Ticket-Blinker/insurance

[jessye_1]

I was pulled out on to a main street in town put on my blinker to make a right hand turn on to another street when an officer pulled up to the stop sign on the left hand side of the main street. She followed me down the side street. As i was crossing some tracks about 1.5 black from the main street. I put on my blinker to turn down another side street about 1 block from the tracks. I stoped at the 4 way stop, and made a right hand turn. As soon as I started to turn she put on her light and I pulled over. When she can up to the car she told me that the reason she pulled me over was because I did not signal 100 feet before my turn. And she told me that When she ran my plates it can up uninsured. And when I told her that I signaled more than 100 feet, she said that did not matterthat she can pull me over for no insurance. She impounded my car, paid The City of Lebanon, Oregon $100 to be pulled over, I guess it is a tip. And 145 to tow my car 1-2 miles. And I still have to go to court. What is the best way to handle this? I had to pay the impound fees as I work 30 miles from home. And the $100 to get the car. Thanks for all of your help. Jessica

[Extramural]

You just got punked.....See, the state really owns that vehicle, even before you got pulled over.....Then, they figured out you were being a bad trustee of their property, and didn't have insurance on their property.....So, they took it back.....Hope this helps your understanding.....

[jessye_1]

Then how does it became my property, not the goverments?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by jessye_1

Then how does it became my property, not the goverments?

Jessye:

Just a theory here:

If, as Extramural suggests and as the Senate Document #43 states "All property is owned by the state..", then all you can do with regard to the 'ownership' of the property, is to request from the state that they allow you to 'purchase' the vehicle from them (making such request clear in the understanding that by purchasing the property, you also receive absolute 'title' to the property, and that the property no-longer be encumbered in the same fashion as the other property that are owned by the state). Also indicate in the request that their denial of ownership, places the property in a status of 'abandoned property' subject to the laws of salvage, thus giving you the right to make such claim under the same law.

Secondly, you must gather and retain cognizance of the fact that 'the owner' of the property is responsible for the affairs of the property. Thus, if the property is subject to 'taxation', then it is the 'owner' that is responsible for paying said taxes. Example, if you rent or lease a home, it is the responsibility of the 'owner' to maintain property in a safe condition, and that the owner also pay any taxes that are due.

Jerry Carlos

[indago]

Jerry Pitts wrote:

If, as Extramural suggests and as the Senate Document #43 states "All property is owned by the state..", then all you can do with regard to the 'ownership' of the property, is to request from the state that they allow you to 'purchase' the vehicle from them

It is noted, in the Senate Document No. 43: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State".

This is a communist doctrine. Do you accept this as valid in the United States?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by indago

Jerry Pitts wrote:

It is noted, in the Senate Document No. 43: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State".

This is a communist doctrine. Do you accept this as valid in the United States?

Don't even go there Indago. Of course I do not agree with the communist doctrine. On the other hand, because it is written into Congressional record, it is a FACT, and a FACT that we as American men and women should not be proud of (giving respect to the tens of thousands that have died in the fight to keep this nation the property of the men and women of this nation).

A conquered nation is a conquered nation; yet that alone, does not mandate that the men and women of that conquered nation must of necessity sit back and allow the attributes of being conquered to continue in its' sick charade.

If you keep in context of what I stated, you will find that all I am promoting is the concept of 'fighting fire with fire', 'using their own words against them', 'keeping your friends close, but keeping your enemies closer'. In other words, if they desire to 'claim' all property as their own, then make them likewise and in accordance with their law, responsible for that property.

You have chosen to use the term 'valid' in your question. Please define the term 'valid'. It is valid in the sense that it is a FACT of history, but not necessarily 'valid' in the sense of being 'lawful'.

Jerry Carlos

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The state has an interest at least because the car is titled and registered in that state.

If you are going to keep it that way, then follow the rules to avoid these problems. Insure the car, on the record.

Just drop the insurance once the record is made. Figure out the time-lag between cancellation and the state finding this out. For sure it's not instantaneous. It doesn't cost anything to obtain insurance and cancel the next day- there is a 3 day window to rescind the contract.

Some states just require a "self-certification" every 6 mos, a form letter in the mail.

You could register in another state with more lenient rules.

Like a private freehold, these are very liberal...

If you show proof of insurance the court might waive the fine. The lapse in coverage was an accidental oversight.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

It's ok if all "ownership" is in the state...because that refers to titles. Yes the King grants titles and so forth.

The crucial difference is between the have and use of the property. Maybe we should surrender all our "haves" and just secure the priority use.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

It's ok if all "ownership" is in the state...because that refers to titles. Yes the King grants titles and so forth.

The crucial difference is between the have and use of the property. Maybe we should surrender all our "haves" and just secure the priority use.

Your statement is confusing in this regard. "Have" would indicate a mere 'possession' of something, as compared to 'ownership' would indicate not only 'legal' 'possession' but also 'sole' entitlement to 'legally possess' or 'have'.

So if we surrender the 'have' aspect of any property, then what we must do is surrender 'possession' of said property, and then we would be 'left out in the cold'.

What I have suggested is the surrender of 'ownership' and make the 'claimed' OWNER responsible for the upkeep of the property and the requisite taxation of the same.

Jerry Carlos

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

"have" is the materialist nature of statutory law: rules for society. We are educated to get caught up in the "have" of things, missing the use for the title, the forest for the trees.

Outside of some social consideration, there is no 'have'. Things may be used, or enjoyed, or tended etc. Without opposition, against whom could I 'have' anything?

I certainly can't take it with me...life is use it or lose it.

This ties in to the Word-" he who seeks to keep his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake shall keep it eternal" (paraphrase)

A common example is the mentality of "I have a house", or "I pay my taxes"... these are just words on paper. What is really happening? We get lost in the characterization.

I never saw anyone "having" anything, it's a state of emotional projection: that there is somehow an eternal quality to a temporary situation.

Thats why man's law is fiction, because it does create the appearance of permanent. The record says "Jessie owns that car" forever, until a new record is made...

Maybe another way to make this distinction is that

have:use

as

circumstance:happenstance

What I have suggested is the surrender of 'ownership' and make the 'claimed' OWNER responsible for the upkeep of the property and the requisite taxation of the same.

Jerry Carlos

That's a good idea. Transfer the title (an inferior "have") to the state itself, preserving a lien on the property securing the use and enjoyment, with a priority interest in the matter. And an indemnity clause for any failure to maintain by the owner- so if they impound the property the state can be sued to pay the damage.

The requirement of registration and insurance and inspection is on the legal owner...not a lienholder.