Driver license and registration please?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

And what is a "self-propelled vehicle"? What a humorous definition! In all my day I have not seen a car start, move, or propel itself. (Snicker)

Seriously,

If a license is as the definitions say, then WHOSE license is it?
In Arizona, who is the authority for its issuance?

I'll keep it to two question at a time.

Did you know that in New York, I found an attorney general opinion where a on duty cop ticketed another on duty cop because the ticketing cop knew that the ticketed cop did not have a driver license, and cited him for just that thing. The attorney general for New York said that is was not necessary for a police officer to have a driver license because the cruiser was not by definition a motor vehicle! Therefore there was no infraction. Awesome!

You know, I might consider a license if the state can tell me in what way my signature on that thing changes my character. This issue alone had a federal judge just shaking his head.

It might also not be a problem if I could sign the form without bearing false witness against my character.

Sans Recours

--
There's nothing to abridge in that post! (you know who you are

ok.

Answer to Q1: it is the license of the one who asserts authority and jurisdiction over the subject matter in question.

Answer to Q2: by our thinking here, the authority is of The People who are the author of the state's Constitution.

re the NY AG opinion: that's crap! lol
Did Mr. Spitzer write that opinion?

why did you write "that's awesome"? a cruiser is the property of a municipal corporation, the very subject
of all law! And the Agent operating that cruiser is subject to laws, rules, regulations because he *IS*
operating IN commerce, also the very subject of such laws, rules and regulations!

pls explain why the opinion is "awesome"?

Quizzically yours...

[2501]

there can exist no contract to [do] the impossible.
they cannot contract for your rights without substantial compensation to you
Perhaps the DL never became a contract because it would have to stand up like all other contracts do and it cannot. And since they can get in big trouble (felony) for tricking you to contract for what you allready have, it has to be a voluntary act. What is the first thing you gotta do before you can get a license? Fill out the application (with a corporate-styled NAME). How can this be anything other than a business record?

It is negligent (misdemeanor and up) to allow someone to go through with the act of obtaining a license just to make money off of them, especially if it is known that they do not need one. Luckily for them the manufacturer agrees to turn autos into motor vehicles (plausable denialability(unless you can put a stop that))

[idknow]

Originally Posted by 2501

[cut]

Perhaps the DL never became a contract because it would have to stand up like all other contracts do and it cannot. And since they can get in big trouble (felony) for tricking you to contract for what you allready have, it has to be a voluntary act. What is the first thing you gotta do before you can get a license? Fill out the application (with a corporate-styled NAME). How can this be anything other than a business record?


It is negligent (misdemeanor and up) to allow someone to go through with the act of obtaining a license just to make money off of them, especially if it is known that they do not need one. Luckily for them the manufacturer agrees to turn autos into motor vehicles (plausable denialability(unless you can put a stop that))

--

that all contracts and agreements offered by the govt generate REVENUE (the proper word)
is primary for without the REVENUE the state has to cease its BUSINESS!

and the only way for it to generate a REVENUE stream is to sell its products.

hmm. that's interesting.

[2501]

..............

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

Now if you can find the link, without making conclusions, between the receiveing of monies, the subsequent loss of sovereignty in the area of receipt, and the Administrative Procedures Act you will be close to being on point with this thread. THEN, we can link this all of that to a traffic ticket and a driver license, the law enforcement agency and the ticketee and discuss the character of the parties in a traffic case, and be right back on point.

Man, I've been trying this and beating my head against the wall

Here is one musing and unfinished research rail:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/showth...ghlight=Grants

and another in regards to APA
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/showth...ight=statutory

Much to do

[KITCHIE]

Thanks Weis!!!

Kitchie

[aksis]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

If a license is as the definitions say, then WHOSE license is it?

STATE OF ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Motor Vehicle Division

Originally Posted by SansRecours

In Arizona, who is the authority for its issuance?

Fom top to bottom:

We the People

Janet Napolitano - AZ Governor


Director - Victor Mendez is Director of the Department of Transportation 602-712-7227


Stacey K. Stanton is Director of the Motor Vehicle Division 602-712-8152

Some branch manaer...
Some un-named dupe who is un-wittingly playing the role of:
"Driver license processor" who is easly recognizable due to the usage of the catch phrase "next?"

28-602. Powers of governor; federal highway safety act

A. In addition to other duties and responsibilities conferred on the governor by the constitution and laws of this state, the governor may contract and do all other things necessary to secure the full benefits available to this state under the federal highway safety act of 1966 (23 United States Code sections 401 through 404) and any other subsequent federal highway safety acts, including cooperating with federal and state agencies, private and public organizations, and persons to effectuate the purposes of the federal acts and any amendments to the federal acts.


B. The governor is responsible for and may administer the highway safety programs of this state and those of its political subdivisions through the appropriate agency of this state that the governor designates. The responsibility, administration and designation shall be in accordance with the federal highway safety act of 1966 or any other subsequent federal highway safety act and federal regulations adopted to implement the federal acts and as further provided by law.

28-101. Definitions

15. "Department" means the department of transportation acting directly or through its duly authorized officers and agents.
16. "Director" means the director of the department of transportation.

28-331. Department of transportation established

A. A department of transportation is established. The department shall provide for an integrated and balanced state transportation system.


B. The director is responsible for the administration of the department.

C. The transportation board has the policy powers and duties prescribed in sections 28-304, 28-305, 28-7209 and 28-8202 and shall advise the director on other matters as required.

28-363. Duties of the director; administration

A. The director shall:

1. Supervise and administer the overall activities of the department and its divisions and employees.
2. Appoint assistant directors for each of the divisions.
3. Provide for the assembly and distribution of information to the public concerning department activities.
4. Delegate functions, duties or powers as the director deems necessary to carry out the efficient operation of the department.
5. Exercise complete and exclusive operational control and jurisdiction over the use of state highways and routes.
(btw - the state owns nothing, those roads belong to the People.)
....

Arizona Administrative Code
TITLE 17. TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER 7. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
THIRD-PARTY PROGRAMS

R17-7-101. Definitions
The following definitions apply to this Chapter unless otherwise specified:

...
3."Agency head" or "political subdivision head" means the chief officer of an agency or political subdivision or another individual with authority to act for the agency head or political subdivision head (the gov'ner on down).
...
5."Authorized third party" means an entity that:

a. Has written permission from the Division to operate a business under A.R.S. Title 28, Chapter 13; and
b. Employs or contracts with at least one certified individual to provide third-party services.

...
8. "Certified individual" means an individual who the Division certifies under A.R.S. Title 28, Chapter 13 to perform specified activities for an authorized third party. The Division may certify an individual as a:

a. Commercial driver license examiner,
b. Dealer license processor,
c. Driver license processor,
d. Noncommercial driver license examiner,
e. Tax report processor,
f. Title and registration processor,
g. Vehicle inspector, or
h. Vehicle permit processor.

...

13. "Department" means the Arizona Department of Transportation.
14. "Division" means the Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division.
15. "Division headquarters" means 1801 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
...
17. "Driver license processor" means an individual certified by the Division to:

a. Review applications for driver licenses, instruction permits, and identification licenses;
b. Administer driver license tests;
c. Enter information related to the applications in the Division's database; and
d. Issue or deny specified classes of driver licenses, instruction permits, and identification licenses.

Would a "police department" qualify as an "Authorized third party"?
What about "traffic court", is this also an "Authorized third party"?

[Camino]

The point here is what? Is there some compaint? Who is the complaining party? What do I care as a sovereign? If a living soul can come forward and complain against me or another sovereign that a tresspass has occurred, then I will respond. If the STATE has a complaint then let them bring it. It cannot hold up. The STATE is a legal fiction. A legal fiction cannot be harmed, it does NOT exist! Except in your mind. There are so may threads all dealing with the "law". There is no law! Only commerce. All commerce is contract. All penalties are contract enforcement. The STATE engages in commerce "down the barrel of a gun" (Marc Stevens) obey or face the "law". Problem is ....there is no injured party. Only third party interference in your supposed "private contracts". When has it ever been "AGAINST THE LAW" to marry? When did GOD say that you MUST apply to the state for a LICENSE to marry? When did GOD say that I MUST apply for a LICENSE to do anything.
You say the courts have declared that a LICENSE is not a contract! Since when did the courts start dealing with the truth? As a sovereign, any law that requires a performance on my part...is a contract! No LAW can harm a man....or require anything of him. We have the RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE! If you think that the courts or the law are about the truth then you are mistaken. Where there is no truth, there is no justice. So why go there? As a sovereign I ask no quarter, and none is given. Take your "know the law" or die attitude and stick it. The "law" that exists today is only "contract enforcement down the barrel of a gun".

Bye the way..... 3rd party intereference in any contract is by consent only...that is the law.

Was there 1) Consent? 2) Was there Dislosure? 3) Was there equal condideration?

If NOT! VOID it!

IT'S ALL CONTRACT!

Take it or leave it.

Your choice.
Get over it. The mafia lives today! Alive and well! It's your government. You get the government you deserve! Enjoy!

[Livefire]

Camino,

I think this exercise is a good one. Examining the nature of the beast shows us how it operates. Consent! Then we can have confidence when we refuse for cause the requests to contract with that system! The trial happens on the street when we consent to the crap on the street. The rest is a dog and pony show designed to legitimize it.

[SansRecours]

I am not aware of the gospel according to Marc Stevens

"There are so may threads all dealing with the "law". There is no law! Only commerce. All commerce is contract. All penalties are contract enforcement. The STATE engages in commerce "down the barrel of a gun" (Marc Stevens) obey or face the "law".

What Camino states says above is called a conclusion. Please post the facts, law, case history, evidence to support what you say. If you cannot, then do not say it. It is not enough in a court to make a conclusion without facts to back it up. That is what gets just about everyone in trouble. It should be the same on this thread. Can you factually establish this conclusion.

If Camino can show the contract then the statute, and cases supporting the contention that a license IS NOT a contract can be overcome and some thing can be done about it.

As to the rest of the diatribe: I have to say that I agree in part. But the nature of the nisi priusadministrative venue is such that to do nothing admits something. This is about doing something. That something is investigationg the nature and the character of thet parties. I will post more on this later.
Thanks for your comments.