Traffic Stop Is an Arrest

[test]

Hello adnnxu,

I have been looking into the Florida Statutes something about this corporate denial issue and I cannot find anything related to it yet.

I have not checked at the law library, only on the Internet one.

The only thing that I have found so far that could possibly be connected to that issue is in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 1.120:

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 1.120 PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS

(a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party, the capacity of any party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.

I am not sure either if there is something like the annotated Fla. RCP or something like that in which I could find a decyphering (is that a word?) of the above.

I have seen that in other "States" the wording is not so cumbersome and directly states that "corporate existance is assumed unless rebutted" but I cannot find anything to that avail for Florida.

Do you think the above text can be somehow used to create the affidavit of corporate denial?

Thanks,

[weishaupt1776]

Gregtu & I were talking about that. I need to follow up on how the ACD(Affidavit of Corporate Denial) applies in Florida.

It sounds like you are on to something

[test]

Here at the great suijuris site are posted the federal rules of civil procedure annotated, rule 9 is exactly the same thing:

Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=1555

I have not read all through it, now one question I have is, if it is in the Fla. RCP or the Fed. RCP is not an statute, is it?

I have to check the annotated rules to see if they show something more understandable that the rule.

Test,I don't think you can find the corporate denial on the web.
It is better to look it up in the book.

Here in Louisiana,is in Statutory Criminal Law and Procedure.
It is presented under Evidence,subchapter Things that need not be proved-
Prima facie evidence-Presumptions.

What THEY are saying is like this:All Courts are corporations,they( the Courts ) exercise THEIR corporate jurisdiction over corporations only.

If one,coming to Court for a trial,is not a corporation,nor has given or intend
to give consent-to accept the Court jurisdiction-has an option to reject
the Court jurisdiction,by affidavit of corporate denial.

The Courts will never warn you about your status,you are suppose to know
this in advance.

You don't have to be a Corporation to be treated as one.
In today society,you are linked to the Corporate structure in many ways.

All forms of consent,commercial agreements that you have entered into
are fraudulent.THEY never warned you of any loss of your natural rights.

By presenting an affidavit of corporate denial to the Court,you make it clear
that you are a living,breathing man/woman,ONLY!

If THEY do not rebut it,then you are right,you are not a PERSON,nor are you
a corporation.

In this case THEY can not do business with you.

This type of affidavit applies to all kind of actions,civil or criminal,as long as
the Courts are Corporations.

Hope this will help!
Adrian

[test]

Thanks Adrian, I will give it a shoot as soon as I can visit the law library.

I will let you know what I find.

[weishaupt1776]

Okay, this thread is getting off topic, although the corp denial thing is cool. Isn't there a thread on that in the court section?
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2577

I would like to stay focused in this thread with posts regarding traffic stops being false imprisonment & reaping from it

[TheBlackTruth]

Ok. . . I hate to play 'the bad guy', but I must challenge some apparent myths that seem to be floating to the surface again.

1) The 72-hour right of refusal is codified in the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act and is a right accrued in the purview of a loan contract by a recognized lending institution. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER TYPE OF CONTRACT. Furthermore, I have yet to see it proven that the NTA is a true contract anyway. If it is/was, it would be voidable the moment you establish that there was threat, duress or coercion and it could be refused at ANY time.

2) There is no good legal reference that I have seen that establishes that a court cannot deal with a real, living man or woman. It's a lovely idea, but it just doesn't add up.

3) Jurisdiction cannot be 'granted' or 'waived'. It can be challenged at any time and must be proven in the face of a direct challenge.

Let's abandon myth and apply our collective efforts to discovering the LAW.

-BT

p.s. no offense intended towards anyone

[weishaupt1776]

Just as a safeguard, please don't let this turn into a banter between different theories. I Believe The contract refusal/corp denial thing is cool only if you have done it.
It is not cool if you endorse it, but haven't done it & you are just theorizing.

I understand there are some members from Canada who are having some success with it, but that is in Canada, although there are some overlapping concepts.

Please don't reply to this post or BT's within this thread regarding corporate denial/72 hour stuff.

Copy/paste our posts herein & post in the Corp denial thread and we will join you there. Leave a hyperlink here, however, and we will join you.

Again, this thread is on a traffic stop being false imprisonment and how to reap from it. That's it. The hatchet is now buried.

BT, I still need to dig up some of that Trezevant stuff, I know. Did anything come of the contact info I supplied you with?
I'm just coming off a pretty rough ride & have been chillin' somewhat.

A traffic stop could resolt in arrest in the long run.
Lets work out the small steps first.

A COP will stop you,based on probable cause.Lets say you are travelling
on the road in your auto,and that auto has a registration tag and an
inspection sticker on.
In the COP's mind,you are travelling on the Corporate Territory.
Now you are presumed to be under Corporate jurisdiction.

If by any chance,the COP believes that you just violated a traffic rule,you
are viewed as a cod breacker,and the COP is a witness.
He could give you a ticket only or,a ticket and arrest.
If you do not fight the ticket,do not pay it,eventually you get arrested.

Now lets see what a ticket might be.
A ticket is a bill,it has a price tag attached to it.
It is linked to The DEBT,the BIG ONE.

It was offered to you as a possibility to contract you into The DEBT.

To answer the Q: Is a traffic stop an arrest?
And the answer is: It is a nuisance.

The main reason that COP stops you,is the fact that THEY have printed in
his sub-conscience an ORDER to bring you( little worm ) into The DEBT.

As for that 72 hrs. rule,it does apply to any form of contract.
A loan is linked to "money",a.k.a. debt,which is part of The DEBT.
When you make a loan,you attach yourself to The DEBT.

The Courts cannot deal directly with living,breathing man/woman,because THEY the Courts are artificial entities.
In order to handle living,breathing man/woman,THE CORPORATE MAFIA
has to create some form of pseudo contract to be able to bring'em in.

One simple form of pseudo contract is all capital letters for proper name.

By using an affidavit of corporate denial,a living ,breathing man/woman
states just what he/she is and denies the existence of any pseudo contract.

Jurisdiction is not a privilege,it is a right,it is the right to choose.

How to prevent and get out of the arrest,I think this is what fighting the
enemy is all about.

See you!
Adrian

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Just as a safeguard, please don't let this turn into a banter between different theories. I Believe The contract refusal/corp denial thing is cool only if you have done it.
It is not cool if you endorse it, but haven't done it & you are just theorizing.

Yes, i've tried it. In fact, the document that I provided some months ago on SJ.net is still the best I've seen to date. But better than trying it, I've RESEARCHED it. That was back when I tried things first instead of researching the law behind it. Now I know how to do law research (at least much better than before). The law doesn't add up. Nobody has really provided any good law to back up the claims.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

I understand there are some members from Canada who are having some success with it, but that is in Canada, although there are some overlapping concepts.

Please don't reply to this post or BT's within this thread regarding corporate denial/72 hour stuff.

Copy/paste our posts herein & post in the Corp denial thread and we will join you there. Leave a hyperlink here, however, and we will join you.

Actually, I don't even click on the threads that speak of legal mythology. There is not enough time in the day to battle the misinformation floating around in the 'movement'. That's half the reason I'm hardly here anymore.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Again, this thread is on a traffic stop being false imprisonment and how to reap from it. That's it. The hatchet is now buried.

BT, I still need to dig up some of that Trezevant stuff, I know. Did anything come of the contact info I supplied you with?
I'm just coming off a pretty rough ride & have been chillin' somewhat.

To be honest, I have no idea what came of the individual who was asking for the information. In fact, i don't even remember who it was who asked :(.