my signature)__,for UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA

NOW WHO IS BOUND TO SAID CONTRACTS?

Can you prove that which I have stated is incorrect?

I await yours and any one else's rebuttal.
Please prove me wrong.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

rentiap,

I am quite sure the Dept. Public Safety/Motor Vehicles agent will not accept a signature which has been amended in that manner. Even if the original poster had the department issued identification card as proof of holding a STATE position.

Why? Because in so doing, you are claiming to be acting as and for the STATE OF XYZ at all times. But more importantly, you are making claim of assuming it's sovereign authority. This is quite different than signing without prejudice or all rights reserved. The government only has that authority as granted by the collective "people" of the state through implied consent as participants in the political process.

You and all sovereign rights come directly from God.

The original poster might, might be able to accomplish what you suggest if he were to be provided with a letter from his superior to the DPS/DMV agent authorizing his signature to be amended.

[ezrhythm]

I certainly can't prove you wrong.
Must be because there isn't anything to prove wrong.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by rentiap

FreeFromContract:
Sorry to have taken so long to respond to this post.

I happen to have one of those documents in my hands at this moment.
And guess what so do most of the rest of you.

I have authorization that was authorized by the state of California to me as recipient holder of a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH; To do business in that all caps business name that has given me P.O.A. to bind UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA in every business dealing that I do.

That legal name Identifies me as the agent for UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA.

And of course as long as I sign every document.
Per___(my signature)__,for UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA

NOW WHO IS BOUND TO SAID CONTRACTS?

Can you prove that which I have stated is incorrect?

I await yours and any one else's rebuttal.
Please prove me wrong.

Cheers.

rentiap,

Since you have a document which you claim gives you the authority, then you should have no problem going to the DMV and getting a license signed in the manner in which you speak.

OR perhaps you already have a driver's license endorsed in the manner you described? If that's the case, and it's not too much trouble, maybe you could scan and post (redacting the DL#) on this thread.

Thanks