Ticket-Blinker/insurance

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by 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



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.

Thank you for your clarification of the terms "use" and "have". I concur with your thoughts on that subject.

Yes! Your last two paragraphs explicitly state, and I might add; [with more clarity], the intent of my previous statement.

Jerry Carlos

[jessye_1]

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.

How do I make this happen?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by jessye_1

How do I make this happen?

IMHO.

Here in Florida, it would be accomplished in one of several different methods.

1: Through the office of the Tax Collectors Office. This is normally where all vehicle registrations take place. It was provided several years ago, that by allowing the tax office to be the collector of the taxes, it would also be more expedient for them to also issue the 'registrations' and 'title transfers'. That activity was accomplished through a reciprocal Agency agreement between the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and (DHSMV) and the various County Offices of the Tax Collector.

If they are unwilling to accommodate you in this transaction, then this is where they begin to deny their 'ownership' of all property. Thus their betrayal to the Congress of the United States. At this point, you would seek out the alternative methods.

2: Public Record. Making an attestation to the transfer of said property and conditions surrounding the 'use' of the property, with stipulation that rebuttal must occur within xx days (dependent upon your local rules governing acquiescence), else the attestation stands as truth in Law. Copies of this Attestation, should be sent to the Secretary of State, Division of Revenue as well as to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (or other name as applicable in your state).

After the expired xx day period, you would then notify all parties to the transaction, of their 'default' in the matter.

I am certain that others on this forum would be able to give you more detailed information and or suggestions.

Jerry Carlos

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

1. Go to the "tag place" or the DMV and find out how to record a lien on a vehicle title. happens every day, a very normal procedure, like when a bank makes a loan on the title to finance the purchase.

2. You need to draw up a good lien that expresses ALL the rights you want to preserve, including the requirement that any titled owner pay your costs, like bailing the car out of impound.

Maybe some members here would PM you with a template or blank example.

3. You also need to find out how to abandon or surrender the title to the state. This also happens all the time.

For example-when a car is impounded, and stays unclaimed, it "escheats" to the state, who then sells it to the tow-yard. The tow-yard actually pays the state for some part of the 'blue-book value', minus their costs.

( you could ask a salvage yard about this process, they might help you)

There has to be process, read your state vehicle code for "abandoned vehicles, surrender of title" or anything similar

Once your ducks are in a row it's a bunch of paper work:

recording the lien

giving up the title to the state

cancel your registration etc

I might put a new plate on there, private issue, with the vin# prominently displayed. And the legend "private transit" underneath, and "state of X" above.

Unless they send you plates and insurance on their own!

This may take some more thought...I want to study the code a bit to see how this might play out. The problem just occurred to me that the only recourse a lienholder has is against the property itself, and tickets and whatnot may come first by law.

At any rate just having the vehicle in a corporate name keeps you personally immune from "owner responsibility" tickets.

Which just means change the name on the title.

Check back later for further developments.

[indago]

Jerry Pitts wrote:

Please define the term 'valid'.

I don't have to; it has already been defined as "legally binding/acceptable". I see phrases here, like:

"See, the state really owns that vehicle, even before you got pulled over" — Extramural

"if they desire to 'claim' all property as their own, then make them likewise and in accordance with their law, responsible for that property." — Jerry Pitts

This is testament to the surrender to this doctrine. I find it abhorrent, and unacceptable. And those who would bow to it, toadying to their master, I find equally abhorrent.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by indago

Jerry Pitts wrote:

I don't have to; it has already been defined as "legally binding/acceptable". I see phrases here, like:

"See, the state really owns that vehicle, even before you got pulled over" — Extramural

"if they desire to 'claim' all property as their own, then make them likewise and in accordance with their law, responsible for that property." — Jerry Pitts

This is testament to the surrender to this doctrine. I find it abhorrent, and unacceptable. And those who would bow to it, toadying to their master, I find equally abhorrent.

Find what you may. There are some that would feel that your reproach of those seeking "remedy" to be equally abhorrent. You obviously do not know me, and likewise, I do not know you (speaking on a spiritual level), and therefore, it would be abhorrent of me to speak ill of you, except to say that you are obviously not of the same kindred spirit to which I am a member.

Jerry Carlos

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

just checked over the Oregon Vehicle Code and apparently 'holders of security interests' have priority claim to impounded property. They must however pay the tow/storage fee and administration fee to obtain release.

Which may well be the responsibility of the legal owner, so if the STATE OF has the title then they have to pay, since their failures have damaged the value of your interest. I mean, the STATE is at least expected to behave!

There is also mention of "cancellation of title".

On the other hand a vehicle with a canceled title may no longer be a vehicle...

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/809.html

OREGON VEHICLE CODE

809.720 Impoundment ... release.

(4) ...a person who holds a security interest in the impounded vehicle may obtain release of the vehicle by paying the administrative fee.

(5) ... the impounding police agency shall authorize the person storing the vehicle to release it upon payment of any towing and storage costs.

and

809.700 ... security interest holder rights.

The authority to impound or immobilize a vehicle under this section is subject to all of the following:

(11) A security interest holder’s obligation to pay and right to recover ...are limited to ...those removal and storage or immobilization expenses incurred during the initial 20-day period ...unless the authority...has transmitted by certified mail a written notice ...

you also get a hearing:

809.716 Hearing on impoundment. (1) A person entitled to lawful possession of a vehicle impounded under ORS 809.720 may request a hearing to contest the validity of the impoundment...

5) If the...impoundment of the vehicle was improper... vehicle released ...is not liable for any towing or storage costs resulting from the impoundment. If there is a lien on the vehicle for towing and storage charges, the hearings officer shall order it paid by the impounding police agency.

[indago]

Jerry Pitts wrote:

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).

I sent an Email to the Senators from my State, noting: "I was not aware of this Senate Document Number 43, ordered to be printed by Senate Resolution Number 63 of the Seventy-third Congress, First Session; and, I find it appalling and hypocritical that after all the time, rhetoric, and energy expended by so many in government denouncing Communist Doctrine, here it is, accepted into the Congress as a Senate Document.

I want to see this Senate Document Number 43 expunged from the records of government, and would like you working toward that end."

It would behoove all to write to their Senators and require that this Senate Document #43 be expunged from all records of government.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by indago

Jerry Pitts wrote:

I sent an Email to the Senators from my State, noting: "I was not aware of this Senate Document Number 43, ordered to be printed by Senate Resolution Number 63 of the Seventy-third Congress, First Session; and, I find it appalling and hypocritical that after all the time, rhetoric, and energy expended by so many in government denouncing Communist Doctrine, here it is, accepted into the Congress as a Senate Document.

I want to see this Senate Document Number 43 expunged from the records of government, and would like you working toward that end."

It would behoove all to write to their Senators and require that this Senate Document #43 be expunged from all records of government.

Expunging the record without also providing remedy toward the ill effects of such a record, would be accomplishing NOTHING with the exception of hiding evidence of the wrong that was done.

Congress, with the initiation of the internet system and its' 'information super highway', made sure that the records of that era are not openly available to the common people of this Nation. If you get on that super highway and head toward that era in document research, regardless of which route (branch of government) you take, you will find countless dead ends. On the superhighway, there are no records available for the period of 1930 - 1934 with exception to those documents which were gathered by personal and physical inspection by men and women with the same pursuit and financial means to accomplish such a task. So, they have already gotten many years ahead of you in making sure that the internet did not disclose such documents to more people than it has. There is no telling how many documents of an evil nature will forever be hidden from public scrutiny.

Jerry Carlos

[jessye_1]

Where is arrest power given for enforcing driving with no insurance?

DMV says that they CAN tow if you have no insurance. I did not see anything about being able to pull you over for no insurance. They have to have a reason to pull you over.